(12-29-2014, 12:37 AM)kirbypuff Wrote: [ -> ](Gigabyte GPUs = nothing but problems)
That's highly subjective. Some people would say the same about MSI...or Asus, or EVGA, or XFX or pick any brand, there will be somebody giving it bad reviews or saying that the entire brand is crap.
Edit: Judging by your recent thread, I think you're just an AMD fan that hates Nvidia. It's ok, I used to be that way too
(Don't take this offensively, I'm just teasing).
Regardless which of these video cards you end up buying, any of them are what I would call mid to high-mid range hardware and will do everything that you want it to do.
Put it this way, my GT 740M(way worse than any card listed so far) allows me to play Skyrim with a buttload of texture mods, and "high" settings(with AA toned down, because, GT 740M lol). Any of these cards mentioned in the last few posts blow mine away. Granted, my CPU helps, but it's a laptop i7, not a "real" i7 lol. Turbo almost never kicks in with Skyrim because of the temperature, so you'll run at a much higher clock speed. That i3 I picked out is also hyper-threaded, so there's 4 logical cores. Not quite as good as having 4 physical cores, but it definitely helps.
I personally wouldn't recommend that mini pre-built rig, but that's just me.
I said if he wasn't comfortable with building a PC he should pick that. It can play the games he said he wanted to play at Max Settings. Plus it can run games in Dolphin at 2.5x to 3x as it is the fastest integrated GPU on the market.
(12-29-2014, 04:38 AM)DatKid20 Wrote: [ -> ]I said if he wasn't comfortable with building a PC he should pick that. It can play the games he said he wanted to play at Max Settings. Plus it can run games in Dolphin at 2.5x to 3x as it is the fastest integrated GPU on the market.
Like I said, "but that's just me"
I would personally go with something else if I were buying something pre-built, which is more so what I was meaning. Reviews that praise it still claim that it runs hot, and I absolutely believe it. I would melt that thing the way I game sometimes haha.
Here just get this and call it a day lmao:
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-r9295x8qfa
Edit: In all seriousness though, any of the 3 cards on the previous page will do fine. I had something here about power requirements being higher, but then I remembered we're talking about 265s and 270s lol, so it's the same as the GTX.
But for $10 more than the R9 270 posted there's the 270x.
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-r9270xcdbc
I personally prefer Nvidia for a lot of reasons, but all of these cards will be pretty awesome.
Pretty sure I just broke the record for most times editing a single post lol.
(12-29-2014, 04:44 AM)shreduhsoreus Wrote: [ -> ]But for $10 more than the R9 270 posted there's the 270x.
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-r9270xcdbc
It may be just $10 more, but the fan and coil noise, heat and extra power consumption makes it a worse choice than the previous two options.
Just get the
R7 265, save a lot of $$$ and enjoy the huge upgrade in graphics performance.
(12-29-2014, 05:17 AM)kirbypuff Wrote: [ -> ]Just get the 265, save a lot of $$$ and enjoy the huge upgrade in graphics performance.
"Huge upgrade" eh?
R7 265:
Shading units - 1,024
Texture mapping units - 64
Pixel rate - 28.8 GPixel/s
Texture rate - 57.6 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance - 1,843 GFLOPS
Memory clock speed - 1,400 MHz
Effective memory clock speed - 5,600 MHz
GTX 660 Ti:
Shading units - 1,344
Texture mapping units - 112
Pixel rate - 25.6 GPixel/s
Texture rate - 102.5 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance - 2,460 GFLOPS
Memory clock speed - 1,502 MHz
Effective memory clock speed - 6,008 MHz
That's odd, the 265 looks more like a downgrade to me.
(12-29-2014, 05:36 AM)shreduhsoreus Wrote: [ -> ]"Huge upgrade" eh?
Compared to the "absolute garbage" GT710.
And it's not much slower than the 660Ti, but
a whole lot cheaper.
(12-29-2014, 05:42 AM)kirbypuff Wrote: [ -> ] (12-29-2014, 05:36 AM)shreduhsoreus Wrote: [ -> ]"Huge upgrade" eh?
Compared to the "absolute garbage" GT710.
And it's not much slower than the 660Ti, but a whole lot cheaper.
That's not even part of the discussion anymore, stay on topic!
When you look at them side by side, the difference is pretty clear. I personally think the extra money would be well spent, especially since it still stays within the budget set. Go big or go home! :3
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-660-Ti
(12-29-2014, 05:46 AM)shreduhsoreus Wrote: [ -> ]That's not even part of the discussion anymore, stay on topic!
When you look at them side by side, the difference is pretty clear. I personally think the extra money would be well spent, especially since it still stays within the budget set. Go big or go home! :3
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-660-Ti
I already said the R7 265 is no match for the 660Ti. It's slower, but waaay cheaper. It's the best-bang-for-the-buck or "budget" card.
Something with similar or better specs to the 660Ti would be a non-reference R9 270 (the second option)
R7 265:
-----------------
Boost Clock - 925 MHz
Shading units - 1,024
Texture mapping units - 64
Pixel rate - 28.8 GPixel/s
Texture rate - 57.6 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance - 1,843 GFLOPS
Memory clock speed - 1,400 MHz
Effective memory clock speed - 5,600 MHz
R9 270 N.R. :
----------------------
Boost Clock - 975 MHz
Shading units - 1,280
Texture mapping units - 80
Pixel rate - 31.2 GPixel/s
Texture rate - 78.0 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance - 2,500 GFLOPS
Memory clock speed - 1,400 MHz
Effective memory clock speed - 5,600 MHz
.
(12-29-2014, 06:01 AM)kirbypuff Wrote: [ -> ]I already said the R7 265 is no match for the 660Ti. It's slower, but waaay cheaper. It's the best-bang-for-the-buck or "budget" card.
Something with similar specs to the 660Ti would be a non-reference R9 270 OC (the second option)
Just for fun(I know, you said non-reference, I just already had this pulled up):
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-270X-vs-GeForce-GTX-660-Ti
(I'm looking more at the FPS results than anything on that one)
Also, you said it's "not much slower" the first time
If we're really trying to go budget I would go for the 270x. I really don't think an extra 30W TDP and the extra noise are enough to be deal breakers, but I'm not the one that's going to be using it. Regardless, there's plenty of information in this thread for him to make an informed decision on how much he wants to spend and what will suit his needs.
(12-29-2014, 04:08 AM)shreduhsoreus Wrote: [ -> ]Judging by your recent thread, I think you're just an AMD fan that hates Nvidia. It's ok, I used to be that way too
(Don't take this offensively, I'm just teasing).
It's not that NVIDIA cards are bad, but there's no choice (no card with the modern GM-x architecture) in the mid-range segment.
- The GTX 750Ti is too weak and too expensive for what it offers.
- The GTX 970 is powerful, but expensive.
- The rest are old-school GK-x cards. They receive less support from NVIDIA and performance is decreasing with each driver release.
Any AMD GPU with a GCN architecture is superior to an outdated NVIDIA GK-x card.
Now where are those modern mid-range GTX 950 Ti and GTX 960 GPUs?