which GPU is best???

A

Guys pls help me out here!!! I need a new GPU for my i7 system. I use a single full HD monitor 1920x1080. Which Nvidia GPU is best to play games on full HD with ultra settings??? I was thinking about GTX 760 AMP edition. I currently have GTX 660. I m not a AMD or ATI fan, so pls suggest.

Please post your complete configuration including power supply and mention the budget for the card.

A

Cooler Master HAF 922 CPU Cabinet
ASRock Z87 Extreme4 Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) PC RAM
Intel 3.5 GHz LGA 1150 4770K i7 4th Generation
Cooler Master Hyper 412 Slim Cooler
Corsair CMPSU-750TXV2UK 750 Watts PSU
WD 2 TB Black Desktop Internal Hard Drive (WD2002FAEX)
Corsair Force Series GS 128 GB SSD Internal Hard Drive

Budget for GPU 25k-30k

G

Buddy according to me extend your budget by 2k and get sapphire r9 290 which is around 32000 it will blow away any nvidia offering because it's performance is as good as gtx 780ti.

If you are an nVidia fan then at your budget the only option is GTX 770 Ti. My suggestion is to spend around 32K and get the Asus Direct CU II 4GB version of 770. Here is the link:
*vedantcomputers.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=770&product_id=690

A

Since the saphire R9 290 is an AMD/ATI product.. do u think it will be perfectly compatible with an intel based system????

It has nothing to do with Intel/AMD config.

amitmmpro said:
Since the saphire R9 290 is an AMD/ATI product.. do u think it will be perfectly compatible with an intel based system????

it will be perfectly compatible.

> Wrong section.

> Which games do you intend to play?

> Why do you specifically want an Nvidia card?

> As you already have a GTX 660, adding another one will be cheapest and best option. GTX 660 SLI is faster than even single GTX 770. And your board support SLI too.

A

I m gonna play Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, Assasin's Creed Black flag etc. I m not sure about SLI coz its gonna need a lot power i think

No, your psu can perfectly handle two 660 in SLI

Get r9 290. Its not abt fanboy. Bang for the buck. Some games optimize for nvidia some game optimize for ati but both are good. At the price point ati is good

my vote for the r9 290...it will run a bit hot, but no problem i you get one with a good cooler
as far as 660sli how bad is the micro stuttering?
if i had a choice b/w sli and one better card, id always go with single card though

^Yes but disposing of your older card is a pain in the ass.. no one wants to buy a 2nd hand card ..Wish AMD had exchange and upgrade option
Still you are right, a single GPU is a better choice

R

guys btw, if it is a choice between 280x and 770, what would you recommend?

770 all the way

280x any day of the week...
the performance diff. i very less and the price diff. is too much
280x-23k
770-29k

For 1080p, 280x is beyond sufficient.. even after 3-4 years you will be able to play at a respectable framerate with good settings
I dont see why you would want to spend 6k more for something you will barely even notice now

damngoodman999 said:
770 all the way

Can you elaborate on that??

flyingcow said:
280x any day of the week...
the performance diff. i very less and the price diff. is too much
280x-23k
770-29k

Well I'm getting the Zotac GTX 770 at around 26K in S.P. road Bangalore.

That's a good price for GTX 770. Is it a factory overclocked version or the reference one?

No its the reference one, Zotac has an amp edition too but this is a reference one.

280x is good and value for buck .. but 770 is worth buying if it is below 26k .. lot of brands available

R

I am sorry for hijacking the thread but I am sure OP will benefit from what I am asking.
As I have a 7870, I think upgrading to 280x is not lot of an improvement. But as cilus suggested a 290 is gonna be a 2yrs ultra capable card and so now I am thinking of a jump to 290. Have been looking at some cards and Sapphires tri-x 290 has caught my eye. Is it worth going for the tri-x compared to Asus R9 290 while the difference in price is 3K (tri-x is the expensive one)??

[MENTION=133935]rakesh_ic[/MENTION], I remember reading a roundup review in HWinfo, they concluded that the Asus could be OC'ed higher than the Sapphire one when the latter ran cooler and more stable at load. They actually did awarded Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 OC WindForce out of the three cards compared. IMO get the cheaper one, as it clearly showed that the FPS difference was marginal and the point still stands for R9 290 that cooling comes first.

R

sam_738844 said:
[MENTION=6161]rakesh[/MENTION], I remember reading a roundup review in HWinfo, they concluded that the Asus could be OC'ed higher than the Sapphire one when the latter ran cooler and more stable at load. They actually did awarded Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 OC WindForce out of the three cards compared. IMO get the cheaper one, as it clearly showed that the FPS difference was marginal and the point still stands for R9 290 that cooling comes first.

The tri-x has better cooling rates and factory OCed. Pushing Asus R9 290 (cheaper among them) upward will surely raise some temps and i might have to adjust the fan speeds to counter and there by the noise. As per what I have read, 290 normally is on a hotter side compared to the other +/- offerings we have. So is the 3K spent on for the cooling justified??

Please point out anything else that i should be considering or if I am missing something on my analogy.

Both Asus and Sapphire Tri-X came neck to neck in terms of Load Temp ( 64 deg C ) ( metro 2033 2 run test bench) and also Noise Levels @ 48.2 dB(A) Load. They did a really hefty OC there with ASUS Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II which was stable up to 1235MHz GPU clock and 1550MHz memory speed. Not all benchmark runs could be completed at these speeds, for some benchmarks they had the clock the card slightly lower to 1220MHz GPU and 1500MHz memory to complete all runs.

I doubt such OC is needed but it definitely shows the Asus OC Love. Sapphire one is already having a good factory OC, therefore to push it further you will definitely will need better cooling namely the Tri-X. Somehow across other reviews in hardware UK etc, the Tri-X actually seemed bit more promising that the DC 2 in terms of cooling. I say better go with Tri-X, i would not bother OC it too hard in hot Indian summer anyway, 3K is well justified in that case.

R

sam_738844 said:
Both Asus and Sapphire Tri-X came neck to neck in terms of Load Temp ( 64 deg C ) ( metro 2033 2 run test bench) and also Noise Levels @ 48.2 dB(A) Load. They did a really hefty OC there with ASUS Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II which was stable up to 1235MHz GPU clock and 1550MHz memory speed. Not all benchmark runs could be completed at these speeds, for some benchmarks they had the clock the card slightly lower to 1220MHz GPU and 1500MHz memory to complete all runs.

I doubt such OC is needed but it definitely shows the Asus OC Love. Sapphire one is already having a good factory OC, therefore to push it further you will definitely will need better cooling namely the Tri-X. Somehow across other reviews in hardware UK etc, the Tri-X actually seemed bit more promising that the DC 2 in terms of cooling. I say better go with Tri-X, i would not bother OC it too hard in hot Indian summer anyway, 3K is well justified in that case.

Exactly in lines with what I was thinking. I am sure I wont have to OC it any further than what it is. A factory bump with the cooling that tri-x offers, I loved it. But was trying to get opinions as that extra 3K must not be wasted for mere fps

AMD >> +5 for Sapphire any day, same as EVGA for NV

A

i think i will go with the r9 290 i will see if my vendor can get it for me....

1st of all, let me clarfify one thing: Asus 290 DC II's cooler's performance is worst in the lot of custom cooled R9 290 and 290X series. Reason is that Asus has used the same cooler they have designed for the GK110 GPU which has a larger die area than 290 series card. As a result, the cooler heatsink and copper pipes don't cover the R9 290 die optimally, resulting the highest VRM temparature.

Check here: *www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728-6.html

Why isn't anyone preferring 660 SLI?

Its not about being wise or otherwise, but its statistically proven across the world that from last one year and more, people have grown more fond of having a single GPU setup rather than having a SLI or CF setup and believe it or not this trend is actually seen more in the mid-range consumer market rather than in high, enthusiast segment.

Against the common belief that SLI and CF is best done on two mid-range cards to achieve a higher-end GPU performance for less investment or more performance in same investment. But since the dawn of 4K, people are actually considering a Dual GPU setup ( or tri sli, quad fire whatever) only in case of multi monitor setup, Eyefinity etc etc with really really high end stuff.

We all know that many major pacing, scaling, micro-stutter issues from nvidia/amd both camps has been aggressively addressed, solved but i guess people had enough. Too many cards, too many powerful cards, a couple of insanely powerful cards and then there are people who just want to be happy with a good single card setup with no driver issues, sli/cf support, scaling melodrama and save for the next big thing.

Your post doesn't include anything that would say why a single 290 should be preferred over 660 SLI. Try to post relevant facts.

harshilsharma63 said:
Why isn't anyone preferring 660 SLI?

harshilsharma63 said:
Your post doesn't include anything that would say why a single 290 should be preferred over 660 SLI. Try to post relevant facts.

660 sli should be slightly slower than r9 290 in most titles.
see here *www.techspot.com/review/727-radeon-r9-290x/page10.html.
look through different pages. 660 ti sli is slightly faster than r9 290 and sometimes falls behind too. so 660 sli will perform slightly slower. also the power consuption of 660 ti sli is almost higher than 100W under load. we can not expect the 660 sli power consumption much lower either. the only thing is that he need to pay for a single gtx 660 alone as he already has one. a single gpu is always preferred .multi gpu setups can sometimes cause lags and micro stuttering in games. a single gpu is always preferred.

1. A single card setup always comes with less hassle than dual card setup. A kids knows that. I can fill up this post with 20 Points to do that.
2. 660 what ? a good card, but an old one. Adding an old card over another to achieve a mark of performance which already can be achieved with single card setup which comes with latest GCN, DX12 support, Mantle support, Game bundles? Stupid idea.
3. 290 comes with more effective VRAM, more memory bandwidth.
4. 290 performs as good as a 780, where 660 (non ti ) SLI will struggle a bit to reach it. Raw performance.
5. OP in his life if wishes to dump that card for some money and go for a new card EVER!, congratulations you have two even older cards to dump instead of one.
6. Need of beefier PSU, more noise, more elec bill in any dual card setup, even if all these points go null and void in front of a 660 SLI and 290, even then what purpose does it serve when op can sell his old card, add the money to grab a new architecture 1440p ready single card setup, on which this forum has been so optimistic ever since its launch, despite its high load temps and noise issues.

I expected a more sagacious post form you for you have been here for a while but well...

Feel free to to ask me to know more about single card advantages over mult-icard anytime.

What about the cost ? Adding another 660 would cost only 13k max, but a good. 290 would cost 35k... The difference is more than 20k, besides most of the sli issues are solved....

if he gets 290x, thats rs 35k right now for a noticeable performance bump and it will easily last 4-5 years but then what ? He has to go for a new GPU again right ?
But what if he spent 13k more, he could get almost 290X performance, 3-4 years later, he may try and sell each for ~ 5k each .. then use that + the 20k he saved on a better single GPU upgrade.. In the long run, isnt it better ?

But if you could find a buyer for the 660 ti right now, sell it and get a single GPU card as it will sell for a good amount right now

A 290x will be good for next four to five years? Hmm

I always thought a GPU stays hot for about 30 months max.

Pasapa said:
What about the cost ? Adding another 660 would cost only 13k max, but a good. 290 would cost 35k... The difference is more than 20k, besides most of the sli issues are solved....

i assumed the discussion started with the options available and that is when 290 came up, also i did not directly suggested to jump to it, i stated a fact that has been bright in internet and growing in figures. If selling one 660 is bit of problem right now, it will be HARD 1 years from now AND, if not a 290, he can always settle with a 280X and torture it which is awesome. My point basically is stacking up old cards is not a good idea when things get really outdated pretty soon.

- - - Updated - - -

whatthefrak said:
A 290x will be good for next four to five years? Hmm

I always thought a GPU stays hot for about 30 months max.

5 year old GPU running just fine with all recent games maxed out is A MYTH.

30 Months is more than enough. By that time you will get your funds settled to buy a newer card anyway if you want to stay maxed out.

Im not saying maxed out.. I mean a respectable settings after ~3-4 years
In the long run, a 660 sli will serve him more time at a "good quality" settings

Nerevarine said:
if he gets 290x, thats rs 35k right now for a noticeable performance bump and it will easily last 4-5 years but then what ? He has to go for a new GPU again right ?
But what if he spent 13k more, he could get almost 290X performance, 3-4 years later, he may try and sell each for ~ 5k each .. then use that + the 20k he saved on a better single GPU upgrade.. In the long run, isnt it better ?

But if you could find a buyer for the 660 ti right now, sell it and get a single GPU card as it will sell for a good amount right now

adding a 660 to get 290X performance?? Seriously ? Dont you think every graphics card enthusiasts and hardcore gamers would do that by now if that was half true?

- - - Updated - - -

Nerevarine said:
Im not saying maxed out.. I mean a respectable settings after ~3-4 years
In the long run, a 660 sli will serve him more time at a "good quality" settings

I dearly wish if that would be the case, i would be the happiest person. I own a laptop. Hope you get my point.

My point is, going that route, it will serve him much longer than a single R9 290 right now.. Even then for a 1080p monitor, isnt 660 ti sli enough ?
I am not saying you will have the same performance, ofcourse a 290 wins in that hands down but what about Price/Performance and the fact that going the second route allows OP to upgrade again after a few years

He meant the 290, ofc a single gpu system would be better..but thousands of gamers use sli/cf systems around the world..its a very viable choice..i would recommend to save the cash for the 20nm cards..

I dearly wish if that would be the case, i would be the happiest person. I own a laptop. Hope you get my point.

i donot..
Unless you want to churn out every single piece of FPS in games, right now going for a 660 ti sli is more VFM than R9 290.. Keep the 20k later for an upgrade later ? whats so wrong with this idea ?

- - - Updated - - -

Pasapa said:
He meant the 290, ofc a single gpu system would be better..but thousands of gamers use sli/cf systems around the world..its a very viable choice..i would recommend to save the cash for the 20nm cards..

yes i meant the 290, my bad.. now corrected

Nerevarine said:
i donot..
Unless you want to churn out every single piece of FPS in games, right now going for a 660 ti sli is more VFM than R9 290.. Keep the 20k later for an upgrade later ? whats so wrong with this idea ?

- - - Updated - - -

yes i meant the 290, my bad.. now corrected

Different Scenario.

Why isn't anyone preferring 660 SLI? -- As quoted by harshilsharma. Totally different.

My bad, I thought OP had 660 ti

Nerevarine said:
My bad, I thought OP had 660 ti

Adding a 660ti changes game entirely. I would not really ever mention any R9 to replace it anytime soon.