Help me pick better GPU please, thanks!

[Fascinate]

Exactly chazus a voice of reason my god lol. I am not an nvidia fanboy but i definitely have a cadence for their cards since the gtx 400 series (as i said before, my rigs were fully AMD from 2000-2011) as i was having lots of problems with my x1800 prior. Since then ive only owned nvidia cards, not a single driver crash/issue in 5 years.

That said i would absolutely throw a 390 into my rig as well, the problem for me is they are too close in price/performance for me to go back to AMD at the current time. Now if they did a price drop to 250 and the 970 stayed at 300 it would be a no brainer. (a free game i was interested in would sway me as well)

I am going to build a rig when the new GPU's come out, you can catch serious deals on last gen GPU's there is usually a couple week window with insane sales. As an example in 2011 i picked up a gtx 465 for 129 dollars when the cheapest gtx 460 you could find anywhere was 190 dollars with a mail in rebate. I literally stole it lol. Heres to hoping that happens to some 970's/390's.

[Drunkenvalley]

Speaking of common sense and DX12. While it makes sense to wait and see, is it not ridiculous to suggest "Buy the brand that so far is performing worse on it"? I mean, yeah, that might change, but if you were playing it safe to start and you cared for DX12 why the f--- would you pick nVidia here?

If you don't care for DX12 though, I'd pick whichever is reasonably priced. I'm not going to pretend to know regional prices everywhere, but the R9 390 and the GTX 970 seem to be a coinflip as to which is cheapest at any given time and location. If DX12 begins to get big and there's a major performance disparity you'll still probably get a good four years out of your card anyhow.

[Vash The Stampede]

Let me try to break down what the 970 vs 390 really means.

GTX 970

GOOD
#1 It's popular and there's power in numbers. Whenever a game is made, good chance no developer wants to screw over a 970 owner.
#2 It's Nvidia which means Physx and Gsync.
#3 Gameworks friendly.

BAD
#1 Has 512MB of defective ram.
#2 Gameworks can be used against GTX 970 owners when newer Nvidia cards are out.
#3 Not really a DX12 graphics card. Nope sorry, really isn't.

R9 390

GOOD
#1 Very good boost in DX12
#2 Has 4.5GB more VRAM
#3 Tends to be cheaper

BAD

#1 Does consume more power.
#2 Not Gameworks friendly.
#3 Does not do Physx or Gsync.

As for games using DX12, Hitman is a DX12 game.


Just want to add what DX12 on Hitman means for those AMD FX CPU owners. Pretty amazing difference coming from DX11 to DX12. Maybe it's not entirely a bad idea to own a 8 core AMD CPU?

[chazus]

GTX 970[/COLOR]
GOOD
#1 It's popular and there's power in numbers. Whenever a game is made, good chance no developer wants to screw over a 970 owner.
#2 It's Nvidia which means Physx and Gsync.
#3 Gameworks friendly.

These things are almost entirely non-points. I (personally) see no value, or buying decision in these.

BAD
#2 Gameworks can be used against GTX 970 owners when newer Nvidia cards are out.
#3 Not really a DX12 graphics card. Nope sorry, really isn't.

Again, these things really don't matter

R9 390

GOOD
#1 Very good boost in DX12
BAD
#1 Does consume more power.
#2 Not Gameworks friendly.
#3 Does not do Physx or Gsync.

Again, none of this is... really a selling point for or against, which leaves ram and price.

As for games using DX12

Again.. One game.. ANd only marginal increases. Not enough to be a selling point. The selling point is that the cards of equal value run better.

To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. These things are all true. They just aren't... important. At least not for buying decisions right now in this hardware generation.

Just want to add what DX12 on Hitman means for those AMD FX CPU owners. Pretty amazing difference coming from DX11 to DX12. Maybe it's not entirely a bad idea to own a 8 core AMD CPU?

Still looks like a bad idea. It simply makes those AMD CPU's less crappy. The cheaper ones don't benefit as much, and the more expensive ones, I'd rather just get the better performance from an Intel.

I'm not bashing AMD or anything, I just think that people need to stop nitpicking on these 'features' that are not. At least, not now. When every game supports DX12, it'll be a thing. But I'm not going to buy a card because one game supports it. Especially if I'm not playing that game. Especially if a card that doesn't support DX12 well performs better in other games. Most people care only about average performance across common games, and price. Thats it. And they aren't wrong, at the time being.

[Fafnar]

Actually, all this discussion pretty much boiled down to the following for me: buy the GTX960 (or 950?) instead. It'll run WoW nicely and the others are overkill for running WoW at 1080p.

[Vash The Stampede]

To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. These things are all true. They just aren't... important. At least not for buying decisions right now in this hardware generation.

It's really just nitpicking. You wouldn't have this thread if the cards didn't perform so closely. But people like lists and reasons, and that's what I tried to provide.

Still looks like a bad idea. It simply makes those AMD CPU's less crappy. The cheaper ones don't benefit as much, and the more expensive ones, I'd rather just get the better performance from an Intel.

I found it interesting. Like why the Intel 6700K which is a hyper threading CPU, didn't benefit much but was already doing very well in performance? On the other hand, the 8370 was doing horrible and then acceptable. It's something to pay attention to. I would like to see if the trend continues.

Actually, all this discussion pretty much boiled down to the following for me: buy the GTX960 (or 950?) instead. It'll run WoW nicely and the others are overkill for running WoW at 1080p.

The correct answer is don't buy a graphics card. Not until you have to see what at least AMD has to offer with Polaris. Rumors say the AMD Polaris chips are going to be as fast as a 390, but as cheap as a GTX960. And it's very soon, so just wait.

Otherwise, yes a GTX960 makes sense cause if you only plan to play WoW. Unless Blizzard actually puts real graphics into Legion. FINAL FANTASY XIV does actually make good use of a beefy graphics card, but I don't know if you plan to go beyond WoW.

If you can wait, then wait. Otherwise, GTX960. I think a lot of us were itching for a debate and found an excuse.

[Jinpachi]

Actually GameWorks is a hated entity by most of the devs in this world... barring the guy who made Project Cars..

The fact is that nVidia endorsement is a thing devs want to make their game a success and reduce costs.
However DX12 is, without question, the future of current Windows gaming as it will also share XBox One fundamentals.

Thus not at any point would a GTX 970 be recommended over an R9 390 because it's simply outclassed.

You mentioned some games are leaps and bounds ahead with the GTX 970 vs. R9 390.. then let me ask you which games those are and how relevant they are.
WoW, as big as it is for an MMO, is f.ex. not a relevant entity for a card in that performance bracket..

Following up on that as AMD is pushing, and very much succeeding, in Open Source progress and it's GPUOpen project nVidia is running scared.
This due to the simple fact that any developer whom wants to succeed and progress with all the bad rep nVidia has gotten with GameWorks is very much considering abandoning it all together for something that won't require selling your soul to the devil.

As a proof of nVidia running scared they made the culprit which they used as a weapon (and some others) Open Source on GitHub.
NVIDIA Releases HairWorks, Volumetric Lightning and FaceWorks Source Code on GitHub – HBAO+ To Be Added Soon

So if you combine the crap that GameWorks represented in ruining not just AMD's performance but their previous generation of cards as well along with the fact that nVidia blackboxed the whole thing with closed source vs. a system that performs inherently better with the future go-to API along with full open source disclosure AND not the inherent rep that came with the GameWorks titles that screwed so many over ... are you really surprised?

No-one says the GTX 970 is a terrible card, they are saying with the options available right now it's a worse choice than the R9 390.
And before it's asked why:
In relevant high end games they perform equally to better than the GTX 970 on a 1080p resolution.
In older games the FPS of both are so high that it reaches 3 digits making it useless to judge them apart as you won't have a monitor that can keep up.
In higher resolution high end games the 970 is thrashed by the R9 390, the 970 simply doesn't stand a chance.
Yes in SOME games the 970 can run some things smoother due to GameWorks being a dick to AMD and older Kepler based cards.
However to gain that bonus in a low amount of games you sacrifice DX12 performance enhancement capabilities which are present on the card for free.

And before you state "Well DX12 isn't here yet!" or "We don't know what DX12 will bring!" ... well you'd be wrong on both accounts.
Microsoft themselves have stated that DX12 adoption rate is so much faster than any DX adoption before it.
The DX12 API is also built and brought out... it doesn't mean there may be features in DX12 that are as of yet unknown.. it means everything is already known.
AMD, Intel, Matrox and nVidia (the only players left in the market) have everything that is DX12.. they are supposed to build around that API not the other way around, there will not be any new and mysterious offerings that are unknown that no-one has discovered...

DX12 is here and it's bringing the hammer down on DX11 and to add to that:
The features of DX12 as a basic premise which BOTH AMD and nVidia have to adhere to to get even a resemblance of "OK" from Microsoft is the fact that Drivers need to play less of a factor to the point of almost needing to be eliminated to be any hindrance to performance in games and it is left up to the developer of the game to dictate optimizations so no "Driver update will fix game performance" in a properly developed DX12 game.

Unless you are brand loyal (note: I did NOT say or mean fanboy because they should have 0 place anywhere in the techworld) or REALLY SPECIFICALLY MUST HAVE THAT LOWER POWER DRAW there is absolutely no reason to pick the GTX 970 over the R9 390, especially not with the progress the Crimson drivers are making.

That said .. my current recommendation is wait till about July / September and make your choice then.

i dont know how to quote specific sections of that paragraph but i loved the second to last one, talking about how microsoft is making them reduce the importance of the drivers. that sounds like a way to keep nvidia from unfairly influencing game devs. which is a win-win for the consumers. i may just have to buy an AMD card after all.

[chazus]

I mean, I'm still using an old 660 that plays games pretty well (though having to run Division on medium is meh)

You could always opt to get a used 960 on ebay as a holdover for even cheaper.

[Fascinate]

Funny you mentioned that, i got the division for a penny (newegg messed up, allowed you to add to cart the game without video card lol). 2500k@ 4.2ghz and gtx 760 on high preset i get 40-50 FPS in most spots, it does dip into the high 30's in firefights with large view distances.

That said, it still actually feels smooth. This is the problem with enthusiasts tbh. Dont pay attention to FPS, just play the dam game first and ask yourself if its smooth. You dont need 60 fps at all times for a solid gaming experience (contrary to popular belief). But i guess this is what drives the industry, people who stare at frame counters thinking they need that constant 60 FPS no matter the situation.

[PaulHunter]

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 G1 Gaming GDDR5 Pcie Video Graphics Card, 4GB

http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GeFor...=ATVPDKIKX0DER

OR

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB FTW+

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Installed...A2ZGHS2RZ50HGZ

I casually play WoW, dont stream, and dont render videos, etc and just wanting advice which is better in your opinion, any recommendations are appreciated.

Both are good specially if it will be giving to me for free. But those GPU are to expensive. I am playing Dota2 but i guess those GPU are overkill for this game.

[chazus]

Funny you mentioned that, i got the division for a penny (newegg messed up, allowed you to add to cart the game without video card lol). 2500k@ 4.2ghz and gtx 760 on high preset i get 40-50 FPS in most spots, it does dip into the high 30's in firefights with large view distances.

Don't get me wrong, it plays well. I'm doing the Hutch Farm and it never drops below 40... But there is a noticable difference (for me) between 40 and 60. The game almost looks like it's moving faster/smoother.

I actually only checked the frame counter when I started noticing this, to make sure something weird wasn't happening.

[TaintedOne]

I am not an nvidia fanboy

yes you are. Source

Lets get the facts straight. Fanboy is fanboy

edit: I just wanted to add I just got into legion alpha. I doubt a 950 will cut it for open world solo content if you want to maintain the ultra preset. The new view (draw) distance is insane. Flying just above Kara you can see westfall lol. Where I used to get a pretty steady 60fps (some dips to ~50fps) is now a steady 20-25fps

[Denpepe]

I found it interesting. Like why the Intel 6700K which is a hyper threading CPU, didn't benefit much but was already doing very well in performance? On the other hand, the 8370 was doing horrible and then acceptable. It's something to pay attention to. I would like to see if the trend continues.

I would think that at that point the GPU is the bottleneck not the CPU

[Lathais]

Wait im blowing things out of proportion lol? I have seen at least 5 people on this forum straight out say "do not buy a gtx 970". Im not kidding, thats the kind of stuff that goes on around here. I am simply showing them why this is a bad idea, and what situations the 970 is a good recommendation. All they want to talk about is "async compute", they hold onto that so tight and i do not understand why.

From http://blog.logicalincrements.com/20...nt-panic-yet/:



How much more do i have to say?

What you see people say is do not buy anything right now unless you absolutely must. If you absolutely must, don't buy a 970. Please tell me in what world and what situation, currently, a 970 is better than a 390, because that situation does not exist, due to ASync Compute.

You state that it will not matter until exclusive titles are out though, which is not true. If it has DX12 as an option, then turning that option on and running on a 390 will be better than leaving it in DX11 on a 970. It's a free performance increase that the 970 will -never- have.

- - - Updated - - -

Not much has changed since then, and this is a well written blog.

From the same blog:



This (bolded), is the common sense thing i was referring to earlier.

That blog is obviously basing things on history. DX11 adoption rates were horribly slow. However, DX11 did not bring near as much new to the table. D12/Mantle/ASync compute is something devs have been screaming for for years. It's adoption rate is clearly going to be much much faster than that blog claims, as is evidenced by the fact that there are already games coming out using it.

[Vash The Stampede]

You state that it will not matter until exclusive titles are out though, which is not true. If it has DX12 as an option, then turning that option on and running on a 390 will be better than leaving it in DX11 on a 970. It's a free performance increase that the 970 will -never- have.

The argument that no DX12 games exist is pointless, because for most games today a 970 or 390 is overkill. So if you're buying a 970/390 then you're obviously looking for a product that will last for years. The 970 actually performs worse in DX12 like it did in Hitman, and has 512MB of defective ram. So at this point, DX12/Vulkan performance should really be your main concern.

But also doesn't matter cause soon AMD/Nvidia will release new products and this discussion will soon not matter.

That blog is obviously basing things on history. DX11 adoption rates were horribly slow. However, DX11 did not bring near as much new to the table. D12/Mantle/ASync compute is something devs have been screaming for for years. It's adoption rate is clearly going to be much much faster than that blog claims, as is evidenced by the fact that there are already games coming out using it.

DX10 and DX11 were horrible. Most games until recently were basically DX9 with added features. Ask a Linux user, we know all about what is needed to make Windows games tick in Linux. Now if a new game is released, it's looking for DX11 compatibility, which is not yet supported in Wine.

But why is this? Because of the Xbox 360 and PS3. PC for over a decade has been getting crappy console ports, which focus around DX9 level graphics. DX10 failed mostly due to being Vista only. DX12 isn't much different now, but we also have Vulkan. Plus Windows 10 is a free upgrade, at least for a while. Plus... DX12/Vulkan offer real reasons to use it.

By the end of 2016, very few games will be DX11 only. Most will be DX11 and DX12/Vulkan. So who cares about DX11 performance?

I would think that at that point the GPU is the bottleneck not the CPU

Then we need some SLI or CrossFire tests to see how far the scaling goes.

[Hellfury]

I have a 970 at the time it was the king of price/performace(spring of 2015) AMD hadn't yet released the 390. If it was today I would get a 390, infact if it was today I would get none and wait for the new offerings of AMD/nvidia that are supposedly around the corner.

Nothing on Nvidia is that great.. Gameworks meh... Physix tell me where are them games with it... Gsync is great but locks you into the green team and the monitors with it are overpriced. Drivers!!! no not really Nvidia also releases shitty drivers and they new "game-ready" drivers sometimes mess up older titles