280X vs 770? Help!

[Mopkap]

What's the best option? I will be playing games such as Battlefield 4 on ultra settings.

1. http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=19983

2. http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=20651

I don't care about power usage, I just want the best performance. Thanks in advance!

 

[huilun02]

Battlefield 4 favors AMD cards. But even if it didn't, the obvious choice is the Sapphire 280X Toxic

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html

 

[Nikolay Savov]

Hi
Quick pick on the both shows GTX770 have better BF3 Ultra settings performance :
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/12

I think you will be fine with both btw

P.S. and i see on the post above is depends on what BF X they are compared

 

[Mopkap]

Battlefield 4 favors AMD cards. But even if it didn't, the obvious choice is the Sapphire 280X Toxic

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html

Would the 280X or the 770 run better with an i5-3470?

 

[huilun02]

Battlefield 4 favors AMD cards. But even if it didn't, the obvious choice is the Sapphire 280X Toxic

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html

Would the 280X or the 770 run better with an i5-3470?

That processor is fine. Processors don't have any preference on what card you use.

 

[Mopkap]

Battlefield 4 favors AMD cards. But even if it didn't, the obvious choice is the Sapphire 280X Toxic

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html

Would the 280X or the 770 run better with an i5-3470?

That processor is fine. Processors don't have any preference on what card you use.

Well that's not always true, but ok I think I'll go with the 280X. Thanks! 😉

 

[photonboy]

I think the GTX770 is a better card.

If you compare the OC'd models the 770 actually is faster on average such as the new MSI GTX280X vs the MSI GTX770 TF. The VRAM isn't a big deal even in BF4 if you properly analyze the results. 2GB is still fine.

Not enough to really matter so it comes down to other things, and there are some important differences:

1) Games package. The 770 has:
- Batman Arkham Origins
- Splintercell Blacklist
- AC4
That's $150 in new games. What does the AMD have? Seriously, I couldn't find that.

2) G-Sync:
This is so new you may not have heard of it but it's a big buzz and the top guys are really excited. You do need a new monitor which supports it but it solves the biggest game headaches:
-lag
-stutter
-screen tearing.

I'll leave it to you to research, but I saw videos of John Carmack and Tim Sweeney discussing it. It's really sweet (though ironically I'll buy a new monitor and NOT upgrade my graphics card now).

3) PHYSX

4) SHADOWPLAY
Allows recording/streaming at 1080p @60Hz with little to no frame rate drop. (I tested it in Skyrim with VSYNC OFF and my frame rate stayed at exactly 78FPS)

Summary:
I'm just throwing this info out there. I was recommending some AMD cards a while ago when they had great game deals, now I'm recommending the GTX770.

 

[Mopkap]

I think the GTX770 is a better card.

If you compare the OC'd models the 770 actually is faster on average such as the new MSI GTX280X vs the MSI GTX770 TF. The VRAM isn't a big deal even in BF4 if you properly analyze the results. 2GB is still fine.

Not enough to really matter so it comes down to other things, and there are some important differences:

1) Games package. The 770 has:
- Batman Arkham Origins
- Splintercell Blacklist
- AC4
That's $150 in new games. What does the AMD have? Seriously, I couldn't find that.

2) G-Sync:
This is so new you may not have heard of it but it's a big buzz and the top guys are really excited. You do need a new monitor which supports it but it solves the biggest game headaches:
-lag
-stutter
-screen tearing.

I'll leave it to you to research, but I saw videos of John Carmack and Tim Sweeney discussing it. It's really sweet (though ironically I'll buy a new monitor and NOT upgrade my graphics card now).

3) PHYSX

4) SHADOWPLAY
Allows recording/streaming at 1080p @60Hz with little to no frame rate drop. (I tested it in Skyrim with VSYNC OFF and my frame rate stayed at exactly 78FPS)

Summary:
I'm just throwing this info out there. I was recommending some AMD cards a while ago when they had great game deals, now I'm recommending the GTX770.

Ok mate, thanks for your response. I'm not too worried about getting good game deals, and I don't fancy shelling out another few hundred bucks to get a new monitor. I think I'll still go for the 280X (unless you can give me an amazing reason not to). 😛

 

[xxJuiceboxx1]

I think the GTX770 is a better card.

If you compare the OC'd models the 770 actually is faster on average such as the new MSI GTX280X vs the MSI GTX770 TF. The VRAM isn't a big deal even in BF4 if you properly analyze the results. 2GB is still fine.

Not enough to really matter so it comes down to other things, and there are some important differences:

1) Games package. The 770 has:
- Batman Arkham Origins
- Splintercell Blacklist
- AC4
That's $150 in new games. What does the AMD have? Seriously, I couldn't find that.

2) G-Sync:
This is so new you may not have heard of it but it's a big buzz and the top guys are really excited. You do need a new monitor which supports it but it solves the biggest game headaches:
-lag
-stutter
-screen tearing.

I'll leave it to you to research, but I saw videos of John Carmack and Tim Sweeney discussing it. It's really sweet (though ironically I'll buy a new monitor and NOT upgrade my graphics card now).

3) PHYSX

4) SHADOWPLAY
Allows recording/streaming at 1080p @60Hz with little to no frame rate drop. (I tested it in Skyrim with VSYNC OFF and my frame rate stayed at exactly 78FPS)

Summary:
I'm just throwing this info out there. I was recommending some AMD cards a while ago when they had great game deals, now I'm recommending the GTX770.

Ok mate, thanks for your response. I'm not too worried about getting good game deals, and I don't fancy shelling out another few hundred bucks to get a new monitor. I think I'll still go for the 280X (unless you can give me an amazing reason not to). 😛

gtx 770 would be the better option http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/12
if you look at the benchmarks, 770 beats the r9 280x 10-15fps which can make a difference

 

[Mopkap]

I think the GTX770 is a better card.

If you compare the OC'd models the 770 actually is faster on average such as the new MSI GTX280X vs the MSI GTX770 TF. The VRAM isn't a big deal even in BF4 if you properly analyze the results. 2GB is still fine.

Not enough to really matter so it comes down to other things, and there are some important differences:

1) Games package. The 770 has:
- Batman Arkham Origins
- Splintercell Blacklist
- AC4
That's $150 in new games. What does the AMD have? Seriously, I couldn't find that.

2) G-Sync:
This is so new you may not have heard of it but it's a big buzz and the top guys are really excited. You do need a new monitor which supports it but it solves the biggest game headaches:
-lag
-stutter
-screen tearing.

I'll leave it to you to research, but I saw videos of John Carmack and Tim Sweeney discussing it. It's really sweet (though ironically I'll buy a new monitor and NOT upgrade my graphics card now).

3) PHYSX

4) SHADOWPLAY
Allows recording/streaming at 1080p @60Hz with little to no frame rate drop. (I tested it in Skyrim with VSYNC OFF and my frame rate stayed at exactly 78FPS)

Summary:
I'm just throwing this info out there. I was recommending some AMD cards a while ago when they had great game deals, now I'm recommending the GTX770.

Ok mate, thanks for your response. I'm not too worried about getting good game deals, and I don't fancy shelling out another few hundred bucks to get a new monitor. I think I'll still go for the 280X (unless you can give me an amazing reason not to). 😛

gtx 770 would be the better option http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/12
if you look at the benchmarks, 770 beats the r9 280x 10-15fps which can make a difference

Yeah but this is not comparing the R9 280X Toxic 3GB OC... -_-

 

[LightsOut23]

gtx 770 would be the better option http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/12
if you look at the benchmarks, 770 beats the r9 280x 10-15fps which can make a difference

1) You're taking the benchmark out of context and relating it to general performance, he won't see that big of a difference between the cards in new games (ie. battlefield 4). You want to look at a percentage difference in performance and even that can vary between games. These cards trade blows depending on the game however I would give a SLIGHT edge to the 770.

2) If you have a 60Hz monitor, any fps gain over this threshold won't be noticed unless it dips below.

3) If I'm not mistaken, mantle has not been activated yet so we still don't know what performance gain this may bring. I have no idea how well mantle works so I won't even speculate and give you numbers that hold no weight.

Me personally, I'd buy the 280x if I was buying RIGHT NOW. My reasoning is the performance difference is relatively negligible so it seems worth it to invest with AMD and the possibility that mantle will be a difference maker.

However if the NVidia features listed above are things you want or may need, go with the 770.

Ultimately the decision is yours.

 

[Nikolay Savov]

I think the GTX770 is a better card.

If you compare the OC'd models the 770 actually is faster on average such as the new MSI GTX280X vs the MSI GTX770 TF. The VRAM isn't a big deal even in BF4 if you properly analyze the results. 2GB is still fine.

Not enough to really matter so it comes down to other things, and there are some important differences:

1) Games package. The 770 has:
- Batman Arkham Origins
- Splintercell Blacklist
- AC4
That's in new games. What does the AMD have? Seriously, I couldn't find that.

2) G-Sync:
This is so new you may not have heard of it but it's a big buzz and the top guys are really excited. You do need a new monitor which supports it but it solves the biggest game headaches:
-lag
-stutter
-screen tearing.

I'll leave it to you to research, but I saw videos of John Carmack and Tim Sweeney discussing it. It's really sweet (though ironically I'll buy a new monitor and NOT upgrade my graphics card now).

3) PHYSX

4) SHADOWPLAY
Allows recording/streaming at 1080p @60Hz with little to no frame rate drop. (I tested it in Skyrim with VSYNC OFF and my frame rate stayed at exactly 78FPS)

Summary:
I'm just throwing this info out there. I was recommending some AMD cards a while ago when they had great game deals, now I'm recommending the GTX770.

Ok mate, thanks for your response. I'm not too worried about getting good game deals, and I don't fancy shelling out another few hundred bucks to get a new monitor. I think I'll still go for the 280X (unless you can give me an amazing reason not to). 😛

gtx 770 would be the better option http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/12
if you look at the benchmarks, 770 beats the r9 280x 10-15fps which can make a difference

Actualy i point this compare in my post !
But i sow that is an BF3 compare - look in details ....
And the goal here is BF4 - look at the huilun02 post link

So again : on BF3 GTX770 is better but on BF4 280X is 10% better !
OFC if we compare some other game i think the same - GTX770 will be better !

 

[huilun02]

Between the two cards the OP linked, I'd pick the Sapphire Toxic as it performs better in BF4 (and probably also in subsequent Frostbite titles like Star Wars Battlefront, Mirror's Edge 2, Need for Speed Rivals, Dragon Age Inquisition, next Mass Effect) as well as the fact performance scales very well when overclocking the Tahiti chip.

Of course there will be instances where the 770 will perform better, but just to show it's more of a toss up than a one sided war, I can easily flip to a different page of the review xxJuiceboxx1 linked above: http://tinyurl.com/ls9h6e5

So between the two cards I'd just get the cheaper one as it performs better in BF4 which you will definitely be playing, and call it a day.

 

[photonboy]

It seems like we're done here and I wish you luck.

While I did recommend the 770, I am very interested to see how Mantle performs in BF4. I'd love to see a more low-level API succeed in the near-future. I don't think it will break in very easily with no support from Microsoft or Sony but if it manages to prove itself in efficiency hopefully this will push the industry forward as a whole.

We should hear something more about Mantle and BF4 during the AMD Developer Summit Nov 11th to13th.

*I think it's pretty much a GIVEN that a good 280X will beat a good 770 once Mantle is working, as I really can't see putting in all this effort and getting no more than 10% improvement. Some of the numbers may have to taken with a grain of salt though, if we see a feature similar to that with Tomb Raider where one feature (her hair) worked much better on the GCN architecture (comparable to NVidia and PHYSX).

Mantle though is a larger scale than just one feature, and even if it ultimately is just a proof of concept it's still a good thing.

Microsoft has DirectX and is pushing its shared tile resources etc so it's not going to adopt Mantle on the XB1. Sony is similar with OpenGL on the PS4. SteamOS would be OpenGL likely as it sits on Linux so I'm not sure if Mantle has a chance there.

With all the difficulties Mantle faces, it's got to do something amazing to generate interest in the man-hours needed to start adopting it. Let's cross our fingers for a 20% or greater boost in BF4 on PC versus the shipped version.