Best Graphics Cards For The Money: October 2014 (Archive)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would it make sense to add the R7 250E GDDR5 (basically a 7750) to the budget/low-power recommendation, or maybe as a runner up?

Its got a TDP rating of only 55W, is relatively inexpensive, higher on the performance hierarchy than the GeForce GT 730 64-bit GDDR5) and is under $100. Only the ones that have single-slot-sized coolers AND are low profile touch the $100 mark (and oddly, Sapphire, maybe some others, calls it a Low Profile R7 250 instead of referring to it as an R7 250E - be sure to check the GPU and memory clock specs)

It was definitely a worthwhile find for me when upgrading my son's low-profile, low-power computer.
 


Good chance, wait I think there are a couple of guy what have AMD banners an there post picture they are with you I'm sure.

 


What are you even saying?
 
What benefits would I get upgrading from a GTX 660 to a R9 290? A few games, like Dragon Age: Inquisition and FarCry 4 has to be detuned to medium to low get an acceptable framerate on the 660.
I'm not really in favor of AMD cards, since I have a few that died on me over the years, but would an R9 give me a considerable performance increase in games I have mentioned and games released in the last few years (and upcoming titles) ?
 
290X (Gigabye Windforce) sells for $300 on Amazon (2/4/15). $30 difference from the Sapphire you have pricechecked, I'd say that makes it easily beat the 970.
 


Dang - wish I'd held out a little longer, as I got an R9 285 around a month ago for not much less than that (and that's AFTER a rebate)

Still, I did want the extra overhead/safety-margin of the 285s lower power consumption...
 
Seems strange that AMD have dropped the prices on their 290 series cards so drastically. Maybe they have a $300 killer up their sleeves, and they want to make room for it.... 😉 If the benchmarks that I posted earlier end up only being a 380x at $300-350 it could make a lot of sense. If those benches turn out to be legit, I would guess that is actually a 390x. Who knows though, we'll just have to wait and see. :)
 
I think, it's Amazon that's playing with prices. I see higher prices now for the same card. Meanwhile the "X" series (280X,290X) is being heavily advertised.
 
I currently have a single 650Ti Boost SC, and I'm looking at upgrading. I want to push maxed settings at 1080p. I've been waffling around anything between a 280, 285, 290, and 280x. I'm using an i3-4130, and 8GB of RAM. I've been watching some auctions on eBay, and have seen some pretty sweet deals on cards. I'm just wondering where the sweet spot would be for max settings at 1080p. I know that I might need to upgrade my CPU as well, so I've been eyeballing and i5-4460. I don't game that heavy, but when I do get to play I want it to be at a solid framerate. My current machine runs Far Cry 4 on High/Very High @ 35-40 FPS. I'd like to jump to a solid 60 FPS with the upgrade.
 


If the CPU hierarchy charts are any guide, you'll likely not see any benefit from a CPU upgrade... so I'd suggest applying the money saved there to a higher video card.

If you have the power supply overhead, I'd say go for the 290 or 290x if a deal pops up... or 280X if you find a more bang-for-the-buck deal on it.

Using their 3-tier rule, you'll notice some improvement going from what you have to a 280 or 285, but I think if you can jump more tiers, you'll be happier - and don't worry about upgrading the CPU
 
Here are some data points around what you have.
I have a GTX650Ti (non-boost). My HD7870 is a visible improvement from that (same as R9 270X). My HD7970 is a visible improvement from that (same as a R9 280X).
In your place I'd probably get a R9 290 or GTX970. The R9 280X may well be enough of an improvement, but I don't know that, and the R9 290 would be a little more future-resistant. It also includes some new features that aren't turned on in the R9 280[X]. If you don't play with added high-res textures or across multiple screens, the last .5GB issue on the GTX970 will not apply to you, making that another safe choice, especially if you don't want to worry about upgrading your PSU.
 
I think it us funny that toms used to say the 760 was better than the 7950. Now they say that the 960 is 10% better than the 760 and that the 280(7950) is on par with the 960....Benches actually show it to be a bit faster most of the time when OC'd. Minus mini ITX and OEM machines the 960 has no place. People shopping in the $175-225 price point will not sacrifice performance for power savings, it's all about bang for buck. The 960's efficiency is a moot point at it's price range. You want efficiency and performance 970/980 are twice as fast and use a marginal amount more power than a 960 but to play you gotta pay.
 
Still happy with the two R9 290's that I got last summer on craigslist for $225 each. Working great in crossfire with an 850W power supply at 7680x1440 on three 27" 2560x1440 monitors!
 
WHO does the price checking for these threads? THERE VERY BAD AT IT>
There are over 4 dif 290x you can get right now for 270 dollars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom