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

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
the last note, the difference is if you are going to really take advantage of a high end sli system, you need 4gb of ram per card (at least till dx12, and thats to be seen) and the 970 craps itself if you ask it to do more than 3.5, also taking into account that the 295X2 is water cooling on a warranty, the extra it would cost is well worth it.
 
I don't know what to think about the SLI 960 recommendation. The card was designed for 1080 screens and scaling seems to be all over the place ( based on results I see here and here. )

In just about every case, a single 290 or 970 ( even with its memory woes, ) can beat it at 1440p and up. You say the recommendation is there for people that already have a card, but with how recent it was launched, who's looking to upgrade the 960 that they just bought? If they just bought the 960 and want to upgrade, return it and grab a single, better card.
 
I don't want to shout "BIASED!" but seriously wtf? The 960 should never, EVER be recommended over an R9 280, and the same goes for an R9 290X that is cheaper than the 3.5GB 970!
 
I have to agree with the comments above. If you look at the raw specs, a 960 is almost literally a 970 cut in half. And when compared to its sibling, SLI benchmarks in multiple games show a meager improvement at best, and a seriously crippled performance in some cases because of its lackluster memory. In games that use more than 2GB at 1080p (Assassin's Creed Unity, probably The Witcher 3 and who knows how many more) a 960 SLI rig is useless and will be until DX12 brings us combined memory.
 

Perhaps you ought to read it again. Neither of those NVidia products are recommended over the Radeon. Those are both tied categories and the pros / cons of each card in the segment is listed.
 
Class Action Lawsuit ??? - more ######## greedy lawyers lining up again. At the end of the day people buy the card for the performance it delivers in terms of FPS at a given resolution for a given game . .if anyone actually decided to base their purchase decision based on the specifications alone without other test data they would have no idea what real world performance would be . . . hence misstated specs are pretty well irrelevant. How many people would not have bought the card had the specs read differently from the beginning.
 
"Class Action Lawsuit ??? - more ######## greedy lawyers lining up again. At the end of the day people buy the card for the performance it delivers in terms of FPS at a given resolution for a given game . .if anyone actually decided to base their purchase decision based on the specifications alone without other test data they would have no idea what real world performance would be . . . hence misstated specs are pretty well irrelevant. How many people would not have bought the card had the specs read differently from the beginning. "

Since the customer's can return their cards for credit and the cards still perform as the benchmarks showed I don't think these Law suites are worth the paper they are written on. Just a few greed people hoping to capitalize on this story.
 
Kinda tough to recommend a 960. Less performance in some cases than the cheaper 280. Only times I would recommend it over a 280 is when low power consumption is important, but if that's tge case then a 750 ti is more appealing. Good in some situations, but really crippled by 128-bit bus.
 
Please include a note with the GTX750Ti that some versions do require a single PCIe power cable. Don't ask me why, or how you might OC a 60W card to need over 75W.
Imho, the GTX970 lawsuit has some merit, but only for those for whom its limitations actually manifest themselves. Everyone else trying to get in on it is just like a bunch of kids in a nursery, wailing along with the one kid who got a wasp-sting, hoping they'll get some ice cream too.
The lawyers are the leeches passing out the ice cream, taking a big bite out of everyone's bowl.
 
That GT 730 is actually a GT 630 with more bandwidth - not a GT 640. It's probably still a little bit slower than the R7 240 GDDR5. Both cards should be benchmarked to check.
 
Since the customer's can return their cards for credit and the cards still perform as the benchmarks showed I don't think these Law suites are worth the paper they are written on. Just a few greed people hoping to capitalize on this story.
Click to expand...
I actually disagree, i bought the gtx660 which had a similar issue, claimed 2gb 192bit ram, but in reality has 1.5gb 192bit and 512mb only 64 bit, hence the vram usage was never over 1.5gb. This was not an issue upon the cards initial release, but as titles came out that used more than 1.5gb vram the cards experienced slower than expected performance in these circumstances and hard crashes to desktop. I was PO'd, i expect that will happen in the future when it happens to the 970's, although less likely as they do have 3.5gb vram which will be enough for 1080p for the foreseeable future, but those with higher res monitors and triple displays may have an issue.
 
This is what bothers me. Most people throw around the "Less Total Draw Power (TDP) of the GTX 960. Seriously....I can't imagine people actually care about draw power once you're at this level. Sure the 960 isn't a flagship, but we're already well past consumer level. If we were creating just basic desktop workstations, sure, that's a legitimate concern as well as cost. When you spend over $200 on a single PC component, in this case the GTX 960, you stop caring about draw power. You've already set your sights on solid performance at very viable and capable frame rates without breaking the bank. Nobody will ever win the "OMG, look! Less power on a performance GPU!" with me...

That's like saying, "Man my Corvette sure does get good gas mileage! That's why I bought it!" Seriously, nobody cares about their gas mileage when they buy a 'Vette...
 
I think when compared to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 i recommend to buy AMD Radeon R9 290.I have seen lot of performance increase in AMD Radeon R9 290 when compared to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970
 
Tired of these 28nm boring toys. WHAT ON EARTH is holding back AMD from releasing a new GPU chipset (not even at the GDC March) it's been been more than 1.5 years of no new graphics card but a tons of rebranding and price cut recycles... Put your sh**s together seriously, and give Nvidia some competition so us consumers can actually start seeing some leap in GPU performance... You'll lose a bunch of potential R9 390X buyers if you keep delaying the release, I for one had been awaiting for the 390x but god i'm getting kinda fed up, moving on with GTX 980.
 
To animalosity:

I agree mostly with your statement of people not worried about TDP after they are spending $200+ on a graphics card. However, you do neglect one area where people can spend a good chunk o' change and still care - the mini-ITX market.

I only have one slot for graphics, and I would like the most powerful card I can get within a TDP as determined by my SFX PSU. My current SFX PSU is 450W, and I've only recently seen Silverstone offer the 600W PSU. So making a graphics card powerful AND making it power-efficient certainly helps out the buyers where space is at a premium.

Also, graphics rendering farms would certainly appreciate more powerful GPUs with lower TDP.
 
@animalosity, I voted you up because you're mostly right. However, besides the exception of small machines noted by 2Be_orNot2Be, I'm another exception. I like less power on a performance GPU because less power means less heat which means less cooling which means less noise. Sure, I'm not worried about saving or paying for an extra kwh this year. But less noise can certainly nudge my buying decision.
 
Nvidia has always been a scumbag company. I purchased 1 Nvidia card in my lifetime the original Geforce 256 which was revolutionary at the time. Once 3Dfx bit the dust Nvidia picked their bones clean and offered virtually no tech support for 3Dfx owners. Since then I've purchased well over 100 graphics cards for friends, relatives, and my own builds. Guess who made all that money from my purchases? ATI/AMD. Now Nvidia is deceiving their customers too? Glad I hopped off that bandwagon over 15 years ago.
You reap what you sow and Nvidia deserves what backlash they receive.
 
Then you lack sufficient imagination.

What exactly do you mean by "consumer"? This isn't a "professional" card in that people aren't going to be making their livelihood off it. Really you don't even do that with a 980 or 290X, but with a FirePro and Quadro product. So in that sense, this very much is a consumer card.

Now if you're talking casual vs mainstream vs high-end gaming card, that depends on how you classify them. Most people will call $200 the upper mainstream region. These are the cards a dedicated gamer buys for good performance value, but they're far from the ultimate power-user items or top-shelf cards.

Blanket statements are easy to tear apart. Just because you don't care about power draw doesn't mean everyone doesn't, nor even the majority of people don't. Again, these are still mainstream cards, and there's no reason someone getting one isn't trying to strike a balance between performance and electrical costs.

Considering the Corvette is a flagship line, this is a bad comparison. Quite a few people need a good commuter car, but still want something a little sporty. I don't understand your ranting here. If all you're worried about is pure performance, then just ignore the remarks about the card's power draw. However, to not mention every aspect about a GPU, including its thermal and power draw requirements, is dishonest from those reviewing it.
 


lol, that is gold. Should be on a T-shirt, or part of a script for Sheldon from big bang theory.
 
Sadly, I can't take original credit for it. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-08-14)
 
@RedJaron

You brought absolutely nothing new to the table here. I made a point about something in which you completely failed to refute. I had one blanket statement, but at the same time, I'm not totally wrong either, and you can't back it up either. There were a total of two people who responded to me explaining that their only "concern" with TDP was heat output due to mini ITX builds and of course with more current, naturally comes heat. That I can believe.

Secondly, I'm well aware of AMD's FirePro, or Nvidia's Quadro line. Those are catered to individuals who need heavy compute power to conduct intense rendering as such with graphical artists or perhaps animators. You knew exactly what I meant. The GTX 960 is no where near consumer level. Consumer's don't spend $200 on a GPU. "Consumers" go out and buy a Dell or HP, because they don't know any better or if they do, they have already chosen a basic desktop workstation that meets their basic office application needs. Professional grade Graphics and gaming GPU's are two completely different architectures, and the fact that you decided to try to compare the two and then berate me with your ignorant reply, just furthers the lackluster argument you came to the table with.

As far as my Corvette analogy is concerned, I suppose I could have clarified a bit more. Sure, the Corvette may be THE flagship for Chevrolet, or perhaps American motorists in general, but globally, the fabled American icon is far from "flag ship" when you consider other auto makers. Take the Volkswagen group for example. They own Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Audi and so on. I think you get my point. While the former subject (The Corvette) may cost no where near the price tag of say a brand new Lamborghini Aventador (or even remotely close the the same engine) both can be considered sports cars yes? While one remains relatively affordable as the comparison between the GTX 960 and the Corvette, the GTX 980 may be more closely related to the above mentioned Lamborghini. Faster, more expensive, and not as many people own one. Both cars still get terrible gas mileage...Read that however you may.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom