fx 6300 be and power clock 7970 for gaming?

[lindroos1]

Hey guis!
Im looking to buy a new video card,my old is a asus 7770 directcu ,i'm looking for something like power clock 7970 but im not sure that this processor wont Stumble this video card
My configuration is:
motherboard -asus m5a78l/usb3
psu: fortron hexa 550w
ram:1x8 adata ,1333mhz
i think that i must overclock my cpu,but im not sure that 4,3 ghz will be enough
Thank!

 

[Shneiky]

The 280x will not support True Audio. None CGN 1.0 will.

Cheapest 285 is 182.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-r9285acdfc

Cheapest 280x is 212.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/sapphire-video-card-100363vx3l

The 285 uses 60 less watts (that is 1/5 lower power consumption) for 5 to 10% less performance, while costing 15% less.

285 has higher performance per dollar per watt. Basic math. Also 285 with GCN 1.2 has superior tessellation, color compression, image compression and other nice stuff that is soon to be used even at a wider range in moder games.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8460/amd-radeon-r9-285-review/2

Read a review with some benchmarks before sprouting biased nonsense.

 

[azzazel_99]

Those others any effects won't mean sh*t when the 285 can't perform a healthy frame rate to enjoy gaming with high and ultra settings. So that's makes the 285 a useless card. Sure it may support things like super tesselation but it won't perform well enough to have it turned on haha.

 

[Shneiky]

I guess you really have no idea how graphic cards work do you? So completely ignorant.

"At the x64 tessellation factor we see the R9 285 spit out 134fps, or equivalent to roughly 1.47B polygons/second. This is as compared to 79fps (869M Polys/sec) for the R9 290, and 68fps (748M Polys/sec) for the R9 280."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8460/amd-radeon-r9-285-review/3

Due to the improved pipeline of the GCN 1.2 - the 285 requires less power to provide more FPS at the same tessellation factor.

TL;DR - 285 requires less GPU load to tessellate the same factor as GCN 1.0

Super tessellation runs easier on CGN 1.2 parts than 1.0. It requires less brute force.

You are completely ignorant to the fact that in all the benchmarks the 285 is barely 5-10% lowest FPS and 0-5% average FPS under 280x for 15% less of the price. The "can't perform a healthy frame rate" that you speak of is complete nonsense. Not to mention the 60W increased TDP of the 280x will increase to cost of running it in the long run. If you game 4 hours per day for an year - the 280x will cost extra 20-30 USD for an year.

You continuously argue against benchmarks and any sound arguments.

Your argument that 2 GB of VRam for 1080p is completely biased and based on no solid arguments as well.

 

[azzazel_99]

That depends on what you pay for electricity. You are talking penny's a day difference and 5-10% is still 5-10%. Don't get mad and butt hurt because yu are the only one voting the 285.

 

[Undying89]

True that. Even if 285 is new you have to think out side of the box. 280X will last him longer even its older. Ironically isnt it? 😀

 

[Shneiky]

I am not mad neither hurt. Its your ignorance that I can't understand. Tom's forum is supposed to be made up of educated people. You did not give either one compelling argument and are only misleading people, while being completely inconsiderate and rude.

-10% performance for -15% price. Basic math does not stick with you I guess. I am off. Not use trying to hammer some sense in a wall.

And no, 280x will not last longer. Even though both Fermi and GCN 1.0 are getting basic DX 12, most of the advanced features will be exclusive to Kepler/Maxwell and GCN 1.2. Project Vulcan is replacing Mantle now, and it will provide basic functionality to 1.0, but it will only be fully supported by 1.2. Software is the key to whatever will last, not the brute 3 GBs or any other spec.

 

[azzazel_99]

Also 2gb VRAM has been proven to be inadequate by loads of sites, people and benchmarks. Hell bf4 on ultra uses right at 2gb and then some and watch dogs maxes 3gb cards out. Load up skyrim with texture packs and voila you are maxing out VRAM on 2gb+ cards. he wants raw performance power? The 280x wins this arguement period.

 

[Shneiky]

Guess you also don't get the concept of compression ...

Even on BF4 at 2k.

None of the benchmarks show any drops in performance from the one that you speak of.

"he wants raw performance power?" well let him go with a 295x. That is a stupid argument. What you pay for it is the real question. Price / performance is important. Raw performance is for those without a budget.

 

[azzazel_99]

280x still beats the 285 in performance.

 

[Shneiky]

Noone is questioning that. But the price / performance of 280x is worse than that of 285. And that was the hole point. Too bad it did not stick even up until now. Also there is the PSU issue. A 285 will be much more forgiving to his PSU. Better get a video card now and spare the money on a PSU for a future upgrade.

 

[azzazel_99]

The OP said nothing about being on a budget so the extra $20-30 the 280x costs shouldn't matter. You brought up the price performance thing. It had nothing to do with the op post. You assumed he was budget shopping because of the card he wanted to buy. To get the most power out of his gpu for the price of a 7970/280x the 280x will give him that. I completely understand your arguement, I'm not stupid and have been building gaming pc's for the better part of 2 decades. However to get the original poster the most performance he can get in the range of the 7970/280x series of cards the 280x is his best option as it performs amazingly for its price and depending on what company he chooses to buy from a lot of those cards overclock pretty well also.