GTX 770 & R9 290 Check it out.

[I need helpz]

Price and Performance. Which one is more worth it for games like Titanfall. Battlefield. Sniper Elite. Grid. Fun games, etc.

CPU: i5-4570 and would it be worth it to upgrade the CPU to i5-4670k ? lulz thanks.

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

1. R9 290
2. Depends, do you have a good aftermarket cooler, are you planning to overclock, do you have a Z87 motherboard?

 

[Gam3r01]

The 290 is on par if not a few % higher performance than the 780. So it will take the edge by a fairly wide margin over the 770.
What resolution are you using? The 290 also supports more vram over a higher memory interface.

Probably not, I would take a jump to an i7 if you are looking for more performance, unless you have the money to blow.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

While the above graphic directly answers your question, it's not a complete answer.... things that have to be figured in in are:

1. What resolution.... the R9 cards really come into their own at resolutions greater then 2560 x 1440.

2. Will you be overclocking the cards ? The R9 series cards are very aggressively clocked in the box. As such a typical 290 OC might be 10%..... a 770 can do 20% fairly easy. The 770 won't quite catch the 290 as it starts off with a 13% lead in the box...overclocked the difference is 3-5% with e advantage to the 290 but there is quite a large price difference

OTOH, the 780 OC'd has a substantial lead over the 290x overclocked and is a lot cheaper....but again, outta the box, the 290x is faster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djvZaHHU4I8 See 8:40 mark

The 290 is between the 780 and 770 in price..... the 780 is between the 290 and 290x.

Some numbers for one of the better brands on both sides with good performance and quiet running

MSI 770 - $335
MSI 290 - $435
MSI 780 - $450
MSI 290x - $585

 

[yoyodolo]

r9 290x simple
if you have extra cash and want to OC then it will good to upgrade the cpu. either stick to your old one, not a huge difference in performance with stock performances.

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

Bare in mind that Titanfall is VRAM heavy, Battlefield 4 uses almost 2GB's of VRAM at 1080p full ultra, so the 4GB R9 290 would eat those games without a hiccup.

 

[JUICEhunter]

Wait for 880, should be the new price for performance king. I have seen 780ti and 780 in full action and the ti is really a lot more impressive but has the highest cost, I got one on sale for $660 but 880 should be just as fast if not faster than ti and should cost about $450-$500 which is why I'm saying wait.

 

[I need helpz]

The 290 is on par if not a few % higher performance than the 780. So it will take the edge by a fairly wide margin over the 770.
What resolution are you using? The 290 also supports more vram over a higher memory interface.

Probably not, I would take a jump to an i7 if you are looking for more performance, unless you have the money to blow.

Thanks, what brand of R9 290 should I get?

 

[Gam3r01]

Sapphire is the name to beat for AMD, specifically the Tri-x or Toxic lineup.
MSI makes a good second choice.

 

[I need helpz]

Sapphire is the name to beat for AMD, specifically the Tri-x or Toxic lineup.
MSI makes a good second choice.

Thank you so much!

 

[yoyodolo]

r9 280x is overkill to your requirements, just grab r9 270x and you will never get disappointed also you can save some cash and it doesn't required bigger and costlier PSu .

 

[I need helpz]

Sapphire is the name to beat for AMD, specifically the Tri-x or Toxic lineup.
MSI makes a good second choice.

Is Asus good for the R9 290? Because I read some reviews they was a guy said it was bad on a Sapphhire GPU

 

[I need helpz]

r9 280x is overkill to your requirements, just grab r9 270x and you will never get disappointed also you can save some cash and it doesn't required bigger and costlier PSu .

But I want a GPU that will last and have an excellent performance when I play games. Plus, I won't be changing my PC for the next 3 to 5 years

 

[JUICEhunter]

r9 280x is overkill to your requirements, just grab r9 270x and you will never get disappointed also you can save some cash and it doesn't required bigger and costlier PSu .

The mentioned games Titanfall uses 3gb VRAM for ultra textures and BF4 also needs a top tier GPU. OP slowest card they are considering is a 770 why would you recommend a 270x?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Sapphire is the name to beat for AMD, specifically the Tri-x or Toxic lineup.
MSI makes a good second choice.

One thing about the Saphires ya have to keep in mind tho is the fit .... Tri-X is 12" long, Vapor X is 12.2"
Tho, before I'd spend the money on the faster vapor X ($450), I'd grab the ($450) MSI 780 which tops the 290x.

Though, with the 880 series expected next month, I wouldn't buy anything today....as soon as the 1st one drops, or even before, will be a price shakeup, The 780's dropped $200 when new R9's and 780 Ti were announced, before you coould even buy one.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Bare in mind that Titanfall is VRAM heavy, Battlefield 4 uses almost 2GB's of VRAM at 1080p full ultra, so the 4GB R9 290 would eat those games without a hiccup.

It;s been widely documented that "using 2 GB of memory", is very different from showing a performance improvement with 2 GB of memory....especially at 2560 res or less

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

There isn’t a lot of difference between the [2GB and 4 GB] cards at 1920×1080 or at 2560×1600. We only start to see minimal differences at 5760×1080, and even so, there is rarely a frame or two difference. If we start to add even more AA, in most cases, the frame rates will drop to unplayable on both cards.

These games were determined to have the moist significant differences at 5760 x 1080 largest difference on any game playable at that resolution was 1.9 fps .... but theFPS at 1920 x 1080 was:

Metro goes from 31.0 to 31.8 w/ 4 GB
Lost Planet drops from 85.8 to 85.2 w/ 3 GB
Dirt Showdown goes from 70.4 to 70.5 w/ 4 GB
Sleeping dogs goes from 53.4 to 53.5 w/ 4 GB
Hitman Absolution goes from 49.6 to 49.8
Grid 3 goes from 80.3 to 83.4
Lasty Light went from 44.5 to 45.8

That's an average of 0.14 frames per game

This leaves five games out of 30 where a 4GB GTX 770 gives more than a 1 frame per second difference over the 2GB-equipped GTX 770 [at 5760 x 1080]. And one of them, Metro: Last Light still isn’t even quite a single frame difference.

Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB.

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s

That last paragraph is the most telling. Max Payne 3 will use 2.75 GB of VRAM if it's there..... but using only the 2GB card, there was no impact at all on performance .... "there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two [ 2Gb and 4 GB] GTX 770s."

 

[I need helpz]

Bare in mind that Titanfall is VRAM heavy, Battlefield 4 uses almost 2GB's of VRAM at 1080p full ultra, so the 4GB R9 290 would eat those games without a hiccup.

It;s been widely documented that "using 2 GB of memory", is very different from showing a performance improvement with 2 GB of memory....especially at 2560 res or less

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

There isn’t a lot of difference between the [2GB and 4 GB] cards at 1920×1080 or at 2560×1600. We only start to see minimal differences at 5760×1080, and even so, there is rarely a frame or two difference. If we start to add even more AA, in most cases, the frame rates will drop to unplayable on both cards.

These games were determined to have the moist significant differences at 5760 x 1080 largest difference on any game playable at that resolution was 1.9 fps .... but theFPS at 1920 x 1080 was:

Metro goes from 31.0 to 31.8 w/ 4 GB
Lost Planet drops from 85.8 to 85.2 w/ 3 GB
Dirt Showdown goes from 70.4 to 70.5 w/ 4 GB
Sleeping dogs goes from 53.4 to 53.5 w/ 4 GB
Hitman Absolution goes from 49.6 to 49.8
Grid 3 goes from 80.3 to 83.4
Lasty Light went from 44.5 to 45.8

That's an average of 0.14 frames per game

This leaves five games out of 30 where a 4GB GTX 770 gives more than a 1 frame per second difference over the 2GB-equipped GTX 770 [at 5760 x 1080]. And one of them, Metro: Last Light still isn’t even quite a single frame difference.

Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB.

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s

That last paragraph is the most telling. Max Payne 3 will use 2.75 GB of VRAM if it's there..... but using only the 2GB card, there was no impact at all on performance .... "there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two [ 2Gb and 4 GB] GTX 770s."

So which one would you recommend me to get?

 

[AMDRadeonHD]

gtx 770 is comparable to r9 280x, so r9 290 beats gtx 770

 

[fkr]

i think i can help here

if you are using a 1080p monitor then the gtx770 with 2 gigs of memory is perfect (vram has a direct correlation with monitor resolution)

if you plan on getting monitor like below or better like i have (1080p will never be a thing again if you do)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600012694&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

then having at least 3 gigs of vram is the absolute minimum.


if you are doing 1080p then nvidia is the way to go. good drivers and just works always it seems. i miss the just works mentality of my old 560

true performance per dollar goes to amd and the 290 overclocked competes with the 780ti, but is wasted on a 1080p monitor

i should add that i run an i5 2500k at 4.8 and CF 7950's (same as a r9 280 and overclocked to a 280x stock performance)