HD7770 vs GTX750?

[Silibant]

I am returning my awful ASUS Radeon HD7770 GPU (the one with 2GB GDDR5) and I was wondering if I'd get similar performance with a standard 750, or if I need to buy a 750 Ti. If anyone has better suggestions for a GPU I could buy with an ASUS HD7770 budget? Thanks, and happy graphical lives.

 

[cst1992]

You won't get a noticeable difference with a 750 vs a 7770.
What upgrade you should get depends on why you find the 7770 awful.

 

[Silibant]

You won't get a noticeable difference with a 750 vs a 7770.
What upgrade you should get depends on why you find the 7770 awful.

I find the 7770 awful because its drivers crash more than a Kardashian and it BSOD's all the time. Graphics-wise, I'm quite satisfied. So, a 750 (not Ti) should be good? I'm looking at Newegg's specs, and it's getting 7-10 FPS lower, but this is on Ultra, which my CPU can't handle, so I'm gonna be on High. Thoughts?

 

[cst1992]

If you're talking about ultra graphics, it's not a question of the CPU at all in many cases.
Basically think of it as this:
if you get 50 FPS in a particular game at the lowest graphics settings, then those are all the CPU can handle(unless you've got a god-awful card). Then you put a high-end card in the system. If you crank up the graphics settings to even ultra, you'll get 50 FPS. But you'll NOT get more than that.

That said, you should go with the 750 no problem.

 

[Silibant]

If you're talking about ultra graphics, it's not a question of the CPU at all in many cases.
Basically think of it as this:
if you get 50 FPS in a particular game at the lowest graphics settings, then those are all the CPU can handle(unless you've got a god-awful card). Then you put a high-end card in the system. If you crank up the graphics settings to even ultra, you'll get 50 FPS. But you'll NOT get more than that.

That said, you should go with the 750 no problem.

Ok, thanks. You're 100% on this, I don't need the Ti?

 

[cst1992]

I don't really know about your CPU - I'm not a AMD user.
However, I can definitely say this- if you want similar performance to the 7770, you're good on the 750.

 

[Silibant]

I don't really know about your CPU - I'm not a AMD user.
However, I can definitely say this- if you want similar performance to the 7770, you're good on the 750.

Thanks for the advice, I'll be ordering the GPU within this week. As for AMD processors: I have a 4150, which is a pretty midrange CPU. It has 4 cores, and a clock speed of 4 gigahertz. All the FX series are AMD's non-APU processors, so they don't come with an integrated GPU, but they run better with a dedicated one. The A series is AMD's APUs, and they come in A6, A8, and A10 varieties, listed in order of power from least to greatest. Hope that helps, as I know nothing about their processing architecture.

 

[cst1992]

Thanks for the information.
I knew that part about the APU's too, and that you can crossfire an amd card with them, given the internal GPU in that apu and the one you're using is the same/compatible.
However, what's weird is that 4 cores running at 4 GHz each are still slower than intel's 3.5 ivy CPU's. They're more expensive, sure, but their per-core performance is also better than AMD's.

 

[Silibant]

Thanks for the information.
I knew that part about the APU's too, and that you can crossfire an amd card with them, given the internal GPU in that apu and the one you're using is the same/compatible.
However, what's weird is that 4 cores running at 4 GHz each are still slower than intel's 3.5 ivy CPU's. They're more expensive, sure, but their per-core performance is also better than AMD's.

Wait, really? I had no idea. What's different? Also, never crossfire an apu with a gpu. The results are slow and disastrous.

 

[cst1992]

The architecture. Probably that's what Intel charges for.
Look at this. The i5-3570k vs AMD's FX 8350: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
Generally the 8350 scores higher overall and has higher clock speed. But the 3570k has per core performance higher and wins overall.

 

[Silibant]

The architecture. Probably that's what Intel charges for.
Look at this. The i5-3570k vs AMD's FX 8350: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
Generally the 8350 scores higher overall and has higher clock speed. But the 3570k has per core performance higher and wins overall.

Thanks for bringing the article to my attention. However, let it be noted that the i5 has half as many cores as the 8350, making it less future-proof/compatible, as well as the fact that it's $50 more. I will admit that an i7 hexa-core beats the hell out of almost any other processor for any usage. I love Intel for kickass builds, and I love AMD for budget builds. You?

 

[cst1992]

Probably, but all games use at the most 4 cores. More cores than that should be considered for workstation use. Intel has Xeons for that, which use anywhere from 6 to 12 cores.
Frankly speaking, the i7 hexa core(mainly the LGA2011) are also meant for heavy computing, and games don't require that much horsepower.

 

[Silibant]

Probably, but all games use at the most 4 cores. More cores than that should be considered for workstation use. Intel has Xeons for that, which use anywhere from 6 to 12 cores.
Frankly speaking, the i7 hexa core(mainly the LGA2011) are also meant for heavy computing, and games don't require that much horsepower.

True, and good point.