Okay, so I have a ASUS Z87-PLUS board with a Intel Core i5 processor and a Radeon 5700 graphics card. I've gotten to the point where less that 30 fps irritates me to the point where I rage quit because the lag gets me killed more times than I can count. I was hoping, dear citizens of the escapist, that you'd be able to help me in choosing a better card for my computer. I'm used to building my own computers but I've seen how helpful the people here can be and different opinions and what not are always useful in choosing something. Now unfortunately I'm not Mr.Moneybags and I have to save up and even then I wont have much. I'm thinking somewhere between $300-$400 range. I know it wont get me far but it'll get me better than what I have. So help a fellow gamer out and please be gentle. This is my first forum post ever...
Graphics Card Advice?
- Thread starter D.j. Wellborn
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Welcome!
If you want to stick with Radeon, the R9280X is roughly your price bracket and will perform solidly for all current games. You'll apparently get 40-60FPS on Battlefield 4 Very High Specs, a solid 60FPS if you selectively reduce some settings to High.
I have the HD7950, which is an iteration weaker, and I've yet to find a game that it really struggles with. FarCry 3, Hitman Absolution, Crysis 3, Metro LL - there's nothing which goes below 30FPS, and it's fairly easy to get a solid 60 if you don't mind things like reducing AA from x8 to x4 and other fairly minor tweaks.
Edit; if you were also considering Nvidia, I believe the 770 is broadly comparable, though I don't know much about it.
If you want to stick with Radeon, the R9280X is roughly your price bracket and will perform solidly for all current games. You'll apparently get 40-60FPS on Battlefield 4 Very High Specs, a solid 60FPS if you selectively reduce some settings to High.
I have the HD7950, which is an iteration weaker, and I've yet to find a game that it really struggles with. FarCry 3, Hitman Absolution, Crysis 3, Metro LL - there's nothing which goes below 30FPS, and it's fairly easy to get a solid 60 if you don't mind things like reducing AA from x8 to x4 and other fairly minor tweaks.
Edit; if you were also considering Nvidia, I believe the 770 is broadly comparable, though I don't know much about it.
The R9280X has slightly less performance than the gtx 770 4gb version but its $20-$30 cheaper. If AMD's new mantle api is widely adopted then the R9280X will have the lead. Currently mantle api isn't widely used, the only game with it that I can think of is BF4.
I've been debating between a R9 280X and a GTX 770 myself. I've been leaning towards the 770 as it's a little cheaper and faster. However, my current OC'd 6870 is working fine so long as I don't fire up an Ubisoft game. For some reason they tend to randomly crash the video drivers. Not truly a problem but rather annoying.
I'd say both the R9 280X and GTX 770 are excellent choices, I would just add, if you can spare the extra money, to go for non standard models like the ASUS DirectCU (both the 280x and 770 have a directcu model).
I've had a few friends buy directcu cards (specifically, the 280x and 760) and if I were to buy a card right now I'd get a directcu one, they cost a bit more than the standard ones but offer better cooling and oc capabilities.
I've had a few friends buy directcu cards (specifically, the 280x and 760) and if I were to buy a card right now I'd get a directcu one, they cost a bit more than the standard ones but offer better cooling and oc capabilities.
The GTX 770 model that is cheaper than the R9 280X has 1GB memory less, most of the benchmarks are using the more expensive 4gb model. The 4GB has marginally better stats and is more future proof. Nothing currently uses 4gb of memory but in 2-3 years time who knows.antidonkey said: