Which GPU to get?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by MoeAlza (115 posts) -

I currently have an AMD Radeon HD 5700 and wanted to upgrade to something stronger. Any suggestions?

#2 Posted by MonsieurX (29981 posts) -

Depends on the budget

#3 Posted by MoeAlza (115 posts) -
#4 Posted by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

For less than $200 all you can really do is an overclocked GTX 660 or a third party R9 270 (both cards are good and similar in performance)

#6 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

There's a 270X for just over 200, it's better than the 660.

#7 Edited by PredatorRules (7803 posts) -
#8 Posted by adamosmaki (9503 posts) -
#9 Posted by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

R270x is more in line with 660ti but of course one can argue if it worth $35 more than an overclock 660 ( though he can still OC that r270x and be quite faster than 660 )

Both cards are close in performance. A GTX 660 SC (1086mhz) is about 5% slower than a 660ti while a 270x gaming (1120mhz) is about 1-2% slower than a 660ti (both cards are pretty much exactly the same clock for clock which is significant since they both have similar overclocking limits).

Both cards have similar overclocking limits of 1150-1200mhz so there's really not a ton of difference between the two (If one of them was significantly cheaper or had a better bundle than the other then that's the one I would get).

#10 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@adamosmaki said:

R270x is more in line with 660ti but of course one can argue if it worth $35 more than an overclock 660 ( though he can still OC that r270x and be quite faster than 660 )

Both cards are close in performance. A GTX 660 SC (1086mhz) is about 5% slower than a 660ti while a 270x gaming (1120mhz) is about 1-2% slower than a 660ti (both cards are pretty much exactly the same clock for clock which is significant since they both have similar overclocking limits).

Both cards have similar overclocking limits of 1150-1200mhz so there's really not a ton of difference between the two (If one of them was significantly cheaper or had a better bundle than the other then that's the one I would get).

270X is almost equal with 670. It;s almost 20% faster than 660, so I don't know why you would recommend that.

#11 Posted by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -
#12 Edited by PredatorRules (7803 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

@Postmortem123 said:

There's a 270X for just over 200, it's better than the 660.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125476

for 215$ it's 35$ more than the Superclocked 660, not worth it IMO, they're both equal in performances.

270X beats the 660 in every review I've seen. In some cases it even beats the 760.

That's no ordinary 660, it's Superclocked, and it gets equal in power to the stocked 270X and the 270X can't be OC too much neither.

#13 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

@Postmortem123 said:

@PredatorRules said:

@Postmortem123 said:

There's a 270X for just over 200, it's better than the 660.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125476

for 215$ it's 35$ more than the Superclocked 660, not worth it IMO, they're both equal in performances.

270X beats the 660 in every review I've seen. In some cases it even beats the 760.

That's no ordinary 660, it's Superclocked, and it gets equal in power to the stocked 270X and the 270X can't be OC too much neither.

The AIB partner 270X's are also overclocked.

The gigabyte isn't far off an OC 760.

#14 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

270X is almost equal with 670. It;s almost 20% faster than 660, so I don't know why you would recommend that.

Anybody can pick and choose a SPECIFIC benchmark to prove a point (you literally told me nothing). Posting a single game chart and a single resolution and then using that to illustrate a point is a pretty noob thing to do (your better than that).

Heres a full review instead http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/24.html (third party 270x is a tad slower than a 660ti and the 660 SC is also a tad slower than the 660ti.........).

I fail to see otherwise....... ( A GTX 660 SC 1086mhz)is about 5% slower than a 660ti while a 270x gaming 1120mhz is about 1-2% slower than a 660ti). There basically the same clock for clock

#15 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@Postmortem123 said:

270X is almost equal with 670. It;s almost 20% faster than 660, so I don't know why you would recommend that.

Anybody can pick and choose a SPECIFIC benchmark to prove a point (you literally told me nothing). Posting a single game chart and a single resolution and then using that to illustrate a point is a pretty noob thing to do (your better than that).

Heres a full review instead http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/24.html (third party 270x is a tad slower than a 660ti and the 660 SC is also a tad slower than the 660ti.........).

I fail to see otherwise....... ( A GTX 660 SC 1086mhz)is about 5% slower than a 660ti while a 270x gaming 1120mhz is about 1-2% slower than a 660ti). There basically the same clock for clock

The Blizzard games and AMD's strangely awful performance in Splinter Cell inflate the 660/660Ti's overall performance advantage. The MSI 270X is faster in 10 games, the 660ti is faster in 6.

The 660ti isn't for sale anymore, and it cost more than the 270X anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

#16 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

The Blizzard games and AMD's strangely awful performance in Splinter Cell inflate the 660/660Ti's overall performance advantage. The MSI 270X is faster in 10 games, the 660ti is faster in 6.

The 660ti isn't for sale anymore, and it cost more than the 270X anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

I already said that the third party 270x is in line with a stock GTX 660ti. My point was that it has a 200+ MHz advantage than the 660ti (a 140mhz advantage on the GTX 660) which makes it seem better than it really is

Clock for clock (both the 660 and 270x has similar overclocking potential), the R9 270x is on par with a gtx 660 (a GTX 660 at 1086mhz will perform almost identical to a R9 270x at 1050mhz).

A third party 660 on those charts would literally close the gap on the games AMD won by a margin of like 1-3 FPS.. (doesn't get much closer than that).

#17 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

I already said that the third party 270x is in line with a stock GTX 660ti. My point was that it has a 200+ MHz advantage than the 660ti (a 140mhz advantage on the GTX 660) which makes it seem better than it really is

Clock for clock (both the 660 and 270x has similar overclocking potential), the R9 270x is on par with a gtx 660 (a GTX 660 at 1086mhz will perform almost identical to a R9 270x at 1050mhz).

A third party 660 on those charts would literally close the gap on the games AMD won by a margin of like 1-3 FPS.. (doesn't get much closer than that).

200Mhz advantage? A 660ti runs at around 1050-1100Mhz out of the box.

The two I had did, anyway.

#18 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

200Mhz advantage? A 660ti runs at around 1050-1100Mhz out of the box.

The two I had did, anyway.

I'm referring to 200mhz advantage in terms of benchmarks (benchmarks unless noted otherwise, run at stock speeds). The 660ti benchmarks you see are that at stock speeds (915mhz) which would mean the 270x has a 200+ advantage.

That's why the 270x looks better than it really is (the X signifies its been overclocked yet they compare it to cards 150-200mhz slower). A 660 at similar speeds will offer basically the same exact performance and a 660ti at 1100+ is reaching stock 670/7970 territory

#19 Edited by Postmortem123 (7669 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@Postmortem123 said:

200Mhz advantage? A 660ti runs at around 1050-1100Mhz out of the box.

The two I had did, anyway.

I'm referring to 200mhz advantage in terms of benchmarks (benchmarks unless noted otherwise, run at stock speeds). The 660ti benchmarks you see are that at stock speeds (915mhz) which would mean the 270x has a 200+ advantage.

That's why the 270x looks better than it really is (the X signifies its been overclocked yet they compare it to cards 150-200mhz slower). A 660 at similar speeds will offer basically the same exact performance and a 660ti at 1100+ is reaching stock 670/7970 territory

A 660Ti does not run at 915Mhz, just like a 680 doesn't run at 1006Mhz.

This is why is dislike Nvidia's boost, it messes things up and makes the Nvidia cards look better than they actually are.

For example: check the Boost Clock and compare it with the actual core speed on the right.

#20 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

A 660Ti does not run at 915Mhz, just like a 680 doesn't run at 1006Mhz.

Yeah that's true. Still even with boost the 660ti still 140mhz slower (660ti at 1120mhz is pushing stock 670/7970 territory).

#21 Posted by Zelda187 (757 posts) -

Under $200?

Honestly, just stick with what you have.

The price-to-performance ratio wouldn't really be worth the cost.

My little brother has a 4850 and it can run games like Skyrim and NBA 2K14 at high settings just fine.