Graphics card

[Blandum 143]

Hey guys, I need a help; My graphics card has burned So I have to buy another one, but I want one for gaming, maybe under 160 (max170) euro, I saw on many forums and I made an idea about these:

Radeon R9 270X

Bus: 256 bit

productive process: 28nmFreq.

Core: 1,050 MHz

Transistor: 2.800 mln

Shader: 1.280

Memory: GDDR5

DirectX: 11.2

frequency Memory: 1,400 MHz

TDP: 180 W

Radeon R7 370 2GB

Bus: 256 bit

productive process: 28nm

Freq. Core: 975 MHz

Transistor: 2,800 mln

Shader: 1,024 cores

Memory: GDDR5

DirectX: 12

Freq. Memory: 1,400 MHz

TDP: 110 W

I'd like to know which parameters a graphics card for gaming should have high(ex. core speed, bus,...)

Thanks for the attention

[Association 338]

That joke wasn't even funny XD

anyway, the second choice looks great + directx12 is important for the future

[*V* 451]

For games go for R7 370, games actually enjoy a benefit from Turbo Core technology, which takes the CPU to 4.2 GHz.

[IJzzo 1,072]

I guess 1st a lot of points on this table:

http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Low power consumption if possible.

Finally if your device does not support last Direct3D / OpenGL standards it won't be able to play certain future games later or sooner while much weaker devices can play them however.

[Mc.Joker 929]

AMD is cheap but for myself I prefer Nvidia.

But if u want a adm I would go for the R9 270X

If Nvidia:

GTX 950: http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/459124/evga-geforce-gtx-950-superclocked+-acx-20/specificaties/

[Blandum 143]

Thanks for all the answers, I really appreciate it

@Naltamer14 Nice image (maybe I can try with my burned graphics card ) yea, the second is better than first, Thanks you

@*V*-The Entertainer yea R7 370 should be a good choice for games. I didn't know about Turbo core, thanks for this new info

@Ninja Thanks for the table, very usefull For the power consumption of course, or my parents throw me out of the house And at last, thanks for the tip about direct3d

@Mc.Joker I looked for AMD bacause, as you said, is cheaper, but your Nvidia card seems very good, I add it in my list xD

[QueNNch 515]

I recommend GTX 960 !

Comparison with GTX 950: http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2454&gid2=2436&compare=geforce-gtx-950-ti-2gb-vs-geforce-gtx-960-2gb

AMD is good for people on budget but go for Nvidia if possible

EDIT:

Use this chart, very useful in comparing all cards at once http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

PS: How did ur GPU Burn? Fans stopped working or is ur airflow bad? Would be a good idea to buy cheap 10 Euro fans so it doesn't happen again.

and what was the GPU make/model that burnt?

[Mc.Joker 929]

Quennx, ofcourse the 960 is better. But theprice is too high. Max 170 euro

[QueNNch 515]

Quennx, ofcourse the 960 is better. But theprice is too high. Max 170 euro

I was looking at prices in pounds so I thought theres not much difference... my bad.

You are right 950 is still quite good, especially as it fits his budget perfectly.

Expect 60 fps on new games at high settings

Edit: Unless your ram/cpu doesn't bottleneck it of course

[Blandum 143]

@QueNNch thanks for your suggestion

For the card I have to try it in another computer to understand the real problem. In fact when I was in gaming (cod4) my screen become red and my pc got stuck. Then I boot it and when It finished to load the windows 7 logo

The screen become all black, I suggest it was burned, but it can also be a driver problem(even if I didn't change anythind in the last weeks). The GPU was a Sapphire ATI HD6870 1Gb GDDR5

EDIT: @QueNNch yea the price is too high

[QueNNch 515]

An AMD Card, knew it

I've heard more than one stories of AMD Cards behaving weirdly/burning.

So,

I also looked at the R7 370 which also perfectly fits in your budget (in fact it costs the same as GTX 950) which is 170 EURO.

I recommend the Nvidia GTX 950 2GB, compared to AMD R7 370 2GB:

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

[Blandum 143]

Thanks a lot @QueNNch

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

Oh yes? I was searching 256 bit because some users say that 256 is better for games, isn't it?

[QueNNch 515]

Thanks a lot @QueNNch

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

Oh yes? I was searching 256 bit because some users say that 256 is better for games, isn't it?

Yes, 256 bit is supposed to be faster but I would still buy the GTX 950, probably because its nvidia and that company makes quality stuff.

To be honest the difference is not huge, so its up to you.

[IJzzo 1,072]

Well I can't see here the AMD video adapters are the cheaper ones in this chart: http://videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html

An AMD Card, knew it

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

I can't see here the effective memory bandwidth in this table. But sure the bandwidth is what in the end counts.

The effective memory clockspeed is most likely just multiplied with the correct factor for GDDR5: X4

So you can assume the adapter with 256Bit memory interface has almost double memory bandwidth.

Finally the table of Passmark is probably also not necessary the right performance index. It does obviously always depend what you measure and how you do weight each measure. If their test does only slightly make use of the memory bandwidth you want see the advantage of an 256Bit interface. However in another D3D application it could have effect.

[Blandum 143]

Thanks a lot @QueNNch

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

Oh yes? I was searching 256 bit because some users say that 256 is better for games, isn't it?

Yes, 256 bit is supposed to be faster but I would still buy the GTX 950, probably because its nvidia and that company makes quality stuff.

To be honest the difference is not huge, so its up to you.

Thanks for this However 960 is too much for me now But this picture helps me a lot

Well I can't see here the AMD video adapters are the cheaper ones in this chart: http://videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html

An AMD Card, knew it

PS: Ignore the Memory bus 256 or 128 bit. They are just channels, which means they show how wide the memory bus is.

What you should really be looking at is the Memory Bandwidth, which is the memory clock speed in this snapshot^^

I can't see here the effective memory bandwidth in this table. But sure the bandwidth is what in the end counts.

The effective memory clockspeed is most likely just multiplied with the correct factor for GDDR5: X4

So you can assume the adapter with 256Bit memory interface has almost double memory bandwidth.

Finally the table of Passmark is probably also not necessary the right performance index. It does obviously always depend what you measure and how you do weight each measure. If their test does only slightly make use of the memory bandwidth you want see the advantage of an 256Bit interface. However in another D3D application it could have effect.

Oh I didn't know these things... Okay

[QueNNch 515]

Blandum, the best idea would be to find benchmarks of the cards and compare the fps they achieve on different games

These numbers in the specifications might not tell the whole story, and only a well experienced person can judge accurately. Even I'm confused between those two

Google is your friend

[Blandum 143]

I'm searching on google sites /video where you can see the texted card in game. But I wanted also a help and you helped me a lot Thanks all

[IJzzo 1,072]

Well let us know your decision. I need a new one as well. Which must especially have a displayport because I'm atm. limited in monitor resolution because of lack of this.

[TreeFrog 11]

750ti works great

[Blandum 143]

Well let us know your decision. I need a new one as well. Which must especially have a displayport because I'm atm. limited in monitor resolution because of lack of this.

Of course For the moment I have some doubts, GTX 950 seems perfect, but in Amazon( where I should buy) it cost 185-200 euro and money aren't mine, but of my parents, and I don't want to spend much than 170(170 is still high). So as @TreeFrog said, I also saw the 750ti, it seems very nice, is a Nvidia, great performance and the price it's okay (140); R7 370 seems also great as performance(but an AMD). My search continues

[QueNNch 515]

Oh I see, well 750ti will be a slower card but can manage to run most games at playable frames.

Make sure you buy at least a 2GB card^^

[Blandum 143]

Yea, it's a bit slower. However I found a EVGA gtx 950 in another site, and yes, as Joker and you posted, it' cost 170 euro.

If Nvidia:

GTX 950: tweakers.net/pricewatch/459124…ed+-acx-20/specificaties/

But Has someone got a product of EVGA? Is it good? I saw on google is quite good as manufacturer.

[Littlefoot 54]

I have an EVGA GTX 660, they're great And cheaper than most others.

[Blandum 143]

Does it give you any problems?

[QueNNch 515]

EVGA is cheap but I've heard that its not as good as its competitors in terms of cooling.

Seems you have a bad cooling problem anyway, try to look for cards with better/multiple fans

Best idea is to google the comparisons of these different manufacturers.