Doubt in graphics card
-
You see, I'm building a computer and I'm getting confused with so many options, I was thinking about the EVGA GTX 660 TI TWF.
It's for gaming and some 3D.
What do you think? The idea would be to put one and later add another with sli. -
Vereis, estoy montando un ordenador y me lio con tanta variedad, havia pensado en la EVGA GTX 660 TI TWF.
Es para jugar y algo de 3D.
¿Que os parece? la idea seria poner 1 y mas adelante ponerle otra con sli.Que equipo tienes y resolucion?
Yo veo otras mejores que esa EVGA por precio,disipacion aunque para SLI sean mejor las de referencia,incluso si esa FTW es cara ronda los 300€ yo meteria esta mucho antes.Zotac GeForce GTX 670 2GB GDDR5 250-2N255-P0003 Tarjeta Gráfica
Veo a la 670 mucho mas completa que la 660ti y no hay tanta diferencia en precios,aprovechara bien los 2Gb de memoria cosa que la 660Ti no hace,ademas mas potente,incluso mas adelante esas Zotac se vean en ofertas por si quieres hacer un SLI aunque te sirve cualquiera.
saludos
-
well, the thing is that it already tastes bad to me to spend 300 to spend 350 on the 670.
in summary. is zotac better than evga? -
Or if you want to splurge... Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 OC 2GB GDDR5 GV-N670OC-2GD Graphics Card -
or did you pass the titan, no?, now seriously I don't want to spend more than 300
-
So get the Gigabyte 660Ti or if you don't mind losing CUDA and/or 3D the Sapphire 7950 is 7 euros cheaper than the OC and performs quite well, and you get 3GB of vRAM plus a bit more muscle.
-
Well, get the Gigabyte 660Ti or if you don't mind losing CUDA and/or 3D the Sapphire 7950 is 7 euros cheaper than the OC and it performs quite well, and you get 3GB of vRAM in addition to a bit more muscle.
+1. Anyway, what equipment do you have? If you want to spend less, the Ati 7870 is not a bad card and you save a few euros. You save about 50 compared to the 7950. For spending about 250 or a little more, I prefer the 7950 over the Nvidia.
Here you can get an idea: AnandTech - Bench - GPU12
-
yeah, the thing is that it already tastes bad to me to spend 300 to spend 350 on the 670.
in short. is Zotac better than EVGA?I was telling you this because the FTW are expensive, if you don't want to spend a lot I would go for the gigabyte or the cheaper Zotac, I prefer Gigabyte before, but I told you the 670 because if the FTW cost more than 300€ it was recommendable to stretch to a 670, if it costs 260€ then the Gigabyte is fine.
Zotac is the one that gives the most warranty, it gives its warranty and if you register the graphics card on the Zotac website it gives 3 more years, 5 in total, but the gigabyte seems better, it has a better pcb and better dissipation, that's why I prefer it.
regards
-
Thank you very much, I have the seabertooth 990FX/GEN3 motherboard, AMD fx-8350 8-core blavk edition processor, and 4 Kingston huyperX beast
I think in the end I will decide for the gigabite
-
Many thanks, I have the seabertooth 990FX/GEN3 motherboard, AMD fx-8350 8-core blavk edition processor, and 4 Kingston huyperX beast
I think in the end I will decide for the gigabite
If you are going to keep that configuration, it is not very advisable to put anything multiGPU because that platform does not fully exploit a powerful multiGPU solution. A GTX670 is a good option, but in that platform I would not put another one.
-
Well, get the Gigabyte 660Ti or if you don't mind losing CUDA and/or 3D the Sapphire 7950 is 7 euros cheaper than the OC and performs quite well, and you get 3GB of vRAM in addition to a bit more muscle.
+1
If between the GTX660ti and the HD7950 there is only a 7 euro difference, I would get the AMD without a doubt. I would consider the GTX660ti for a multigpu solution but as you have been told, your platform is not the ideal one for that.
Regarding 3D, do you mean work?
Regards.
-
ok, and what motherboard would be for multi GPU, what features should I look for to know it?, would the Corsair V Formula -Z work? from asus, ROG
-
ok, and what motherboard would be for multi GPU, what features do you look for to know it?, would the Corsair V Formula -Z work? from asus, ROG
Wanting to put a multiGPU solution on an AMD platform and on top with AMD GPUs is not very recommendable if you don't want to play like this:
This is a mess, you can't play like this, even with a single AMD GPU there are problems of that type in certain games (I myself suffered with an HD7950):
The truth is that I wouldn't recommend any AMD GPU, neither monoGPU nor multiGPU until they fix that problem, and also that you put a multiGPU solution on that platform because you're going to spend a lot of money and you're not going to get the most out of it.
Those images are taken from this review: http://techreport.com/review/24381/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-reviewed/7
-
so …do you recommend intel? but I don't want to spend 900 and some on a processor besides intel doesn't have 8 core processors
-
so …do you recommend intel? but I don't want to spend 900 and some on a processor besides intel doesn't have 8 core processors
AMD's 8 cores don't have advantages over Intel's 4 cores, the most sensible thing is that you buy an i5 or an i7 with 4 cores and that's it. Think that each Intel core yields around 40-50% more than each AMD core, that's in a 1 vs 1, if we enter the multithread, AMDs, when sharing resources, are scaling worse and worse in performance as more cores are used, so in the end, in the best case, they reach a technical tie with Intel's 4 core CPUs. So, AMD's 8 core FXs will yield the same as an Intel 4 core in the best case, and in the rest of the cases an i5 or an i7 will yield much more.
This is what will happen in games, in the most favorable case for AMDs, in an 8 core FX:
In the rest of the cases things would happen like this:
So as you can see, these CPUs are, more or less, equivalent to an Intel quad-core but only in the best case, in the rest they are quite inferior, don't let yourself be carried away by the marketing of "the more cores the better" you can see it in the following review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_5.html#sect1
If you were going for an Intel 6 core CPU you would be talking about a much more powerful CPU than AMD's FX, hence its price.
-
ok, and what motherboard would be for multi GPU, what features do you look for to know it?, would the Corsair V Formula -Z work? from asus, ROG
The problem is not your motherboard since it is a good motherboard for AM3+, it is more the platform and updating will cost you too much, the best you could do is put a monogpu and hold on spending as little as possible, your processor is new and it is not recommended to change it quickly.
I would not change anything just a monogpu graphics and hold on with it, it is not recommended to have SLi or CF, what you will best take advantage of is a monogpu, you could upgrade the CPU and it should not hurt you, the same in the future games come a little more optimized for AMD, since the xbox and ps4 seem to have an AMD in CPU and graphics, but the best is a monogpu, it will be more profitable and you can play well.
regards
-
aver aver, I think there has been a misunderstanding, because I don't have anything, just the box that fits, by eye, an ATX and a half, I thought it had been misunderstood because the 990FX/gen3 is not yet for sale, not even on American Amazon.
I chose AMD because Intel has fewer cores and GHz by default and they are much more expensive -
aver aver, creo que ha avido un mal entendido, por tener no tengo nada, solo la caja que cave, a ojo, una ATX y media, creia que se havia sobre entendido ya que la 990FX/gen3 todavía no esta en venta ni siquiera en el amazon americano.
lo que e cogido amd por que intel tiene menos nucleos y GHz de fabrica y son mucho mas caroshola. aunque yo soy pro AMD a fecha de hoy no compraría amd ( micro placa memos ) mírate un I5 mas una Asrock y tendrás muy buen rendimiento ( y con mejor precio/ rendimiento ) yo estaba pensando en actualizar mi PC y preferiría un AMD pero hasta que no quiten la retro compatibilidad :eoh: sera que no
saludos -
and about that board... I think it's around 150 bucks + the AMD Amd Rd FX 8350 - Processor: Amazon.es: Computers with that, Intel's prices are competitive.
regards -
aver aver, I think there has been a misunderstanding, because I don't have anything, just the case that fits, by eye, an ATX and a half, I thought it had been overestimated since the 990FX/gen3 is not yet for sale not even on the American Amazon.
I chose AMD because Intel has fewer cores and GHz by default and they are much more expensiveToday if you want the computer for games, with powerful graphics SLI or CF it's better Intel, now if you want it for other tasks, AMD can give very good results, the thing about the cores although it's true, they are not really 8 cores native, it's more a kind of 4+HT, it's different from HT but it has a similar effect, the MHZ also don't matter so much, what matters is the performance per clock and the operations per clock cycle.
That's why in the end it doesn't mean much that one goes to 4200 and another to 3800, I speak with turbo, because the one that goes to 3800 has better performance per clock and also I think more operations per cycle although I'm not sure, it's also the platform itself that comes better prepared to take advantage of the graphics, it has the controllers inside the CPU itself and they are faster, that's why in the end it's not just the CPU but the whole platform, AMD with the FX should have released a socket just to maximize a type of new processors, put the Pcie controllers, sata to the CPU and improve the memory controllers, also improve the performance per clock, that's why in the end in games it's at a disadvantage against Intel.
Regards
