Dilemma between these models
-
Well, I've been thinking about it for a few days and getting advice. I'm considering upgrading my Shappire Vapor X 5770 by October if I can save up some money, and I'm interested in these models:- SHAPPIRE VAPOR X 7950 3GB BOOST (€289 + 4 free games)
- SHAPPIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition OC 2GB GDDR5 (€195 + 4 free games)
- SHAPPIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB GDDR5 (€189 + 4 free games)
- GIBABYTE GeForce GTX 660 OC 2GB GDDR5 (€179 + 1 free game)
-
-
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 760 OC 2GB GDDR5 GV-N760OC-2GD Tarjeta Gráfica
Si, pero en que te basas?. Por un poco mas tengo la 7950 con 3 Gb y 384 bit de ancho de bus que me parece a mi que rinde mejor que esta
-
It depends on the game whether it pulls more or not, don't think that the 7950 is far behind but it's okay, get the one you want.
-
The truth is that it is difficult to decide, with so many models and prices…........, I like Nvidia's reliability in terms of drivers better. Years ago I had an Nvidia and the truth is that it never gave me problems of incompatibility with the drivers and the games.
What a mess -
hello, well I prefer this because many of the Shaphire came defective
Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 OC 2GB GDDR5 - top cooling, very quiet
regards
-
Well, I've been thinking about it for a few days and getting advice. I'm planning to upgrade my Shappire Vapor X 5770 by October if I can save some money and I'm interested in these models:
- SHAPPIRE VAPOR X 7950 3GB BOOST (€289 + 4 free games)
- SHAPPIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition OC 2GB GDDR5 (€195 + 4 free games)
- SHAPPIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB GDDR5 (€189 + 4 free games)
- GIBABYTE GeForce GTX 660 OC 2GB GDDR5 (€179 + 1 free game)
The 7950 isn't my first choice because it has a 384-bit bus width, which I've read is brute force, which could be a card that lasts over time in terms of performance with the new generation of games, but of course the price is quite over budget and I'm not sure if it's worth the expense.
I see the Shappire 7870 2gb Oc as a good option, my resolution will be 1920*1080 and my idea is to play at high details, so according to videos I've seen on YouTube, this card seems very stable and powerful for its price. The only thing is that it's 2GB and I'm not sure if for the next generation of games they'll ask for a minimum of 4GB or more and they'll be short, so I'll have to upgrade again.
The other version of the 7870 is without the OC and I'm not sure if it's really worth it, but for €6 I think it is.
Lastly, the GTX 660 OC from Nvidia, very reliable and stable drivers from Nvidia, but it's the one with the narrowest bus width with 192 bits, which I've read is a bit limited when you want to overclock a little or go up to high details with antialiasing.
I'm confused, so I'd like some advice. My idea is the 7850 because I see it as a beast, but my fear is that it might be too short for me and the truth is that although I know that in two years graphics cards will be short, it's a long-term investment that should respond well. As I read from Franziskaner in a post here, the brute force of the graphics is what will really make it last for the next generations.
What do you think?The Bits have nothing to do with whether a chip can be overclocked. What happens to the 660 is that it comes with low voltage and is tight from the factory, meaning it goes up with boost but doesn't go up much more. The 760 also seems to come tight, although I doubt it goes up less than a 660, especially in terms of voltage.
But there were cards with 192 bits that went up a lot, for example the 460 with 192 bits. Then the 3GB or even 4GB for a 760 seems to me like a useless waste. To be able to use that VRAM, you'll need at least a CF or SLI, plus resolutions higher than 1080p. Neither the 760 nor the 7950 have the power to run out of VRAM, the normal thing will be to have to lower options to maintain 60 fps.
Then there are the mods that do consume more memory but also ask for more power, so it's a catch-22. For a CF, it's better to have it than to wish for it, but with one I don't see it as necessary.
Then there's the issue of OC with OC, the 7950 should perform better, without OC as they come, no, they perform in a certain style and depending on the 760 model, but I don't think there will be significant differences. In some games, the 7950 will perform better, in others the 760 will perform better, it depends on the game.
now they say that with the new consoles, VRAM consumption may increase, but I don't know what miracle they think they'll do to spend all the VRAM of a PS4 with less graphics power than a 7870, we're talking about games at 30 fps, and even then, we'll have to wait and see what they do when they come out.
regards
-
Well, what I just read: AnandTech | Some Quick Gaming Numbers at 4K, Max Settings I know the topic here isn't about 4K, but it seems that out of all of them, the 7950 should be the best in terms of value for money. It just extrapolates the data from the graphics cards to what you can spend, and it gives you that for less than what a Titan costs, you can put together an SLI of 7950 that will run more than enough at 4K, so it will also do it at normal resolutions with games. -
hola,pues yo prefiero esta pues las Shaphire muchas vinieron defectuosas
Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 OC 2GB GDDR5 - refrigeracion de primera,muy silenciosa
saludo
He estado mirando bien las ofertas de Pc componentes y he observado que este modelo en concreto que tu comentas tiene 256 bit mientras que cualquier modelo de las GTX 660 en su version normal, Oc, o TI solamente tienen 192 bit y costando estas últimas mas caras.
No sé yo si merece la pena pasarme a Nvidia la verdad. Otra duda es que a mi el ensamblador Shappire me ha ido muy bien pero temo comprar la 7870 Oc 2 Gb y me toque una defectuosa de esas que comentan. La otra opción es la misma pero con el ensamblador de Gibabyte por 18 € mas.
Que opinais?? -
I tell you the truth, the Nvidia of those series, if they are not the Ti, I don't want them
they are decaffeinated versions and on top of that they are very expensive, but everyone has their own tastes
the Gigabyte is better because it has a first-rate heatsink and it is very quiet
I have the 6870 from Gigabyte and it is one of the bestregards
-
I tell you the truth, if the Nvidia of those series are not the Ti, I don't want them
they are decaffeinated versions and on top of that they are very expensive, but everyone has their own tastes
the Gigabyte is better because it has a first-rate heatsink and is very quiet
I have the 6870 from Gigabyte and it is one of the bestregards
Thanks for your opinion. I know there are detractors of both, but what I'm looking for is to invest my euros well for a good season. The price of that Gigabyte is 213 € and they give you 4 games, I think that's not bad
-
Well, what I just read:
AnandTech | Some Quick Gaming Numbers at 4K, Max Settings
I know the topic here is not about 4k, but it seems that of all, the 7950 should be the best in terms of quality-price. It just extrapolates the data of the graphics to what you can spend, and it gives you that for less than what a titan costs you can set up an sli of 7950 that will do more than enough with 4k, so it will also do it at normal resolutions with games.
I don't get much from those comparisons with 4K resolutions and filters at full, since it's unplayable on all of them, if anything Dirt3 could be played the others can't, I like configurations that allow you to play and compare gameplay, because that framebufer of Metro is not very realistic.
I think nvidia had to put the 760 at 200 or 220€ to replace the 660, because by not wanting to cannibalize the 670 it's going to be left in no man's land, but I think when 4K is used by more people there should be much better graphics cards, for me certainly neither 460 nor 560,660 or 760 are graphics cards for those resolutions, they are mid-range graphics cards that are made thinking that most who buy them will have 1080p resolutions, that's where things can change especially when you put in playable configurations.
a 760 nor even a 7950 moves Sleeping dogs at 1080p and extreme filters, at most they can put filters on high and even then they won't maintain constant 60 fps, that's why those comparisons seem anecdotal to me.
regards
-
That's not how it works. I meant that if 3x7950 can handle 4k resolutions, a single one for the price-quality ratio is more than profitable. The 770 is 100€ more expensive, and in performance it seems they are on par, and the 680 is behind, although by very little, but with the same 100€ difference.
Yes, I know that if we get into filters this one or the other will be better at supermultichachisampling, and the other at ultramegasampling.
The comparisons would be anecdotal if they didn't test the same graphics with the same games under equal conditions. They talk about microssutering in the 7950, but at 4k it's noticeable, it's not a graphics card like the Titan.
And we're not saying it's a graphics card for 4 years. We know how it is. -
I see that the topic promises and it seems that we will never get out of the Nvidia-Ati quagmire, as you comment or invest one 500 leureles in a good high-end graphics card or you get a big surprise when your 3-year-old graphics card starts to lag with the next-generation games. Deductively, I think that we will have to get by with mid-range stuff and no more than 200 € downwards and that's if you don't become delicate or demanding with the configurable graphic quality. -
hello boncoe, but ….. you already knew that, right? ;D
brute force costs money, a low-end graphics card is useless (for gaming, not for other things) a mid-range one you can hold on for 2/3 years and always thinking about SLI /Cross and a high-end one you can hold on for 3/5 years and thinking about the same thing as the mid-range ;D
my opinion is that if you can afford it, buy a mid-range one, in 11 months sell it and buy its replacement.
regards -
You're missing the point. What I meant is that if 3x7950 can handle 4k resolutions, a single one for its price-quality ratio is more than profitable. The 770 is 100€ more expensive, and in performance they seem to be on par, and the 680 is behind, although by very little, but with the same 100€ difference.
Yes, I know that if we get into filters this one or the other will be better at supermultichachisampling, and the other at ultramegasampling.
The comparisons would be anecdotal if they didn't test the same graphics with the same games under equal conditions. They talk about microssutering in the 7950, but at 4k it's noticeable, it's not a graphics card like the Titan.
And we're not saying it's a graphics card for 4 years. We know how it is.The 770 performs better than the 7950, maybe at 4K it could run out of Vram using three cards I mean the 2GB one, but in most resolutions the 770 performs better, the 7950 and the 760 are tied in performance, the 7950 has more OC as a general rule, but also higher consumption/noise/temperature.
it would be a matter of seeing the advantages of each. The 7950 the advantages I see are the OC and the games it provides, the 760 is somewhat cheaper, consumes somewhat less and will heat up less and it's likely to be less noisy, although the model will influence it, I don't think this one is a bad price.
EVGA GeForce GTX 760 SC w/ ACX Cooler 2GB GDDR5 02G-P4-2765-KR Graphics Cardalthough if it cost less it would be even better, but there are reviews that give better performance/price to the 760, for example this one, although on that web I saw strange things other times, but at least they test many resolutions and quite a few games, I would choose one over the other depending on the games I like the most, if they run better on one than on the other.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2 GB Review | techPowerUp
That's the reference one, the EVGA should perform somewhat better due to the OC out of the box, but you could still buy a 7950 that has OC.
regards
-
The 770 performs better than the 7950, perhaps at 4K it could run out of Vram using three cards I mean the one with 2Gb, but in most resolutions the 770 performs better, the 7950 and the 760 are equal in performance, the 7950 has more OC as a general rule, but also higher consumption/noise/temperature.
it would be a matter of seeing the advantages of each one the 7950 the advantages I see are the OC and the games it gives, the 760 is somewhat cheaper, consumes somewhat less and will heat up less and it's easy to be less noisy, although the model will influence, I don't see this one as a bad price.
EVGA GeForce GTX 760 SC w/ ACX Cooler 2GB GDDR5 02G-P4-2765-KR Graphics Cardalthough if it cost less it would be even better, but there are reviews that give better performance/price to the 760, for example this one, although on that web I saw strange things other times, but at least they test many resolutions and quite a few games, I would choose one or the other depending on the games I like the most, if they run better on one than on the other.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2 GB Review | techPowerUp
That's the reference one, the EVGA should perform somewhat better because of the OC from the factory, but you can still buy a 7950 that has OC.
regards
It should perform better for being a new model and that on top costs €100 more. At the same price:
Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 OC 3gb gddr5But I tell you this more out of annoyance. You say nvidia, I say ati
-
you are very annoying the truth, every madman with his own topic, I am the one who gives me more for less price
and nothing more to discuss, I prefer AMD because NVIDIA many are refritos and the rest very expensive
and always cheats with their remarcadas, and that nobody dares to tell me the oppositeregards
-
Well this post could be multiplied into 8 pages and we would be passing the buck back and forth. It is true that a mid-range graphics card has a lifespan of a couple of years at most but this does not mean that you cannot stretch it further. It is still a business and in times of crisis it is more difficult to renew, my question is whether it is worth spending more than 250 € for a card that performs well and lasts longer between generations, or if on the contrary investing under 200 € can obtain stable results in gaming with some high details and antialiasing at a resolution of 1920x1080. That is the main thread, anyway thank you all for your participation. -
Well, what I just read:
AnandTech | Some Quick Gaming Numbers at 4K, Max Settings
I know the topic here is not about 4k, but it seems that of all, the 7950 should be the best in terms of quality-price. It just extrapolates the data of the graphics cards to what you can spend, and it gives you that for less than what a titan costs, you can set up an sli of 7950 that will be more than enough for 4k, so it will also do it at normal resolutions with games.
But how can you say that a CROSS of 7950 (2) is "more than enough" for 4K, if in the link you provided, a CROSS of 7950 (3) appears that in two of the three games tested, gives performance of 30-40 fps (that is, unplayable or little playable?
Besides, that 4K situation is absolutely unrealistic for comparing even future performance, because it is forcing an exacerbated consumption of VRAM and bandwidth by using for such a resolution methods of MSAA (consumes RAM) and SSAA (consumes more RAM) as is the case with Sleeping Dogs. It is a brutal way to consume and waste, in fact, bandwidth and VRAM.
It is an artificial situation because in addition to taking to the limit in a very specific point the performance and consumption of VRAM, besides being a theoretical performance that is not very useful, because despite everything the results are of such low performance that it is unplayable anyway.
Seriously, people let yourselves be eaten by the head by fine marketing. The issue of 4K is absurd to a great degree, when in fact we have had a stagnation or involution in desktop monitors when moving from 4:3 formats to 16:10 and finally to 16:9.
I used monitors with a resolution of 1600x1200 for over a decade, which is not far from what is currently standardized and ubiquitous fullHD. A high-end monitor actually used higher resolutions. But games were usually played at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. The evolution in resolutions has always been relatively slow, at the end of the 90s people talked and measured performance in 1600x1200, but as a resolution and maximum quality point, with the actual resolutions used being lower.
It is like measuring performance today at 2560x1600 (which is little more than double the "archaic" 4:3 resolution of 1600x1200), it is a great resolution and "possible" today, but little used in reality due to the enormous cost of monitors (€600 or more, a little less if you are satisfied with 1440p).
4K monitors are not just around the corner, no, they are so far from being viable as options for gaming, that maybe we have to wait for the change of decade. We would be talking about almost 8 MPx of resolution compared to the current 2 MPx used in 1080p. The current graphics cards, even with multigpu, are not designed to really move modern games (not the future ones that will be even heavier) at that resolution. In fact, that graphics card shows it, with the Titans in 3-SLI going down and sometimes well below the desirable 60 fps. No one who buys such a large amount of graphic hardware will want it to play poorly at 40 fps. They will rather stay at more reasonable resolutions like 1600p.
4K is pure marketing to sell TVs at a gold price, nothing more and nothing less.
