Dilemma between these models

[ferelxyx]

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 best

regards

[boncoe]

@ferelxyx:

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 best

regards

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

[fjavi]

@garfield:

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

[garfield]

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.

[boncoe]

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.

[Franziskaner]

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

[fjavi]

@garfield:

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 Card

although 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

[garfield]

@fjavi:

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 Card

although 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 gddr5

But I tell you this more out of annoyance. You say nvidia, I say ati

[ferelxyx]

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 opposite

regards

[boncoe]

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.

[wwwendigo]

@garfield:

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.

[duolaiba]

¡Esta publicación está eliminada!

[boncoe]

¡Esta publicación está eliminada!

[Sylver]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

Chicos chicos tranquilidad, que como siempre digo, quien prueba bendice y es verdaderamente capaz de contradecir o no a las reviews.

[OFFTOPIC]
@boncoe, "eso" que has citado no es nuevo… Son spammers chinos o similares que se registran aleatoriamente "sin levantar sospechas" pero en cuanto publican tardan solo unas horas en ser baneados. Son un clásico, la mayoría de las noches a las tantas aparece alguno y deja unos pocos mensajes, y por la mañana no queda ni rastro de ellos ni de sus mensajes porque ya los he reportado yo todos :ugly:
[/OFFTOPIC]

Saludos y haya calma hamijos

[Franziskaner]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

boncoe mírate esto es una 660
entre la 660 y la 760 yo casi que prefiero la 660 es mas barata y la 760 tampoco es que rinda mucho mas ( rinde mas, eso es evidente ) una opcion interesante seria un SLI 660 ( puedes comprarte una nueva y la otra de segunda mano y te queda una cosa bien de precio y bastante apañada )
saludos

[boncoe]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@Sylver:

Chicos chicos tranquilidad, que como siempre digo, quien prueba bendice y es verdaderamente capaz de contradecir o no a las reviews.

[OFFTOPIC]
@boncoe, "eso" que has citado no es nuevo… Son spammers chinos o similares que se registran aleatoriamente "sin levantar sospechas" pero en cuanto publican tardan solo unas horas en ser baneados. Son un clásico, la mayoría de las noches a las tantas aparece alguno y deja unos pocos mensajes, y por la mañana no queda ni rastro de ellos ni de sus mensajes porque ya los he reportado yo todos :ugly:
[/OFFTOPIC]

Saludos y haya calma hamijos

Pues la verdad es que no lo sabia, es la primera vez que veo esto y mira que estoy registrado desde el 2007, no consultando continuamente pero si cuando me toca renovar y pedir opiniones y consejos como es el caso.
Franziskaner tu idea de montar dos 660 en SLI es muy buena, el unico problema es que en mi placa que es una ASROCK p67 PRO 3 solamente le puedo instalar una y claro me gustaria algo que sea de lo mas reciente y rinda bien y eso encaja con la 760 en el caso de nvidia claro porque tambien esta la 7870 de Ati que comenta Ferelyx que es tambien muy buena opcion.
Como curiosidad comentaros que en la pagina de Pc Componentes entré anoche y me di cuenta de que la 760 GTX estaban todas agotadas en las distintas marcas de ensambladores, curioso no?

[fjavi]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@ferelxyx:

sois muy cansinos la verdad ,cada loco con su tema, yo soy del que me da mas por menos precio
y nada mas que discutir , prefiero las AMD por que NVIDIA muchas son refritos y el resto muy caras
y siempre engaña con sus remarcadas, y que a nadie se le ocurra decirme lo contrario

un saludo

Yo la verdad que no quiero un vs AMD Nvidia por que en el fondo me da igual, pero esta generación han engañado por igual, saco AMD la 7970 a 560€, tres meses después Nvidia saca la 680 que en realidad debio ser una 660Ti y claro a precio de gama alta, AMD mete una bios a la 7970 y se inventa la GHz, eso no fue ni refrito era la misma tarjeta con bios cambiada.

Aquí apesta a pactos, ni uno es bueno ni el otro malo son dos empresas que van a ganar lo máximo posible y tratan de no pisarse, por que desde luego la Titan debía haber sido una 680 o 780 y la 780 debio ser una 670 o 770, pero si las saca a precio de esas gamas destroza a AMD, por eso yo estoy convencido de que las dos pactan, y por supuesto los dos engañan.

para mi no hay multinacional buena, son todas malísimas solo les importa el dinero.

saludos

[garfield]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

No era un AMD vs Nvidia. Era un consejo de gráfica por los 300€ que puso en compañero. Si se tomó por ese lado estan equivocados.
wwwendigo, me equivoqué, no es un crossfire, sino un tricrossfire si prefieres que especifique. Creo que está claro si miras la gráfica que son 3x7950. No voy a si es jugable, si esta hace dientes de sierra, y me quoteo:
@garfield:

No van por ahí los tiros. Me refería a que si 3x7950 pueden con resoluciones de 4k, una sola por lo que cuesta en relación calidad-precio es más que rentable. La 770 se va 100€ más cara, y en rendimiento parece que van a la par, y la 680 está por detrás, auqnue por muy poco, pero con los mismos 100€ de diferencia.
Si, se que si nos metemos con filtros esta u otra será mejor en supermultichachisampling, y la otra en el ultramegasampling.
Las comparativas serían anecdóticas si no probasen las mismas gráficas con los mismos juegos en igualdad de condiciones. Hablan de microssutering en la 7950, pero a 4k por narices se nota, no es una gráfica como la titan.
Y tampoco estamos diciendo que sea una gráfica para 4 años. Sabemos como es el tema.

No sean más papistas que el Papa, que ya nos conocemos todos.

[boncoe]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

Sabeis si ya esta a la venta la 760 TI GTX?, he leido que esta a la altura de la 7850 de Ati pero con mejores temperaturas y consumo.

[gamingpy]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@boncoe:

Sabeis si ya esta a la venta la 760 TI GTX?, he leido que esta a la altura de la 7850 de Ati pero con mejores temperaturas y consumo.

Que yo este informado solo se ha lanzado la gtx 760 y no la TI a un. Saludos

Fuente