[Tip] Graphics Card for Project CARS

[darko]

Hello colleagues, I turn to your wisdom!!!
A workmate is asking for advice to buy a graphics card, he has a pc with an I5, he is passionate about car games, his latest acquisition has been the game "project cars", and he wants a graphics card that can handle the game with ease... his budget is between 150 and 200 euros.

Which graphics card do you recommend?

What do you think of these? **Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti Strix 0C 4 GB GDDR5 or Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 WindForce 0C 2GB DDR5"
**
Thanks and regards!!!

[Fassou]

At least a GTX750Ti or an AMD R7 370, and if you're stretching your budget you have the AMD R9 380.

Another possibility is to look for clearance sales of the AMD 200 series, such as the R9 280, or 270X but always comparing prices with the new versions.

Salu2!

[fjavi]

@darko:

Hello colleagues, I turn to your wisdom!!!
A workmate is asking for advice on buying a graphics card, he has a pc with an I5, he is passionate about car games, his latest acquisition has been the game "project cars", and he wants a graphics card that will run the game smoothly…his budget is between 150 and 200 euros.

Which graphics card do you recommend?

What do you think of these? **Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti Strix 0C 4 GB GDDR5 or Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 WindForce 0C 2GB DDR5"
**
Thanks and regards!!!

Well that 750Ti 4gb is not worth anything, because it doesn't have the power for so much memory, the 960 is much better, even though it's a bit tight with 2Gb it's a better and more powerful card.
The power is much better in this case, I can't talk about project car as I still haven't tried it, but I think a 960 will run it much better.
You can also look at other cards now that maybe you can find some offers like the 280 or 280x if you see them at a good price, but make sure you have a better power supply.
But that 750Ti 4GB is not worth it, if anything a 2Gb one and I also think they are too expensive, they shouldn't take long to release the 950Ti.

regards

[darko]

Thanks to both of you for your advice!!!
Following Fassou's suggestion I've seen this on pc components:
**[

How do you see it](http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_380_dual_x_oc_2gb_gddr5.html)**

[Fassou]

The problem is that with that budget, the graphics cards with some power only have 2GB, and it's today's bread and tomorrow's hunger :mute:

Let him save a little more, and in the meantime, let him look for a 3GB 280X that they are liquidating at a good price, or wait for the 4GB R9 380 to drop a bit.

Regards!

PD: XFX R9 380 Dual Fan 4GB GDDR5 for 239€ + Shipping

[darko]

Thanks Fassou, for your advice.
Looking at your advice, how about this http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_380_nitro_dual_x_oc_4gb_gddr5.html
Sorry to be a burden, it's to tell him something with certainty tomorrow, and let him decide!!!

Thanks!!!

[fjavi]

@darko:

Thanks to both of you for your advice!!!
Following Fassou's suggestion I've looked at this one at pc components:
**[

How do you see it?

Well right now I see the 380 as expensive, before that I prefer this one which has 3GB, if the 380 is GCN 1.2, but the 2GB seems to me just as limited as the 960, before the 380 I see the 960 better, it's cool consumes little and they give away batman, there are also some cheaper ones like this.
http://www.pccomponentes.com/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_windforce_oc_2gb_ddr5.html

I certainly prefer this one over the 380, it's cheaper they give a game and above all it has 3GB, the 380 is a renamed 285 and if it were the 4Gb one then even so but with 2Gb I see the same drawback as with the 960, but the 960 has the advantage of being cheaper and giving away a good game, plus it needs less power supply.
http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_280_dual_x_oc_3gb_gddr5.html

If you wait a few days you will possibly see offers of 280X at the price of that 380 or less.

regards](http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_380_dual_x_oc_2gb_gddr5.html)**

[Fassou]

Well, for being heavy (just kidding) I'll tell you, I like the XFX better, although the ones from PCC sell a lot of Sapphire, so if it breaks you won't be short of replacements.

Come on, a R9 380 4GB for just over 200€ is not a bad option. Choose the one you like best. And if you put up some benchmarks when you have it, even better :sisi:

Cheers!

P.D.: as fjavi says, a 280 3Gb on sale (let's say 170€) is also a great option, and the new graphics cards will have to come down a bit when the novelty wears off.

[darko]

Well I will mention these two to you:
Fijavi:
"sapphire_r9_280_dual_x_oc_3gb_gddr5"
Fassou:
" XFX R9 380 Dual Fan 4GB GDDR5"

Thank you very much for your help, you are "machines"!!!

[wwwendigo]

@darko:

Hello fellow users, I'm asking for your wisdom!!!
A coworker of mine is asking for advice on buying a graphics card. He has a PC with an I5, he's passionate about car games, his latest purchase was the game "project cars", and he wants a graphics card that can run the game smoothly…his budget is between 150 and 200 euros.

What graphics card do you recommend?

What do you think of these? **Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti Strix 0C 4 GB GDDR5 or Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 WindForce 0C 2GB DDR5"
**
Thanks and regards!!!

I don't even understand why the fellow users are recommending AMD graphics cards for a graphics card for Project Cars as the title of the thread says:

Nvidia options run noticeably better with this game, not to mention that in any case, a GTX 960 is an option generally equivalent to a 380, only slightly slower (but with better out-of-the-box overclocking, too). Also at the same price or even a bit lower.

If you want more VRAM, there are GTX 960 4 GB for prices starting at around 230€, which is equivalent to getting a 380 also with 4 GB, or cheaper than going for a 280X with 3 GB.

I think that when talking about a specific game, it's the performance in this game that should be the priority when suggesting alternatives, not other stories that may be mentioned but have little to do with the bulk of the main question.

[fjavi]

I said that I haven't tried that game and that's why I make a general recommendation, what I do find strange is that a 960 performs better than a 780 in that game, something doesn't add up.

Anyway, now I remember that there were complaints that Nvidia had sabotaged AMD in that game, which the developers later denied.

But if it's true that a 960 performs better than a 780, I think even the Nvidias are performing badly, especially the older ones, this is getting more and more disgusting every day, if a 960 beats me in any game, it's time to hit my head with the 780 at Nvidia for having no shame.

Well, this one also complains about the 290X,

greetings

[Fassou]

The performance of the GTX960 and GTX760 cards in these benchmarks is very suspicious, but after reading a bit, it seems that there really is a problem with that game, which works quite badly in general, despite having quite affordable recommended requirements, and which are especially serious with AMD graphics ¬¬ Leaving aside the accusations of a possible manipulation of the game to produce this effect, in favor of the graphics cards of one of the game's sponsors (nVIDIA), the fact is that for this particular software, it could be the case that lower-end NVIDIA cards give fewer fluency problems than some mid-to-high-end AMD cards. So tell your friend about it. And if the PC is only for that game, let him buy it on console. Salu2!

[wwwendigo]

@Fassou:

The performance of the GTX960 and GTX760 cards in these benchmarks is very suspicious, but after reading a bit, it seems that there really is a problem with that game, which runs quite badly in general, despite having quite affordable recommended requirements, and which is especially serious with AMD graphics ¬¬

Leaving aside the accusations of possible manipulation of the game to produce this effect, in favor of the graphics cards of one of the game's sponsors (nVIDIA), the fact is that for this particular software, it could be the case that lower-end NVIDIA cards give fewer fluency problems than some mid-to-high-end AMD cards.

So tell your friend that. And if the PC is only for that game, tell him to buy it on console.

Regards!

Paint it as you want, but it runs better and very clearly on nVIDIAs and on the 960 in particular. In addition to the fact that the 960 is a very worthy alternative to the 280 or the 380, outside of this game. I don't know what problem you see with mounting this graphics card:

Directly a little above the 285, the 280 is below this one and the 380 is just a 285 with a bit of OC. So it's the same thing, because it even has similar prices and an affordable 4 GB version.

In fact, the "solution" of buying it on consoles to enjoy it clearly worse than on PC (because it doesn't look the same at all), doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't it run on his PC with the indicated NVIDIA, if it gives him better performance and better graphics than on console?:

I don't understand that when you ask for a game for PC and update it properly for it, you recommend first graphics cards from a brand that don't run well with it, and then when you see that NVIDIA runs better... you recommend buying it for console, why? Did it used to be worth recommending AMD but now not NVIDIA, that it's better to switch to console, how does that work?

It's not like the 960 was a piece of junk outside of this game. It performs very decently, as seen in the image I posted. And I've mounted this one on some equipment and it ran great for 1080p with very few adjustments down.

It's a great graphics card.

[Fassou]

From what I can read, people in general are pretty pissed off with Project CARS, because it's the typical game now, full of bugs, that they've released unfinished, and they're already asking for money to fund its sequel, before fixing the bugs.

If you look at any site, on STEAM for example, you can read that many complain that the graphics don't correspond to what they promised, and added to the problems to be able to play it smoothly, it's a no-brainer.

Regarding recommending it on console, it's because seeing that on PC, it can be a source of frustration, and as most people tolerate console graphics, and seem to accept the ease and simplicity of this system compared to PC, it's probably more interesting for them if they're a single-game player, to opt for that option.

Of course, the person interested is just a friend of darko, whom we don't even know, so these are just speculations, and the idea is that he has the information, and it's up to him to make the decision, because it's his money.

Personally, yes, the GTX960 seems like a bad graphics card to me, for its price-performance ratio. And the nVIDIA range, for a long time now, seems incomplete to me, with too much gap, between the mid-range and mid-high range, although the GTX750 may have partially solved the problem. So when they release an improved version of this (maxwell), I'll be delighted to recommend it to everyone, as I did with the GTX970, until the 3.5GB mess started, and they didn't lower the price.

Salu2!

[wwwendigo]

@Fassou:

According to what I can read, people in general are pretty pissed off with Project CARS, because it's the typical game now, full of bugs, that they've released unfinished, and they're already asking for money to fund its sequel, before fixing the bugs.

If you look at any site, on STEAM for example, you can read that many complain that the graphics don't correspond to what they promised, and added to the problems to be able to play it smoothly, it's a no-go.

Regarding recommending it on console, it's because seeing that on PC, it can be a source of frustration, and as most people tolerate console graphics, and seem to accept the ease and simplicity of this system compared to PC, so surely it would be more interesting for them if they were a single-game player, to opt for that option.

Of course, the person interested is a friend of darko, whom we don't even know, so these are just speculations, and the idea is that he has the information, and it's up to him to make the decision, because it's his money.

Personally, yes, the GTX960 seems like a bad graphics card to me, because of its price-performance ratio. And the NVIDIA range, for a long time, I think it's incomplete, with too much gap, between the mid-range and mid-high range, although the GTX750 may have partially solved the problem. So when they release an improved premium of this (maxwell), I'll be delighted to recommend it to everyone, as I did with the GTX970, until the mess of the 3.5GB began, and they didn't lower the price.

Salu2!

Well Fassou, there you have the video showing how it looks on PC, if it's not the "expected", it's much better than on consoles. And most importantly, it runs smoothly on maxwell. How come you used to recommend a graphics card when this was AMD, but now that it's been proven that it runs better on NVIDIA, you change the discourse against the PC version?

Regarding the GTX 960, I don't understand how you can say it's a "bad graphics card" when its performance/price ratio is EQUAL to the R9 380, or similar to an R9 280 (if you find it today, and depending on what price, hence the similar). And in fact better than that of the R7 370, aka R7 265 OC edition, aka 7850 hypervitaminated, that they sell you at prices as "nice" as this:

XFX R7 370 Single Fan 2GB GDDR5 Graphics Card

The lowest from pcomp, 165€, but many over 200€, a nonsense. With a clearly inferior performance, at most 30€ less in price. WTF? Below that price they sold the 7870 GHz edition more than 2 years ago, anyway.

Is that a better performance/price ratio?

Seriously I don't understand why you criticize the 960 for its price/performance, and you can even recommend an R7 265 at an inflated price or an 285 that offers the same performance and price as the 960.

I don't know what brings up the topic of the 970 (remember that this card is, beyond the memory issue, responsible for the price drop in the mid-high range in both manufacturers, before its launch, there were no 290 for less than 300, the 290x went for over 400, same with the 780, etc). And yes, there's a gap between the 960 and 970 very large, but that doesn't affect at all the valuation as a product of the 960.

PD: By the way, both mentioned from NVIDIA, the 960 and the 970, both have fantastic OCs and easy to get, so another point in favor of more than not recommending them, recommending them. I've tested both extensively, and they run fine... and their price/performance is one of the best on the market. If they're not cheaper, maybe it's because the rival has decided to drown in its reduced market share at the expense of not lowering prices even a bit, in fact RAISING THEM, which is what has happened with the entire 300 series.

And this is an "undeniable" fact. If we're going to criticize.

[Fassou]

@wwwendigo:

Man Fassou, there you have the video showing how it looks on PC, if it's not the "expected", it's much better than on consoles. And most importantly, it runs smoothly on maxwell. How is it that before you recommended a graphics card when it was AMD, but now that it has been proven that it runs better on nvidia you change the discourse against the PC version?

If your arguments are based on saying that I have said things that I haven't said, then surely in your head you win all the discussions :facepalm:

1º At no time have I stopped recommending the graphics cards that I recommended from the beginning, that is, an R9 380 4GB or a R9 280 3GB or R7 270X.

2º Yes, I advise against the GTX960 in general, because of its price-performance ratio, and it's my opinion. If there is someone else who recommends it, as may be your case, go ahead, do it.

3º That the game is not as it should be is not my fault, it's what those who have tried it and played it say, and it's done by those who have nVIDIA, as well as AMD.

4º The day I stop saying that the console graphics are very bad, and that they remind me of the bad games of the year 2000 (of course on PC), like Microsoft's Midtown Madness, you notify me. Another thing is that for pad games, the simplicity of the console, in terms of multiplayer and forgetting about configuration issues and such, may make me advise someone who doesn't want to spend money on a PC to play. In this case, the problem is more in the game.

Regarding the issue of releasing generations of highlighted graphics, obviously, AMD has nothing to do against the extensive experience of nVIDIA doing it

It's not the issue, but the GTX970 can be talked about a lot, even to assess if they really sold a graphics card with a serial defect on purpose, although we will find out about that when the class action lawsuit is held, but in the USA, unlike here, at least you could return the product or get a discount voucher as compensation. And it doesn't seem that this inferior product is being sold at a lower price, ignoring the €uro / USD changes.

That high-end products that are somewhat outdated, lower in price, is usually not surprising. That AMD campaigned by lowering the price of the 290 to attract those who returned their GTX970, there is no doubt. They put ads encouraging that possibility.

Cheers!

PD: I get flak from both companies, but one sells somewhat inferior products at a better price, and the other sells expensive, boasting quality, but when the quality is not real, then they get hit. Just as we criticize both for their bad drivers, highlighted graphics, defective chip batches, excessive consumption, etc...

[wwwendigo]

@Fassou:

Si tus argumentos, se basan en decir que he dicho cosas, que no he dicho, pues seguro que en tu cabeza ganas todas las discusiones :facepalm:

**1º En ningún momento he dejado de recomendarle las gráficas que le recomendaba desde un principio, es decir, una R9 380 4GB o un saldo de R9 280 3GB o R7 270X.

2º Sí, le desaconsejo la GTX960 en general, por su relación precio-rendimiento, y es mi opinión. Si hay otro que se la recomiende, como puede ser tu caso, adelante, hazlo.
**
3º Que el juego no esté como debería, no es cosa mía, es lo que dicen los que han pasado por caja y lo han jugado, y lo hacen tanto los que llevan nVIDIA, como AMD.

4º El día que deje de decir que los gráficos de las consolas son muy malos, y que me recuerdan a los juegos malos del año 2000 (por supuesto en PC), como el Midtown Madness de Microsoft, me avisas. Otra cosa es que para los juegos de pad, la sencillez de la consola, de cara al multi y olvidarse de temas de configuración y demás, pueda hacerme aconsejar a alguien que no gaste dinero en un PC para jugar. En este caso, el problema está más bien en el juego.

Sobre el tema de sacar generaciones de gráficas remarcadas, evidentemente, AMD no tiene nada que hacer frente a la amplia experiencia de nVIDIA haciéndolo

No es el tema, pero de la GTX970 se puede hablar mucho, incluso valorar si realmente vendían a propósito una gráfica con un defecto de serie, aunque de eso ya nos enteraremos cuando se celebre el juicio de la demanda colectiva, pero en USA, al contrario que aquí, al menos podías devolver el producto o conseguir un vale de descuento como compensación. Y no parece que ese producto inferior, lo estén vendiendo a un precio inferior, obviando los cambios €uro / USD.

Que los productos de gama alta algo anticuados, bajen de precio, no suele ser sorprendente. Que AMD hizo campaña bajando el precio de la 290 para atraer a los que devolvían sus GTX970, no te quepa duda. Puso anuncios fomentando esa posibilidad.

Salu2!

PD: me la pelan las dos empresas, pero una vende productos algo inferiores a mejor precio, y la otra vende caro, presumiendo de calidad, pero cuando la calidad no es real, pues palos. Igual que criticamos a las dos, por sus malos drivers, remarcados de gráficas, lotes defectuosos de chips, consumo excesivo, etc …

Yo lo que no voy a hacer es discutir absurdos, no se puede negar la realidad objetiva de esta manera. La 380 y la 960 tienen un rendimiento CALCADO al milimetro en su media, el precio también es CALCADO, obtienes incluso más barata una GTX 960 que una 380. Así que no niegues la mayor, sí estás defendiendo sin sentido una opción por encima de otra sólo por gustos que nada tienen que ver con relación rendimiento precio.

Rendimiento:

Una review, con un resultado de 4-4 entre GTX 960-380:

HIS IceQ X² OC Radeon R9 390X, R9 390 & R9 380 Review > Benchmarks: Crysis 3, Battlefield Hardline - TechSpot

La R9 285 justo por debajo de la 960 de media, la R9 380 justo por encima como la buena gráfica con OC que es, me da igual si te quieres agarrar a esa mínima diferencia, tardas cero coma en encontrar GTX 960 con OC de fábrica y además margen extra. De hecho muy pocas GTX 960 van con frecuencias de referencia. La misma que yo probé, la Gigabyte ITX se ponía a 1350 MHz de serie, y hacía OCs de 1550 MHz sin tocar voltajes. Algo que ni en sueños en una 285 o una 380 que van apretadas a saco, ya tienes suerte si consigues +100 MHz a la mayoría.

Precios, la más barata de versiones de 4 GB en tres tiendas muy conocidas:

Coolmod:

Gigabyte GTX 960 OC Windforce 2X 4GB GDDR5 - Tarjeta Gráfica (Regalo Batman Arkham Knight)

244€ la GTX 960.

MSI AMD R9 380 Gaming 4GB GDDR5 - Tarjeta Gráfica

263€ la 380.

Xtremmedia:

http://xtremmedia.com/Gigabyte_GeForce_GTX_960_WindForce_OC_4GB_GDDR5.html

http://xtremmedia.com/XFX_Radeon_R9_380_4GB_GDDR5_Double_Dissipation.html

237 euros cada una.

PCComponentes:

Sapphire R9 380 Nitro Dual-X OC 4GB GDDR5 Tarjeta Gráfica

239€.

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 OC 4GB DDR5 Tarjeta Gráfica

254€.

Mismos precios.

Ergo si rendimiento y precio son similares, con las versiones de 4GB, ¿cómo se defiende a la 380 pero de denosta a la 960? No tiene ningún argumento sólido y menos por lo que se pregunta.

Lo que no puedes hacer es decir que tú defiendes unas gráficas por su "relación rendimiento/precio" y denostas a otra que es un calco en sector tanto de precio como de rendimiento. Con el tremendo agravante de que va mucho mejor en este juego concreto sobre el que se pregunta justo la GTX 960. Una cosa es "opinión", y otra faltar a la realidad. Ambas gráficas son enormemente parecidas, decir que una es buena y que la otra no lo es por "rendimiento/precio" atenta a la verdad.

No estás precisamente siendo ni moderado ni imparcial, ni siquiera te estás atendiendo a la pregunta del hilo en tus preguntas. Y no estás informando verazmente al usuario que hace la pregunta, por error o lo que prefieras.

En serio, un poco de respeto por la pregunta y la verdad. Si no se quiere recomendar algo porque no te gusta una marca (algo que has demostrado efusivamente con tus críticas generales a nvidia e inconexas con la pregunta), para eso mejor no decir nada. Que eres moderador. Yo cuando pregunto algo, que no suele ser el caso pero puede pasar, quiero que me contesten con sinceridad.

Me he hartado de recomendar gráficas AMD cuando el presupuesto, juego que correr, etc, iban a su favor. Aunque personalmente no me guste esta marca por sus múltiples fallos (y si quieres hacemos un listado de los "y tú más" que tiene cada marca, no te creas que AMD no tiene trapos bien sucios).

Pero mis gustos o preferencias, nada tienen que ver con los de la gente que pregunta algo concreto, y a eso hay que atenerse.

[wwwendigo]

"You are not being moderate or impartial, nor are you even sticking to the thread's question in your questions."

That's what I meant:

"You are not being moderate or impartial, nor are you even sticking to the thread's question in your answers."

An error crept in. Seriously Fassou, your criticism of the GTX 960 is not logical, especially in this specific case. Telling someone to buy the console version when they want to upgrade their PC to play it... damn. XD

[Fassou]

You mean, that for you the two graphs are copied, but that if I recommend the opposite of what you say, then I'm wrong.

Well, perfect. :facepalm:

Goodbye!

PD: By the way, for your information, the original title of the post was "recommendation", but I changed it before publishing the first response, seeing that it focused on that game.

[whoololon]

When one takes a thread and deviates it to try to impose criteria, one sincerely runs the risk of losing credibility.
Otherwise, the only contribution is the bad vibe it exudes. :nono: