Good specs for the game?

I have ordered new parts for a desktop and i was wondering how do you think that it will work?
1. CPU- I5 4670K
2. MOBO-MSI Z97-g45 gaming board
3. 8gb of HyperX ram
4. GPU- What do you think the best GPU would be directly for beamng and money to performance.
I havent bought a GPU yet I want to know what you guys think would be the best. Max price for GPU would $250. ?

 

That's all good. For a GPU go for one of these.
The first one is good all around, the second is the fastest on the list but it's massive and uses a lot of power (cooler is good though) and the last one is the fastest 770 on the market.

 

My vote's with the R9 290. 2GB is not enough VRAM any more, and will not be getting maximum settings on new releases. Seeing as the 4GB variant 770s are mostly more expensive than the 4GB 970 there is absolutely no reason to purchase them other than availability.

 

Buy a 4690K instead, better cooling and a bit higher performance.
And don't buy an MSI board. Everything I've heard and seen abut them is not good. Many people couldn't boot with a PCI GPU. I'd say go for an ASUS Z97-A, great quality, nice features and at a good price. If you have a bit more to spend then maybe a Z97-PRO is worth it. But just stick to ASUS for the brand, whatever it is you buy.

As for the GPU, I'd say wait for a 970. If you want it right now, get a 280x/290. Really, anything better than a 280/760 will run almost every modern game at 60+ FPS on 1080p. Heck, my 270 is over 60 with every game I've tried so far.

@pulley
Bullshit. More VRAM doesn't mean more performance, it just means you can have more, bigger monitors without any impact on performance. 2GB is enough for a single or dual 1080p displays. If you want to go 3-display or 4k, however, then you will need a 4GB GPU.

 

Vram does not equal performance other then with extremely high resolutions or lots of monitors (and not everyone has a high res screen, some people are still stuck on 1280x1024 resolution screen, so 4GB is even more overkill for that)

Sent from the 3rd galaxy via the talks of tapping

 

Still, the 290 is worth it. Also, don't go ASUS IMO. I'd go gigabyte or ASROCK. However, MSI is perfectly fine. My z87-g41 works fine.

 

You can't upgrade gpu memory, so always go with more gpu memory then actually needed. You can easily max out 2GB today with either Skyrim or Battlefield 4. With the "Next" Gen consoles RAM consumption will increase even more. Either go with a GTX 970 4GB or some AMD 280X and higher with 3GB.

 

Those "Next Gen" consoles that have a whopping 0 bytes of dedicated VRAM.

I still dont max out my 1gb of VRAM on Skyrim, but its at 1366 * 768 and I dont have the Ultra HD texture mod thingy.

 

Typical "in my usecase" behaviour, 6677.

Of course the console don't have dedicated VRAM, they have shared RAM. In total 8GB. That means in the worst case scenario the GPU can adress the whole 8GB. Now please don't be nitpicky about that okay? I know that will never be the case.

However from the past we should learn, and so we shall learn: When the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out the hardware requirements for PC games jumped because of all the crappy console ports being released. Soon everyone had to upgrade their 128MB and 256MB graphics cards to those fancy GTX 8800 with 320/512 MB.

What does that tell us about today? Look at the two recent incarnations of Call of Duty, both requiring 6 GB of RAM. Look at Watch Dogs, requiring 8GB of RAM. Look at the upcoming Assassins Creed Unity requiring a GTX 680 or 7970! Are you that blind?

Cheap console ports are coming, requiring lots of RAM (compared to todays standards) because they most certainly won't be optimized for PC! With that in mind no one should recommend 2GB GPUs anymore (assuming you don't switch out your GPU every 5 months)! They are outdated!

inb4 Skyrim Release 2011 kek
inb4 next full quote

 

not on xbox one, the OS keeps 3GB of ram dedicated for itself, so the gpu only gets 5GB MAX

 

lol what

 

Gigabyte boards are good, a friend had to RMA one once though. I've also built PCs with them and ASUS boards feel more solid. The failure rate for MSI boards, specially the budget-oriented ones, is ridiculously high. Lots of customer reviews saying it wouldn't boot at all with a PCI video card. As for Asrock, I don't trust them. They have decent features at a low price, but I wouldn't use them for anything other than a budget PC.

I've used ASUS boards in all of my PCs and never had a single issue with them. The BIOS in the Z97 is great, and their "AI suite" utility is pretty nice too, for fan control and other stuff.