General computer talk/advice

i paid 300 for my 290x a few months ago and i love it. well worth the money. here is to hoping they make progress on the optimization front.

 

Yeah, that kind of sucks.

Do that, could help a lot. Good idea.

I don't know what you meanexactly, or how you predicted it, but it seems to work.

 

imo should be top priority, the game looks a decade old and runs egregiously. I'd really prefer better graphics and better performance compared to a new car or some new features.

 

I made some charts showing GPU price/performance.

Data is from Anandtech Bench GPU 2015. All benchmarks used are 1080p highest settings. These are the games used:
Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Grand Theft Auto V, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor
No synthetic benchmarks were used since I wanted this to be based entirely on real-world data.
A few cards I would've liked to include are missing from the benchmark: 750 Ti, R7 260X, low end non-gaming cards.

Prices are in US dollars, lowest price from PCPartPicker.

GPUs placed in a grid by price (X axis) and average FPS (Y axis):


Performance per dollar, sorted from best to worst:


It's mostly what you'd expect - The R7 370 has the best raw FPS/$, but its average FPS is low, so it's not an ideal card. The R9 380 and GTX 960 are very close in the "value sweet spot", with the higher end GTX 970 and R9 390 just slightly lower. In both cases, the competing cards are extremely close in both price and performance. After that, FPS/$ drops quickly, and the difference between competing cards of the same 'tier' is much more significant - just look at the gap between 980 and 390X, or 980Ti and Fury X.

 

Yeah, just as I thought. Choosing between the R9 380(X), GTX 960, R9 390 and GTX 970 is a real task. I think we could need something like a GTX 960Ti of sorts to fit in between the two classes, although I think it wouldn't have more power for a similar price as I would hope it to have, but would more probably cost more and have a performance very similar to the 960.

 

There's a pretty large gap between 960/380 and 970/390, in both performance and price. Performance over price is just very similar.
I'd recommend the 380X (slightly more expensive, better than a 960), and the 970 (the 390 has twice the VRAM, but also twice the TDP).

 

Yeah, wanted to get a 960 at first, then saw the 380X which cost the exact same and had way more power. And then I learned about the fact that BeamNG is very heavy on the GPU either, so I then changed my mind to the 970. A great card, I have to say.
You have to admit though, there's just this huge gap between the both, I don't even know why it is there. We definitely would need something in between.

 

Not necessary. The 960/380 are meant for general gaming, capable of running most games in mid to high settings. The 970/390 are high-end cards, meant to max out pretty much anything in 1080p60. Then you have the top-tier cards built for 1440p/4K/144Hz gaming, also useful if you want a very future-proof 1080p rig.

 

Well, windows 7 does in fact run on my pentium iii w/ 512mb of ram. The gpu is so bad though that it cant display all needed colors(intel 815 or something like that)

 

Off topic, I just noticed the 1px white border on the top/right of my first graph. My snipping skills are bad D:

 

so your saying i was a fool for getting a 290x over a 390. nice graphs but that white pixel line at the top is embarrassing.

 

I fixed it for the version posted in my computer building guide :/
Also yes, at current prices there's absolutely no reason to buy a 290X. Not only is price/performance worse, it has half the VRAM and a higher TDP. However depending on how much you paid for your 290X it might have been a good deal. If it was more than $250 you should have gone for a 390.

 

It has more shaders than the 390. I paid 300 for it 3 months ago or so. It "only" has 4 gigs of ram, but I Game at 1080p. Runs cool considering it sucks over 250 watts.

 

My 970 "only" has 4GB too, and .5 of them are slow as shit. Don't care, I'll take it over a 390 any day. 390 is still better than the 290X though, even with less processors and the same clocks, being literally a 290 with more VRAM, it's somehow faster.
290X is still a great card though, but remember buying new previous gen hardware is almost never worth it.

 

IIRC with the newest drivers the 390x beats a 970 pretty well. Not 100% sure on that though

 

390X, sure, it's also more expensive. Look at the chart. Performance is better, value is not.
The 390 is very close, but for 1080p the extra VRAM isn't worth the power requirements and heat output IMO.

 

Just mentioning that because many launch reviews have the 290x being beat by the 970 fairly well. Accurate at the time, but now not so much.

Also, for me the 390x is a bit cheaper than or the same price as a mid-range 970.

 

US, 390X is ~$50 more. In the UK a 390X is £70 more than the cheapest 970, £50 more than a mid-range. Massive price gap.

 

there's why not. Beaten by integrated graphics...

 

Does anybody have Logitech G502? Is it a good mouse or i should see sumthin else? (Currently i have G400s)