# Radeon R9 280X VS GTX 770?



## Osea23

So I saw that these 2 cards are around the same price now at $330. I've been thinking about upgrading from my GTX 560 Ti. Since these 2 are the same price, which has the overall best performance?

I'm using a single 1080P monitor. Games I mostly play are BF3, Payday 2, LoL, Planetside 2, CoD (various), and Crysis 3. I've been leaning towards a 770 but i've also heard people say go for the r9 280x.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

R9 280X has more VRAM but generally the GTX 770 is slightly faster when both are at stock clocks. When both are overclocked they trade blow based on the sample and how well it overclocks.
I would personally go for the R9 280X mainly because of the extra VRAM which might be needed in the future.


----------



## Trogdor

Get the 280X for the extra VRAM or spend almost $100 more.

I'll be shopping for a 290 when they're available.


----------



## zealord

for 1080p clearly the 770, but If you plan on upgrading your monitor in the foreseeable future you can go with the 280X aswell. I don't think that either card is strong enough to maintain a highframe on its on while needing more than 2GB Vram. Maybe if you SLI/CF in the future for 1440p+/Surround gaming the 280X could come in handy then, but other than that I don't know why you shouldn't go for the 770.


----------



## Yungbenny911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Osea23*
> 
> So I saw that these 2 cards are around the same price now at $330. I've been thinking about upgrading from my GTX 560 Ti. Since these 2 are the same price, which has the overall best performance?
> 
> *I'm using a single 1080P monitor. Games I mostly play are BF3, Payday 2, LoL, Planetside 2, CoD (various), and Crysis 3*. I've been leaning towards a 770 but i've also heard people say go for the r9 280x.


The extra 1gb on the 280X is practically a waste, it would run out of Processing power before it get's to utilize 3gb. Especially on the resolution you would be playing at which is 1080p.

At the same price, the 770 is definitely the better buy, it's faster on air, and runs better on bf3, bf4, crysis 2/3, and also has Nvidia specific features like PhysX, 3Dvision lighboost, Cuda. e.t.c









the 280X has to be at least 70-100$ cheaper to be worth it IMO


----------



## rdr09

$200 tops for a 2GB card.
edit: here was my VRAM usage BF3 MP at 1080 Ultra and 4MSAA using a 7950 stock . . .



It may not be strong enough to use all 3GB but what if the game needs 2.1, 2.2 GB . . . ? I am sure you will play BF4 soon and it is heavy.


----------



## Osea23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> The extra 1gb on the 280X is practically a waste, it would run out of Processing power before it get's to utilize 3gb. Especially on the resolution you would be playing at which is 1080p.
> 
> At the same price, the 770 is definitely the better buy, it's faster on air, and runs better on bf3, bf4, crysis 2/3, and also has Nvidia specific features like PhysX, 3Dvision lighboost, Cuda. e.t.c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 280X has to be at least 70-100$ cheaper to be worth it IMO


Problem is I don't give a care about those features since I never have used them.


----------



## Yungbenny911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> $200 tops for a 2GB card.
> edit: here was my VRAM usage BF3 MP at 1080 Ultra and 4MSAA using a 7950 stock . . .
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be strong enough to use all 3GB but what if the game needs 2.1, 2.2 GB . . . ? *I am sure you will play BF4 soon and it is heavy.*


What you see is your allocated V-ram usage, not your actual V-ram usage, and Oh trust me, *i've played BF4 with 200% scaling on my 2gb 770, and 200% scaling is equal to 4K resolution which is 8.3M pixels. I still did not run out of V-ram*. Notice my minimum FPS?







. I ask you to try 200% on your 7950 at MAX overclock, and see if your 3gb V-ram helps you.



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Osea23*
> 
> Problem is I don't give a care about those features since I never have used them.


Once you use them, you will care lol, and what's the point in buying a GPU for the same price, and limiting yourself from the start?







.


----------



## Osea23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> What you see is your allocated V-ram usage, not your actual V-ram usage, and Oh trust me, *i've played BF4 with 200% scaling on my 2gb 770, and 200% scaling is equal to 4K resolution which is 8.3M pixels. I still did not run out of V-ram*. Notice my minimum FPS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I ask you to try 200% on your 7950 at MAX overclock, and see if your 3gb V-ram helps you.
> 
> 
> Once you use them, you will care lol, and what's the point in buying a GPU for the same price, and limiting yourself from the start?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


None of my games run physical but Planetside 2 and it doesn't even look that good. I hate 3d vision and I don't see what's so good about lightboost. I've never used Cuda before.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> What you see is your allocated V-ram usage, not your actual V-ram usage, and Oh trust me, *i've played BF4 with 200% scaling on my 2gb 770, and 200% scaling is equal to 4K resolution which is 8.3M pixels. I still did not run out of V-ram*. Notice my minimum FPS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I ask you to try 200% on your 7950 at MAX overclock, and see if your 3gb V-ram helps you.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you use them, you will care lol, and what's the point in buying a GPU for the same price, and limiting yourself from the start?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


i know. but i would not recommend a 2GB at this time or in the future at this price. no, when cards with 3GB are available and are similarly priced. why gimped it. i know BF4 will use more than 2GB for sure.

$200 for a 2GB card. no more.


----------



## Yungbenny911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> i know. but i would not recommend a 2GB at this time or in the future at this price. no, when cards with 3GB are available and are similarly priced. why gimped it. *i know BF4 will use more than 2GB for sure*.
> 
> $200 for a 2GB card. no more.


I just showed you i ran bf4 at 200% scaling without running out of V-ram on 2gb, so i don't know what your point is.







. I had this argument before with someone, and my response also applies to the 280X and 7970, their 3gb is a waste...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Just a nickname*
> 
> I would like to know your source that 2GB of VRAM will be enough for next-gen games?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> First of all, it's common sense... Let me break it down for you. If 2gb is enough for the games that are currently out, and some that are revealed, but not yet out. The only games that are not confirmed are games in the "future".
> 
> So how will you know that 2gb will be enough for those games?
> 
> First you think of what games in the "future" would be like, and looking at PC gaming history, you know they will be more graphically demanding than what we have right now. So if right now we have Bf4 running at 74 fps avg on the 2gb 770 at Max Settings, BF6 ("maybe" in 2000 and whatever) will likely run at 35 fps on a single 2gb 770, and require more than 2gb.
> 
> 35 fps is practially unplayable for a game like that, so what do you do to get Bf6 to run at 74 fps like Bf4 did? You TURN DOWN AA SETTINGS, and what does turning down AA settings equal? It equals lower V-ram Usage. BAM!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to summarize everything: IN FUTURE, THE 770 WILL NOT BE POWERFUL ENOUGH, AND YOU WILL TURN DOWN AA SETTINGS TO RUN GAMES AT PLAYABLE FPS. LOWER AA SETTINGS = LOWER V-RAM USAGE, WHICH = 2GB BEING SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE GAMES.
> 
> Yet again, proving the point that you will most likely RUN OUT OF PROCESSING POWER BEFORE YOU RUN OUT OF V-RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> I just showed you i ran bf4 at 200% scaling without running out of V-ram on 2gb, so i don't know what your point is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I had this argument before with someone, and my response also applies to the 280X and 7970, their 3gb is a waste...


$200 for a 2GB.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> snip


The argument about VRAM won't send you anywhere with those guys. Most of the time those whom justify the low VRAM amount are Nvidia fbs, or people who already have 2 GB GTX 770s, 670s or 680s







. Same thing happened 3 years ago with GTX 470, 570, 480, 580, and they turned out to be wrong.
My GTX 470 suffers from huge VRAM bottlenecks in some of todays games even on playable settings. I see also most of them spread nonsense such as the games are unplayable at below 60 fps to defend their points.


----------



## hotwheels1997

That's what i think:
Nvidia? -GTX 780 is the only worthwhile purchase ,starting at 500$ and beating R9 290X when OC'ed both.
AMD? -every other situation


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> The extra 1gb on the 280X is practically a waste, it would run out of Processing power before it get's to utilize 3gb. Especially on the resolution you would be playing at which is 1080p.


This is a bs myth for many graphics cards and needs to die, stop spreading it. A 280x and a 770 are easily capable of using more than 2GB of VRAM whilst maintaining playable framerate so 3GB is not a waste at all. If you get a 770 buy a 4GB one because it can use more than 2GB. What is more of a waste is the money spent on a high-end expensive 2GB card in 2013 (I get the feeling this applies to you and that is why you are trying to defend your buying choice so badly).

I'll give you an example, people said the exact same thing about my 570 when I was asking about that; "It can't make use of more than 1.25GB vram without running out of processing power anyways". Well it's funny how people using them on Battlefield 4 can get around 40fps on ultra but then the game crashes due to its VRAM being exceeded isn't it. For many cards this "running out of power before using up its vram" is not true and the GTX770 2GB is another example of that. It's true in some cases but not all so stop going on about it like it's some hard and fast rule that applies to every graphics card.

Also ignore people that say "a 4GB 770 is a waste because it can't make use of it" because while it won't use up to 4GB it can still use over 2GB comfortably. I don't know about you but I'd rather have the extra vram if a game needs say 2.1GB instead of my game running like crap or crashing because I'm 0.1GB short of video memory.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> The argument about VRAM won't send you anywhere with those guys. Most of the time those whom justify the low VRAM amount are Nvidia fbs, or people who already have 2 GB GTX 770s, 670s or 680s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Same thing happened 3 years ago with GTX 470, 570, 480, 580, and they turned out to be wrong.
> My GTX 470 suffers from huge VRAM bottlenecks in some of todays games even on playable settings. I see also most of them spread nonsense such as the games are unplayable at below 60 fps to defend their points.


exactly


----------



## Nevk

R9 280X


----------



## rdr09

if you live near a microcenter, i just saw this deal posted.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1438512/microcenter-evga-gtx-770-4gb-acx-319-99-6-shipping


----------



## Dragon-Emperor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> if you live near a microcenter, i just saw this deal posted.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1438512/microcenter-evga-gtx-770-4gb-acx-319-99-6-shipping


Wowww I wish we had that up in Canada! awesome deal!


----------



## Yungbenny911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> This is a bs myth for many graphics cards and needs to die, stop spreading it. A 280x and a 770 are easily capable of using more than 2GB of VRAM whilst maintaining playable framerate so 3GB is not a waste at all. If you get a 770 buy a 4GB one because it can use more than 2GB. What is more of a waste is the money spent on a high-end expensive 2GB card in 2013 (I get the feeling this applies to you and that is why you are trying to defend your buying choice so badly).
> 
> I'll give you an example, *people said the exact same thing about my 570* when I was asking about that; "It can't make use of more than 1.25GB vram without running out of processing power anyways". Well *it's funny how people using them on Battlefield 4 can get around 40fps on ultra but then the game crashes due to its VRAM being exceeded* isn't it. For many cards this "running out of power before using up its vram" is not true and the GTX770 2GB is another example of that. It's true in some cases but not all so stop going on about it like it's some hard and fast rule that applies to every graphics card.
> 
> Also ignore people that say "a 4GB 770 is a waste because it can't make use of it" because while it won't use up to 4GB it can still use over 2GB comfortably. I don't know about you but I'd rather have the extra vram if a game needs say 2.1GB instead of my game running like crap or crashing because I'm 0.1GB short of video memory.
> exactly


You have a very strong opinion, so arguing with you would be a waste of time. I am not "defending" my purchase, i'm simply educating you, and i have posted MULTIPLE proofs to show that i'm fine with 2gb V-ram even at extreme resolutions.

For Christ's sake, I SHOWED BF4 AT 4K RESOLUTION! THE OP WOULD BE PLAYING AT 1080P. What is up with you guys?

I had an EVGA 570 @ 900Mhz, and i would gladly say, my GPU ran out of RAW processing power before it ran out of V-ram. What you call playable is NOT PLAYABLE to me and a lot of people. I have a 120Hz monitor, and IMO, 60FPS is the minimum i can play a first person shooter game at. 40FPS on a 570 may be fine for you, but that would make me sick lol.

I'll rather turn off AA tottally so i can play competitively at about 55-70FPS, than have AA on and play at 30-45 FPS. IMO, 40FPS = running out of RAW processing power. If your GPU can't render a game past 60 fps avg at max settings, it's running out of RAW processing power.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> You have a very strong opinion, so arguing with you would be a waste of time. I am not "defending" my purchase, i'm simply educating you, and i have posted MULTIPLE proofs to show that i'm fine with 2gb V-ram even at extreme resolutions.
> 
> For Christ's sake, I SHOWED BF4 AT 4K RESOLUTION! THE OP WOULD BE PLAYING AT 1080P. What is up with you guys?
> 
> I had an EVGA 570 @ 900Mhz, and i would gladly say, my GPU ran out of RAW processing power before it ran out of V-ram. What you call playable is NOT PLAYABLE to me and a lot of people. I have a 120Hz monitor, and IMO, 60FPS is the minimum i can play a first person shooter game at. 40FPS on a 570 may be fine for you, but that would make me sick lol.
> 
> I'll rather turn off AA tottally so i can play competitively at about 55-70FPS, than have AA on and play at 30-45 FPS. IMO, 40FPS = running out of RAW processing power. If your GPU can't render a game past 60 fps avg at max settings, it's running out of RAW processing power.


In your opinion as you say, I personally would not describe running at under 60fps as running out of power or "unplayable". It works both ways, what you would call unplayable IS playable to a lot of people. And at least with a card with more memory you could still run at that sub-60 fps at ultra settings without getting stuttering caused by a lack of vram should that happen. Not everybody is more concerned with keeping a 60fps minimum framerate than anything else. I'd say if you ran out of vram while still at around 40fps or up your card is being vram bottlenecked.

Playable vs unplayable is very subjective though and depends on the persons standards. If you are not used to always having above 60fps then below that is acceptable and completely playable for you. If you are used to always being above that it is going to bother you when you drop below by a noticable amount. As somebody who plays the Arma series, I am well used to seeing framerates go below 60fps lol.

And btw I'd love for 2GB to be enough for the next few years because then I could go and buy that 770 lightning


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> You have a very strong opinion, so arguing with you would be a waste of time. I am not "defending" my purchase, i'm simply educating you, and i have posted MULTIPLE proofs to show that i'm fine with 2gb V-ram even at extreme resolutions.
> 
> For Christ's sake, I SHOWED BF4 AT 4K RESOLUTION! THE OP WOULD BE PLAYING AT 1080P. What is up with you guys?
> 
> I had an EVGA 570 @ 900Mhz, and i would gladly say, my GPU ran out of RAW processing power before it ran out of V-ram. What you call playable is NOT PLAYABLE to me and a lot of people. I have a 120Hz monitor, and IMO, 60FPS is the minimum i can play a first person shooter game at. 40FPS on a 570 may be fine for you, but that would make me sick lol.
> 
> I'll rather turn off AA tottally so i can play competitively at about 55-70FPS, than have AA on and play at 30-45 FPS. IMO, 40FPS = running out of RAW processing power. If your GPU can't render a game past 60 fps avg at max settings, it's running out of RAW processing power.


stop with the constant arguments about 2GB being enough at high res.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-280X-R9-270X-and-R7-260X-Review/Bioshock-Infinite-R9-280X

read the comments

" October 8, 2013 | 12:57 AM - Posted by Eradikation (not verified)

Has anyone not figured out that Bioshock uses more then 2 gigs of ram yet at ultra? Those performance hitches are the ram swapping constantly. *I have gtx 670 sli 2gb and a single gtx 770 4gb in two different systems. The gtx 770 plays completely hitch free on ultra using over 2.4 gigs at times smooth as butter. I have to drop texture quality and ambient occlusion to even get close to the same smooth results with my gtx 670 sli even though framerate is almost doubled. Why nvidia is even bothering with 2gb on high end cards is beyond me.*

reply

October 8, 2013 | 01:05 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thanks for the tip - hopefully this is something NVIDIA can address sooner rather than later. "


----------



## Warl0rdPT

I'm also trying to figure out which of these two cards to pick to pair with a 4770K on 1920x1200.

The 770 OCed seems just a tiny faster then the 280X OCed, but I'm not sure about those 2GB being enough, and also since I'll be playing mostly BF4, mantle can give some boost in the future (even tough i'm not expecting much difference).
On the other way, I saw a benchmark that shows the 280X lagging behind the 770 on BF4 multiplayer (while being better on single player), so I really don't know what to do


----------



## Jared Pace

IMO, the GTX 770 is a couple percent faster than both the 280X and 7970GE overall. It really depends specifically on which game or bench & which resolution you're at. I also think Nvidia has much nicer software, and you will generally have a much friendlier experience & less compatibility issues.


----------



## SLADEizGOD

I hope when black friday sale arrive can get a great deal on a 780 or 290x.


----------



## Butter Chicken

more memory, cheaper does not make a video card more superior... end of discussion









if you want a cheaper card that is supposedly faster and has more memory, you need to consider the facts of what trick they are using or what they are cutting out to make said card even to compete.

if you want the highest quality and enjoyable graphics, the only choice is nVidia... AMD cuts massive corners to make their cards seem to compete... but they only compete if you are blind, visually impaired or just straight up a fan boy for a product that was purchased in haste because you had the money at that time and did not save the extra cash or wait for your next paycheck.

no one will ever take you serious running an AMD card or one of their CPU's for that matter... one can look at charts all they want until their face turns blue, but keep in mind one thing, these charts are not showing you what your eyes are going to see. AMD is entry level... they always will be... let them go out gracefully to to the console systems which have heinously reduced graphics compared to a PC, there will still be planty of kiddies out there to buy their product on the console system. AMD is moving to the console to die... plain and simple! that's how it goes...

Quote:


> 17seconds
> Graphics card Master
> October 13, 2012 1:48:14 AM
> 
> Your list is very pro-Nvidia leaning, in fact just about all those games will run better on a GTX 670. Of course, since you want to play Borderlands 2, then PhysX is your deciding factor. There is just no big reason to go with the 7970 that's good enough to give up on GPU-accelerated PhysX in that game.
> 
> Another factor is Skyrim, a lot of people don't know this, but only Nvidia cards can enable Transparency Supersampling and Ambient Occlusion in that game to greatly enhance graphics with more realistic detail. In the graphic below, AMD cards look like the "Ambient Occlusion OFF" screenshot.


what would make you think it's time for AMD to give you those features they have and are always lacking? now still with a cheaper price... please avoid being subject to marketing, it'll turn you into a sheep









http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/373697-33-nvidia-pros-cons

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-tweak-guide#19


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butter Chicken*
> 
> more memory, cheaper does not make a video card more superior... end of discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you want a cheaper card that is supposedly faster and has more memory, you need to consider the facts of what trick they are using or what they are cutting out to make said card even to compete.
> 
> if you want the highest quality and enjoyable graphics, the only choice is nVidia... AMD cuts massive corners to make their cards seem to compete... but they only compete if you are blind, visually impaired or just straight up a fan boy for a product that was purchased in haste because you had the money at that time and did not save the extra cash or wait for your next paycheck.
> 
> no one will ever take you serious running an AMD card or one of their CPU's for that matter... one can look at charts all they want until their face turns blue, but keep in mind one thing, these charts are not showing you what your eyes are going to see. AMD is entry level... they always will be... let them go out gracefully to to the console systems which have heinously reduced graphics compared to a PC, there will still be planty of kiddies out there to buy their product on the console system. AMD is moving to the console to die... plain and simple! that's how it goes...
> what would make you think it's time for AMD to give you those features they have and are always lacking? now still with a cheaper price... please avoid being subject to marketing, it'll turn you into a sheep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/373697-33-nvidia-pros-cons
> 
> http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-tweak-guide#19


yeah everybody is wrong except you







OP go with ASUS R9 280X DCII TOP. best reviewed and quietest R9 280X

http://techreport.com/review/25466/amd-radeon-r9-280x-and-270x-graphics-cards
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/10/07/asus_r9_280x_directcu_ii_top_video_card_review/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7400/the-radeon-r9-280x-review-feat-asus-xfx/20
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/61013-asus-radeon-r9-280x-directcu-ii-top/?page=10
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_280X_Direct_Cu_II_TOP/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-280X-Roundup-ASUS-MSI-and-Sapphire
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_r9_280x_top_review,18.html


----------



## sidp96

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html

Here's something new to check out


----------



## Yungbenny911

IMO AMD GPU's are only worth mentioning when they are 70-100$ Cheaper, at the same price, it'll be laughable to get the AMD counterpart considering what Nvidia has to offer. The 280x is a good GPU though, but for the same price, it's evident that the 770 is the better buy.

When the 770 was 100$ higher, it was still debatable on which GPU to get, and now that it's the same price, no brainer.


----------



## Blackops_2

For the money spend 20$ more than a 770 and get a Toxic 280x my vote. Nothing wrong with the 770 either though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> IMO AMD GPU's are only worth mentioning when they are 70-100$ Cheaper, at the same price, it'll be laughable to get the AMD counterpart considering what Nvidia has to offer. The 280x is a good GPU though, but for the same price, it's evident that the 770 is the better buy.
> 
> When the 770 was 100$ higher, it was still debatable on which GPU to get, and now that it's the same price, no brainer.


Do what? They both trade blows and most 280x are still 30$ cheaper. I'm wondering why it's laughable to get the AMD counterpart when Nvidia is offering the same performance at a higher price point?

770 is a great card but i'm not sure what your implying is wrong with Tahiti/7970/280x


----------



## sidp96

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> IMO AMD GPU's are only worth mentioning when they are 70-100$ Cheaper, at the same price, it'll be laughable to get the AMD counterpart considering what Nvidia has to offer. The 280x is a good GPU though, but for the same price, it's evident that the 770 is the better buy.
> 
> When the 770 was 100$ higher, it was still debatable on which GPU to get, and now that it's the same price, no brainer.


Alright now that's getting kind of ridiculous lol. If anything OP, find an aftermarket cooler you like on either the 280x or 770, look at the pros and cons of both sides, and decide what *YOU* want, both of these cards get the same performance and both have their pro's and cons. Either way you go you're getting a card that's right in the sweet spot for gaming


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> IMO AMD GPU's are only worth mentioning when they are 70-100$ Cheaper, at the same price, it'll be laughable to get the AMD counterpart considering what Nvidia has to offer. The 280x is a good GPU though, but for the same price, it's evident that the 770 is the better buy.
> 
> When the 770 was 100$ higher, it was still debatable on which GPU to get, and now that it's the same price, no brainer.


yeah to a person like you who only wants Nvidia anyway there is no decision to make. but for others the R9 280X is the better card. 3GB VRAM is definitely the way going forward. Even without Mantle R9 280X is faster than GTX 770 in BF4. Now comes the Mantle ridiculing part in Dec









http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,7.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/Tests/Battlefield-4-Test-Benchmarks-Grafikkarten-1095050/


----------



## Butter Chicken

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> You have a very strong opinion, so arguing with you would be a waste of time. I am not "defending" my purchase, i'm simply educating you, and i have posted MULTIPLE proofs to show that i'm fine with 2gb V-ram even at extreme resolutions.
> 
> For Christ's sake, I SHOWED BF4 AT 4K RESOLUTION! THE OP WOULD BE PLAYING AT 1080P. What is up with you guys?
> 
> I had an EVGA 570 @ 900Mhz, and i would gladly say, my GPU ran out of RAW processing power before it ran out of V-ram. What you call playable is NOT PLAYABLE to me and a lot of people. I have a 120Hz monitor, and IMO, 60FPS is the minimum i can play a first person shooter game at. 40FPS on a 570 may be fine for you, but that would make me sick lol.
> 
> I'll rather turn off AA totally so i can play competitively at about 55-70FPS, than have AA on and play at 30-45 FPS. IMO, 40FPS = running out of RAW processing power. If your GPU can't render a game past 60 fps avg at max settings, it's running out of RAW processing power.


your purchase is far superior... the people recommending AMD here have antique nVidia's or AMD cards, what you are not seeing is facts and screenshots of real world comparisons as in my post above.

forever now since I can remember, you can tell your video game how much memory to use in the config file... 2GB is fine in my opinion for more reasons than one.

first lets start with the AMD "Mantle" low-level API, AMD is trying to step on the toes of the like of Microsoft, DirectX and OpenGL just to name a few... this isn't going to work, and for more reasons than one which I will also describe in a different manner than most "paid" shill reviewer websites.

...in the real world the giants and the 800 pound gorillas always crush you! unlike video games reality is much different.

What AMD is trying to do since they won a console contract or two is they are trying to eliminate hi-level API's which make superior graphics possible, they are trying to reverse an ago old tradition of games being developed on a PC and bleeding down to a console system, think about this... they want games to be designed on a console which they happen to be moving to which is less superior to a PC, they want games to be developed on a console and then fluffed up and bleed to the PC, all games! How quaint and convenient, being that their proprietary API "mantle" they envision being at the heart of this supposed new technology, which is actually an age old trick.

it's just like the 4GB vs 2GB and why they are pushing 4GB or more so hard... it is because the coding is not as tight as it should be, this is the only reason you need more memory in games today... because of shortcuts and cutting cost by limiting the time developers and coders have doing the work for your company... competition also comes into play here but that is the gist of the memory debate and the reason you are forced to need more of it even though we really have not advanced much since FarCry 1 when you think about it and dig deeper into the subject.

AMD claims a 9% increase... or 9 more frames per second I can't really remember, I haven't committed it to memory because I know their game and what they do and what corners they cut, not to mention what they will do to survive their own demise.

tell me then what good is 9% increase if what you are viewing is less superior or looks exactly the same as it does on a console? why then would you even need a PC? specially when consoles have browsers now just like your wifi phone...

we are going backwards here... or should I say AMD is going backwards, they are trying what has already been tried before by many developers... they all failed... as AMD's attempt will, specially without the backing from the giants and gorillas in the real world... Microsoft and DirectX and OpenGL (age old institutions) just aren't going to have it, as they have already announced.

you don't want games being developed on a console system removing the advanced API and saying it is more efficient, when it is less capable... and you don't want those games developed there with less graphics and abilities being bled to the PC because companies will cut corners again and not pay to have full implementation and coding done for the higher graphics and abilities of a hi-level API (it's hard to explain what I am trying to describe here) what we want is to force developers hand to keep giving us better and better graphics and abilities, this creates competition and advancement in development.

it is the same with the 2GB vs 4GB debate... if everyone bought a 2GB card... then developers would have no choice but to pay their coders more for the longer time it took to write ever increasingly efficient code...

we should be much further than we are now since the release of the CryEngine and FarCry 1, but we are not... we should be a light year past it! CPU and memory technology is... think about that too and wonder why!


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butter Chicken*
> 
> snip


sorry but please stop with the ranting. the 2GB limit has been crossed by game developers not AMD. both AMD and Nvidia sell 3GB / 4GB cards. Nvidia even sells 6GB Titan. sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Butter Chicken

the AMD proponents say FPS don't matter... you don't need 60fps (which is a minimum standard since the Pentium 1 days)

they claim this isn't necessary and that it doesn't matter...

then they post known shill website reviews comparing what? ...you guessed it, FPS









when it is well know for some time now by people 'in the know' hat each AMD frame is far less pleasing to the eye and inferior in quality.

we are moving away from FPS as a benchmark, and you can google that till your face turns blue... because it is the truth and fact.

quality trumps everything (period)


----------



## Butter Chicken

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> sorry but please stop with the ranting. the 2GB limit has been crossed by game developers not AMD. both AMD and Nvidia sell 3GB / 4GB cards. Nvidia even sells 6GB Titan. sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree.


exsqueeze me son... I am talking to Yungbenny911 here presently, in a post or two I have clicked "reply" and not quote... but I guess you can't see that now? because you are not the poster I am talking to









I hope my information was educational Mr 6900


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butter Chicken*
> 
> the AMD proponents say FPS don't matter... you don't need 60fps (which is a minimum standard since the Pentium 1 days)
> 
> they claim this isn't necessary and that it doesn't matter...
> 
> then they post known shill website reviews comparing what? ...you guessed it, FPS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when it is well know for some time now by people 'in the know' hat each AMD frame is far less pleasing to the eye and inferior in quality.
> 
> we are moving away from FPS as a benchmark, and you can google that till your face turns blue... because it is the truth and fact.
> 
> quality trumps everything (period)


you did not get the memo.







pcper , techreport, hardwarecanucks, anandtech. name it. almost every major site has gone to frametime testing

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-280X-R9-270X-and-R7-260X-Review/Bioshock-Infinite-R9-280X
http://techreport.com/review/25466/amd-radeon-r9-280x-and-270x-graphics-cards/5

does not save the GTX 770. R9 280X is smoother and has enough VRAM to avoid stutters and hitches as GTX 770 does when running out of VRAM. see pcper bioshock infinite benches. GTX 770 is running out of VRAM and that is seen in hitches and stutters.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butter Chicken*
> 
> exsqueeze me son... I am talking to Yungbenny911 here presently, in a post or two I have clicked "reply" and not quote... but I guess you can't see that now? because you are not the poster I am talking to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope my information was educational Mr 6900


sorry when somebody is intentionally misleading people I will reply . this is an open forum and you are in the general section. if you want to speak to nvidia users go to the nvidia section and start a thread


----------



## Blackops_2

Firstly AMD has no frame latency problems with single cards not for quite some time now.

Secondly what are we arguing about here? Between the two cards they're pretty much tied but one is cheaper then the other. So it boils down to what the OP would prefer AMD or Nvidia but to act as if AMD is an inferior choice by any means is ludicrous.

On topic for the money considering what he would be paying for a 770, i think the 280x toxic is the best bang for the buck. Tahiti at 1150/1600 is pretty powerful.




Overall though they both trade blows depending on the game as we see here even with those clocks the toxic loses in BF3 and Bioshock Infinite


----------



## Butter Chicken

thank bro... man the stuff AMD fbs say I tell ya lol.

what we need here is what I have been saying all along... capabilities, screenshots of the differences and HD videos of game play where these so called reviewers who stay afloat via sponsors actually point out the differences.

-_video removed_: I think I got slapped on the behind for that already? can't remember


----------



## Mr357

Seems like a no-brainer to me. The 7970/280X is cheaper and has more VRAM. I have never seen the 680/770 absolutely cream it clock for clock, so what would be the advantage of going the NVIDIA route?


----------



## Butter Chicken

the argument is graphics quality...

if one doesn't like quality, then it's a no brainier... buy a console instead of a PC.

it's very rare that you get better quality for a cheaper price... it's just not "real-world"

a Red Robin hamburger is $8.50 or so with some fries... a McDonald's Big Mac is $6.00 bucks with some fries and a drink... which would you rather have?

it is quite possible some people are not aware of the differences? ... nor have they ever seen or been to a Red Robin before so how would they know what it tastes like?


----------



## Yungbenny911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr357*
> 
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. The 7970/280X is cheaper and has more VRAM. I have never seen the 680/770 absolutely cream it clock for clock, so what would be the advantage of going the NVIDIA route?


No one uses clock for clock argument anymore... 770's Clock higher than 7970/280X on air, and that alone puts the 7970/280x below the 770. 770's can easily go above 1372Mhz on air (Mine does 1424Mhz on air with unlocked voltage).

*A QUOTE FROM HARDOCP 280X DCUII OC test. 280X at 1230Mhz, 770 @ 1241Mhz
*
Quote:


> Performance Summary
> *It's safe to say at this point that the overclock on our ASUS R9 280X DC2T did not provide us with a substantial performance boost. We were a bit let down at the overall performance increase we were receiving with the overclock. We were left wanting more.* It may simply be that we need clock speeds near 1.3GHz for the 280X to really shine, just like the 7970 GHz Edition behaved.
> 
> We saw, at most, a 10% improvement, but often it was lower, in the 7% range. *The GeForce GTX 770 on the other hand got a bigger boost from overclocking. We saw percentages exceed 10% most of the time. This resulted in higher framerates on the GTX 770 when overclocked*. Still, performance does trade places between both cards, when overclocked, depending on the game. It goes to show how close the cards are in performance, yet so far away in pricing.


SOURCE

Even at a simple 1241Mhz OC, the 280X at 1230Mhz does not show any improvement above the 770, so imagine when the 770 is clocked at 1370Mhz+. Which is very attainable if unlocked on air, but the 280x/7970 will need a waterblock to get up to that, and that's extra 100$ = Not worth it.

I would like to see a 7970 or 280X user beat my 770 on air. That's my 3dmark11 score below. If they beat my score on air, then i rest my case.







.


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7392785

This is what i also got in bf4 beta multiplayer at 1080p and MAX settings at 1372Mhz.

*100% scaling Everything MAX*

Frames, Time, Min, Max, Avg
17552, 236921, 57, 97, *74.084*

What's the point on buying a 280X? When automatically you set yourself to run games like:Batman Arkham Origins, The Witcher 3, Call of duty Ghosts, Project Cars, metro last light, BL2 without Nvidia PhysX? And for the same price???... Jeez







lol

You'll miss out on stuff like this












Oh well, no replies for me anymore, goodluck OP! And happy gaming, you'll be happy with whichever you pick


----------



## Blackops_2

I'm glad we agree on something he will be happy with which ever he gets


----------



## Warl0rdPT

As I see it 770 won't get better then 280X with time, on the other hand, 280X can become better after mantle is out and if devs start using more vram.

decisions decisions...


----------



## villain

When the 770 launched I grabbed a DC2OC. It overclocked to 1300 MHz and performed well in terms of fps. But almost all games ran smoother on my 7970 GHz clocked at only 1150 MHz. It could have been due to a driver issue, but coming from this I would recommend a 280X over a 770 any day.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

I had a GTX 670 before this 7950 that can do 1333 max stable OC at 1.18V and 1350 MHz at 1.22V.
This 7950 outside of Heaven benchmark and 3Dmark can match it or easily beat it in most of my games and that only required about 1150 MHz. AMD drivers in 2012 weren't that great TBH and AMD suffered microstuttering issues even on single GPUs.

But after 13.2+ AMD has been working on the problems and and today I cannot notice any microstutter with my 7950, and I consider myself sensitive to it. Now with 13.11 I have almost no problems, had Sleep bug but figured out it was caused by ULPS that I disabled.

Most of those idiots who say AMD currently has worse drivers for single GPUs or sub-par to Nvidia are misinformed and comparing very old ancient 2012 and before drivers.

And BTW I don't regret the switch one bit, my GTX 670 2 GB was terrible in Skyrim because it hit the VRAM limit and stutter like crazy. To me the 670 was the inferior product at a higher price tag than the 7950.
Sold it at a profit and bought the awesome 7950







I don't regret it one bit.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> I had a GTX 670 before this 7950 that can do 1333 max stable OC at 1.18V and 1350 MHz at 1.22V.
> This 7950 outside of Heaven benchmark and 3Dmark can match it or easily beat it in most of my games and that only required about 1150 MHz. AMD drivers in 2012 weren't that great TBH and AMD suffered microstuttering issues even on single GPUs.
> 
> But after 13.2+ AMD has been working on the problems and and today I cannot notice any microstutter with my 7950, and I consider myself sensitive to it. Now with 13.11 I have almost no problems, had Sleep bug but figured out it was caused by ULPS that I disabled.
> 
> Most of those idiots who say AMD currently has worse drivers for single GPUs or sub-par to Nvidia are misinformed and comparing very old ancient 2012 and before drivers.
> 
> And BTW I don't regret the switch one bit, my GTX 670 2 GB was terrible in Skyrim because it hit the VRAM limit and stutter like crazy. To me the 670 was the inferior product at a higher price tag than the 7950.
> 
> Sold it at a profit and bought the awesome 7950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't regret it one bit.


To be fair 2012 wasn't exactly that long ago was it. By the way funny you mentioned Skyrim because as long as you have enough vram for the mods that particular game is meant to run smoother on nvidia cards than AMD ones.

I still can't make my mind up on these cards, it's been weeks since I started researching and I'm still undecided, argh. I even already bought and returned a 280x because I felt like I rushed into the decision it a bit and wasn't complete sure about it. If I get a 770 it will be a 4GB one anyways so no vram issues to worry about either way.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> I had a GTX 670 before this 7950 that can do 1333 max stable OC at 1.18V and 1350 MHz at 1.22V.
> This 7950 outside of Heaven benchmark and 3Dmark can match it or easily beat it in most of my games and that only required about 1150 MHz. AMD drivers in 2012 weren't that great TBH and AMD suffered microstuttering issues even on single GPUs.
> 
> But after 13.2+ AMD has been working on the problems and and today I cannot notice any microstutter with my 7950, and I consider myself sensitive to it. Now with 13.11 I have almost no problems, had Sleep bug but figured out it was caused by ULPS that I disabled.
> 
> Most of those idiots who say AMD currently has worse drivers for single GPUs or sub-par to Nvidia are misinformed and comparing very old ancient 2012 and before drivers.
> 
> And BTW I don't regret the switch one bit, my GTX 670 2 GB was terrible in Skyrim because it hit the VRAM limit and stutter like crazy. To me the 670 was the inferior product at a higher price tag than the 7950. Sold it at a profit and bought the awesome 7950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't regret it one bit.


some sanity in this thread amidst a lot of noise.







The OP has been informed . now let him make his decision in peace.


----------



## Butter Chicken

historically nVidia always out performs AMD, and I see no reason for the trend to change anytime in the foreseeable future...

specially when nVidia has the 800 series coming out, it is such a leap in processing power it is over 2 fold what we currently have now from either manufacturer.

you see according to the image below the current Radeon R series is just right there with the "Kepler" on the graph... as is nVidia's current lineup. The 800 series is the "Maxwell" on the graph...



the 800 series coming out Q1 of 2014 is a massive change in architecture, a real world boost like we are supposed to be seeing... it includes alot of new features and technology such as direct memory, so their may even be no need for the cards to have any memory on them in the future who knows? Maxwell may be the final nail in the coffin for AMD and there is lots of talk about it being such.

it'll also be the first graphics card to have it's own CPU on it, an ARM processor with the GPU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_800_Series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butter Chicken*
> 
> the 800 series coming out Q1 of 2014


It won't be Q1, it will probably be summer at least, maybe even Q3 or 4. TSMC are still preparing the equipment to begin the production process of 20nm. That is unless the first 800 series cards aren't 20nm.


----------



## Butter Chicken

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> It won't be Q1, it will probably be summer at least, maybe even Q3 or 4.


I doubt they will give AMD that far of a run... the reason they are holding off in the first place is because of the anti trust lawsuits AMD has brought against nVidia.

I am quite convinced it is by "court order" why we are waiting on the 800 series now...

is so funny the law sometimes, when you're down in the dirt and getting a ground & pound and the two fighters are supposed to be equal in every merit... there is a law which will pull the fighter off of the other and let them stand back up to be pummeled again.

but the show must go on... $$$


----------



## Osea23

I'm still on the fence between these 2 cards. On one hand there's the GTX 770, which seems to win in overall performance. But then there's the R9 280X which usually is 1-2 fps less than the 770. Both of these cards are the same price for the MSI Gaming Edition. I'm not going to tinker around too much in the overclocking department, maybe just a few extra hundred MHz.

I don't feel like AMD's Mantle initiative will really take hold in developer's. There may be a few games with it, but I feel most won't use Mantle. Also the 770 comes with 3 free games, which makes it really tempting to buy right now. I've experienced no driver instabilities with AMD or NVIDIA. Both seem to be rock solid on my systems.

I still have 2 more weeks to decide. There's enough time for me to decide. I might get the 280X just because it's got 3GB VRAM.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Osea23*
> 
> I'm still on the fence between these 2 cards. On one hand there's the GTX 770, which seems to win in overall performance. But then there's the R9 280X which usually is 1-2 fps less than the 770. Both of these cards are the same price for the MSI Gaming Edition. I'm not going to tinker around too much in the overclocking department, maybe just a few extra hundred MHz.
> 
> I don't feel like AMD's Mantle initiative will really take hold in developer's. There may be a few games with it, but I feel most won't use Mantle. Also the 770 comes with 3 free games, which makes it really tempting to buy right now. I've experienced no driver instabilities with AMD or NVIDIA. Both seem to be rock solid on my systems.
> 
> I still have 2 more weeks to decide. There's enough time for me to decide. I might get the 280X just because it's got 3GB VRAM.


good point for the 3GB card. $200 for the 2GB card. you know there is one 3GB card that will come out for $700.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Osea23*
> 
> *I'm still on the fence between these 2 cards. On one hand there's the GTX 770, which seems to win in overall performance*. But then there's the R9 280X which usually is 1-2 fps less than the 770. Both of these cards are the same price for the MSI Gaming Edition. I'm not going to tinker around too much in the overclocking department, maybe just a few extra hundred MHz.
> 
> I don't feel like AMD's Mantle initiative will really take hold in developer's. There may be a few games with it, but I feel most won't use Mantle. Also the 770 comes with 3 free games, which makes it really tempting to buy right now. I've experienced no driver instabilities with AMD or NVIDIA. Both seem to be rock solid on my systems.
> 
> I still have 2 more weeks to decide. There's enough time for me to decide. I might get the 280X just because it's got 3GB VRAM.


GTX 770 is not a decisively faster card. they are on par at stock. trade blows depending on game

http://techreport.com/review/25466/amd-radeon-r9-280x-and-270x-graphics-cards
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/63522-amd-radeon-r9-280x-3gb-review-13.html
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/amd-radeon-r7-260x-r9-270x-und-280x-im-test/6/
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/908-6/performances.html


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> GTX 770 is not a decisively faster card. they are on par at stock. trade blows depending on game
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/25466/amd-radeon-r9-280x-and-270x-graphics-cards
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/63522-amd-radeon-r9-280x-3gb-review-13.html
> http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/amd-radeon-r7-260x-r9-270x-und-280x-im-test/6/
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/908-6/performances.html


This. Look at OC performance and price which ever you can get for lowest go for it. Though the 3gb of memory in the 7970 will come in hadny more so in the future.


----------



## tuffy12345

Sooo to kind of threadjack, I'm making this same decision but I'm at 1440p I'm going with the 280x right? The free games with the GTX 770 are really getting to me...I want them.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tuffy12345*
> 
> Sooo to kind of threadjack, I'm making this same decision but I'm at 1440p I'm going with the 280x right? The free games with the GTX 770 are really getting to me...I want them.


at 1440p the 3GB is a necessity. go with R9 280X. btw whats your budget.if you can spend $400 - $450 the R9 290 is launching on Nov 5th.


----------



## tuffy12345

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> at 1440p the 3GB is a necessity. go with R9 280X. btw whats your budget.if you can spend $400 - $450 the R9 290 is launching on Nov 5th.


$300 is my price point but if a 290x comes out at $400 I'm willing to do that, but I probably couldn't justify going any higher than that. I have Christmas presents to pay for and such.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> at 1440p the 3GB is a necessity. go with R9 280X. btw whats your budget.if you can spend $400 - $450 the R9 290 is launching on Nov 5th.


I'm not sure about that

If you look at battlefield 4 1600p with 4x MSAA benchmarks, you will notice that GTX 770 2GB performs on par with HD7970 3GB, and faster than HD7950 3GB
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/734/bench/Ultra_2560.png

Also, 770 2GB is only 3fps behind 780 3GB (most likey because 780 is faster GPU, not because it has more ram)

Video ram is not as important as people try to make it these days.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> I'm not sure about that
> 
> If you look at battlefield 4 1600p with 4x MSAA benchmarks, you will notice that GTX 770 2GB performs on par with HD7970 3GB, and faster than HD7950 3GB
> http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/734/bench/Ultra_2560.png
> 
> Also, 770 2GB is only 3fps behind 780 3GB (most likey because 780 is faster GPU, not because it has more ram)
> 
> Video ram is not as important as people try to make it these days.


SP? it does not matter 'cause there are 770 with 4GB VRAM that are similarly priced. op, might take a liking on Skyrim with mods.


----------



## sidewaykill

R9 280X over the 770 all day if the same price. Larger memory bus, more VRAM and Mantle, if only for BF4.


----------



## smaudioz

If you want a 770 but want more memory than 2GB get a 4GB 770 instead then you have no worries about VRAM, simple.


----------



## Warl0rdPT

but the 770 4gb is more expensive then 280X


----------



## Bartouille

Performance wise they are very similar. It comes down to the features and if you need 3gb vram.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warl0rdPT*
> 
> but the 770 4gb is more expensive then 280X


and some 280x's are more expensive than 2GB 770's at the moment.


----------



## Warl0rdPT

true, but I couldn't find any 770 4gb cheaper then 280X (normal ones)


----------



## MakubeX

I'm on the same boat. I'm building a PC for a friend who mostly wants to play BF4 at the moment and I'm trying to decide which card to recommend. I know the 280X is suppose to be faster in BF4 according to the very few benchmarks around, plus Mantle is suppose to improve on it even more, but on most other games it seems the GTX 770 has an edge. He'll be playing on 1080p, so I'm not too concerned about 2GB vs 3GB.

Tough choice.


----------



## Orifiel

for moding its good to have more vram. Right now we have skyrim, bioshok infinity, battlefield 4 and soon more are coming (fallout 4) new elder scrolls, witcher 3, dragon age 3, mass effect 4, etc, all these games support heavy moding! And if you love moding, you need more ram, more than 2...

I have an open topic as well, I am between GTX770 windoforce OC 4gb and r9 280x by ASUS.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MakubeX*
> 
> I'm on the same boat. I'm building a PC for a friend who mostly wants to play BF4 at the moment and I'm trying to decide which card to recommend. I know the 280X is suppose to be faster in BF4 according to the very few benchmarks around, plus Mantle is suppose to improve on it even more, but on most other games it seems the GTX 770 has an edge. He'll be playing on 1080p, so I'm not too concerned about 2GB vs 3GB.
> 
> Tough choice.


here is 1080 in BF3 Maxed using a 7970 . . .


----------



## smaudioz

Why are people still going on about how their 3GB graphics cards use more than 2GB VRAM in BF3. This was all explained a very long time ago and people still persist with it saying it means the game needs more than 2GB. It ALLOCATES it, it doesn't USE it. The more you have the more is allocated but it isn't needed, anybody playing with a 2GB card will see less than 2GB VRAM "usage" (allocation).

Do you want me to post a screenshot of my MSI afterburner with BF3 maxed at 1080p showing less than 1280MB VRAM usage to prove it?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> Why are people still going on about how their 3GB graphics cards use more than 2GB VRAM in BF3. This was all explained a very long time ago and people still persist with it saying it means the game needs more than 2GB. It ALLOCATES it, it doesn't USE it. The more you have the more is allocated but it isn't needed, anybody playing with a 2GB card will see less than 2GB VRAM "usage" (allocation).


'cause there are alternatives to 2GB cards that are similarly priced. the only actual measure of vram usage is when your fps drops but why wait?

$200 tops for a 2GB card.


----------



## smaudioz

Here you go:



Max "usage" 1263MB
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> 'cause there are alternatives to 2GB cards that are similarly priced. the only actual measure of vram usage is when your fps drops but why wait?
> 
> $200 tops for a 2GB card.


I'm not saying buy a 2GB card, I'm telling you that you don't even need 2GB to max out BF3 and you posting a screenshot of your vram usage proves nothing because it isn't even actually showing how much is being used, only allocated. If BF3 maxed at 1080p needed more than 2GB VRAM then how come I can do it with a 1.25GB VRAM card and not exceed my limit causing fps drops/crashes?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> Max "usage" 1263MB
> I'm not saying buy a 2GB card, I'm telling you that you don't even need 2GB to max out BF3 and you posting a screenshot of your vram usage proves nothing because it isn't even actually showing how much is being used, only allocated. If BF3 maxed at 1080p needed more than 2GB VRAM then how come I can do it with a 1.25GB VRAM card and not exceed my limit causing fps drops/crashes?


it varies with maps. SP and some maps don't need much. some maps need more as you can see with the one i posted. what i am saying is . . why put the op or whoever in that situation where the fps might drop. get 3 or 4GB cards.

you want to push a 2Gb card . . get a 2GB 760 for much cheaper. money save can be used to upgrade sooner or later. think about the needs of the op.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> it varies with maps. SP and some maps don't need much. some maps need more as you can see with the one i posted. what i am saying it . . why put the op or whoever in that situation where the fps might drop. get 3 or 4GB cards.


Well that was caspian border 64 player conquest for 10 minutes and I can tell you I have never once in 2 years of BF3 exceeded my VRAM and crashed or had big fps drops. The game only recommends 1GB video memory remember that.

And you are still missing the point, the vram usage you posted isn't needed, it's only allocated for use which means it's made available to the game, it does not mean it needs that much because again how the hell would I with 1.25GB be able to play without crashes or fps drops if it did need that amount?

And to be clear I completely recommend buying a 3GB or 4GB card which is what I'm going to do myself. I'm just trying to explain to you that you don't need much for BF3, I hope you understand now because I can't explain it in a more simple way than I already have.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> Well that was caspian border 64 player conquest for 10 minutes and I can tell you I have never once in 2 years of BF3 exceeded my VRAM and crashed or had big fps drops. The game only recommends 1GB video memory remember that.


well mine was Kharg MP 64 (full) maxed with 4MSAA. it really does not matter, like i said, there are alternatives that are similarly priced.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> well mine was Kharg MP 64 (full) maxed with 4MSAA. it really does not matter, like i said, there are alternatives that are similarly priced.


Kharg Island 64 player conquest large with 62 players, maxed video options same as last time:



Same VRAM usage


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> Kharg Island 64 player conquest large with 62 players, maxed video options same as last time:
> 
> 
> 
> Same VRAM usage


$200 tops for a 2GB card.

edit: wonder what's your min fps?


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> $200 tops for a 2GB card.
> 
> edit: wonder what's your min fps?


Did I not already say twice you should get a 3GB or 4GB card?

my minimum fps is in the 30's and average fps in the 40's on those settings. If you don't believe what I'm telling you then keep being ignorant, it's fine by me. As I said the way BF3 uses VRAM was discussed and explained a long time ago ever since the beta came out but you obviously didn't hear about it if you still think the amount of memory usage shown is actually being used and needed. Even now when I try to explain it to you, you seem to be ignoring it thinking it's made up. I'll ask again, if the game needs as much VRAM as your afterburner is telling you is being used, then how can my 1.25GB graphics card handle the same max settings and not crash or get fps drops? I've had the game since it came out and have never had VRAM choke or crashes because I've run out of VRAM.

There's nothing more to say other than BF3 doesn't even require a 2GB card to play (at 1080p), but if you are buying a new video card now to last you a few years for new games coming out (and especially if you are playing at a higher resolutions), get a 3GB card at least.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> Did I not already say twice you should get a 3GB or 4GB card?
> 
> my minimum fps is in the 30's and average fps in the 40's on those settings. If you don't believe what I'm telling you then keep being ignorant, it's fine by me. As I said the way BF3 uses VRAM was discussed and explained a long time ago but you obviously didn't hear about it if you still think the amount of memory usage shown is actually being used and needed. Even now when I try to explain it to you, you seem to be ignoring it thinking It's made up. I'll ask again, if the game needs as much as VRAM as your afterburner is telling you is being used, then how can my 1.25GB graphics card handle the same max settings and not crash or get fps drops?


30's is not playable in BF3. even 40s. so, you really did not get to play it. did you even go to the middle of battle?


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> 30's is not playable in BF3. even 40s. so, you really did not get to play it. did you even go to the middle of battle?


What's playable is your opinion, and yes I was in the middle of a load of stuff going on and the VRAM didn't exceed 1264MB. And since you still don't believe what I'm telling you I give up, I'm obviously wasting my time.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smaudioz*
> 
> What's playable is your opinion, and yes I was in the middle of a load of stuff going on and the VRAM didn't exceed 1264MB. And since you still don't believe what I'm telling you I give up, I'm obviously wasting my time.


your card is running out of power before it can even use the vram.


----------



## smaudioz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> your card is running out of power before it can even use the vram.


Do we have a facepalm smilie around here anywhere? The game only uses what's available to it, that's why it only uses that much for me and it uses more for you (because you have 3GB available to it) If it really NEEDED what your card says it's using, my card would crash or suffer vram choke at the same max settings. And how can it use any more vram when I'm at max settings? It isn't possible to make it use any more.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1151904/bf3-actual-vram-usage

go and read some of the posts in this thread:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RawFoodPhil*
> 
> Why is everyone so caught up on VRAM??? I'm maxing this game with my 570 sli test rig and the VRAM hits up to 1265mb and my 580 sli rig uses about 1340mb and still no hit on performance on either setup....About 99% of the people here are SO ignorant about the issue...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arioscrimson*
> 
> Game will use whatever vRAM you have. If more vRAM is needed and the card doesn't have enough, then you'll see slow downs on huge maps since more textures need to be loaded.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nano5656*
> 
> I beleive it's optimizied to use up as much vram as you give it...that's what it seems like. Not having 2gb isnt gonna hurt your performance more than 1-2fps though....else everyone with older cards wouldnt be able to play. I sit at 1gb vram usage the whole play time and still get perfectly playable fps with my 560 ti 1gb on ultra with just a few settings turned down


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Toology*
> 
> Wow , it never goes over 1280 mb for me and i have everything maxed and at 1080p , guess im lucky!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[-Snake-]*
> 
> - maxed out @1900x1080
> - hovering around 50 fps
> - max mem usage is 1257mb
> - I'm happy


etc. etc.

I really can't be bothered with this anymore.


----------



## rdr09

here you go . . .


----------



## ghost_z

I too am in the same boat, torn between GTX 770 AND R9 280X, but am leaning towards towards R9 280X due to the huge price diff,
In India, GTX 770 Costs around 600+USD and R9 280X costs around 450-500USD.

+ Mantle seems interesting and now even Thief is officially supported along with BF4, and no matter what people say, nobody has seen the future, how future games may behave and how much VRAM they may require cannot be guessed, but one thing can be said that certainly games are going to get more demanding and better looking, so having an extra GB of VRAM does help in extending the usable life of a GPU !

And Lol i can't believe some of the comments made here could be by sane techies.


----------



## Warl0rdPT

With that price difference I would go for the 280X no questions asked. Here they cost around the same (770 2gb, the 4gb is more expensive), so I still don't know what to do









One thing is certain, I desperately need to replace my 460GTX


----------



## fangrenxing

agree,Maybe if you SLI/CF in the future for 1440p+/Surround gaming the 280X could come in handy then, but other than that I don't know why you shouldn't go for the 770.thanks


----------



## smartdroid

Now you can rest









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7459111?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> I would like to see a 7970 or 280X user beat my 770 on air. That's my 3dmark11 score below. If they beat my score on air, then i rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7392785


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Onglar*
> 
> He's talking about graphics score, and he beat you at that. 770 way better purchase.


oh drop it will you all. yungbenny is a ardent Nvidia loyalist. he will only post what shows his card as better. thats the reason he chose 3DMark 11 even though 3DMark 13 is the more recent and advanced version and HD 7970 Ghz/ R9 280X is easily faster in 3DMark 13 firestrike and firestrike extreme.


----------



## Lubed Up Slug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Onglar*
> 
> He's talking about graphics score, and he beat you at that. 770 way better purchase.


Why is the 770 a better purchase? Not an AMD fanboy or trying to start a flame war, (I have a nvidia card), I am interested, because I want to upgrade and comparing this to AMD's offerings. But why is it better than the 280x, when the 280x is cheaper, generally performs similarly or better, has similar temperatures, and similar noise levels? Also the 280x has mantle coming up, which could greatly increase its performance, so make your case for nvidia. Again I like both companies.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Onglar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *smartdroid*
> 
> Now you can rest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7459111?
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about graphics score, and he beat you at that. 770 way better purchase.
Click to expand...

They're both pretty slow.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yungbenny911*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> No one uses clock for clock argument anymore... 770's Clock higher than 7970/280X on air, and that alone puts the 7970/280x below the 770. 770's can easily go above 1372Mhz on air (Mine does 1424Mhz on air with unlocked voltage).
> 
> *A QUOTE FROM HARDOCP 280X DCUII OC test. 280X at 1230Mhz, 770 @ 1241Mhz
> *
> SOURCE
> 
> Even at a simple 1241Mhz OC, the 280X at 1230Mhz does not show any improvement above the 770, so imagine when the 770 is clocked at 1370Mhz+. Which is very attainable if unlocked on air, but the 280x/7970 will need a waterblock to get up to that, and that's extra 100$ = Not worth it.
> 
> I would like to see a 7970 or 280X user beat my 770 on air. That's my 3dmark11 score below. If they beat my score on air, then i rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7392785
> 
> This is what i also got in bf4 beta multiplayer at 1080p and MAX settings at 1372Mhz.
> 
> *100% scaling Everything MAX*
> 
> Frames, Time, Min, Max, Avg
> 17552, 236921, 57, 97, *74.084*
> 
> What's the point on buying a 280X? When automatically you set yourself to run games like:Batman Arkham Origins, The Witcher 3, Call of duty Ghosts, Project Cars, metro last light, BL2 without Nvidia PhysX? And for the same price???... Jeez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> You'll miss out on stuff like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, no replies for me anymore, goodluck OP! And happy gaming, you'll be happy with whichever you pick


lol @ running to 3DM11 knowing it's Nvidia bias, Why don't you run a firestrike bench?

Anyways OP, flip a coin.

The 770 is faster on air than a 280X but the 280X does have 1Gb more Vram that does sometimes come in handy (i used up 2.8GB of VRAM in modded Skyrim and Bioshock ate up 2.3GB) and with new consoles featuring 8GB of VRAM games will only get more and more hungry for it.

But like Benny said, the 770 will get some insane overclocks and generally has faster performance when both are at stock and overclocked on air.

Both are awesome insanely fast cards that for $300 and will easily push a 1080p monitor at 60fps with no issues.









If you want the ultimate in 1080p performance wait afew more weeks for aftermarket coolers to hit and scoop up an R-290 for $400 - titan performance for the former 770 price


----------



## sugarhell

He runs 3dmark11 because ivy bridge gives 300 more pts on graphic score. And on firestrike he can only compete with oced 7870s

Look my 1 years old bench from my ref 7970 on a ref cooler.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5471110

On my sb-e i was around 13500 as i should be. With an ivy i am close to 1350+ 7970s on my graphic score.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Onglar*
> 
> FS is optimized for AMD...


And pacman is optimized for amd too. I cant really understand that logic. Nvidia guys. If 7970 is faster then the game is bias and optimized for amd. If the 770 is faster omg what a beast (cry amd,cry)

Like tressfx. gk104 sucks for tressfx but gk110 is up to tahiti performance. Yeah its amd bias


----------



## tsm106

But is there physx in pacman?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> But is there physx in pacman?


I can sell you a physx sticker like nvidia. They really love to create new technologies just for the box stickers.


----------



## Lubed Up Slug

Well so much for the no flame war...


----------



## sidewaykill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Onglar*
> 
> Get a 760, its the same as a 670 and everyone knows that 670s are the supperior choice, they're cheaper, got physx, made by nvidia and no microstutter. Over all better card.


1. No, it isn't the same as the 670, it's worse.
2. So what if it is made by NV?
3. PhysX isn't much, but Mantle might be.
4. No microstutter? 280X doesn't, or any current single card from AMD as far as I'm aware?
5. It isn't an overall better card.

OP, go with the 280X, it is superior, especially at that price.


----------



## DIJRP

I need to replace my xfx 6870 DD B.E.

Atm, here in Italy, MSI r9 280 and Asus directcu II gtx 770 are on the same price ...

http://www.ebay.it/itm/MSI-R9-280X-GAMING-3G-BF4-Battlefield-4-Limited-Edition-scheda-grafica-Rad-/251433181446?pt=Schede_video_per_PC_e_Server&hash=item3a8a95e106

http://www.amazon.it/Asus-GTX770-DC2OC-2GD5-GeForce-DirectCU-Scheda/dp/B00CY5GP08/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A11IL2PNWYJU7H

I'm completely undecided on the choice, please give me an help


----------



## Warl0rdPT

I ended up going with the 280X even though I usually go with NVIDIA, so far I'm happy.


----------



## Meta|Gear

considering the price difference, 770.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIJRP*
> 
> I need to replace my xfx 6870 DD B.E.
> 
> Atm, here in Italy, MSI r9 280 and Asus directcu II gtx 770 are on the same price ...
> 
> http://www.ebay.it/itm/MSI-R9-280X-GAMING-3G-BF4-Battlefield-4-Limited-Edition-scheda-grafica-Rad-/251433181446?pt=Schede_video_per_PC_e_Server&hash=item3a8a95e106
> 
> http://www.amazon.it/Asus-GTX770-DC2OC-2GD5-GeForce-DirectCU-Scheda/dp/B00CY5GP08/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A11IL2PNWYJU7H
> 
> I'm completely undecided on the choice, please give me an help


at that amount - stay away from the 2GB.

edit: here is a 2GB that is prolly twice as strong as your 6870 . . .

http://www.ebay.it/itm/MSI-R9-270X-GAMING-2G-BF4-Battlefield-4-Limited-Edition-scheda-grafica-Rad-/281253281867?_trksid=m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BRTU%26otn%3D12%26pmod%3D251433181446%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D4573993008468166831


----------



## Warl0rdPT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meta|Gear*
> 
> considering the price difference, 770.


At the time both were the same price (300€)


----------



## BLAMM0

Hey,

how about looking not into gaming performance, but lets say Adobe After Effects and Premiere ? I've read that CUDA gives and advantage, but dont know how much or if any. And currently the price between 280X and the GTX 770 is nearly the same in my area.

thanks on info about this, currently i own an Asus GTX 560Ti. Considering for and upgrade maybe, but might also wait some time. I'm playing 1080p on a 24" Dell, mainly Starcraft II is played









[edit] OpenCL by AMD is also supported from version CC of Adobe products... [/edit]


----------



## Warl0rdPT

If you use them then it's an advantage...


----------



## stanimir330

Hi guys, after I sold my old 7870 should get a new one, but what to choose 280X or GTX770, which is more productive, faster and better, the cards are XFX R9 280X and Palit GTX770 JetStream, which the better


----------



## saloogee84

i agree with most others here.. if price diff is less than $20 i will go with 770.. but sadly its not as of 7/11/14 today... .right now i bought used 280x for 170 on ebay. and cheapest 770 use i found was in high 200 range.. so its almost 80-100+ difference in price. so for few frames and little more power draw yes i will go with 280x and its not stock 280x its sapphire dual x edition so cooling and noise are that big of issues...

i have used both amd and nvidia cards in the past.. mostly nvidia.. but right now i think nvidia cards are overpriced at the moment.. they do have less compatibility issues and are overall good quality. but for last one year with amd i haven't found any issues with them either.. so my advice shop for best performance for money and dont fall for fanboy hate etc. and please understand we need competition between these manufacturers as consumer....if one of them monopolize the industry i guarantee that we will get screwed pretty hard as consumers.. they will start inflating prices and hardly will do anything to improve performance.... want a proof then look at what intel is doing with its cpu's ... have u seen any improvement in performance ever since sandy bridge... ????? only they are making them more efficient but not faster much because amd cant come up with a good competing product which will make intel to push the envelope.....


----------

