So, I have a chance to get a R9 270 for $110. My original thought was im getting a 770, but I may not have the budget for that as I thought I would. So i was thinking I could get this R9 270 and in a couple weeks get another one. Would it be a good idea? How much better if any would it be than a 770?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
R9 270 CFX
- Thread starter PCunicorn
- Start date
Not a bad setup, provided you are using a single monitor, and playing DX10 or newer games. The R9 270 is similar to the 7870, and should be able to match it with a little OC. I run 7850 CFX in our family PC and it's fairly impressive setup for the money, I paid $109 each for the cards on a holiday deal.
HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
Get a 770 you'll be happier in the long run. I've had 7870 crossfire, 7970, 780, 770. Unless difference is 50% or more higher performance than the single GPU you will be disappointed in comparison.
I would only get 270 CFX if your'e extremely strapped for cash. GTX 770 will be the better purchase because all 280X and older cards have bugs with CFX in DX9, and CFX with surround that have not been fixed as of yet. With a single GPU you will never deal with multi GPU issues, which on the AMD can be problematic - they do not have CFX profiles for most Ubisoft games, and have poor scaling in most blizzard games.
What you may want to do is look into the GTX 760 or 270X instead, the 760 is roughly 12-15% faster than the 270X and costs 250-270$. The 270X is 200-230$ and is a pretty good value. Aside from that, the best option would be the GTX 770 for hassle free operation. I strongly recommend avoiding CFX for PC gaming based on my prior experience. This can depend on whether you only play DX11 games on a single screen though - for that, like Tony mentioned, it could potentially be an OKAY setup depending on which games you play. Keep in mind that AMD has not yet fixed CFX microstutter in DX9 on the 270, so that's a consideration if you still play DX9 games. I still recommend against it, but it could be an option depending on what type of games you play.
What you may want to do is look into the GTX 760 or 270X instead, the 760 is roughly 12-15% faster than the 270X and costs 250-270$. The 270X is 200-230$ and is a pretty good value. Aside from that, the best option would be the GTX 770 for hassle free operation. I strongly recommend avoiding CFX for PC gaming based on my prior experience. This can depend on whether you only play DX11 games on a single screen though - for that, like Tony mentioned, it could potentially be an OKAY setup depending on which games you play. Keep in mind that AMD has not yet fixed CFX microstutter in DX9 on the 270, so that's a consideration if you still play DX9 games. I still recommend against it, but it could be an option depending on what type of games you play.
buttons
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,174
id probably just snag whatever deal you see. 270x or 760 gtx and not worry about crossfire/sli. as long as your going to keep it under 1080p gaming.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,223
better yet, grab a used GTX 680?
I'd just as soon get a 770. The reason I want this 270 as many people are forgetting is because its only $110. I don't play many DX9 games and if i do I'll just disable the second card.
If you don't play DX9 games, 270CFX would be a good deal. The other options in that price range would be 270X (slower) or GTX 760 (a little slower, and more expensive). What buttons said is a great idea as well. Buy whatever deal you can find in your price range, i'd scour slickdeals and the hot deals forum here for a few days - on that note, I think newegg has 660s on sale right now for 160ish, so those in sli would be 320$ or so. I do think that requires mail in rebate though, and i'm not a fan of rebates at all. I also saw some cheap 7870s for 110$? Refurb'ed though.
The used market is a great option as well, but it seems that GTX 680 cards aren't selling very cheap used. From what i've noticed anyway. For some reason, the cards with the biggest "used" discount are the high end cards - such as the 780, 290s, and Titans. Most used low end cards don't represent a huge discount compared to new cards, although there are exceptions here and there.
Well, that's $290 which is the same ballpark as $320. And if you are going multi card route, the 660 SLI would be the better setup, IMO.
30$ isn't a big deal for most people, and 660 sli would be significantly faster in PC gaming. But it depends on what you're looking for - if it is mining, you answered your own question. If you want to mine, the 270s are better. You may want to look into the new CUDA miner though - it significantly increases hashrates on nvidia hardware, around 400KHs on the 770 and 600-650 on the 780ti. Not AMD rates, but still. Not awful for part time mining.
That said, you're answering your own question. If you want to mine you shouldn't ask whether you should go AMD or nvidia. I do feel nvidia provides a better gaming solution, but If your priority is mining over gaming, the obvious answer here is to go with the AMD solution. It really is a non question. The clear answer for mining is always AMD. I feel the clear answer for PC gaming is nvidia, but that is a subjective remark.
IT's all up to you and what you value more. Mining or gaming. 660 sli is far faster than the AMD setup for gaming, but costs more, while the 270s are far better for hashrates and cost less. If you're budget limited, the 270s are still the better answer, AND they play DX11 games pretty much fine in CFX.HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
Just get the 770 and be happy with it. If your gaming at 1080p and you don't have at least a 2500k your not going to utilize 270 cf anyways.
The 270 is going to be about 5 percent better then a 660. So I don't know what your talking about?
HOOD, I have a 8350 which will be better then a 2500. I am still looking at my options, so ig I cab get this 270 I'll probably take it but if I can't I suupose I'll get a 770.
HOOD, I have a 8350 which will be better then a 2500. I am still looking at my options, so ig I cab get this 270 I'll probably take it but if I can't I suupose I'll get a 770.
stealthy123
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,149
110 for a 270 is a pretty good dead, and it shouldn't depreciate too badly if you aren't happy just sell it and move on up.
7850 crossfire is a nice little setup, I ran that for a while, should be pretty much the same thing.
7850 crossfire is a nice little setup, I ran that for a while, should be pretty much the same thing.
HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
It's maybe one par with 2500k in gaming. That's stretching it. With crossfire an 8350 will be a pretty significant bottleneck compared to a 2500k. On AMD platform I'd go 770 for sure. Or a 280x but prices are obnoxious right now. You'd be crazy to get 2 270s Imo. They would be basically on par with 770/280x. When games support crossfire properly. So much hassle for same money.
d50man
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,806
$110 if you don't get it let a forum user know where to get it.
Card choice depends on what games you play.
Card choice depends on what games you play.
HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
Never said it would bottleneck a 290. It would actually. But 270 crossfire it would be a significant bottleneck. AMD cpu are usually quite decent in single GPU configs but have significant issues when they have 2 gpus.
No, the 3570K, or even a 2500K is a much better gaming CPU than the 8350. If you want to compare synthetic benchmarks that use all 8 cores, yes the 8350 is better, but for real world gaming across multiple titles, it's not even a close fight.
R9 270 is equivalent to 7870 and >= GTX 760. And, 2X R9 270X CF are equivalent to one R9 290X according to this although single GPU is preferred.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html
FX-8350 and even $110 FX-6350 benchmark the same as $1K Intel i7 4960x with a strong GPU. Save the $$$ towards a R9 290X and put the savings in the bank.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Plus, the trend with game engines like Frostbite taking advantage of multi-threading and utilizing up to eight to nine cores so you're better off with FX-8350.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html
FX-8350 and even $110 FX-6350 benchmark the same as $1K Intel i7 4960x with a strong GPU. Save the $$$ towards a R9 290X and put the savings in the bank.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Plus, the trend with game engines like Frostbite taking advantage of multi-threading and utilizing up to eight to nine cores so you're better off with FX-8350.
HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
That's single player. Joke. Find 1 with 64 player conquest. That 4960x will shit on both those mediocre cpus so bad it'll make your head spin. Find 1 with 2 GPU in 64 player conquest and the i7 will get nearly double the frames.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html
this doesn't show multiplayer either, but it shows the utter weakness of AMD cpu in multi GPU configs. I don't care if they are 7970's either. I had this issue with a 1090t at 4.1ghz with 2 6850s. Bottleneck was so bad in MOST games that the 2nd card was nearly pointless.
Last edited:
Don't be a closed minded parakeet. Here's a screenshot of a 64 player game with Google Play movie and Winrar single-thread looping in the background and the system is still responsive. Frostbite 3 engine takes advantage of up to eight to nine cores and is the future trend of gaming. Plus, this system doubles as an ESXi test server with IOMMU support when not running games. I also have a dual-socket Xeon sitting in the corner turned off since it doesn't run BF4 100% stable and just ordered an Opteron 6328 to replace it. FX-8350 is similar but I just like double the L3 cache and the bigger CPU surface area to keep it at ~40C under load with Noctua NH-U9DO A3. This is actual ownership experience and not just parakeeting out of my other end.
Last edited:
HOODedDutchman
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 827
Bf4 is basically the only example that shows similar performance. Put 2 cards on it and intel will still smoke it. What card are you running. I haven't seen under 80 fps with all ultra 2xmsaa and low post with my aging 2600K @4.7. That was with my 780. Haven't played since switching. Play a 64 round and let's see a screen shot of GPU usage. It will be playable. My point is there will be a significant bottleneck with 2 cards. So I'm urging op to go with stronger single GPU.
buttons
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,174
I had an overclocked FX8320 and it played every game just as well if not better then my I7 systems that i threw at it... Some benchmarks said otherwise, but "real world" no discernible difference...
If i was the OP id buy that 270 for $110 in a heart beat. even if he doesnt use it, could sell it for profit.