Vid card for gaming at 1900x1200 at high setings for Tomb Raider/BF4/Starcitizen?

K

Kirika

Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
710
What Vid card is recommended for gaming at 1900x1200 at high settings for Tomb Raider and Mech Warrior Online now and Battlefield 4 / Star Citizen in the future?

See rig in sig.

The HD 6950 2 gb I picked up on a deal in early 2011 runs everything else I played on high settings till my friend got me to try Mech Warrior Online beta and I picked up Tomb Raider on the recent steam sale run badly on high settings but ok if I turn things down.

Thinking I might need an upgrade as more Cry Engine 3 games come out like Star Citizen next year and Battlefield 4 will be demanding.

Would you recommend getting something now or holding out for a deal or a new card?

Looking to build a new workstation. late fall when the 10 core 3+ ghz xeon's come out. Hopefully they will over clock.

Considering springing for the 3rd screen for 3 screen gaming but 2 works for work. Not looking to upgrade to 30 inch screens for a couple years at least unless these die on me.
 
1920x1200 on tomb raider ( all graphics setting Maxxed a 4x SuperSampling ) with 3 Gtx 780s with a 2600k @ 4800mhz I get 100fps to 120fps, turn it to 2x SS and I keep it over 120fps. The game I think looks better then Crysis 3
 
Tomb Raider is easy enough to run on a 770/7970 without SSAA and TressFX enabled (in general SSAA is going to be a no go). If Crysis 3 is any measure as far as what Star Citizen will need then you will need a whole lot more to get 60 at max (2x770's). BF4 no idea, alpha results that are floating around show it chewing through single card configs at high res but as it's alpha that's hardly indicative.
 
Looks like you have a nice big budget to work with.

A GTX 770 should perfect for 1080p.
 
Star Citizen is a ways off. Who knows how much more demanding Cryengine will be by then as well as other factors in the game. I doubt it will be considerably different, though I assume they update the engine every few months like Epic does with UE3.
 
Thank you for the replies.

Is the GTX 770 preferred over the 7970? I'm seeing plenty of HD 7970 for sale on craiglist/ebay from $250-$300 but not very many GTX 770 used for sale at all.

If I buy new Nvidia always get EVGA. My EVGA 7900 GT fried and they sent me a 8800 GT which was totally awesome. If I were to get a new EVGA GTX 770 should I get the normal,the super clocked or the classified 4 gb one? There is a $20 premium on super clocked and a $100 premium on the classified 4gb. I am thinking 4gb is not needed unless I want to go surround which I don't for awhile. Don't have room on my desk for the 3rd screen.
 
Star Citizen is a ways off, but I am a bit concerned that even my gtx 670's in SLI wont get all the eye candy turned on. A gtx 780 is enough for about anything else, and if you have the means and desire to add another one when StarC comes out, you should be set to go.
 
I wouldn't do anything til we see AMD's new driver myself and can you run Sli or CX because then i would look at CX HD7950's myself as thats alot of horsepower for the cost as where talking HD7990 speed which is what the BF 4 demo was ran on.

I also had an unlocked HD6950 and upgraded to a HD7950 Boost and i seen the biggest upgrades in the 5760x1080 area.
 
Is the GTX 770 preferred over the 7970? I'm seeing plenty of HD 7970 for sale on craiglist/ebay from $250-$300 but not very many GTX 770 used for sale at all.
Click to expand...
The GTX 770 is new and just launched within the last ~2month or so, so it is expected that it hasn't shown up much on Craigslist or eBay for a reduced price, while the 7970 is a much older card.
 
The 770GTX is a reworked 680GTX and why Nvidia thinks it can keep the insane price tag.. i can't see paying it myself when you can buy a HD7970 and overclock it to Ghz speed.
 
fanboy said:
The 770GTX is a reworked 680GTX and why Nvidia thinks it can keep the insane price tag.. i can't see paying it myself when you can buy a HD7970 and overclock it to Ghz speed.
Click to expand...

Ummm because its on par or beats a GHz 7970 in everything and is only $400. Memory over clocks about 500-1000mhz more than a 680 and unless you have a great binned 680 770 will over clock better to. 7970ghz barely beats a reference 680. 770 is significantly faster than a 680. Both the 770 and 7970ghz overclocked will be very close tho. So if you can get a nice used 7970 lightning or something with a nice cooler for $300 or under I'd jump on it but if buying new 770 for sure. Evga acx ftw.
 
HOODedDutchman said:
Ummm because its on par or beats a GHz 7970 in everything and is only $400.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
7970ghz barely beats a reference 680. 770 is significantly faster than a 680.
Click to expand...
Refrain from presenting your uninformed opinions as facts.
0CmpVwt.jpg


8ETMJmP.jpg
dBLoZ9X.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well as someone who just sold a 7970 and bought a 770 I think you're being a little nitpicky. There is really no discernible difference between the two as far as looking at raw fps, however I have found that the gameplay is far smoother with the 770 in most games and for the games that have physx it's pretty nice. (AND considering my 7970 was a poor overclocker and my 770 is running at 1306/7600 it is actually a little bit faster in raw fps, but we know oc'ing can be a crap shoot) Also posting benchmarks of one of the games that is known to run very well on AMD is hardly objectively proving anything. Both cards are very good, but I will say that having now owned 4 AMD cards and 4 nVidia cards, I do prefer nVidia, whether in single or dual card configurations.
 
I wish i could say the same for Nvidia but they have issues with scaling for HDTV's as i have a whole pile of Nvidia cards and the only one that scales right is a 460GTX 768Mb but the colors are awful compared to AMD ... My 560GTX will not scale right on a 24" HDTV.
 
fanboy said:
I wish i could say the same for Nvidia but they have issues with scaling for HDTV's as i have a whole pile of Nvidia cards and the only one that scales right is a 460GTX 768Mb but the colors are awful compared to AMD ... My 560GTX will not scale right on a 24" HDTV.
Click to expand...

I seriously thought I was the only one who thought that..I have used both brands going all the way back to the Riva TNT I owned (GF2,3, 4600TI, 7600GO, 8800GT 1GB(rare) GTX 480) and on the AMD side 9600XT, 9800PRO AIW (G.O.A.T!!!)1800XT, 1950Pro, 4850, and now MSI TF3 7950...

I have always thought that the AMD cards have better color repication, especially on HDTV's as you mentioned (which is what my main LCD is, see sig)...With the GTX 480, the HDMI black level patch helped a tiny bit, but not anywhere near as nice as the AMD card...My LCD is professionally calibrated, and uses a S-IPS panel, so it has excellent color replication..
 
Kirika said:
What Vid card is recommended for gaming at 1900x1200 at high settings for Tomb Raider and Mech Warrior Online now and Battlefield 4 / Star Citizen in the future?

See rig in sig.

The HD 6950 2 gb I picked up on a deal in early 2011 runs everything else I played on high settings till my friend got me to try Mech Warrior Online beta and I picked up Tomb Raider on the recent steam sale run badly on high settings but ok if I turn things down.

Thinking I might need an upgrade as more Cry Engine 3 games come out like Star Citizen next year and Battlefield 4 will be demanding.

Would you recommend getting something now or holding out for a deal or a new card?

Looking to build a new workstation. late fall when the 10 core 3+ ghz xeon's come out. Hopefully they will over clock.

Considering springing for the 3rd screen for 3 screen gaming but 2 works for work. Not looking to upgrade to 30 inch screens for a couple years at least unless these die on me.
Click to expand...

since the only significant upgrade is a 770 or better, you have to ask yourself if hundreds of dollars is worth moving the tomb raider settings up a notch.

star citizen is 2 years away. anything you buy now will look stupid in 2 years.
 
Lorien said:
No it doesn't.
Refrain from presenting your uninformed opinions as facts.
0CmpVwt.jpg


8ETMJmP.jpg
dBLoZ9X.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL you pick the a game that prefers amd and post graphs. Probably the only graph out of the review you picked that beats the 770 and only because of tressfx. Hand picked graphs don't make you right.
Out of 18 games in this review the 7970ghz wins by a small margin in 4 of them and total is 5% faster.
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_770/26.html
This is an aftermarket card but its reference clocks. They are on par at 2560x1600 but that's not what the op is asking for. You can get a gigabyte wf3 with 104mhz over clock for the same price as a tf3 MSI 7970ghz on new egg and it'll walk all over it.
 
Last edited:
ccityinstaller said:
I seriously thought I was the only one who thought that..I have used both brands going all the way back to the Riva TNT I owned (GF2,3, 4600TI, 7600GO, 8800GT 1GB(rare) GTX 480) and on the AMD side 9600XT, 9800PRO AIW (G.O.A.T!!!)1800XT, 1950Pro, 4850, and now MSI TF3 7950...

I have always thought that the AMD cards have better color repication, especially on HDTV's as you mentioned (which is what my main LCD is, see sig)...With the GTX 480, the HDMI black level patch helped a tiny bit, but not anywhere near as nice as the AMD card...My LCD is professionally calibrated, and uses a S-IPS panel, so it has excellent color replication..
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694755

One of our own forum members debunked this last year, pretty sure it's all in your head ;)

They both use the same digital signal standard reporting the same colour values, possibly true back in the analog VGA days but not anymore.
 
HOODedDutchman said:
LOL you pick the a game that prefers amd and post graphs.
Click to expand...
LOL I linked to the full review. I wasn't going to spam the thread with all their content.

Probably the only graph out of the review you picked that beats the 770 and only because of tressfx. Hand picked graphs don't make you right. Out of 18 games in this review the 7970ghz wins by a small margin in 4 of them and total is 5% faster.
Click to expand...

He mentioned Tomb Raider the only game that is out and playable and that he is interested in. The other 2 haven't been released yet and won't be for several months (BF4 in October) or a year+ away (Star Citizen in 2014).

Besides, the raw data from the review I linked tells the whole story. At 1080P the 7970Ghz wins 20 of 36 tests and at 1440P it wins 26 of 36.

1080P

1440P

All possible combinations of AA/AF for every game tested.

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_770/26.html
This is an aftermarket card but its reference clocks. They are on par at 2560x1600 but that's not what the op is asking for.
Click to expand...
The TPU review does not give the user the whole picture because it is inconsistent in the settings used for each game. In some it uses AA (or various degrees of it) while in other it doesn't. I linked to a thorough review testing pretty much all possible combinations of AA/AF for each game tested.

You can get a gigabyte wf3 with 104mhz over clock for the same price as a tf3 MSI 7970ghz on new egg
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Gigabyte Windfoce 3 770 is $459.99 while the MSI TwinForce 7970Ghz is $384.99 both cards come with a free game of the same value and free shipping.

and it'll walk all over it.
Click to expand...
Save that hyperbole and exaggeration for when you run for class president or something ;).
 
Lorien said:
LOL I linked to the full review. I wasn't going to spam the thread with all their content.



He mentioned Tomb Raider the only game that is out and playable and that he is interested in. The other 2 haven't been released yet and won't be for several months (BF4 in October) or a year+ away (Star Citizen in 2014).

Besides, the raw data from the review I linked tells the whole story. At 1080P the 7970Ghz wins 20 of 36 tests and at 1440P it wins 26 of 36.

1080P

1440P

All possible combinations of AA/AF for every game tested.

The TPU review does not give the user the whole picture because it is inconsistent in the settings used for each game. In some it uses AA (or various degrees of it) while in other it doesn't. I linked to a thorough review testing pretty much all possible combinations of AA/AF for each game tested.

Incorrect. The Gigabyte Windfoce 3 770 is $459.99 while the MSI TwinForce 7970Ghz is $384.99 both cards come with a free game of the same value and free shipping.

Save that hyperbole and exaggeration for when you run for class president or something ;).
Click to expand...

You are using the results from one review. I have seen over a half dozen reviews on Hard OCP from different review sites that show quite different results than this one reviewer posted. In every one of those other reviews the non reference 770's showed equal or better frame rates than a 7970 ghz edition. While this difference in frame rates was slight in some games, the difference in frame times was very significant. The 770 has better frame times than a 7970 in every game, giving it smoother gameplay. Every review I have seen, with the exception of the one review you are referring to, says the 770 gives frame rates equal or greater than the 7970 ghz and smoother gameplay.
 
bernaby said:
You are using the results from one review. I have seen over a half dozen reviews on Hard OCP from different review sites that show quite different results than this one reviewer posted. In every one of those other reviews the non reference 770's showed equal or better frame rates than a 7970 ghz edition. While this difference in frame rates was slight in some games, the difference in frame times was very significant. The 770 has better frame times than a 7970 in every game, giving it smoother gameplay. Every review I have seen, with the exception of the one review you are referring to, says the 770 gives frame rates equal or greater than the 7970 ghz and smoother gameplay.
Click to expand...

I can agree on this as well, done the same when all these various 770's came out and looked into all the reviews. For the AMD lovers: Stop recommending old hardware to someone that wants new hardware!
 
bernaby said:
You are using the results from one review. I have seen over a half dozen reviews on Hard OCP from different review sites that show quite different results than this one reviewer posted. In every one of those other reviews the non reference 770's showed equal or better frame rates than a 7970 ghz edition. While this difference in frame rates was slight in some games, the difference in frame times was very significant. The 770 has better frame times than a 7970 in every game, giving it smoother gameplay. Every review I have seen, with the exception of the one review you are referring to, says the 770 gives frame rates equal or greater than the 7970 ghz and smoother gameplay.
Click to expand...

Could you show this? I checked and it seems that in the games the OP is asking about, only Tomb Raider is out and he plays on a 1920x1200 resolution, where 1080P is the closest from the reviews.

The 7970 GE is not only faster (a few percent, so it can hardly be called faster though), but also have better frametimes, meaning the 7970 GE is smoother then the 770. Let me show you and keep in mind that the 770's are even non-reference cards:

[H] MSI 770 Lightning vs. Stock 7970 GE:
1369730216eMvcKlVH3d_5_4.gif

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...70_lightning_video_card_review/5#.Ue0l78M4Wcw

[H] Asus 770 DC2 vs. Stock 7970 GE:
13711412411mQcKLY2dB_5_4.jpg

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013..._directcu_ii_video_card_review/5#.Ue0ok8M4Wcw

Techreport frametimes in Tomb Raider:
tr-percentiles.png

http://techreport.com/review/24996/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-graphics-card-reviewed/6

Can you show me where you found frametimes better on a 770 in Tomb Raider (or any of the other games the OP is asking about?).
 
OP I suggest you wait for the new AMD GPU's to come out later this year and then compare to current nvidia GTX770, 780, Titan etc. and decide.
If you still can't wait and only want to play those games mentioned (except StarCitizen of course) I recommend GTX780.
This because I know BF4 will be a bit more demanding than BF3 so a GTX770 (aka GTX680 OC) and older 7970 GE won't be completely future proof.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Could you show this? I checked and it seems that in the games the OP is asking about, only Tomb Raider is out and he plays on a 1920x1200 resolution, where 1080P is the closest from the reviews.
Click to expand...

Aw, you're being too logical. But the GTX 770 is faster in all those other games that the OP isn't interested in. so he should get that!
 
Thank you.

I'll wait till the new ATI GPUs come out later this year and get the video card upgrade with my new machine towards the end of the year. Battlefield 4 will be out then so will have a better idea of what to get then.

Actually not all that impressed by Mech Warrior Online Beta. Will wait for release. I can wait on playing Tomb Raider till I upgrade.
 
Klapcos said:
OP I suggest you wait for the new AMD GPU's to come out later this year and then compare to current nvidia GTX770, 780, Titan etc. and decide.
If you still can't wait and only want to play those games mentioned (except StarCitizen of course) I recommend GTX780.
This because I know BF4 will be a bit more demanding than BF3 so a GTX770 (aka GTX680 OC) and older 7970 GE won't be completely future proof.
Click to expand...

What's future-proof...

The Titan, GTX7970 GHz, and whatever else will be slow in a year, and real slow in two, especially since we're looking at higher-resolution screens across the board in the near future.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
What's future-proof...

The Titan, GTX7970 GHz, and whatever else will be slow in a year, and real slow in two, especially since we're looking at higher-resolution screens across the board in the near future.
Click to expand...

Well future proof until the new AMD & Nvidia GPU's come out. So yeah less than a year.
I know I am untill the new nvidia gpu's come out next year for my upgrade.

I can run anything maxed out on these overclocked GTX680 in SLI on a 144Hz panel smooth for at least another year np.
 
At minimum a 670/770. Would recommend at least a 2 GB VRAM model to help future-proof to an extent. May help if these games get high res texture packs/DLC content
 
werzinator said:
At minimum a 670/770. Would recommend at least a 2 GB VRAM model to help future-proof to an extent. May help if these games get high res texture packs/DLC content
Click to expand...

I'd say higher than 2GB VRAM if you're in the $300+ range.

The current gen games are designed to run on consoles with 512K shared ram. The next gen has 8GB of shared ram, so considering that PC games require more VRAM than the consoles, 2GB might start to seem really small.
 
Varmint said:
I'd say higher than 2GB VRAM if you're in the $300+ range.

The current gen games are designed to run on consoles with 512K shared ram. The next gen has 8GB of shared ram, so considering that PC games require more VRAM than the consoles, 2GB might start to seem really small.
Click to expand...

no.



2gb is fine and will be fine for the time being. stop spreading nonsense
 
dremic said:
no.

2gb is fine and will be fine for the time being. stop spreading nonsense
Click to expand...

You're right, but given that 3GB and 4GB cards can be had in the same range, it's not a stretch either. 4GB GTX670's didn't exist when I bought mine, and I knew 2GB would be enough, but if they had been available, I would have gotten those instead.
 
dremic said:
no.

2gb is fine and will be fine for the time being. stop spreading nonsense
Click to expand...

There's multipage discussions of this all over the forums, including this one. So I'm not sure I'd sum up the technical discussion as "No."

Given game developers track record of sloppy porting to PCs in terms of VRAM usage, I'm gonna go with "2GB may not be enough" in next gen games ported from the 8GB consoles.

Assuming we're talking about 770 or 7970 type cards, 2GB is fine for mid-range cards.
 
Yeah I went with the 4GB, because how can we be so sure that the new games won't at least be able to use more than 2GB, even if it isn't REQUIRED? Not only that but I see too many times the argument being that 4GB is not necessary, and while I do agree, what people fail to realize is, IF a game in the near future uses more than 2GB, then having 4 would be nice even if it's only using 2.5-3GB. I would not make the argument that 4GB is needed, only that more than 2 may soon be. Hell (and I know this is used all the time but..) my modded skyrim usually sits at around 2.8 so...
 
Exactly. I've heard the argument that .5X VRAM was plenty. Im talking in ALL these cases of max (mid to upper) card memory available

32MB
64MB
128MB
256MB
512MB
1GB
2GB

In every case, someone would argue that 1/2 as much was plenty, or that some middling amount (768MB instead of 1GB, 1.5GB instead of 2....etc) of memory was just as good for the foreseeable future.

BTW, My "excessive" 5850s and 6950s are still running everything with high textures, thanks to having 2GB each. I suspect the 7950s will be much the same, with their 3GB.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top