Which GPU is better? Which would you take?

D

dmoney1980

Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
533
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Boy, that is a really hard one. Everything from performance to temperatures and noise are about equal between the two. I guess it comes down to what extra features and what driver packages you like more. The extra memory on the AMD card may give you a little more longevity as texture resolutions increase.

BTW, your links are truncated and broken ;).
 
According to Pc gamer teh 280x pwns teh 770 all day price for performance.........
 
R9 280X's performance is more like the GTX 780. Other benefit of 280X is 3GB VRAM vs 2GB. If you don't mind used I've seen like one month old 280X on Craigslist for $200-260.
 
EVGA since they honor their warranties, doesn't matter if the other is an AMD/Nvidia whatever, its an ASUS
 
They're pretty much equal:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1041?vs=1037
CoH has always been horribly AMD-biased from any benchmarks that I've seen, so I would just ignore that result. The 280x iirc is basically a 7970 Ghz (which is an overclocked 7970). So vs a normal 770 the 770 would lose out slightly. But when overclocked they'd be about equal. I would only worry about the 2GB vs 3GB vram if you plan to SLI/CF and will be running on 1440p or above.

tl;dr For a single card it comes down to what driver featureset you like more. Might want to check out Shadowplay to see if you'll like it. Personally for me Nvidia has drastically lost my favor because their Shadowplay works so god awful in SLI that I just keep it off. Framerate reductions out the wazoo. But like someone mentioned EVGA is likely a much better company to deal with for RMA's, so that may be a huge factor.
 
neither. overpriced garbage. buy a twin frozr model of whichever performs better in the games you play. they're both $330 on amazon right now.
 
Neither, at that price.
Although I'm a broken record on the defective product that is the "ASUS 280x".

Really you shouldn't be spending more than $330 on either card, closer to $300 with sales. The 280x itself is supposed to be $300.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Neither, at that price.
Although I'm a broken record on the defective product that is the "ASUS 280x".

Really you shouldn't be spending more than $330 on either card, closer to $300 with sales. The 280x itself is supposed to be $300.
Click to expand...

How much did you pay for yours?:eek:
 
primetime said:
How much did you pay for yours?:eek:
Click to expand...

i paid $285 for mine, was $300 during black friday + $15 rebate. but this guy is wanting to buy in the middle of the year with no big sales in sight, so he's not going to get prices like that.
 
Odellus said:
i paid $285 for mine, was $300 during black friday + $15 rebate. but this guy is wanting to buy in the middle of the year with no big sales in sight, so he's not going to get prices like that.
Click to expand...

black friday sucks and you don't need a big holiday for a sale. Use sites like slickdeals to find out what a good price is and to notify you of sales. Saw a Sapphire 280X for $270 a few days ago
 
mi7chy said:
R9 280X's performance is more like the GTX 780.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahaha thats funny, tell us more.

The 780 stomps the 280x in every benchmark out there. The only thing the 280x is better at is mining digital currency.
 
Last edited:
yeah the 780 is a faster card than the 280x. That said, I've seen benchmarks where a plain 290 beats / ties the 780
 
Haha indeed. 280X is even faster with Mantle. Chart below is for DirectX 11.

High_1920.png
 
:rolleyes:

One game benchmark, for a game AMD spent tons of money on, because it was their Mantle poster child.

I'd really like to never see BF4 used for benchmarks again, it's a buggy game anyway.
 
PcZac said:
:rolleyes:

One game benchmark, for a game AMD spent tons of money on, because it was their Mantle poster child.

I'd really like to never see BF4 used for benchmarks again, it's a buggy game anyway.
Click to expand...

While I agree with what you are saying, its hard to ignore a title like BF when benchmarking GPU's. Heck, the game is the reason why ATI / Nvidia brought out their flagship offerings last year.
 
How are they only getting 68fps at 1920x1200 high settings on a 780? Obviously I run different settings but I'm pushing 100fps avg on BF4 at high/ultra settings at 1440p.
 
PcZac said:
:rolleyes:

One game benchmark, for a game AMD spent tons of money on, because it was their Mantle poster child.

I'd really like to never see BF4 used for benchmarks again, it's a buggy game anyway.
Click to expand...
In addition, the benchmark review that graph is from was posted in October last year, before any patches had yet been released for the game. [H]'s review also shows that the 280X was outperforming the GTX 780 at this point using the same settings.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4_video_card_performance_iq_review/4
Code: 
Highest Playable Resolution-AA-AF
            2560x1600
        FXAA Low - 16X AF
 
     NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
 Min. FPS | Max. FPS | AVG. FPS
    31    |    82    |   59.6
 
       AMD Radeon R9 280X
 Min. FPS | Max. FPS | AVG. FPS
    36    |    93    |   61.7
It had been well known since the public beta that NVIDIA cards had performance issues in the game leading up to the release, and the same disparity carried over to the retail release. In the conclusion of the [H] BF4 evaluation, it is noted:
What was more disconcerting was the inconsistent performance between AMD and NVIDIA cards. Overall, AMD cards tended to perform better than the NVIDIA counterpart at the particular price point, with the exception of the GeForce GTX 760 vs. the Radeon R9 270X.

With each NVIDIA card, we observed frame rates to be far more varied than AMD based cards over the course of playing the game with them. It almost seems that the performance concerns that we had with NVIDIA cards during our Beta evaluation have only been partially fixed at this point.
Click to expand...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/03/04/bf4_amd_mantle_video_card_performance_review_part_1/4
If we take a look at the Mantle performance review posted in March in the link above, after several patches and driver updates, we see that NVIDIA cards had caught up and surpassed its AMD counterparts in DX11 performance. The GTX 780 is now averaging 62 FPS, while the R9 280X has fallen to 48 FPS. Using Mantle increases the average framerate of the 280X to 58 FPS. Still slower than the GTX 780, but irrelevant since the performance cannot be directly compared between the two cards on this API.

The point is: if you're going to be making a purchasing decision based on the performance of this one game, you should be looking for the most relevant up-to-date data available to you.
 
mi7chy said:
Haha indeed. 280X is even faster with Mantle. Chart below is for DirectX 11.
Click to expand...

Really? Using Version 1.0 to show that the 280x is a better buy? Why not suggest a Radeon 7970 Ghz, because clearly - it's right on the heels of the Titan! Look, the OP came in here asking for advice on the 280x versus the GTX-770. This isn't a platform for you to try and derail the thread into a flame war.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
This isn't a platform for you to try and derail the thread into a flame war.
Click to expand...

Mantle performance advantage is a valid argument for R9 280X. The only one getting emotional and turning this into a flame war is you so maybe it's time for you to learn some maturity.
 
mi7chy said:
Mantle performance advantage is a valid argument for R9 280X...
Click to expand...
Sure, if all you play on PC is Battlefield 4 and Thief. Beyond more Frostbite 3 games in the pipeline, are there any other games that are going to integrate Mantle?
 
mi7chy said:
BF4 runs fine. Fix your system.
Click to expand...

4 days ago,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/04/ea-halts-dice-projects-pending-battlefield-4-fixes/

This recent update focuses on rubberbanding, a particularly striking latency problem that makes it look like you’re moving forward before snapping you back to wherever you were a few seconds ago. From the official Battlefield 4 blog:

“As you know, we’ve been looking into resolving the “rubber banding” that some players on certain platforms have experienced with Battlefield 4 after the recent release of Naval Strike. We’ve found that the root cause of the issue was a configuration of certain hardware types dedicated to 64-player matches."
Click to expand...

2 weeks ago,

http://kotaku.com/battlefield-4-bug-kills-you-when-you-try-to-shoot-1563138274

Talk about game-breaking: apparently, if you happen to have a revivable dead body standing between you and an enemy in Battlefield 4, there's a chance that downed will eat your bullets—or worse, will bounce something dangerous like a grenade or an RPG back into your face. P

If you've been having trouble killing people in Battlefield 4 for seemingly no reason, or if your own weaponry has been mysteriously killing you, maybe this bug—which is showcased in the video above by jackfrags—is to blame. Jack Frags calls the bug the "death shield." Thankfully, if a body disappears, the shot is likely to start connecting again.
Click to expand...

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2955065670203355766/

There have been periods post launch where the game has been unplayable online for large amounts of players.
 
mi7chy said:
Mantle performance advantage is a valid argument for R9 280X. The only one getting emotional and turning this into a flame war is you so maybe it's time for you to learn some maturity.
Click to expand...

Whatever man. Mantle is a fair point, but you didn't say that in your first post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though - my apologies. Perhaps I've seen too many shit fests in this subforum that my "troll" radar needs some recalibration.
 
Personally I would go with the 280x as I prefer AMD products, that said, You really do need to look at the games you will be playing and buy based on what you plan on doing. Since you are using 1440p the extra RAM on the 280x will be useful but Nvidia does a very good job of memory management so that advantage is somewhat limited.

Just write down the games you play, rank them in importance and buy based on which card performs the best on the top 2 or 3 games.

Also keep in mind, for a few bucks more you can get an R9 290 (Recently got mine for 379) and it will completely outclass both of the cards you linked (Much like a 780 would).
 
Warstopper said:
Since you are using 1440p the extra RAM on the 280x will be useful
Click to expand...

no it won't. more vram =/= more performance, it just means that you can do more with the card before you either crash or the gpu starts paging to ram, and you can't even come close to that with 2 GB at 1440p unless you try running 8x MSAA with 200% resolution scale in bf4 or something. even in that situation if you had enough vram, the gpu isn't fast enough to put out acceptable performance with settings as ridiculous as those anyway!

vram only matters when you're running four titan blacks with three 4k monitors or something.
 
Last edited:
If it was between those two, I would buy the EVGA card hands down. When it comes down to it, if the Asus breaks at some point good luck getting it fixed/replaced. With the EVGA, you could even save up a little money and step up to the 780 or whatever within the first 3 months if the performance doesn't satisfy you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top