On a $1500 budget, there would of course be no reason to consider a Radeon HD 7770.
But for someone who just wants games to run smoothly and is fine with medium graphical settings, upgrading a Radeon HD 7770 "later" might mean you get five or six years out of it first--long enough that there's a considerable chance that hardware failure rather than insufficient performance ends up driving the upgrade, and a higher end card isn't going to be more reliable.
But once more, if you can assemble parts yourself, then you can have both the SSD and also a faster video card on that budget.
This system is for gaming..... You are telling him to get an SSD to cut out maybe a few seconds on his load screens in games vs better gameplay? He can add that SSD later and it would only take a short amount of time to get windows loaded on it and be good to go making him much better off in the long run going with a good GPU now...
Originally posted by Derza10 This system is for gaming..... You are telling him to get an SSD to cut out maybe a few seconds on his load screens in games vs better gameplay? He can add that SSD later and it would only take a short amount of time to get windows loaded on it and be good to go making him much better off in the long run going with a good GPU now...
lol it's just funny to see them arguing against saving the guy $130ish dollars. Doing SSD first then upgrading the GPU later as he said he was going to do thats $130 that doesn't need to be spent when he can get a good gaming rig now thats fairly future proofed. SSD now = a wasted $130 lol. SSD later = a saved $130.
Theres not a great deal of reason to argue against it.
Originally posted by Derza10 This system is for gaming..... You are telling him to get an SSD to cut out maybe a few seconds on his load screens in games vs better gameplay? He can add that SSD later and it would only take a short amount of time to get windows loaded on it and be good to go making him much better off in the long run going with a good GPU now...
lol it's just funny to see them arguing against saving the guy $130ish dollars. Doing SSD first then upgrading the GPU later as he said he was going to do thats $130 that doesn't need to be spent when he can get a good gaming rig now thats fairly future proofed. SSD now = a wasted $130 lol. SSD later = a saved $130.
Theres not a great deal of reason to argue against it.
There is value in having something better now. Otherwise, you could tell people to wait two years before buying anything, and then you could get something just as good as a system with both the SSD and a faster video card, while still saving a lot more than $130.
I think the main crux of the argument is that a 7770 is "good enough" for a gaming computer, allowing you to use the saved money for other speed improvements (SSD). You can say that you will uprgade it eventually, but you will upgrade any card eventually, it's just a matter of when - and that largely depends on what games you play and your personal preference. I still know people gaming on 7x00's (nVidia...) from years ago, and they are perfectly happy playing EQ on it and have no reason or inclination to upgrade.
Sure, there are faster cards, but it all comes down to staying inside the budget and getting the most bang for the buck. A faster GPU usually isn't very good bang for the buck once you get over the hump of "Fast enough to play most games at your monitors resolution".
True but.. well i guess for me personally i would rather play on high setting than low-medium with slightly faster load screens... Its really up to him.
Originally posted by Derza10 True but.. well i guess for me personally i would rather play on high setting than low-medium with slightly faster load screens... Its really up to him.
Can you name a single game in which a Radeon HD 7770 means you won't be able to go over low-medium settings?
Originally posted by Derza10 True but.. well i guess for me personally i would rather play on high setting than low-medium with slightly faster load screens... Its really up to him.
Can you name a single game in which a Radeon HD 7770 means you won't be able to go over low-medium settings?
There isn't, I use a 5830 which is older tech but around the same ability as the 7770. I run many games with the 3570k with high and even some extreme/ultra settings. This is all on a 1440p monitor.
Depending your own personal definition of medium settings (aside from straight default "medium" settings) and what one considers acceptable Framerates I indeed can name ONE game but that is mainly because much like Crisis 1 it is POORLY coded.
Depending your own personal definition of medium settings (aside from straight default "medium" settings) and what one considers acceptable Framerates I indeed can name ONE game but that is mainly because much like Crisis 1 it is POORLY coded.
Metro 2033.
That isn't even fair lol, i think metro 2033 ceased to be a game awhile ago and now is a benchmark to prove something and brute force its way thru crap.
Haha yeah much like the original Crisis it's really a better bench tool to see how much PC power your system holds in order to force it's way through the bad code than a good FPS game. I just felt like proving the point there are games out there that people might enjoy but due to bad coding their actual hardware requirements far exceed what they should and so a higher powered GPU can benefit those individuals who insist playing said games.
Depending your own personal definition of medium settings (aside from straight default "medium" settings) and what one considers acceptable Framerates I indeed can name ONE game but that is mainly because much like Crisis 1 it is POORLY coded.
Metro 2033.
That isn't even fair lol, i think metro 2033 ceased to be a game awhile ago and now is a benchmark to prove something and brute force its way thru crap.
Haha yeah much like the original Crisis it's really a better bench tool to see how much PC power your system holds in order to force it's way through the bad code than a good FPS game. I just felt like proving the point there are games out there that people might enjoy but due to bad coding their actual hardware requirements far exceed what they should and so a higher powered GPU can benefit those individuals who insist playing said games.
Well, there's also taking into account what the difference in Medium and MAX are...
For the most part - the biggest, most performance intensive differences are like... AAA vs MSAAx4, AFx4 vs AFx16, or turning on post-processing effects like Depth of Field: very little graphics difference in real gameplay, extremely huge performance hit. Sure, you may can notice something in a screenshot, but when bullets are flying, I know I can't really tell a huge difference in medium-low and MAX settings on most games.
Some of the effects actually make the gameplay worse (like depth of field, motion blur, or camera flares)... but people insist on turning them on anyway so they can say they have all the boxes checked. Some people like being able to play on MAX no matter what the change in actual visual quality is.
Even a game like Metro 2033 - sure it takes a hell of a lot of horsepower to run it maxed, but it still looks damn good on Medium.... and a 7770 has enough power to do that.
What is this systems primary use? If it is gaming you should really get a better GPU the 7770 is a low-mid card.
I would drop the SSD and spend that money on a better GPU. You can add an SSD later on when you have more money to spend.
Hmm, he could do that but adding the SSD later means he also need to reinstall windows and all the programs.
A SSD is not that expensive and it makes a rather big difference. Sure, a good GFX card is gold worth for a gamer but if OP also do other stuff with his computer or plays games that loads a lot I think I still would go for a SSD from the start.
Then again, upgrading the GFX card later is a lot more expensive so the decision is of course OPs.
Depending your own personal definition of medium settings (aside from straight default "medium" settings) and what one considers acceptable Framerates I indeed can name ONE game but that is mainly because much like Crisis 1 it is POORLY coded.
Metro 2033.
Well, there's also taking into account what the difference in Medium and MAX are...
For the most part - the biggest, most performance intensive differences are like... AAA vs MSAAx4, AFx4 vs AFx16, or turning on post-processing effects like Depth of Field: very little graphics difference in real gameplay, extremely huge performance hit. Sure, you may can notice something in a screenshot, but when bullets are flying, I know I can't really tell a huge difference in medium-low and MAX settings on most games.
Some of the effects actually make the gameplay worse (like depth of field, motion blur, or camera flares)... but people insist on turning them on anyway so they can say they have all the boxes checked. Some people like being able to play on MAX no matter what the change in actual visual quality is.
Even a game like Metro 2033 - sure it takes a hell of a lot of horsepower to run it maxed, but it still looks damn good on Medium.... and a 7770 has enough power to do that.
And that is why I added my own caveat of "Depending on your own personal definition of medium settings". MMO's are perfect examples of games where people who have ZERO issue running with literally every graphics option pushed to the extreme will almost ALWAYS turn them down in large scale battles because in those cases the "pretty colors" mean little compared to the drop in frame rates they will ultimately experience. Metro 2033 is not a game where it's just a pretty pic, it literally CRUSHES systems due to it's poor programing. While I don't own an AMD 7770 card literally EVERY professional and personal article I've read concerning the cards performance at "medium" settings are below what most would consider playable levels (-30FPS at 1920x1080 or greater res) in todays gaming environment.
With all that said, don't get me wrong, it is a very capable entry level card at it's current price point.
Oh and while we are on the topic of certain games having rather odd performance issues there are also many games which will rely more on our CPU than your GPU (just like the former example these are rare) such as a fully modded out Skyrim or EQII. Just things to keep in mind.
Here are a few benchmarks with the 7770, pretty much all of the games they tested stayed pretty close to 30 fps avg. Sure it will play those games on high settings but when you have situations where your FPS drop to sub 20, its not always "playable". I consider playable FPS to be 40+ avg where you might see your fps fluctuating from 30-50 fps vs something like 20-40 fps the 7770 will produce. And those are with games that are out right now... leaving him on the very low end (for high settings)where in most games he will already have to lower some settings to play, and that will only get worse as new games come out.
Here are a few benchmarks with the 7770, pretty much all of the games they tested stayed pretty close to 30 fps avg. Sure it will play those games on high settings but when you have situations where your FPS drop to sub 20, its not always "playable". I consider playable FPS to be 40+ avg where you might see your fps fluctuating from 30-50 fps vs something like 20-40 fps the 7770 will produce. And those are with games that are out right now... leaving him on the very low end (for high settings)where in most games he will already have to lower some settings to play, and that will only get worse as new games come out.
A 7770 is a decent entry level card, and if you dont mind medium settings on most stuff then it would be an OK card to start with. The newer crop of games will leave the 7770 struggling some I bet.
I personally would get a decent HDD and a better GPU and add SSD later. Actually what i would do is wait, save up a few more bucks and get both. It makes less sense to buy something now that you know will need to be upgraded in the near future than wait another 4-6 weeks, add $200 to the build and get a system that will last awhile.
I am looking at building a computer soon for the first time, for my wife. I have priced it out a couple times off of Newegg, and Microcenter (I have one that is about 20 miles away). I did not have the same delimma, but if I did say screw the 240-256 GB SSD, and do just a HD, the money would be there to upgrade the gfx card some from what I was looking at.
I like EVGA gfx cards, so I usually buy from them, so these prices are EVGA cards, and probably overclocked cards just for reference from Newegg, so they are higher than the lowest model, that is not overclocked. Their were rebates on stuff, but these are without those rebates, think most were around $30 or so, just using normal prices since rebates come and go.
660 2GB - $200
660TI 2GB - $299
670 2GB - $370
670 4GB - $440
680 2GB - $470
680 4GB - $540
So I was looking at this and I originally was wanting to just go with the 2 or 4 GB 670, but as I looked, I saw I was going to basically pay almost double to go from the 660 to the 670. Sure it is a lot faster, but if you are struggling with around a $150-200 price question, you could stay at the 660 and spend it elsewhere, or drop say the SSD, and have a lot of the money for the 670. I had not thought about it before, but reading this thread it kind of applied.
I could get both, it isn't that I can't afford it, but being able to do something doesn't mean its smart. My thinking was to maybe just get the 660 for around $200, and if it gets to where it needs replaced, I can probably get another card that is much better, and in the same lineup spot in say 1.5- 2 years for the same almost $200 I would have to spend now. The counter argument would be that this card in 1.5-2 years that is on the lower cycle may only be roughly equal to the 670-680, as the 660 seems to be a little better than the 570....So if you are going to pay the $200 at some time, maybe you pay it now, and get the better card for the life of your computer most likely (3-4 years). One scenario also is that the 660 may last the life of the computer, graphics wise. We usually play on like 1080, and on a single monitor. I like to push the graphics and options up for that range, but I do not push super high graphics and multiple monitors... I think game needs on a graphics card have not been multiplying the way they use to as a side note.
So there is some random thoughts that may apply to this discussion. I will most likely post the stuff I plan to buy before I do so, to make sure I am not doing something silly. I do plan to buy more powersupply than I need, just so it is not an issue if I do something later to the computer, or use it in a rebuild, in 3 years or so.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I just bought a 3gb 7950 for £200, decent brand too - sapphire. That's about $300.
It benches between your two 670s and is the sake price as the 660ti which it is a lot faster than.
Nvidias are over priced.
Well, like I said these are higher than basic priced models, and I just get Nvidea, sure times have changed, but I guess I haven't, I remember a lot of problems people with ATIs had, and I never had any of them with the Nvidea cards. I was even able to play Vanguard, as buggy and hitchy as it was without many problems when it launched.
Went to Anandtech, looked at a benchmark, yeah the 7950 3GB is pretty comparible to the 670 2GB in benchmarks, better in some, worse in some, and a lot worse in some....But all in all yeah probably do about the same job overall.
I have debated trying ATI, but memories of the past have prevented me from doing it. Just a lot of MMOs I played, people had a lot more problems with ATIs, than Nividea, from memory. Not saying people never have problems with Nvidea, just from my experience, less. So my view always was a card is no good to me, if I can't play the game I am wanting to play, so I never chanced it in the past.
I like EVGA gfx cards, so I usually buy from them, so these prices are EVGA cards, and probably overclocked cards just for reference from Newegg, so they are higher than the lowest model, that is not overclocked. Their were rebates on stuff, but these are without those rebates, think most were around $30 or so, just using normal prices since rebates come and go.
660 2GB - $200
660TI 2GB - $299
670 2GB - $370
670 4GB - $440
680 2GB - $470
680 4GB - $540
So I was looking at this and I originally was wanting to just go with the 2 or 4 GB 670, but as I looked, I saw I was going to basically pay almost double to go from the 660 to the 670. Sure it is a lot faster, but if you are struggling with around a $150-200 price question, you could stay at the 660 and spend it elsewhere, or drop say the SSD, and have a lot of the money for the 670. I had not thought about it before, but reading this thread it kind of applied.
The GeForce GTX 660 there is a good value. I don't see any reason to even consider buying any of the others. If you're one of the relatively few people (multiboxers or ultra-high monitor resolutions) who needs more than the 1.5 GB of video memory that the GTX 660 offers, then you should go with AMD this generation.
Comments
On a $1500 budget, there would of course be no reason to consider a Radeon HD 7770.
But for someone who just wants games to run smoothly and is fine with medium graphical settings, upgrading a Radeon HD 7770 "later" might mean you get five or six years out of it first--long enough that there's a considerable chance that hardware failure rather than insufficient performance ends up driving the upgrade, and a higher end card isn't going to be more reliable.
But once more, if you can assemble parts yourself, then you can have both the SSD and also a faster video card on that budget.
lol it's just funny to see them arguing against saving the guy $130ish dollars. Doing SSD first then upgrading the GPU later as he said he was going to do thats $130 that doesn't need to be spent when he can get a good gaming rig now thats fairly future proofed. SSD now = a wasted $130 lol. SSD later = a saved $130.
Theres not a great deal of reason to argue against it.
There is value in having something better now. Otherwise, you could tell people to wait two years before buying anything, and then you could get something just as good as a system with both the SSD and a faster video card, while still saving a lot more than $130.
I think the main crux of the argument is that a 7770 is "good enough" for a gaming computer, allowing you to use the saved money for other speed improvements (SSD). You can say that you will uprgade it eventually, but you will upgrade any card eventually, it's just a matter of when - and that largely depends on what games you play and your personal preference. I still know people gaming on 7x00's (nVidia...) from years ago, and they are perfectly happy playing EQ on it and have no reason or inclination to upgrade.
Sure, there are faster cards, but it all comes down to staying inside the budget and getting the most bang for the buck. A faster GPU usually isn't very good bang for the buck once you get over the hump of "Fast enough to play most games at your monitors resolution".
Can you name a single game in which a Radeon HD 7770 means you won't be able to go over low-medium settings?
Depending your own personal definition of medium settings (aside from straight default "medium" settings) and what one considers acceptable Framerates I indeed can name ONE game but that is mainly because much like Crisis 1 it is POORLY coded.
Metro 2033.
Haha yeah much like the original Crisis it's really a better bench tool to see how much PC power your system holds in order to force it's way through the bad code than a good FPS game. I just felt like proving the point there are games out there that people might enjoy but due to bad coding their actual hardware requirements far exceed what they should and so a higher powered GPU can benefit those individuals who insist playing said games.
Well, there's also taking into account what the difference in Medium and MAX are...
For the most part - the biggest, most performance intensive differences are like...
AAA vs MSAAx4, AFx4 vs AFx16, or turning on post-processing effects like Depth of Field: very little graphics difference in real gameplay, extremely huge performance hit. Sure, you may can notice something in a screenshot, but when bullets are flying, I know I can't really tell a huge difference in medium-low and MAX settings on most games.
Some of the effects actually make the gameplay worse (like depth of field, motion blur, or camera flares)... but people insist on turning them on anyway so they can say they have all the boxes checked. Some people like being able to play on MAX no matter what the change in actual visual quality is.
Even a game like Metro 2033 - sure it takes a hell of a lot of horsepower to run it maxed, but it still looks damn good on Medium.... and a 7770 has enough power to do that.
Hmm, he could do that but adding the SSD later means he also need to reinstall windows and all the programs.
A SSD is not that expensive and it makes a rather big difference. Sure, a good GFX card is gold worth for a gamer but if OP also do other stuff with his computer or plays games that loads a lot I think I still would go for a SSD from the start.
Then again, upgrading the GFX card later is a lot more expensive so the decision is of course OPs.
And that is why I added my own caveat of "Depending on your own personal definition of medium settings". MMO's are perfect examples of games where people who have ZERO issue running with literally every graphics option pushed to the extreme will almost ALWAYS turn them down in large scale battles because in those cases the "pretty colors" mean little compared to the drop in frame rates they will ultimately experience. Metro 2033 is not a game where it's just a pretty pic, it literally CRUSHES systems due to it's poor programing. While I don't own an AMD 7770 card literally EVERY professional and personal article I've read concerning the cards performance at "medium" settings are below what most would consider playable levels (-30FPS at 1920x1080 or greater res) in todays gaming environment.
With all that said, don't get me wrong, it is a very capable entry level card at it's current price point.
Oh and while we are on the topic of certain games having rather odd performance issues there are also many games which will rely more on our CPU than your GPU (just like the former example these are rare) such as a fully modded out Skyrim or EQII. Just things to keep in mind.
Here are a few benchmarks with the 7770, pretty much all of the games they tested stayed pretty close to 30 fps avg. Sure it will play those games on high settings but when you have situations where your FPS drop to sub 20, its not always "playable". I consider playable FPS to be 40+ avg where you might see your fps fluctuating from 30-50 fps vs something like 20-40 fps the 7770 will produce. And those are with games that are out right now... leaving him on the very low end (for high settings)where in most games he will already have to lower some settings to play, and that will only get worse as new games come out.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7770-7750-benchmark,3135-6.html
I have to agree with him on the above statement.
A 7770 is a decent entry level card, and if you dont mind medium settings on most stuff then it would be an OK card to start with. The newer crop of games will leave the 7770 struggling some I bet.
I personally would get a decent HDD and a better GPU and add SSD later. Actually what i would do is wait, save up a few more bucks and get both. It makes less sense to buy something now that you know will need to be upgraded in the near future than wait another 4-6 weeks, add $200 to the build and get a system that will last awhile.
My 2cp
I am looking at building a computer soon for the first time, for my wife. I have priced it out a couple times off of Newegg, and Microcenter (I have one that is about 20 miles away). I did not have the same delimma, but if I did say screw the 240-256 GB SSD, and do just a HD, the money would be there to upgrade the gfx card some from what I was looking at.
I like EVGA gfx cards, so I usually buy from them, so these prices are EVGA cards, and probably overclocked cards just for reference from Newegg, so they are higher than the lowest model, that is not overclocked. Their were rebates on stuff, but these are without those rebates, think most were around $30 or so, just using normal prices since rebates come and go.
660 2GB - $200
660TI 2GB - $299
670 2GB - $370
670 4GB - $440
680 2GB - $470
680 4GB - $540
So I was looking at this and I originally was wanting to just go with the 2 or 4 GB 670, but as I looked, I saw I was going to basically pay almost double to go from the 660 to the 670. Sure it is a lot faster, but if you are struggling with around a $150-200 price question, you could stay at the 660 and spend it elsewhere, or drop say the SSD, and have a lot of the money for the 670. I had not thought about it before, but reading this thread it kind of applied.
I could get both, it isn't that I can't afford it, but being able to do something doesn't mean its smart. My thinking was to maybe just get the 660 for around $200, and if it gets to where it needs replaced, I can probably get another card that is much better, and in the same lineup spot in say 1.5- 2 years for the same almost $200 I would have to spend now. The counter argument would be that this card in 1.5-2 years that is on the lower cycle may only be roughly equal to the 670-680, as the 660 seems to be a little better than the 570....So if you are going to pay the $200 at some time, maybe you pay it now, and get the better card for the life of your computer most likely (3-4 years). One scenario also is that the 660 may last the life of the computer, graphics wise. We usually play on like 1080, and on a single monitor. I like to push the graphics and options up for that range, but I do not push super high graphics and multiple monitors... I think game needs on a graphics card have not been multiplying the way they use to as a side note.
So there is some random thoughts that may apply to this discussion. I will most likely post the stuff I plan to buy before I do so, to make sure I am not doing something silly. I do plan to buy more powersupply than I need, just so it is not an issue if I do something later to the computer, or use it in a rebuild, in 3 years or so.
It benches between your two 670s and is the sake price as the 660ti which it is a lot faster than.
Nvidias are over priced.
Well, like I said these are higher than basic priced models, and I just get Nvidea, sure times have changed, but I guess I haven't, I remember a lot of problems people with ATIs had, and I never had any of them with the Nvidea cards. I was even able to play Vanguard, as buggy and hitchy as it was without many problems when it launched.
Went to Anandtech, looked at a benchmark, yeah the 7950 3GB is pretty comparible to the 670 2GB in benchmarks, better in some, worse in some, and a lot worse in some....But all in all yeah probably do about the same job overall.
I have debated trying ATI, but memories of the past have prevented me from doing it. Just a lot of MMOs I played, people had a lot more problems with ATIs, than Nividea, from memory. Not saying people never have problems with Nvidea, just from my experience, less. So my view always was a card is no good to me, if I can't play the game I am wanting to play, so I never chanced it in the past.
The GeForce GTX 660 there is a good value. I don't see any reason to even consider buying any of the others. If you're one of the relatively few people (multiboxers or ultra-high monitor resolutions) who needs more than the 1.5 GB of video memory that the GTX 660 offers, then you should go with AMD this generation.