Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
R9 280X questions..
I had a few questions if anyone can answer them,
I think im going to bite the bullet and by a 280x because its perfect for my price range and i think it will have suitable performance. I was going to get a 4gb GTX770 because firstly im a nvida fan, and second i thought that 4gb's of memory would be more optimal for the multi display im going to "try" and run (5760x1080)
So my question is, is that 1 gb memory difference going to have any effect?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Comments
Thinking about the GTX 770 4 GB edition vs R9 280X with 3 GB I assume?
3 GB memory is more then sufficient enough on the GPU end. Perhaps if you plan on using 5-6 monitors having 4 GB would be useful.
For 2-3 monitors 3 GB is plenty though.
Lots of people prefer to future proof themselves as much as they can when they throw out cash on hardware though.
I would say the R9 280X and the GTX 770 are head to head with eachother when it comes to performance.
Though I would not take a 2 GB memory GPU (or less, obviously) if I was going with a multi monitor setup, but as that clearly wasn't part of your question I'm sure you aren't even thinking that.
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
3 GB memory is more then sufficient enough on the GPU end. Perhaps if you plan on using 5-6 monitors having 4 GB would be useful.
For 2-3 monitors 3 GB is plenty though.
What about with those super texture packs for Bethesda games? (skryim, fallout)
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
You know, I really don't know about that one.
Skyrim and Battlefield 3 I've heard can really push up the GB used on graphic cards these days, future games will probably follow suit.
If you are uncertain I would just get the GTX 770 - 4 GB edition and be done with it.
I am more then certain that you would be satisfied with it.
Though, there are the question of the bit aswell, GTX series as of late has been sorely stuck on 256 bit as far as I know from the top of my head.
AMD on the other hand stuffs 384 bit into their decent graphic cards, that has a little something to do with using multi monitor aswell.
Both have their pros and cons really.
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
I did a bit of reading around for you and it just seems that people in general prefer AMD when they are gonna use multiple monitors on a single graphics card.
Their Eyefinity solution simply works better then Nvidia's version for the Geforce series.
Though I have only ever used one monitor and one GPU myself, so from personal experience I don't know.
From digging around a bit, that's what I pretty much ended up with though.
I just recalled.
A friend of mine used to have a Radeon HD 5870, he then switched to GTX 680, this is a while back, obviously.
He was quite a bit more happy with his multi monitor setup on the AMD platform then he was on the Nvidia platform.
He told me this several times in the past.
Running multi monitor on Geforce is hardly a nono though, so you should think a bit about it and pick the one you prefer.
End summary:
No matter which one you pick, GTX 770 - 4 GB or R9 280X - 3 GB, I'm more then certain that you will be satisfied
As I personally, being at least a bit tech savvy, don't see an issue in either of those two cards.
Though like I said, it seems that AMD has better support for multi monitor, though how big or small, I have no idea.
Hope that helps you a little bit in making your choice.
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
I run 3x monitors atm @1080p in eyefinity on a 5870. (Which is a mixed bag of performance) I don't intend to ever run anything bigger.
Thanks for all the advice btw.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Ya, no problem!
1080p X 3 and no thoughts about going higher then that.
I then point you to the last part of my previous post.
Pick or take any of the two cards, it really won't matter.
Both of them are just as strong, more or less, but it seems AMD has a bit of an edge on Nvidia when it comes to Eyefinity, their multi monitor program setup.
Though I'm sure many would say that's pure crap and that Nvidia's setup works just as well.
Have a good one! Hope you end up happy with whichever choice you make
I'm out of here.
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
Once you get past about 1 GB of video memory, the only thing that more video memory really gets you is letting you use higher resolution textures. The extra video memory required for a higher monitor resolution basically amounts to a rounding error unless you're doing something really outlandish--and an ordinary Eyefinity setup with 3 monitors at 1080p isn't even close to "really outlandish".
While a 4 GB video card would let you use higher resolution textures than 3 GB video card, how many games are going to ship with high enough resolution textures that a 3 GB video card would struggle with them in the near future? Only a tiny fraction of a game's textures need to be loaded into video memory at once, and 3 GB of textures at once would likely mean ridiculous download and installation sizes.
Multi-monitor support is an area where AMD is still ahead of Nvidia. AMD has had the chance to design silicon with the intention of supporting six monitors doing independent things, see how it worked and what they thought they should improve, then go back and design new silicon with the intention of supporting six monitors while taking into account what they learned the first time. All that Nvidia has had time to do so far is to throw something together that they didn't expect to need halfway through a development cycle and try to clean up the rest in drivers. I expect that Nvidia will more or less catch up to AMD in multi-monitor support with the launch of Maxwell, but that's still about a year away.
While a GeForce GTX 770 is typically a little faster than a Radeon R9 280X, it's only a little faster. It's certainly not $100 worth of faster--and that's the price premium for a 2 GB GTX 770, not the low-volume (i.e., expensive) 4 GB version. If you're willing to spend more, then you might want to wait for a Radeon R9 290X or R9 290 next week, both of which will ship with 4 GB and be substantially faster than a GTX 770--and the R9 290 will likely cost about the same as the GTX 770.