Best Value 4GB video Card...

[werepossum]

OP, I just bought this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_mmc=TEMC-RMA-Approvel-_-Content-_-text-_-

Either this or that $270 290x would be the best values at the moment. However, if you want Arkham Knight and you didn't buy the game yet, this may be a better deal and there's no rebate:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125706&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-125-706-_-Product

For what it's worth, seems like a lot of people are having failures with that Gigabyte GTX970. It's rated only three eggs and a lot of people are reporting total failures, so personally I'd pick a better version even if I had to pay more. The XFX - I had my own problems with XFX. I got two defective GTX275s in a row - two of only three defective cards I've seen in thirty years this month of building computers. They would not pass the Counterstrike Source stress test. XFX tech support is slow slow slow, but the temps weren't spiking so I'm guessing a chip issue or board failure. XFX stuck with me and after my second, agreed to give me an HD4970 instead. If you aren't the kind to freak over slow service and keep spare cards in case of failure, I can recommend XFX. My 4970 worked great, and build and component quality in all three was superb.

Edit: One possible caveat - you need more power supply and more efficient case cooling for the AMD cards, and they may be louder. Some hate that and some rather enjoy that "sound of power".

 

[Headfoot]

First of all, I compared an HIS R9 290 in Uber Mode to a Gigabyte G1 960 4GB.

Are you intentionally missing the point or are you really that bad at reading?

HIS 290 = STOCK 290 vs Gigabyte G1 960 WHICH IS OVERCLOCKED OUT OF THE BOX SIGNIFICANTLY AND USES AN AFTERMARKET COOLER. Boosts over 1300.

If you keep ignoring this, I'll go ahead and assume you concede the point.

The 960 is a garbage card, an unpolished turd. Advising OP to buy one is absolutely ridiculous and indicative of overwhelming brand bias.

 

[shady28]

So you want a response you'll get one.

Lets recall this.

You post this :

Because it's twice as fast as a 960 with 4GB for the same money, and there's literally no reason to buy something that's half as fast just because of a brand name.

OP: just get a 290. Don't get a 960.

And again :

R9 290 is indisputably the best value 4GB card. And yes, it's twice as fast (sometimes more sometimes less depending on the game)

Then I conclusively disprove that, stating that it's 40% faster not twice as fast.

290 isn't generally 2x faster than the 960, that's a rare outlier.

Overall it's about 40% faster in average FPS.

I didn't even respond to your post until you attacked me, I just responded to the thread stating that the R9 290 was 40% faster not twice as fast, even though the comparison cards I used showed only a 33% difference. The comparison was a middle of the pack R9 290 on Tom's. In Uber mode, it is overclocked, reference or not. The G1 2GB is also not the fastest 960. How much these can overclock is all part of what's available - the 960 will OC by far greater % than the 290.

But at this point it doesn't even matter. IF you were saying the difference were 50%, who cares? But saying 100% when reality is 30-40% is just lying.

In response you say this :

Headfoot;37505096]Stop with the apples to oranges crap comparisons. It's straight up dishonest.

So your response to someone challenging a false statement / claim you made and disproving it (even though I didn't respond directly to the person making the claim - YOU, HEADFOOT) is to call them deceptive and dishonest, and now a fanboy.

OK so here is the deal.

What you said about R9 290 vs GTX 960 performance was false, worthless, misleading information.


You can say whatever you like but I think the facts, and your reaction to the facts, speak for themselves.

 

[krumme]

Who gives...the 290 walks all over the 960. 960 is expensive and slow.

 

[Headfoot]

many month old edit for many month old thread resurrection

 

[werepossum]

Are you intentionally missing the point or are you really that bad at reading?

HIS 290 = STOCK 290 vs Gigabyte G1 960 WHICH IS OVERCLOCKED OUT OF THE BOX SIGNIFICANTLY AND USES AN AFTERMARKET COOLER. Boosts over 1300.

If you keep ignoring this, I'll go ahead and assume you concede the point.

The 960 is a garbage card, an unpolished turd. Advising OP to buy one is absolutely ridiculous and indicative of overwhelming brand bias.

I don't think the 960 is a garbage card, it's just overpriced for the market at the moment. The GTX970 was so amazing that it upset AMD's pricing structure, which in turn upset NVidia's 960 pricing structure.

Or else NVidia simply knows that a significant number of buyers will still choose it even if overpriced. Sometimes lower sales equals higher profit.

EDIT: I'm curious what Anomaly chooses since I'm also looking at a 4 GB card and I'm torn between a R9 290 (my comfort zone) or a 290X or 970. I really, really hate to spend $350 for a video card, but I really, really want to play all the sweet Fallout 4 mods in all their glory.

 

[Headfoot]

I don't think the 960 is a garbage card, it's just overpriced for the market at the moment. The GTX970 was so amazing that it upset AMD's pricing structure, which in turn upset NVidia's 960 pricing structure.

Or else NVidia simply knows that a significant number of buyers will still choose it even if overpriced. Sometimes lower sales equals higher profit.

To be fair, the 960 isn't terrible per-se in and of itself. It's really all down to the price. But that can be said of any card.

The same people here that work themselves up into a froth about the 960 are probably the same people saying the Fury X is terrible. Same situation there. Decent card, wrong price.

 

[B-Riz]

What is sad, is that I would buy a used GTX 780 or GTX 770 over a new GTX 960.

But, OP, get a Tri-X 290 or, if your budget allows, a 290X.

Or a used GTX 970 if you *really* want nVidia.

 

[werepossum]

To be fair, the 960 isn't terrible per-se in and of itself. It's really all down to the price. But that can be said of any card.

The same people here that work themselves up into a froth about the 960 are probably the same people saying the Fury X is terrible. Same situation there. Decent card, wrong price.

Agreed. There are occasionally cards that are terrible - the old vacuum cleaner (5800?) comes to mind - or crippled, but mostly we get good cards which are priced anywhere from amazing (HD290, GTX970) to awful (GTX960, Fury.) At least the Fury gives AMD a single GPU card to compete with the GTX980 Ti; hopefully they can sell it at the market price and make money.

 

[Silverforce11]

What is sad, is that I would buy a used GTX 780 or GTX 770 over a new GTX 960.

But, OP, get a Tri-X 290 or, if your budget allows, a 290X.

Or a used GTX 970 if you *really* want nVidia.

That's a bad idea, you should have kept up to date with how the 960 is now superior to the 770 in GameWorks titles and in some, even spanks a 780.

The people who recommend a 960 over a cheap custom R290 that runs cool & quiet, basically R390 metrics, aren't dealing with logic anymore.

Soon cheap R290/X will be out of stock and those looking for good gaming performance for cheap, have to go with 970 or 390.

 

[B-Riz]

That's a bad idea, you should have kept up to date with how the 960 is now superior to the 770 in GameWorks titles and in some, even spanks a 780.

The people who recommend a 960 over a cheap custom R290 that runs cool & quiet, basically R390 metrics, aren't dealing with logic anymore.

Soon cheap R290/X will be out of stock and those looking for good gaming performance for cheap, have to go with 970 or 390.

Personally, GameWorks, meh.

nVidia lost any purchases of new products from me for a long time, due to the 970 fiasco; I almost grabbed one the week the memory issue came to light.

So, yeah, I would buy a used 780 over a new 960.

And OP should get a 290 or 390.

 

[TeknoBug]

I have a 960 4GB, I wouldn't suggest it compared to other 4GB cards unless budget is an issue or power consumption is a concern.

 

[werepossum]

Personally, GameWorks, meh.

nVidia lost any purchases of new products from me for a long time, due to the 970 fiasco; I almost grabbed one the week the memory issue came to light.

So, yeah, I would buy a used 780 over a new 960.

And OP should get a 290 or 390.

Personally I think the 970 memory fiasco is far overstated. In the testing I've seen, only artificially creating such a situation showed any problem with the memory allocation, and in such cases the GTX980 also stuttered, just not quite as badly. I don't even think the 970 would have been given 4GB VRAM except for the developers stating that would be the minimum, and given the market spanking the first out took (showing that it was artificial and irrelevant to frame rate) I think that's pretty much gone now. But by judicious swapping of assets, NVidia can make that extra half gig functional, at the cost of higher driver design costs.

 

[redzo]

...
Soon cheap R290/X will be out of stock and those looking for good gaming performance for cheap, have to go with 970 or 390.

+++++ This +++++

290>970>290x

The cheapest non stock cooled 290(cheaper than the cheapest 970) is the undisputed price/performance champion. You can go home and have a comfortable satisfying nap after purchasing it, thinking that you've got the best deal ever. The reason that I've placed the 970 in between is because OP mentioned a nvidia GW title. The 970 may give him better results in this game, but it comes at a higher cost and I have a feeling that nvidia will bork its performance soon after the release of their post Maxwell stack. I want to be as objective as possible, but considering both companies track record, I challenge 970's longevity more than 290's.

If you can find a non stock 290x as cheap as the 290, just go for it and don't look back!

 

[B-Riz]

Personally I think the 970 memory fiasco is far overstated. In the testing I've seen, only artificially creating such a situation showed any problem with the memory allocation, and in such cases the GTX980 also stuttered, just not quite as badly. I don't even think the 970 would have been given 4GB VRAM except for the developers stating that would be the minimum, and given the market spanking the first out took (showing that it was artificial and irrelevant to frame rate) I think that's pretty much gone now. But by judicious swapping of assets, NVidia can make that extra half gig functional, at the cost of higher driver design costs.

But it is largely a moral and ethical failure of nVidia, the hardware is what it is.

The principal of the matter that they lied to John Q Public for months, and now people just say "meh, it's not THAT bad."

 

[boozzer]

Right now I have a GTX 570 - I need a VALUE 3GB card so I can play Arkham Knight at full resolution...

Suggestions please...

I prefer Nvidia...thanks!

best value and nvidia doesn't go together. but you prefer nvidia. 970 comes to mind immediately. it will do what you want for now. gl hf.

 

[werepossum]

But it is largely a moral and ethical failure of nVidia, the hardware is what it is.

The principal of the matter that they lied to John Q Public for months, and now people just say "meh, it's not THAT bad."

I agree that was bad - and stupid. Admittedly maybe the marketing people don't understand the difference (although with the shaders it's simply a number that was baldly wrong, no nuance to it) but there are ample NVidia people who could have and should have corrected the record. I'm just saying I don't think it is a significant performance issue.

 

[Anomaly1964]

Been a while since I posted on this thread...

My 570 gave up the ghost last night so I got a price match at bestbuy and got a GTX 970 SSC AX 2.0 for $319...

Running like butter on hot toast right now...

 

[railven]

Been a while since I posted on this thread...

My 570 gave up the ghost last night so I got a price match at bestbuy and got a GTX 970 SSC AX 2.0 for $319...

Running like butter on hot toast right now...

I can already taste the salt that is gonna follow in this thread, woof.

However, claim your MGS5 voucher (or sell it) because game comes out NEXT WEEK!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Anomaly1964]

I can already taste the salt that is gonna follow in this thread, woof.

However, claim your MGS5 voucher (or sell it) because game comes out NEXT WEEK!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Seems like a great card and yes...I'm NVIDIA loyal...can't help it!

 

[soccerballtux]

I agree that was bad - and stupid. Admittedly maybe the marketing people don't understand the difference (although with the shaders it's simply a number that was baldly wrong, no nuance to it) but there are ample NVidia people who could have and should have corrected the record. I'm just saying I don't think it is a significant performance issue.

nobody really buys based on shader count, but on benchmark performance, IMO. It wasn't the shaders that were the problem, in my book, it was the VRAM-- a hidden 'gotcha' that didn't really show up in benchmarking without extreme scrutiny.

 

[Magee_MC]

I just picked up this R9 290 to use with my 2500K a couple of weeks ago. So far it's been rock solid and a very nice improvement over my 6870.

 

[RussianSensation]

I can already taste the salt that is gonna follow in this thread, woof.

Nah, not really since the OP made it clear and obvious that he was loyal to NV so a 970/980 upgrade was logical. The more startling new information from this thread is how delusional certain NV loyalists are that they would deny/defend garbage cards like 960/960 4GB against an after-market R9 290.

"PowerColor Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo - $249
NVIDIA simply cannot get the pricing of its sub-$300 lineup right and continues to offer nothing compelling until the $310 GeForce GTX 970. The company may yet make a ton of money with their mid-range line-up, but that's only because of its better sales-force. The Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo from PowerColor is a gem.

At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. It also offers 4 GB of video memory. PowerColor added a factory overclock on top of that. If this doesn't highlight NVIDIA's terrible pricing for the GTX 960, nothing will." ~ TPU

Never in the history of AMD/NV/ATI industry in 2 decades in which I have followed GPUs did I see people downplay a 50%+ performance advantage for $50 more and using crazy excuses not even related to the DIY market of the OEM market that shoves $10 300W power supply to try to pretend an R9 290 needs some godly $200 1000W Platinum PSU or something. Maybe we should start a charity for giving out LED light bulbs to the poor souls counting each watt of power used when gaming.

GTX960 2-4GB are getting killed in BO3 Beta testing by R9 280X/R9 290.
960 is also getting killed in Trine 3, even by R9 380.

Right now the 960 is the worst x60 NV GPU made in the last 5 generations, worse than the GTX460->560 refresh (yup refresh). I wouldn't be surprised if GTX960 will go down as the worst x60 NV card made in a decade. Feel sorry for so many uninformed PC gamers affected by marketing buying this turd at $170-200.

Seems like a great card and yes...I'm NVIDIA loyal...can't help it!

At least you can publicly admit to it. :thumbsup:

 

[Anomaly1964]

I'm happy with the card, it was convenient to get, I didn't want to sit two days without the use of my PC, I've only ever had NVIDIA cards and so for this one is running quiet, cool and fast...

I don't buy GPUs to benchmark them, If I can play a game with maxed out settings, I am happy...

Didn't mean to start a thread war...

 

[DustinBrowder]

I just know the ONE time I got an AMD card (and yes it was probably 10 yrs ago) I had driver issues...

I'm guessing they are better now?

That was 10 years ago man, what do you think? The first dish washer I bought didn't actually clean the dishes and wasted electricity like my whole house did in a month, in 10 years there is a difference!

Windows XP when released over 10 years ago was barely functional and was constantly crashing and giving BSOD, yes in 10 years time things have changed!