Help with Graphics card: 2GB vs 1GB similar benchmark

[RyanRazer]

OK, so i'm planning on buying a graphics card but it can be complicated. The more i read and watch about it, more i'm confused. At first i thought just, bigger numbers are better but then i came upon this:
2 cards with similar price tag (around 135&#8364 with pretty different specs but similar benchmark. Feature set is also different so i would need a help from you guys.

I like the idea of having crossfire option there for future upgrade (is this even a good idea, or should i just replace my GPU after a while instead of buying CF duplicate), plus i saw 260x is the lowest (cheapest) model from ATI that support Freesync and dynamic refresh rate: All AMD Radeon™ graphics cards in the AMD Radeon™ HD 7000, HD 8000, R7 or R9 Series will support AMD FreeSync™ technology for video playback and power-saving purposes. The AMD Radeon™ R9 295X2, 290X, R9 290, R9 285, R7 260X and R7 260 GPUs additionally feature updated display controllers that will support dynamic refresh rates during gaming. LINK: http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/219
I do not have a freesync monitor, it's just i'm trying to set up a future proof rig.

1. VGA Sapphire R7 260X OC 1 GB DDR5


2. VGA Asus R7 260X OC 2 GB DDR5


How come 1GB version supports display res: 4096x2160, while 2GB only 2560x1600? Sapphire also features much longer feature list. I have no idea how much that affects my experience, but shouldn't that feature list be exact same as the GPU is exactly the same?

And benchmarking:

Benchmarking doesn't seem to make any big difference as well...

Which one would you get?

I'm sorry for such a long post,

Ryan

 

[Enigmoid]

1GB vram is not enough. Get the 2 GB card.

 

[Headfoot]

The chip in those is the same, they will support the same things. Any differences are due to incorrect publication in the description.

Get the 2GB version.

However, a 260x rig is not going to be future proof as the 260x is a budget card. It will be a decent enough card for todays games at medium settings though.

 

[kmmatney]

What resolution is your monitor? If you can get a 750Ti or a R9 270x that would be better - they are probably the best bang-for-buck cards going right now. Might as well get 2 GB, although I still have a 1GB cards in a few systems at the house, and they game just fine.

 

[BSim500]

How come 1GB version supports display res: 4096x2160, while 2GB only 2560x1600?

Normally such differences are down to having a DisplayPort / HDMI 2.0 vs just having HDMI 1.4. If both have a DisplayPort, then it looks like they could both be technically capable of 4K and it's just the usual marketing dept getting a listing wrong. You won't be gaming on that card at 4K though, as the 260X is basically a rebadged 7790 budget card. It's not really going to future proof anything. It'll run many games on medium, but it's really the new modern baseline.

Benchmarking doesn't seem to make any big difference as well...

Depends entirely on the game. Personally I'd go for the 2GB VRAM though.

 

[RyanRazer]

The chip in those is the same, they will support the same things. Any differences are due to incorrect publication in the description.

Get the 2GB version.

However, a 260x rig is not going to be future proof as the 260x is a budget card. It will be a decent enough card for todays games at medium settings though.

Thank you for clarification. But i've watched many reviews on YT people playing Crysis, BF3 and 4 on ultra settings 1080p and FPS is 35-60...

I thought of buying another one in a year or two, for future proofing. I understand one of these is not going to last years, that's why i'm looking at crossfire solution. 2x of those Asus r7 260s with 2GB would make it work for some years right?

What resolution is your monitor? If you can get a 750Ti or a R9 270x that would be better - they are probably the best bang-for-buck cards going right now. Might as well get 2 GB, although I still have a 1GB cards in a few systems at the house, and they game just fine.

I have a 1080p 40inch Samsung TV. I like having a lot of space. I'll check the prices of those, i don't have loads of money...

Normally such differences are down to having a DisplayPort / HDMI 2.0 vs just having HDMI 1.4. If both have a DisplayPort, then it looks like they could both be technically capable of 4K and it's just the usual marketing dept getting a listing wrong. You won't be gaming on that card at 4K though, as the 260X is basically a rebadged 7790 budget card. It's not really going to future proof anything. It'll run many games on medium, but it's really the new modern baseline.


Depends entirely on the game. Personally I'd go for the 2GB VRAM though.

Thank you for explanation. I understand that gaming at 4K won't be possible, i don't even own a 4k display. I was just curious how things go... I am starting to realise web stores (at least in my country - slovenia, EU) are doing a TERRIBLE JOB at advertising and informing customers. You wouldn't believe how many times prices or specs don't watch with an actual product...

 

[RyanRazer]

1GB vram is not enough. Get the 2 GB card.

Tnx, i'm ditching 1GB version.

 

[myocardia]

Ryan, do yourself a favor, and save up another month or two. An R9 270x might be slightly more expensive, but it's also 50% faster than an R7 260x: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-11.html It also will be ~50% faster in all games, not just the major titles that end up with a Crossfire profile, as opposed to two 260x in Crossfire. Without a Crossfire profile from AMD, your two 260x will perform identically to one 260x. Seriously, you want a 270x, I promise.

 

[RyanRazer]

Ryan, do yourself a favor, and save up another month or two. An R9 270x might be slightly more expensive, but it's also 50% faster than an R7 260x: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-11.html It also will be ~50% faster in all games, not just the major titles that end up with a Crossfire profile, as opposed to two 260x in Crossfire. Without a Crossfire profile from AMD, your two 260x will perform identically to one 260x. Seriously, you want a 270x, I promise.

Thank you for advice. i'll follow it. I tend to be impulsive and jump into things without thinking through thoroughly. You have a solid point there with CF dual graphics. It sounds and looks very cool but spending 300€ on dual graphics + 70 for new motherboard (mine doesn't support CF) and playing selected games that actually support dual graphics vs spending 200€ on one card and applying it's power 100% of the time makes sense...
Thanks!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I just made the same decision. I wanted the 260x due to the 2GB framebuffer instead of my old 6870 1GB. For around $30 the 270 was 40-70% faster and I'm able to max out most games at 1680x1050.

 

[RyanRazer]

I just made the same decision. I wanted the 260x due to the 2GB framebuffer instead of my old 6870 1GB. For around $30 the 270 was 40-70% faster and I'm able to max out most games at 1680x1050.

Oh cool. So you're happy with it...? Which one did you go for? Asus, xfx, sapphire...

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Oh cool. So you're happy with it...? Which one did you go for? Asus, xfx, sapphire...

Powercolor, actually. It's silent compared to my case fans. It's the dual fan config. It's an inch or so shorter than my older Sapphire 6870 but has about the same weight.

Literally, 100% better than my 6870, especially in NBA 2K15 and Battlefield. It's slightly overclocked compared to the original R9 270 (30mhz+ on both load and turbo speeds). Lower power requirements as well. Comparing benches you can smack it right between the R9 270 stock and R9 270x for comparisons sake.

Minimum frame-rates on the R9 270 compared to the 260x can be up to 65% better, which is amazing if you asked me. The averages are much higher as well.

 

[RyanRazer]

Ryan, do yourself a favor, and save up another month or two. An R9 270x might be slightly more expensive, but it's also 50% faster than an R7 260x: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-11.html It also will be ~50% faster in all games, not just the major titles that end up with a Crossfire profile, as opposed to two 260x in Crossfire. Without a Crossfire profile from AMD, your two 260x will perform identically to one 260x. Seriously, you want a 270x, I promise.

The chip in those is the same, they will support the same things. Any differences are due to incorrect publication in the description.

Get the 2GB version.

However, a 260x rig is not going to be future proof as the 260x is a budget card. It will be a decent enough card for todays games at medium settings though.

Hey guys, it's me again. I'm sorry for so many questions but i found the R9 280 for a really good price. Basically cheaper than 270x in my country (I'd be buying it abroad).

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&pid=2194&lid=1

This is the card. My last question is: is there any significant performance difference between reference cards like msi, sapphire, asus, xfx or is it just about small things like a bit louder cooling etc... I'm asking coz this sapphire version is quite cheaper than Asus for example (170$ vs 215$)...

 

[DownTheSky]

Buy it. It's a very good card at a very good price. To answer your question: no big difference.

 

[Headfoot]

R9 280 is much better than the 260x you were looking at and better than the 270x too. There are no significant performance differences between reference card brands.