It finally happened a video game bogged down, need new GPU?

[Artista]

System:
Intel Ivy bridge i5 unlocked cpu
16GB 1600 RAM
256GB SSD OS drive
1Tb 7200 RPM game drive
Radeon 2Gb 6950 (Only one slot for a video card, budget asrock board)
Windows 7 Pro

I was playing, Metro: Last Night in a dark scene when a bunch of enemies came at me the system slowed down visibly, unplayable under heavy action. The scene/map was already loaded.

Defragged the game hard drive, reloaded drivers and updated to latest, made sure latest patches for Windows, all specs on RAM, hard drive and card fine. Lowered quality and resolution to the point it looked cartoon like. Ran then but looks like hell.

Time for a upgraded GPU? (or could it be something else?)

What about a Radeon 280 or 290?

What is best bang for the buck now days?

Edit: (In Radeon or Nvidia)

Edit II: Antech Earthwatts 650 watt power supply. I assume I have to upgrade.

 

[omek]

I'd go for a 290 just because it's got 4GB's of video memory, longer legs and can be found for really cheap.

 

[TheELF]

Try turning down only view distance since it's the main reason for slow downs.

 

[RussianSensation]

I was playing, Metro: Last Night in a dark scene when a bunch of enemies came at me the system slowed down visibly, unplayable under heavy action.

R9 290 is 3.3X faster than a 6970 in this game.

XFX R9 290 for $240 after MIR, comes with lifetime warranty
Asus DCUII 290 for $240 after 7% off and MIR

For $40 extra you can step up to an R9 290X but you start to get into diminishing returns.

XFX R9 290X = $280
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X = $280

NV's competitor is GTX970 but it costs $320 for a solid version.

Overall I think it's hard to beat a 290 with a lifetime warranty for $240.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20193-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/18#pagehead

 

[spat55]

I can vouch for a R9 290 if you have the PSU to power it.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Time for a upgraded GPU? (or could it be something else?)

Definitely the GPU.

What is best bang for the buck now days?

Right now, nV owns the high end above ~$330 or so (depending on how tolerant you are to the potential but unlikely stutter issues with the 970), and below that the 960 at ~$200 is pretty decent (and receives a special recommendation if you are unsure about your PSU), but other than that the lower nVidia lineup isn't imho that good.

Basically, any of:

- R9 285
- Geforce 960
- R9 290
- R9 290x
- Geforce GTX 970

Would be decent value for it's price. Pick based on your budget.

 

[Leyawiin]

Go big or go home:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150696&ignorebbr=1

XFX 290X DD - $299.99 with promo code before any rebate card nonsense.

Edit: - that deals over and the price has jacked up. Amazon still has it for $299.99.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HHIPN5A/?tag=extension-kb-20

 

[Artista]

Definitely the GPU.



Right now, nV owns the high end above ~$330 or so (depending on how tolerant you are to the potential but unlikely stutter issues with the 970), and below that the 960 at ~$200 is pretty decent (and receives a special recommendation if you are unsure about your PSU), but other than that the lower nVidia lineup isn't imho that good.

Basically, any of:

- R9 285
- Geforce 960
- R9 290
- R9 290x
- Geforce GTX 970

Would be decent value for it's price. Pick based on your budget.

I have a antech Earthwatts 650 watt power supply. I am willing to upgrade.

 

[RussianSensation]

I have a antech Earthwatts 650 watt power supply. I am willing to upgrade.

No need. That PSU is good for 290/290X/970/980. Skip 285 and 960. They are junk compared to the $240 R9 290. It costs $400 for GTX960 SLI to just get the average performance of a single after-market 290, but you are still crippled with 2GB of VRAM, while 290 has 4GB.

R9 290 has 61% more performance than a 960 for $40 more.
Titan X has 61% more performance than an R9 290 for $760 more.
http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/9434?k=0cdfdeb7fd585958c49a10a44338a86b

 

[Silverforce11]

R9 290 is 3.3X faster than a 6970 in this game.

Woah, look at that Kepler tanking hard. Metro series has always run better on NV GPUs, but the R290 is faster than the 780ti??

The 970 is faster than the 780ti! It used to be 10% slower on launch.. my my.

OP: Even when next-gen stuff comes, it will be very hard to match R290 class performance for $240!

 

[RussianSensation]

Woah, look at that Kepler tanking hard. Metro series has always run better on NV GPUs, but the R290 is faster than the 780ti??

The 970 is faster than the 780ti! It used to be 10% slower on launch.. my my.

Yup. Computerbase also has 290 beating 780Ti in Metro LL at 1080P and even when they overclock Kepler (Max turbo boost with 100% fan and max power envelope), a 1Ghz 290X (Max fan speed) still wins.

780 only leads a 280X by 3 fps. :hmm:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/...m-test/4/#diagramm-metro-last-light-1920-1080

Right now the rule of thumb should be to stay away from 2GB cards and Kepler unless you can find it dirt cheap (which is hard considering an after-market R9 290 is only $240 with lifetime warranty).

 

[lehtv]

Woah, look at that Kepler tanking hard. Metro series has always run better on NV GPUs, but the R290 is faster than the 780ti??

The 970 is faster than the 780ti! It used to be 10% slower on launch.. my my.

Interestingly, other reviews still show 780 Ti having advantage over GTX 970 in Metro LL. The performance of GTX 970 vs R9 290 is the same as in the Sweclockers chart.

Guru3D
1440p: 780Ti 54 fps vs 970 48 fps

TPU
1440p: 780Ti 55.8 fps vs 970 51.6 fps
1080p: 780Ti 81.5 fps vs 970 79.5 fps

 

[snorge]

Why would you buy a new AMD card now when there will be new ones launched so soon and nobody knows for sure what they will bring to the table. If you are paying even close to $300 you might as well get the GTX 970.

 

[gamervivek]

Interestingly, other reviews still show 780 Ti having advantage over GTX 970 in Metro LL. The performance of GTX 970 vs R9 290 is the same as in the Sweclockers chart.

Guru3D
1440p: 780Ti 54 fps vs 970 48 fps

TPU
1440p: 780Ti 55.8 fps vs 970 51.6 fps
1080p: 780Ti 81.5 fps vs 970 79.5 fps

RS used the Redux version's numbers. Tech spot has 780Ti last as well in Redux.

www.techspot.com/articles-info/977/bench/Metro.png

 

[RussianSensation]

Why would you buy a new AMD card now when there will be new ones launched so soon and nobody knows for sure what they will bring to the table.

Because a $240 XFX R9 290 with lifetime warranty could still be an amazing bang for the buck against any new R9 300 series of cards?

If you are paying even close to $300 you might as well get the GTX 970.

$80 separates the 970 and an after-market 290 but only 2-5% in performance. That's a decent chunk of $ that can be used to buy games, or set aside for an SSD upgrade, or a next gen GPU upgrade in 2 years from now. That means his April 2017 GPU upgrade that would normally cost $240 would only cost him $160. :thumbsup: However, the performance difference a 970 has over a 290 is hardly going to matter. 970 looks more favourable if one has to have TW3 on launch date and has a really low power 450W PSU.

 

[WT]

Yet another vote for the 290 recommended by RS - he provides details and links rather than the usual 'Buy a 980 or go home' comments.

I'm recommending the 290, even tho I bought a 290x last month. I honestly had a hard time justifying the price increase over the 290, but I don't want to upgrade cards as frequently as I had in the past, and I really wanted that Powercolor PCS+ 290x for $270.

 

[Artista]

I think I'll get the r9 290 for $240

Thank you everyone for your help.

 

[Artista]

Double posted for some reason.

 

[Hitman928]

This 290 is $250 (after rebate) and I think is considered to be a better version though others can confirm that or not, I don't follow all of the various models and their performance.

http://flash.newegg.com/Product/N82E16814125505

 

[RussianSensation]

This 290 is $250 (after rebate) and I think is considered to be a better version though others can confirm that or not, I don't follow all of the various models and their performance.

http://flash.newegg.com/Product/N82E16814125505

I would pick the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 for $240 over that Gigabyte card any day because it runs both cooler and quieter. The XFX for $240 has a lifetime warranty which is a cool perk.

Alternatively there is refurbished Sapphire Tri-X 290 for $215 with a 90-day warranty.

 

[3DVagabond]

Why would you buy a new AMD card now when there will be new ones launched so soon and nobody knows for sure what they will bring to the table. If you are paying even close to $300 you might as well get the GTX 970.

Because AMD is going to be releasing new cards soon you should pay more for a slower nVidia card??? I'm not seeing the logic.

 

[3DVagabond]

This 290 is $250 (after rebate) and I think is considered to be a better version though others can confirm that or not, I don't follow all of the various models and their performance.

http://flash.newegg.com/Product/N82E16814125505

I would take the XFX over the Gigabyte. Better cooler and better warranty. Also, XFX service is outstanding.

 

[snorge]

Because AMD is going to be releasing new cards soon you should pay more for a slower nVidia card??? I'm not seeing the logic.

Nvidia card are worth paying more for just because of the name duh.

 

[Majcric]

nah, the resale value.

 

[RussianSensation]

nah, the resale value.

You have to be careful with that argument. Think about it, a $240 after-market R9 290 is $80 less expensive than the GTX970 with similar performance. That means you'll need to sell the 970 for at least $80 more in 2 years time when you go and upgrade. That's highly unlikely unless you game 6-8 hours every day where power usage would start to close the gap for the 970.

The situation with the Titan X and 980 are even worse against an R9 290X / 290X CF. 290X CF costs $560 today vs. $1000 for the Titan X. Do you think you'd be able to sell the Titan X for $440 more in 2 years? That's for sure not happening, although I realize people buying $1K GPUs probably don't care about resale value at all. 980 at $520-550 though is a horrible buy against a 290X (or even 290/970) since it's only 6-8% faster on average at 4K and just 11-12% at 1440P and 15% at 1080P but costs 80%+ more than a 290X -- basically paying for bragging rights here. So its resale value will tank hard by April 2017 (think $200 960 and $250 R9 290 today vs. $500-600 GTX680 2GB/4GB), while more budget cards like 290/290X/970 will lose less overall resale value since they aren't priced that high to begin with.

The NV cards have higher resale value argument would work better if say an AMD card was $699 and an NV one was $699-750 and their performance was similar. But in the current market, R9 270/270X/280 at $130-160 demolish a 750Ti in value (30-43% faster in performance), while R9 290 takes the $240-280 segment by beating a 960 by 50-60%+. I would honestly ignore the entire $180-230 segment as it has nothing worthwhile because 280X and 960 fail miserably against a $240 290 on price/performance, especially the $240 960 4GB.

Nvidia card are worth paying more for just because of the name duh.

If you are a regular subscriber to NVLabs (also known as PCLabs), then a 770 = R9 290/290X and 980 is 40-50%+ faster than the fastest single GPU AMD card. :awe:

I think some people just want the best and they don't care if it costs them $200-300 more (i.e., 980 vs. 290X/970). My view is that it's better to set that money aside and just buy a 50-60% faster card in 2016/1Q 2017. I think paying $200-300 more for 6-15% more performance for a 980 over 970/290X is a giant waste of money but millions of people disagree.