Looking for stop-gap card around $350 for 4k

[TechyGeek]

Folks, what's on the horizon around that price? I'm willing to tone down settings if necessary. Will AMD come out with 980 class performance for around that price?

I just need something relatively cheap to hold me over until pascal/400 series bring single gpu gaming. My 750 watt psu obviously can't handle overclocked 4790k and dual gpu.

 

[RussianSensation]

Folks, what's on the horizon around that price? I'm willing to tone down settings if necessary. Will AMD come out with 980 class performance for around that price?

Wait until June 16th. It's impossible to say right now since your question needs concrete answers but we don't have concrete pricing or performance from AMD's new line-up of cards.

My 750 watt psu obviously can't handle overclocked 4790k and dual gpu.

Sure it can, easily. A SeaSonic 750-760W is actually rated at 24/7 operation at 750W because SeaSonic rates their PSUs at Total Continuous Power. That means a 750W SeaSonic could probably handle a spiked load to 800W too.
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story3&reid=192

Plus, it has 7-year-warranty so I don't think you should worry. You'd need an X79/X99 6-core CPU maxed out and an R9 295X2 to approach 700W of power at the PSU level. I don't think this would apply since no 2 high-end GPUs come close to that in your $350 budget range. Even R9 290s would cost at least $440.

Right now if you want the cheapest stop-gap single card for 4K, $270 R9 290X is the best bet, but wait this month when AMD announces their cards before you make your purchasing decision. Since 4K is so demanding, even a $499 980 is barely faster than a $270 R9 290X, just something to keep in mind so you don't overspend!

 

[Elixer]

Yeah, wait until the 16th, and then see where everything is at.
It could result in some nice savings.

 

[TechyGeek]

I know AMD is coming out with 390x so I'm waiting. Pleasure to meet a fellow Russian on forum. Privet.

 

[MrTeal]

Folks, what's on the horizon around that price? I'm willing to tone down settings if necessary. Will AMD come out with 980 class performance for around that price?

I just need something relatively cheap to hold me over until pascal/400 series bring single gpu gaming. My 750 watt psu obviously can't handle overclocked 4790k and dual gpu.

With a 2500k @ 4.2GHz and two R9 290s at 1200MHz/+50mV I pull around 900W from the wall on an Enermax 1000W platinum supply, which is just a bit over 800W DC. As long as you don't go nuts with a dual GPU setup you should be fine with a good 750W supply.

 

[TechyGeek]

With a 2500k @ 4.2GHz and two R9 290s at 1200MHz/+50mV I pull around 900W from the wall on an Enermax 1000W platinum supply, which is just a bit over 800W DC. As long as you don't go nuts with a dual GPU setup you should be fine with a good 750W supply.

Pascal/400 series should have lower power requirements (fingers crossed)

 

[exar333]

I think you will need 2x290 (or 2x970) minimum or a single 980Ti/Fury. Your budget is probably not realistic right now honestly.

The Fury pro would likely be the best option, but you would need to add some extra $$ to your budget. Either that or get 2 used 290s and get a bigger PSU.

 

[MrTeal]

Depends on his current Seasonic. I have a few X-850s and some X-1000s, and they're built like tanks and will put out over 100% capacity 24/7. He'd be fine running two 290s if he doesn't overclock them much, even with the OC'd 4790. Two used 290s would be around $350 and would work well for 4k gaming. They'll probably also hold their value relatively well when you go to sell them in 2016.

 

[bystander36]

I think you will need 2x290 (or 2x970) minimum or a single 980Ti/Fury. Your budget is probably not realistic right now honestly.

The Fury pro would likely be the best option, but you would need to add some extra $$ to your budget. Either that or get 2 used 290s and get a bigger PSU.

There is nothing wrong with turning down settings. This is a stop gap, after all. A single 290x can drive medium to ultra, depending on the game.

 

[exar333]

There is nothing wrong with turning down settings. This is a stop gap, after all. A single 290x can drive medium to ultra, depending on the game.

I guess....unless you need 4K for other applications, getting a higher resolution only to turn down the settings doesn't make a lot of sense. But to each his own...

Plus add to the fact that 4K options are still pretty limited. Just saying...

 

[xthetenth]

I guess....unless you need 4K for other applications, getting a higher resolution only to turn down the settings doesn't make a lot of sense. But to each his own...

Plus add to the fact that 4K options are still pretty limited. Just saying...

If you're buying it with the intention of driving it with a much more powerful card for most of its life, it makes plenty of sense not to buy base on a temporary bottleneck.

The bigger thing is that 4k monitors will likely be considerably better by the time the cards OP intends to drive one with happen.

 

[bystander36]

I guess....unless you need 4K for other applications, getting a higher resolution only to turn down the settings doesn't make a lot of sense. But to each his own...

Plus add to the fact that 4K options are still pretty limited. Just saying...

At what point does a higher setting make up for a lower resolution?

If settings always trump resolution, shouldn't we all be playing at 640x480? There is a balance in there. Resolutions are a setting too. I'm sure the dev's could stop hiding their highest end settings so we can push 640x480 too, but would 640x480 at Super Ultra be better than 1080p at Ultra?

Many people will tell you that 4K at high is better than 1080p at Ultra.

I'm sure there is some person preference in there and diminishing returns to deal with.

 

[exar333]

At what point does a higher setting make up for a lower resolution?

If settings always trump resolution, shouldn't we all be playing at 640x480? There is a balance in there. Resolutions are a setting too. I'm sure the dev's could stop hiding their highest end settings so we can push 640x480 too, but would 640x480 at Super Ultra be better than 1080p at Ultra?

Many people will tell you that 4K at high is better than 1080p at Ultra.

I'm sure there is some person preference in there and diminishing returns to deal with.

Again, it comes down to GPU power. Look at the 980Ti review from AT. The 980Ti only got 59.5 average fps on MEDIUM settings on FC4. The 290x got 40...

Compare that to 73fps and 53fps on Ultra 1440P. I can tell you the one I would rather play.

I will stick by some other posts that state 2x290 or 2x970 minimum for a decent 4k experience. You could go less if not playing FPS titles...

A single 980Ti or Fury (most likely) would 'get by' on 4K with medium-level settings. Jump ahead 9-12 months and you might be turning things down a bit more. It works, but 4K on a budget doesn't make a lot of sense with fantastic 1440P gaming displays available for affordable prices. Again, this is true if you don't want/need 4K for other purposes other than gaming.

 

[bystander36]

Again, it comes down to GPU power. Look at the 980Ti review from AT. The 980Ti only got 59.5 average fps on MEDIUM settings on FC4. The 290x got 40...

Compare that to 73fps and 53fps on Ultra 1440P. I can tell you the one I would rather play.

I will stick by some other posts that state 2x290 or 2x970 minimum for a decent 4k experience. You could go less if not playing FPS titles...

A single 980Ti or Fury (most likely) would 'get by' on 4K with medium-level settings. Jump ahead 9-12 months and you might be turning things down a bit more. It works, but 4K on a budget doesn't make a lot of sense with fantastic 1440P gaming displays available for affordable prices. Again, this is true if you don't want/need 4K for other purposes other than gaming.

Reread what I wrote.

 

[rchunter]

Again, it comes down to GPU power. Look at the 980Ti review from AT. The 980Ti only got 59.5 average fps on MEDIUM settings on FC4. The 290x got 40...

Compare that to 73fps and 53fps on Ultra 1440P. I can tell you the one I would rather play.

I will stick by some other posts that state 2x290 or 2x970 minimum for a decent 4k experience. You could go less if not playing FPS titles...

A single 980Ti or Fury (most likely) would 'get by' on 4K with medium-level settings. Jump ahead 9-12 months and you might be turning things down a bit more. It works, but 4K on a budget doesn't make a lot of sense with fantastic 1440P gaming displays available for affordable prices. Again, this is true if you don't want/need 4K for other purposes other than gaming.

Isn't this comparable to what you're doing? Trying to drive a 3440x1440 monitor with a single 970...

 

[TechyGeek]

Folks let's not get ahead of ourselves, I'm perfectly fine with playing 4k on medium/high if I get decent frame rates. The 4k device you're looking at is un78hu9000. If amd comes out with 980 killer around 350 - would you agree this is good stop gap?

Now as for SLI/XFire - I don't really care about these this year. Next year I'll worry about them if

1. cpu is not bottleneck(directx 12 + 400/pascal series)

2. they're future proof enough for 3-4ish years.

Chop chop.

 

[MrTeal]

Chances are there will be a new Hawaii card around that price, which should hopefully have HDMI2.0. The current Hawaii cards are probably off the table for you, unless you want to run 4k at 30FPS. We'll know more in 5 days.

 

[exar333]

Isn't this comparable to what you're doing? Trying to drive a 3440x1440 monitor with a single 970...

Today isn't 9 months ago. I don't do SLI myself...

(hint: there is a reason I need a better card...besides DA:I, I have not been playing newer FPS titles. Will grab a 980Ti or Fury for TW3...)

Edit: My stopgap solution got me to now. I wouldn't want to use this same setup for new games through 2-3Q 2016. No way. A 290/x + 4K would be even worse.

 

[rchunter]

Today isn't 9 months ago. I don't do SLI myself...

(hint: there is a reason I need a better card...besides DA:I, I have not been playing newer FPS titles. Will grab a 980Ti or Fury for TW3...)

Edit: My stopgap solution got me to now. I wouldn't want to use this same setup for new games through 2-3Q 2016. No way. A 290/x + 4K would be even worse.

It's all good. I'm just razzing you a little.

 

[exar333]

It's all good. I'm just razzing you a little.

Believe me, I wouldn't want to go any higher-res with a 970/980/290/290x unless you didn't do FPS titles. I do think a 980Ti/Fury-class card is a GREAT fit for a ~1440P setup and 'serviceable' for 4K. Pascal or the nest gen is really when a true 4K single-GPU will be actually viable for higher settings.

Personally, any monitor choice right now is a compromise anyway.

 

[TechyGeek]

Looking at GTA 5/Watchdogs for now. Hawaii 8gb + hdmi 2.0 + 10 bit color + $350 = buy?

 

[RussianSensation]

Looking at GTA 5/Watchdogs for now. Hawaii 8gb + hdmi 2.0 + 10 bit color + $350 = buy?

Privet tebe toje!

I don't think R9 390X will be $350. Some leaker from BestBuy is posting $449 MSRP. I guess performance must be really close to NV's $499 980?

If we are going to use the logic that the OP will use his card 100% as a stop-gap, the priorities should be to spend as little as possible to get as close to a higher level pricing tier. At the current time frame that means comparing 290/290X/970 vs. 980. Spending less will allow the OP to save for $ towards the next gen HBM2 GPU, while reducing the level of depreciation come resale value. At that point a $220 R9 290, $270 R9 290X or $300 GTX970 meet the requirement.

$470 980 is a complete waste of $ for 4K (and honestly for any resolution), while 980Ti is $650, outside of the $350 budget range.

Fresh 4K benchmarks - 290/290X/970/980 are more or less "equally" slow which likely means R9 390/390X won't change this landscape either even if 390X is 10% faster than the 290X.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_980_ti_g1_gaming_soc_review,26.html

$220 R9 290, $270 R9 270, $300 GTX970 or $350-440 R9 290 CF are the only reasonable options right now. I doubt R9 390/390X will change that. To really go up from here, one really needs a $650 single card flagship. Perhaps Fiji PRO will get closer to the 980Ti but it won't cost $350.

 

[Headfoot]

The best bet is 2x290 CF. You can get them used $200 each

 

[MrTeal]

Unless the OP is happy with 30Hz, he is not going to want to look at a R9 290 or 290X. That TV doesn't have DP and the 290 doesn't do HDMI 2.0

 

[boozzer]

350$ 4k gpu is at least 2 generations away.