R9 280x toxic or Zotac GTX 770 amp!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

leoblab

Junior Member
Feb 2, 2014
10
0
0
Hello everyone, this is my first post in this forum. :)

I would like to buy a new VGA card and my options are the R9 280x Toxic or the Zotac 770 amp! cards.

It's a little difficult form me to take a decision since they are very good cards but I don't understand which one of these is the faster.
I read the the nvida GTX 770 reference model is quite slower than a 280x toxic, but I don't know if things change with an overclocked gtx 770 like the Zotac one.

Furthermore, this new mantle thing seems to be very interesting...

Can anybody help me?
Thanks a lot! :D
 
4

46andtool

Member
Aug 16, 2013
181
0
71
the 280x Toxic is a very fast card, if you can find it for a good price I would get that over a Zotac 770. Even overclocked the 770 wont be as fast because its limited by its memory bus if I remember correctly. Plus you will get 3gigs of vram with the 280, which may or may not prove useful down the line
 
Fastx

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
If the prices are close I would go with the 280x due to the 3GB alone if you plan on keeping the card for 2-3 years and also for Mantle if playing BF4 or future Mantle games coming out like thief and others down the road.

I recently went with a MSI GTX 770 Gaming card over a 280x (due to price) clocked stock out of the box at 1202, and w/MSI included gaming app at 1241. I got a great deal on sale and with promo credit for $270.00 a month ago, sold the 3 games for $35.00 so $235.00 final price shipped. It plays my main (BF4/C3) games very well at 1080 for the money imo. This is just a card I bough for 3-12 months of usage before I upgrade. I'd go 280x 3gb unless you can get a good deal (cheaper than 280x) on a GTX 770 AIB with decent (Guar.) clocks out of the box and plan on upgrading in the next 12-15 months assuming you are also gaming at 1080 or under and you don't overclock.

The below reviews below do show the GTX 700 as the faster card least in the games I looked @1080 out of the box.

Zotac GTX 770 AMP review if this is the model your looking at below.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/56541-zotac-geforce-gtx-770-amp-edition/


Sapphire 280x Toxic review
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/61413-sapphire-radeon-r9-280x-toxic/

Btw welcome to ATF.
 
4

46andtool

Member
Aug 16, 2013
181
0
71
Fastx said:
If the prices are close I would go with the 280x due to the 3GB alone if you plan on keeping the card for 2-3 years and also for Mantle if playing BF4 or future Mantle games coming out like thief and others down the road.

I recently went with a MSI GTX 770 Gaming card over a 280x (due to price) clocked stock out of the box at 1202, and w/MSI included gaming app at 1241. I got a great deal on sale and with promo credit for $270.00 a month ago, sold the 3 games for $35.00 so $235.00 final price shipped. It plays my main (BF4/C3) games very well at 1080 for the money imo. This is just a card I bough for 3-12 months of usage before I upgrade. I'd go 280x 3gb unless you can get a good deal (cheaper than 280x) on a GTX 770 AIB with decent (Guar.) clocks out of the box and plan on upgrading in the next 12-15 months assuming you are also gaming at 1080 or under and you don't overclock.

The below reviews below do show the GTX 700 as the faster card least in the games I looked @1080 out of the box.

Zotac GTX 770 AMP review if this is the model your looking at below.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/56541-zotac-geforce-gtx-770-amp-edition/


Sapphire 280x Toxic review
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/61413-sapphire-radeon-r9-280x-toxic/

Btw welcome to ATF.
Click to expand...


The only game shared in those comparisons is Bioshock Infinite, and that game runs better on Nvidia hardware. Also the difference is less than 1fps between them, with the 770 pushing 50.9fps and the Toxic doing 50.5fps.

The firestrike scores tell a different story:

770 = 3,689
Toxic = 4,069

I think the Toxic will be faster for the majority of games, albeit not by much. Both are great cards
 
L

leoblab

Junior Member
Feb 2, 2014
10
0
0
Hello guys,
thank you very much for your answers! :)

I'm going to keep the next vga card for 12-15 months, not more, and play on a 3570K @ 4GHz with a resolution of 1920*1200.

As for the MSI GTX 770 Gaming, the Zotac AMP has a GPU clock of 1202 GHz and a memory clock of 7200GHz. I think is one of the most powerful 770 in the market (maybe the fastest one).

The price is just the same: 297 Eu for both cards (Zotac 770 AMP and 280x Toxic).

Do you think that the extra 3GB of ram would be useful in the future with a resolution of a 1920*1200?
 
Fastx

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
46andtool said:
The only game shared in those comparisons is Bioshock Infinite, and that game runs better on Nvidia hardware. Also the difference is less than 1fps between them, with the 770 pushing 50.9fps and the Toxic doing 50.5fps.

The firestrike scores tell a different story:

770 = 3,689
Toxic = 4,069

I think the Toxic will be faster for the majority of games, albeit not by much. Both are great cards
Click to expand...

What are you looking at? The Zotac GTX 770 AMP which is what he looking at and beats the Toxix by 8fps in Bioshock not 1fps. the Zotac GTX 770 AMP is the faster card in, Just Cause, Far Cry 3, Bioshock and Crysis 3. It is the faster card in those games tested for both cards at 1080.

Firestrike doesn't mean anything to me FPS do. You must not be looking at the GTX Zotac 770 AMP in those charts.
 
Last edited:
4

46andtool

Member
Aug 16, 2013
181
0
71
Fastx said:
What are you looking at? The Zotac GTX 770 AMP which is what he looking at and beats the Toxix by 8fps in Bioshock not 1fps. the Zotac GTX 770 AMP is the faster card in, Just Cause, Far Cry 3, Bioshock and Crysis 3. It is the faster card in those games tested for both cards at 1080.

Firestrike doesn't mean anything to me FPS do. You must not be looking at the GTX Zotac 770 AMP in those charts.
Click to expand...


:p I was looking at the 1600p resolution and not 1080. Your right, sorry about that!
 
Fastx

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
leoblab said:
Hello guys,
thank you very much for your answers! :)

I'm going to keep the next vga card for 12-15 months, not more, and play on a 3570K @ 4GHz with a resolution of 1920*1200.

As for the MSI GTX 770 Gaming, the Zotac AMP has a GPU clock of 1202 GHz and a memory clock of 7200GHz. I think is one of the most powerful 770 in the market (maybe the fastest one).

The price is just the same: 297 Eu for both cards (Zotac 770 AMP and 280x Toxic).

Do you think that the extra 3GB of ram would be useful in the future with a resolution of a 1920*1200?
Click to expand...

I can't see imo 1200 making much difference between these two cards. Its your decision and what games you play per BM's on both cards. If your only going to be keeping it for around 12 months then you can't go wrong with either card imo.

FYI the GTX 770 MSI Gaming seem to overclock nice and seem to come with Hynix memory, also the card does clock to 1241 using the included gaming app which is the clock I game at BF4 and C3. I also was able to clocked my MSI at 1337/1980 and it ran Valley 1.0 with a clean run. I mentioned the 3GB and Mantle benefits on the 280x so intern I will mention Nvidia Adaptive Vsync which works good and does help with tearing and Nvidia Shadow recording is another nice feature I like and that is not even talking about G-sync but have no interest at this point of getting a G-sync monitor.

Below is a video recording I did with Nvidia's Shadow but this is only in medium quality recording (not high quality recording) of my Nascar Racing sim I posted on Youtube the other day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pZDIyw7G9M
 
Last edited:
Will Robinson

Will Robinson

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2009
1,408
0
0
leoblab said:
Hello everyone, this is my first post in this forum. :)

I would like to buy a new VGA card and my options are the R9 280x Toxic or the Zotac 770 amp! cards.

It's a little difficult form me to take a decision since they are very good cards but I don't understand which one of these is the faster.
I read the the nvida GTX 770 reference model is quite slower than a 280x toxic, but I don't know if things change with an overclocked gtx 770 like the Zotac one.

Furthermore, this new mantle thing seems to be very interesting...

Can anybody help me?
Thanks a lot! :D
Click to expand...

I would go for the 280X..here's "the Mantle thing" in action...
Sv7.jpg
 
Gloomy

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
R9 280X isn't properly supported in Mantle yet. Judging from what the 290X gains it'll beat the 780Ti when it does. Poor Nvidia
 
M

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
41
86
Both are great cards. I'd go with 280X, however, due to 3 gigabyte of VRAM. In 2015-16 there will be games that will require that as a minimum if you want to play at decent quality even at 1080p. We're already seeing such a creep up in VRAM usage, especially on games like Battlefield 4 on ultra where 2 gigabyte VRAM at 1080p is doable, but you don't have as much space as you used to have in spare capacity.

It's only a question of time when that border is broken and it will not be long, given the fact that next year and especially the year after that, the next-gen games that will ignore X360 and PS3 and jump straight to the new ones will come out and their ports to PC will be more suited to take advantage of the PC's distinct high-performance advantages, given that the new "next-gen" consoles are essentially x86 PC's with a gamepad. The same basic architecture is more or less identical.

TL;DR
As of right now, it's really a matter of preference. But 1-2 years down the line, 280X has much better odds due to 50% more VRAM for the more demanding games.
 
D

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
Will Robinson said:
I would go for the 280X..here's "the Mantle thing" in action...
Sv7.jpg
Click to expand...
What a troll.

Mantle only support one game and it is full with bugs and also compromise image quality.

Go for GTX 770 it is 2 to 3% faster than R9 290X.


Couldn't help yourself, could you? Personal attacks are against the forum rules.

-Rvenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gloomy

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
Those seem accurate.

Where are you seeing it's faster than a 780Ti? It's only faster in a couple of games Nvidia cards are bad at. The 780Ti should be much faster overall.

Seriously though, get the Toxic. It's better than the 770 AMP.
 
L

leoblab

Junior Member
Feb 2, 2014
10
0
0
Gloomy said:
Those seem accurate.

Where are you seeing it's faster than a 780Ti? It's only faster in a couple of games Nvidia cards are bad at. The 780Ti should be much faster overall.

Seriously though, get the Toxic. It's better than the 770 AMP.
Click to expand...

Watching the Hitman Absolution results it seems that the 280x toxic is faster than the 780ti. In other benchmark seems that the 280x toxic is as fast as a 780 (except Bioshock Infinite, Sniper V2 Elite and Battlefield 3).

Anyway...I decided to go for the 280x toxic.

Thanks everyone! :D
 
T

Tmf

Senior member
Jan 15, 2014
247
1
81
I personally think the 770 and 280x are very comparable cards however I would take the Toxic. The cooling solution on it is one of if not the best out there.
 
guskline

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
I believe that desprado made a typing error. He most likely meant 280X NOT 290X.

The passion and furor between the AMD and Nvidia camps is becoming so heated that I sit back in amazement.

Poor leolab. I reread his post and he needed suggestions.

My suggestion is that EIther the 280X or the 770 will be fine if his monitor is 1920 x 1080 for most games at high resolutions. If the monitor is 2560 x 1440 or above, the 280X might make more sense because of the higher Vram. Perhaps the biggest negative of the AMD cards is the higher prices for them due to bitcoin mining pressure.
 
Last edited:
L

leoblab

Junior Member
Feb 2, 2014
10
0
0
96Firebird said:
Agreed, but the OP looks to be from Italy where the prices seem to be normal.
Click to expand...

That's right. Here in Italy the price for both cards is the same (297 EU). This is the reason I decided to go for the 280x toxic.


@guskline: why "poor leoblab"? :D
 
el etro

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,584
14
81
leoblab said:
The price is just the same: 297 Eu for both cards (Zotac 770 AMP and 280x Toxic).
Click to expand...

Get the Toxic. You can past 1300Mhz with it.

3dmark11oc9.png



note: 3D Mark 11 sightly favors Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom