Help a rookie #2

[TapWater]

Hey guys I have been here 5 mins and already asking too many questions.

So my other issue is this: I have an Alienware Area 51 with the following specs:

CPU is i975X 3.33ghz
12GB ram (tri 3x4GB)
GTX 295 (1.8GB I think?)
SSD
1.1KW power supply
Absolute shit of a motherboard

The actual computer is ok, it went back to Dell about a gazzillion times and got replaced just as many.. but after sorting some things over a long period of time, it finally works really well.

The actual computer looks pretty cool, but as you may or may not know Dell preaches this awesome up gradeness - its all lies!! The MB has no USB 3.0, no Sata 6.0GPS and to change motherboards is an absolute nightmare because for starters the power supply uses a proprietary cable connection so I don't even know how to get it to turn on lol - and then the fancy lights dont light up also.

Anyway, I was wondering what graphics card would be good in my system, and any other suggestions of upgrading you guys might be aware of.

Im in Sydney Australia, I dont mind spending a anything up to about $350?

If I need to spend a little more - just say so, only thing I remember reading is that the GTX 295 was similar to the GTX 4 hundred and something, and the GTX 4 hundred and something was similar to the GTX 5 hundred and something.. ? Not sure if that made any sense, but thanks for any help.

I want it so I can play games pretty much, as obviously it does almost everything else just fine..

Screen is a 1920x1200 ultrasharp Dell screen

 

[fralexandr]

USB 3.0 and SATA III weren't that common on motherboards until 2011-2012, so it isn't surprising that your Area 51 doesn't have those.

the GTX 295 was a dual GPU card (underclocked gtx 285 x2?). Knowing that the GTX 295 is similar to a GTX 4 hundred something or 5 hundred something doesn't really mean anything, because each generation has it's share of low end cards not meant for serious gaming. That said, the gtx 295 was probably somewhere around GTX 480 and GTX 560ti-570 performance

You might want to look into getting either a GTX 670 or AMD 7950 (given how overkill the rest of your rig was),
but the GTX 660 TI and AMD 7870 should be faster than the GTX 295, and sufficient for 1920x1200 on high settings.

FYI next gen consoles are coming out soon based on AMD 7850-7870 graphics cards, so AMD might be better optimized for console ports, and the current gen cards might become average soonish (running games on medium-high settings in the next few years).

 

[mfenn]

The GTX 295 is between 50-75% faster than a GTX 260 in games where SLI works properly. $300 AUD gets you a 7950 3GB, which is about 3 times faster than a GTX 260. Doing the math says that the 7950 3GB would be about 1.75-2 times faster than the GTX 295. That's not counting the other advantages like no SLI headaches, DX11 support, and more VRAM.

 

[TapWater]

firstly, thanks heaps for the replies..

so Sata 3 is just a name basically? It really just stands for 6.0Gbps speed? cool. I obviously dont know much about computers, but i understand where you might be coming from.

Some car enthusiasts, get a tune, and refer to their cars as STAGE 1..? They add a dump pipe and it is not called Stage 2.

It shits me to tears because it basically started when some companies tried to make it sound cool upgrading, and gave it names.. but in reality - you car just has a tune, or an air filter or an exhaust.. ANYWAY I DIGRESS lol

mfenn when you say doing the math, its about 1.75-2 times faster than the GTX285, is the GTX 285 better or worse than the GTX295?

Ive always been had nvidia, more just by chance, but after using an old imac and seeing how well even a 5750 ATI card handles BF3 I might be ready for the change.

As usualy I start trying to save money and I end up wanting to go a little better.. is the 7970 much better or the 7950 better bang?

Lastly, is the GTX 670 better than either of these ATI cards or again, bang for buck, ATI wins it also?

 

[Charlie98]

so Sata 3 is just a name basically? It really just stands for 6.0Gbps speed? cool. I obviously dont know much about computers, but i understand where you might be coming from.

Lastly, is the GTX 670 better than either of these ATI cards or again, bang for buck, ATI wins it also?

SATA3 is a name for the 6.0GB/s specification... it's not tricky marketing, just a label. Think of it as SATA, version #3... an upgrade, and a real one at that.

I have a GTX card, it's pretty good. Having said that, you can usually get better value (i.e. same performance/less money or better performance/same money) out of the ATI cards. ATI cards typically run cooler and use less power, too, when comparing apples to apples.

I like my EVGA GTX card in my desktop, but I just bought a Radeon card for my HTPC... it just made more sense.

 

[hapkiman]

You know Alienware does have its downfalls (like you mentioned not very up-gradable, and proprietary parts are expensive, rigs are overpriced, etc...), but once you get an Alienware system running good (again like you said), they're decent. They just have a lot of haters for some reason among the self build crowd (I used to detest them myself). I now have a good friend though, that although he has since self-built a high-end rig on his own based around an i7 3930k and a GTX 680, he still has an Alienware from two or three years ago with a i7 980x, and its still running quite nicely, and has dual Radeon HD 5870s in X-Fire. It plays BF3 on Ultra with no hiccups at 60FPS.

I would suggest for you to try and get the best possible single graphics card you can afford. Since you have such a beefy PSU you should have no problems handling any card. Of course a GTX 690 immediately comes to mind, but they may be outrageously expensive in Australia. The next choice is either an GTX 680 (preferable) or a Radeon HD 7970 (yes there are a few "unauthorized" versions of a Radeon HD 7990 out there, but they run hot as hell). The 7990 and the 690 are dual GPU cards, just like your old 295.

Not sure why the other answer said that ATI cards run cooler and use less power because he is way incorrect (plus there isn't even a company called "ATI" anymore, its all AMD). Nvidia cards, especially the newer "Kepler" series (of which the GTX 680 is one), are known for running very cool and are quite power efficient. Considerably more efficient than the newer AMD cards.

So if you can afford a GTX 690 get one! If not, go for a GTX 680. You'll get several more years out of that rig. Look around and find an overclocked model like the MSI "Lightning" edition.

And if you really want to try SLI or X-fire (twin cards), get two GTX 670s, which will out perform a single 680 or single 7970.

I just prefer a single card set-up because dual or multiple card rigs can cause problems/glitches/headaches.

Good luck.

 

[Charlie98]

(plus there isn't even a company called "ATI" anymore, its all AMD). Nvidia cards, especially the newer "Kepler" series (of which the GTX 680 is one), are known for running very cool and are quite power efficient. Considerably more efficient than the newer AMD cards.

ATI/AMD/Radeon... The OP referenced to ATI, so I just stuck with it.

The newer nVidia cards are better with heat and power, they may be comparable to AMD cards now, but I still think the edge still goes to AMD... but I'll check.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

So if you can afford a GTX 690 get one! If not, go for a GTX 680. You'll get several more years out of that rig. Look around and find an overclocked model like the MSI "Lightning" edition.

680's are horrible value for money. The 670 and 680 will perform almost identically but the 680 is MUCH more expensive...

 

[Sleepingforest]

So if you can afford a GTX 690 get one! If not, go for a GTX 680. You'll get several more years out of that rig. Look around and find an overclocked model like the MSI "Lightning" edition.

And if you really want to try SLI or X-fire (twin cards), get two GTX 670s, which will out perform a single 680 or single 7970.

I just prefer a single card set-up because dual or multiple card rigs can cause problems/glitches/headaches.

Good luck.

I would disagree with your recommendation for a 680 simply because a $400 Radeon 7970 is a far better value. Most with an unlocked voltage can overclock to 7970 GHz Edition levels or even higher, which in turn trades blows with the Nvidia Titan (a $1000 card!) in games. Electricity is cheap enough that it doesn't really matter--or he could bitcoin mine at night to make up the electricity cost (something Nvidia GPUs cannot do).

That's much better than a 680.

 

[fralexandr]

Not sure why the other answer said that ATI cards run cooler and use less power because he is way incorrect (plus there isn't even a company called "ATI" anymore, its all AMD). Nvidia cards, especially the newer "Kepler" series (of which the GTX 680 is one), are known for running very cool and are quite power efficient. Considerably more efficient than the newer AMD cards.

That was true for at least the prior ~2 generations of cards (especially Fermi), the high end GTX 6xx series now uses less power than the AMD 7xxx series under load, but that wasn't the case in the recent past.


-----
the reason people recommend the 7950/670 is that you get significantly better performance/value when moving 1 step down from the top.

 

[hapkiman]

Hey I have no problem going with a single Radeon HD 7970, maybe a GHz edition which are quite fast (MSI also has a Lightning 7970 which is great). I was just giving MHO to the OP. The 7970s (after recent driver updates) equal or surpass the GTX 680s depending of course upon the game or app involved (in most games they win by a small margin except for the odd duck which seem to be optimized for nVidia like BF3).

But I concur with getting the 7970 if its cheaper and the OP likes it. Try shopping around and find a nice OC'ed model and go for it.

And yes I know "ATI" drivers used to be a little more reliable than nVidias, but thats been years ago. I remember it well. I just wanted the OP to know that he shouldn't worry too much about driver issues with any nVidia card (or AMD) nowadays. They're not a big deal. I've had my MSI GTX 670 Power Edition for 9 months with out a single driver hiccup.

My point to the OP is to get the best possible (single) graphics card he can afford, even if that means waiting a bit and saving some more $$$. That's why I said GTX 690 as first choice, and a GTX 680 as second. I wouldn't get a Titan just yet anyway - that's a whole diff story and why I didn't mention it. I'm waiting on the price of Titans myself to drop -...they will.

But absolutely, check out the 7970 as well. It may work better for you and is cheaper than a 680. There are some really good ones out there.

But I still stick with my recommendation if he wants to SLI, to go with two 670s.

 

[mfenn]

mfenn when you say doing the math, its about 1.75-2 times faster than the GTX285, is the GTX 285 better or worse than the GTX295?

It was a typo, I meant GTX 295.

 

[mfenn]

So if you can afford a GTX 690 get one! If not, go for a GTX 680. You'll get several more years out of that rig. Look around and find an overclocked model like the MSI "Lightning" edition.

And if you really want to try SLI or X-fire (twin cards), get two GTX 670s, which will out perform a single 680 or single 7970.

I just prefer a single card set-up because dual or multiple card rigs can cause problems/glitches/headaches.

This doesn't make any sense. A GTX 690 is just two underclocked GTX 680's in SLI on the same PCB. It has all of the usual SLI headaches as getting two separate cards.

In the real world, GTX 670 SLI is usually faster (especially factoring in overclocking) and costs less. So the GTX 690 is really a card that has no reason for existing outside of mini-ITX and quad SLI rigs.

ALSO, the OP said he has $350 AUD to spend which rules out pretty much anything above the 7950.

 

[hapkiman]

He said he might be able to spend more than that:

If I need to spend a little more - just say so

Hopefully he can scrape together enough for a 7970.

http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sku-ab47836-powercolor_amd_radeon_hd7970_3gb_graphics_card

 

[TapWater]

Thanks for try replies so far all very helpful.

Just wondering if that brand is ok? (Powercolor).

Is it as good as gigabyte or asus or msi

 

[Charlie98]

Thanks for try replies so far all very helpful.

Just wondering if that brand is ok? (Powercolor).

Is it as good as gigabyte or asus or msi

It's the GPU mfenn has right now in his mid-range gamer build...

 

[mfenn]

Thanks for try replies so far all very helpful.

Just wondering if that brand is ok? (Powercolor).

Is it as good as gigabyte or asus or msi

Powercolor is totally fine. They usually don't have as many bells and whistles as an ASUS, but they work well.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Powercolor is totally fine. They usually don't have as many bells and whistles as an ASUS, but they work well.

Nor as much extra in the package. But if you just need the card without any additional clutter (adaptors, software etc.), its fine.

 

[TapWater]

Ok so I looked into it a little more.. A GTX295 is basically 2 x GTX 280s, which have been under clocked down, and put together on a board.

Surprisingly, the GTX 295 is quite good and still holds its own against a lot of cards,

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/168

http://www.hwcompare.com/9169/geforce-gtx-295-vs-geforce-gtx-580/ (theoretical)

but it does NOT have DX11 which is a newer and better looking type of graphics.

Going off the replies here which led me to my little research run, the people who have said to try and get a strong card like the 7950 or above are pretty much spot on.

Comparisons such as this,

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=517

you can see the 7970 smashes it pretty good and proper

But a GTX 580 does not and actually gets beaten by the old GTX 295 in more than one case (particularly in Crysis @1920x1200 which is what my monitor is).

Therefore a lot of cards such as the 660Ti, GTX 660 and the 7850 just are not worth the upgrade unless you simply need to have DX11, but no real increase in performance for the games I would play.

So for anyone else reading this, the boys above are correct, a move up from GTX295 to be worthwhile you would need a nice card like a 7950 or above from ATI/AMD (not ATI anymore?) and a GTX 670 and above.

Dont get me wrong, you can get any new card, and you'll get DX11 as an upgrade but if its a card that you want to get not just for DX11 but also for keeping it longer term performance of games, the above all counts..

Thanks heaps guys Ill report back what I get which hopefully wont be too long!