R9 280, R9 380 or gtx 960?

[secretagent]

sail over Lake Ontario and pick it up.

That may be the most expensive ferry ride in the history of ferry rides, no thank you #nevarforget

 

[Blue_Max]

Actually more like everything in Canada! One Canadian dollar is $0.76 USD. It's madness.

That's just it... not everything went up at the same kind of rates. Hard drives have stayed almost the same and DDR3 actually went DOWN!

Power supplies and Intel processors went up in price faster than the video cards have.

 

[tential]

Yeah, I do understand that, and I get that I can build a PC that is the same price as a console, but will perform just as well in games as a console could, and there won't be much of a gain gaming wise. Still, you have to consider things like other things a computer can do besides gaming, such as video editing, easily browsing the internet, and not to mention doing spreadsheets, typing out documents and those things. Either way, I'm more "I built a computer before you did" kinda guy than "My Graphics and fps are slightly better than yours" kinda guy, but that's not important.

Was just saying haha. I mean you PC game for whatever reason you do.

Well, I kinda meant "Buy a 'good for todays standards'" 4Gb card now, and in a year, slap on another one of the same card, and make it "good for todays standards" system again, because todays standards will probably become a year ago's standards in a year. Sorry for the confusion. Now that we are on the same page, is it still a bad idea?

But because you're then putting yourself into dual card issues. Since you only support CF, you're in a worse situation since you have to deal with gameworks. Ontop of that, the games that will be coming out with DX12, may not take the time to implement CF/SLI into their games as it's still something that's being worked on.

Personally, I'm going CF down the line because I already have planned out what games I will play and know they support CF. I also will NOT play a game that doesn't support the cards I'm currently using. There are tons of games out there, if you don't support my current setup, I'll wait til you do, or wait til a single card solution can run the game at the settings I want. But if you just HAVE to play a new game that comes out, and it doesn't support SLI/CF, then it really does suck if you actually play new games. I don't, so I couldn't care less.

In short, I wouldn't use it as a "value" upgrade. You either need CF/SLI, or you don't. It's not really a "Value" upgrade further down the line in that price bracket. At that point, you're better off just selling your card, and picking up a faster used card.

 

[secretagent]

Was just saying haha. I mean you PC game for whatever reason you do.



But because you're then putting yourself into dual card issues. Since you only support CF, you're in a worse situation since you have to deal with gameworks. Ontop of that, the games that will be coming out with DX12, may not take the time to implement CF/SLI into their games as it's still something that's being worked on.

Personally, I'm going CF down the line because I already have planned out what games I will play and know they support CF. I also will NOT play a game that doesn't support the cards I'm currently using. There are tons of games out there, if you don't support my current setup, I'll wait til you do, or wait til a single card solution can run the game at the settings I want. But if you just HAVE to play a new game that comes out, and it doesn't support SLI/CF, then it really does suck if you actually play new games. I don't, so I couldn't care less.

In short, I wouldn't use it as a "value" upgrade. You either need CF/SLI, or you don't. It's not really a "Value" upgrade further down the line in that price bracket. At that point, you're better off just selling your card, and picking up a faster used card.

Great point. I'm also stuck with an i3-4170 and a 60Hz 1080p monitor for at least 3 years, so now that I look at it, it really isn't the best option for me. Seems like it's just best to go with a mid-high end single GPU option now than a multi-GPU option. Thanks!

 

[secretagent]

It does appear that the AMD cards are the outlying winners when it comes to sheer performance/price and the slightly higher power consumption doesn't justify not going with an AMD card. Then there are things like PhysX, TXAA, GSync and other Nvidia-only stuff. Are those things enough to justify going with a 960 over a 380? What does AMD have to offer that counters the Nvidia-only stuff?

I think whatever answers I get will probably decide which manufacturer I will go with.

 

[secretagent]

Also, a couple other questions. What is the difference between the R9 285, R9 280X, and the R9 280? I'm guessing the R9 380 is better than all of these, right? Which one would be the best purchase? What about buying used, is it a good idea? Also, would the tables turn in favor of Nvidia if I were to buy a 970 or a 290?

 

[secretagent]

Was just saying haha. I mean you PC game for whatever reason you do.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Let me be the counter weight. I would rather have the 960 just because of the drivers. nVIDIA drivers have lower CPU overhead under Direct3D 11 and below. Not only that, nvidia inspector (a driver tool that exposes hidden settings) allows me to apply many different kinds of anti-aliasing (HSAA, OGSSAA, SGSSAA, CSAA, etc) not available on AMD cards.

nVIDIA AA guide for many games:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=357956

nVIDIA HBAO guide for many games:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=387114

 

[crisium]

Also, a couple other questions. What is the difference between the R9 285, R9 280X, and the R9 280? I'm guessing the R9 380 is better than all of these, right? Which one would be the best purchase? What about buying used, is it a good idea? Also, would the tables turn in favor of Nvidia if I were to buy a 970 or a 290?

In raw performance, it is usually this:

280X
380 = 285
280

The 380 however is available in 4GB whereas the 285 is 2GB only and the 280X is 3GB only. The 380 while usually a bit slower than the 280X can thus gain some ground in high memory situations. Also, the 380/285 are built on a newer architecture that sometimes means that even in low memory situations it can pass a 280X whenever the game takes advantage of its better tessellation or other features.

So while I have the 280X above the 380, it's certainly not universal. I'd rather have a 380 4GB than a 280X for the extra memory and superior GCN features. In the majority of games it may be a tiny bit slower than a 280X, but I'd find that acceptable.

970 and 290 are about the same speed and are substantially faster than a 280X or 380. As long as you don't get a reference 290 (blower) on the used market you should be fine, but you also risk it being a bit coin miner that has a lot of hours on it. A used 970 is the same risk as any used card - do you trust the owner.

 

[secretagent]

nVIDIA drivers have lower CPU overhead under Direct3D 11 and below

What's lower cpu overhead? Does that mean that lower end cpu's perform better with it? That would be helpful, considering I have an i3-4170

 

[xorbe]

What's lower cpu overhead? Does that mean that lower end cpu's perform better with it? That would be helpful, considering I have an i3-4170

Right. Though a 3.7GHz Haswell is not slow, like c2d or amd apu.

 

[Techhog]

Also, a couple other questions. What is the difference between the R9 285, R9 280X, and the R9 280? I'm guessing the R9 380 is better than all of these, right? Which one would be the best purchase? What about buying used, is it a good idea? Also, would the tables turn in favor of Nvidia if I were to buy a 970 or a 290?

280 < 960 < 285 < 380 <= 280X << 290 < 970 <= 390

The 380 and 280X trade blows. When the 280X wins, it's by a bigger margin than when the 380 wins. The 380 is generally faster in newer games, has a few more features, does a much better job with tessellation (and thus GameWorks titles), and is more power efficient. Also, the 380 is an overclocked 285. Exact same chip.

A 970 might beat a 390 in most cases when using a lower-end CPU, though your CPU is only slow in games using more than 2-3 threads.

 

[happy medium]

It's not 250W of extra power though

I never said 'extra" power......gtx960 overclocked 165watts vs 380 overclocked @ 250 watts is a big difference. Heats up your case and your room faster. For about the same price the gtx960 is the better deal especially overclocked and with a SLOWER cpu.

 

[tential]

I think whatever answers I get will probably decide which manufacturer I will go with.

You're talking about features you can't use. Physx will cripple you on an i3. Gsync and freesync are both vendors... Txaa will again not be worth the perf hit and it's not like there aren't forms of aa you can use including vsr/dsr which I think is superior to anything out there (although again perf hit).

 

[secretagent]

Right. Though a 3.7GHz Haswell is not slow, like c2d or amd apu.

Right, so this works against Hi-Fi Man's argument. Also, I don't care much for AA, I just go for whatever doesn't hit my fps too bad and still looks decent. Does this rule out the 960 completely, considering I don't care much for ~70W extra with the 380 anymore? Are there a couple things that could still factor in the 960 again? Wait, can someone expain PhysX to me?

 

[secretagent]

though your CPU is only slow in games using more than 2-3 threads.

Are there many such games?

 

[tential]

Also, a couple other questions. What is the difference between the R9 285, R9 280X, and the R9 280? I'm guessing the R9 380 is better than all of these, right? Which one would be the best purchase? What about buying used, is it a good idea? Also, would the tables turn in favor of Nvidia if I were to buy a 970 or a 290?

290 is cheaper and faster so no. And has a real 4gb vram. I wouldn't get a 970 even for the slightly lower power consumption (which won't help when you oc your 970 anyway).

If you're looking at this price bracket the performance increase is no joke when looking at the 290 over other options you've listed.
I have a 290. If you gave me any of these cards for free before I got it, I would have thrown them away. I would pay 250 before I use a free gtx 960.

 

[Techhog]

I never said 'extra" power......gtx960 overclocked 165watts vs 380 overclocked @ 250 watts is a big difference. Heats up your case and your room faster. For about the same price the gtx960 is the better deal especially overclocked and with a SLOWER cpu.

That isn't a slower CPU, though; it just has less physical cores. It isn't much of a bottleneck in most games, which someone like you should definitely agree with, Mr. "The cards can't be bottlenecked by 2GB for the foreseeable future."

 

[Techhog]

Are there many such games?

The number of games like this is increasing as time goes on. You should still be fine in most cases, though hardly anyone actually tests this.For example, Happy Medium's assertions are based on tests done with higher-end cards, which is part of why he hasn't posted any benchmarks and just wants you to take his word for it that there will be a significant difference. It also ignores DX12 games in future.

 

[happy medium]

That isn't a slower CPU, though

Your kidding right?

Reviews use overclocked 4690's or 4790's. Look up AMD cpu driver overhead. With slower cpu's a gtx960 is faster than a r9 280, 285 or 380. When a 960 is overclocked its faster without the driver overhead anyway. They are the best overclocking card out. 99% hit 1500 core.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/GeForce-GTX-960-Overclocking-Report-13-Cards-Tested

"First, the 1576 MHz maximum Boost clock is 33.7% faster than the "typical" Boost clock of 1178 MHz on the reference GTX 960 specifications"

"In Far Cry 4 we are comparing at 1920x1080 with "Ultra" settings so there aren't any kind of bottlenecks. In this graph we can see that overclocking the GTX 960 yielded a 14% performance improvement. This is 14% from the already factory overclocked clock speed of 1366MHz."
If this were a reference GTX 960 at reference stock speeds this performance gap would be wider with 20%+ performance gains just from overclocking.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...60_gaming_overclocking_review/10#.VhRTlDZdEcQ

"An important note here is that this game is not playable on the MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G out-of-box at these settings. However, with this overclock this game is now playable at 1080p with "Ultra" settings in FC4. Without the overclock we had to use the next lowest setting, "Very High" quality. Therefore, this overclock improves the gameplay experience by allowing a higher visual quality mode to be enabled. That's a real tangible improvement."


The gtx960 is the best option at the 160$ 2gb to 190$ 4gb price point when overclocking. Low power consumption, low driver overhead, cool and quiet, and has a better feature set.

 

[Techhog]

Your kidding right?

Reviews use overclocked 4690's or 4790's. Look up AMD cpu driver overhead. With slower cpu's a gtx960 is faster than a r9 280, 285 or 380. When a 960 is overclocked its faster without the driver overhead anyway. They are the best overclocking card out. 99% hit 1500 core.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/GeForce-GTX-960-Overclocking-Report-13-Cards-Tested

"First, the 1576 MHz maximum Boost clock is 33.7% faster than the "typical" Boost clock of 1178 MHz on the reference GTX 960 specifications"

Ah, you means compared to what reviewers use. Okay, can't counter that one.

The reset of the post, however, is pretty flawed. First of all, what 960 is only going to hit the rated boost clock before overclocking? Not one that'll reach 1500MHz, I'll assure you of that. Second, how does the overclock actually scale in terms of performance? Third, why are you ignoring the fact that those cards can overclock? (Oh, right, it's because they don't hit 1500MHz and are thus very poor overclockers. *rolls eyes*) Fourth, he's going to keep this card for a while, so DX12 may become a factor. Finally, all of the CPU tests I can find use at least an overclocked 970/290/780 Ti, and a 960 can't reach any of those even at their stock speeds. That lessens the effect of the overhead issue. Can't say my how much, but that's precisely the problem. We just don't know, and until someone actually tests these configurations it's better to use other factors instead of just guessing.

 

[happy medium]

Second, how does the overclock actually scale in terms of performance

I added more to my post, I was editing.

Here is another reason for the gtx960. Power consumption...105 watts less when overclocked.!

"Power usage is another factor to consider with this video card. We have put together a table here showing the overclocked power results."

"The new MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G video card overclocked still draws less power than every other video card at default power. The efficiency and power usage is simply amazing and will lessen the burden of power demand on any computer build."

"The MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING is an amazing overclocking machine. Custom video cards from add-in-board partners will be popular for enthusiasts looking to get the most out of their purchase"

I made my point and I don't exaggerate.

 

[tential]

Really op, I think the difference isnt that great between these cards as choices. If I was in your position the 290 hands down is what I'd pick.

If you really want to penny pinch, I'd go one of the amd models you picked for dx12 and async as you won't have as much cpu power left over for any emulation given your cpu(and I hate to bring dx12 into this as nothing is for sure).

I'd say 970 or 290.

As another poster put it recently you have 2 options.
An r9 390(or 290) and a gtx 980ti.

Everything else really is a horrid value.

Gtx 970 bstock deserves a mention if you Can get that and like nvidia more get it.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

If you can wait until the cards with 16nm GPUs come out I would do that especially if you plan on keeping the card for awhile. The current line up leaves much to be desired especially in Canada...

 

[AtenRa]

I added more to my post, I was editing.

Here is another reason for the gtx960. Power consumption...105 watts less when overclocked.!

"Power usage is another factor to consider with this video card. We have put together a table here showing the overclocked power results."

"The new MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G video card overclocked still draws less power than every other video card at default power. The efficiency and power usage is simply amazing and will lessen the burden of power demand on any computer build."

"The MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING is an amazing overclocking machine. Custom video cards from add-in-board partners will be popular for enthusiasts looking to get the most out of their purchase"

I made my point and I don't exaggerate.

Since you are using HOCP

XFX R9 380 review

R9 380 faster than GTX960 at a GameWorks game like Witcher 3.

R9 380 faster than GTX960 at a GameWorks game like GTA V.

Hell even in the epitome of NVIDIA GameWorks "marvel", the R9 380 is equal to GTX960

Another Gameworks Game, another R9 380 win

Battlefield 4 with Mantle is a no contest (frame times) against any NVIDIA GPU no matter if you get a few more fps. Especially with 2C 4T CPUs.

Now just imagine what will happen in new DX-12 games, R9 380 will completely dominate.

And power consumption,

We are using a custom retail MSI GTX 960 for testing, so these are custom card power numbers, not reference.

311W vs 233W = 78W difference in DX-11 games,

4x Hours gaming for 365 days = 1460 Hours

1460Hours x 78W = 113,880Wh

113,880 / 1000 = 113,88Kwh per year

113,88Kwh x 0.12 cents per KWh = 13,66 dollars per year

Edit,
You will need to OC the GTX960 even more than that MSI 960 card to really catch the performance of the R9 380. Doing so will increase the power consumption of the GTX960 making the power consumption argument irrelevant.

In DX-12 games the power difference will be smaller since NVIDIA cards will be more CPU depended and thus overall system power usage will be higher than DX-11 games.