The best card for $300?

[Rennn]

I would prefer Nvidia since I already know how they work and which 3rd party programs to use, but AMD would be acceptable...

Anyway, what's the best possible card for about $300?

[Thor.]

Here is a good start, its around 300$ exactly.

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1917611&CatId=7387

[Rennn]

Thanks, I was actually looking at a 7950 before, lol.

 

Any idea how that would compare to this 660 ti?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121656

 

I ask because I already have things like Nvidia inspector installed, I've grown used to forcing AO in the control panel, and I'm worried about width. The 660 ti will fit, but I can't find dimensions on the 7950, and people in the reviews are saying it's a very wide card.

[Phalanx108]

Right, I've pulled together some information about the 660Ti vs the 7950 for you, but it's not exactly clear which one is "better"

 

The 660Ti uses 50w less power than the 7950, so if your PSU is smaller then it will be better.

 

However, the 7950 has a higher memory bandwidth, so it will theoretically be faster, however there's other factors that need to be taken into account more so than just memory bandwidth.

 

The 660 has higher core speeds out of the box, core @ 915 MHz, and memory @ 1500 MHz, however that is through the 192-bit bus.

The 7950 has a lower core speed, core @ 915 MHz, with memory @ 1250 MHz out of the box, through a bigger bus.

 

The 7950 will be better at higher resolutions due to it's higher pixel rate, but at lower resolutions that won't make a lot of difference. So if you are spreading your games over multiple monitors the 7950 will suit you better, but if you've just got one screen with a game on it then the 660Ti will suit you fine.

 

There's no concrete winner from the two cards I'd say, so it's your call :smile:

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the 660 has a higher OpenGL version, not that that matters a whole lot. 4.3 vs 4.2 on the 7950.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Phalanx108

[hoofhearted4]

7950s also have that extra GB of VRAM. might not ever matter, but its there for the same price.

 

i have a 7950 and its handled everything ive played so far on Ultra. so id recommend it personally. the Gigabyte version in particular is silent and ive never had it ramp up to a point where i heard it, even after several hours of playing FarCry 3 or SC2 on Ultra Settings.

[Rennn]

Right, I've pulled together some information about the 660Ti vs the 7950 for you, but it's not exactly clear which one is "better"

 

The 660Ti uses 50w less power than the 7950, so if your PSU is smaller then it will be better.

 

However, the 7950 has a higher memory bandwidth, so it will theoretically be faster, however there's other factors that need to be taken into account more so than just memory bandwidth.

 

The 660 has higher core speeds out of the box, core @ 915 MHz, and memory @ 1500 MHz, however that is through the 192-bit bus.

The 7950 has a lower core speed, core @ 915 MHz, with memory @ 1250 MHz out of the box, through a bigger bus.

 

The 7950 will be better at higher resolutions due to it's higher pixel rate, but at lower resolutions that won't make a lot of difference. So if you are spreading your games over multiple monitors the 7950 will suit you better, but if you've just got one screen with a game on it then the 660Ti will suit you fine.

 

There's no concrete winner from the two cards I'd say, so it's your call :smile:

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the 660 has a higher OpenGL version, not that that matters a whole lot. 4.3 vs 4.2 on the 7950.

 

Thanks, that's the kind of comparison I was hoping for. :)

[Rennn]

7950s also have that extra GB of VRAM. might not ever matter, but its there for the same price.

 

i have a 7950 and its handled everything ive played so far on Ultra. so id recommend it personally. the Gigabyte version in particular is silent and ive never had it ramp up to a point where i heard it, even after several hours of playing FarCry 3 or SC2 on Ultra Settings.

 

I'm personally doubting that the extra 1GB of vram would matter... Simply because I play at 1080p and I only have 768MB of vram now. That's enough for ultra textures in most games without stutter, excluding higher end games like Crysis 3 or Battlefield 3. Generally I stick to high textures just to be safe, but at 1080p I doubt I'd need an extra gigabyte. Ofc, when I upgrade to 1440p that might cause problems. :/

I doubt a 660 would even be effective in most games at 1440p though, so it's probably a non-issue and I'll just wait another generation to go to 1440p.

 

A 7950 would probably outperform a 660 ti by a narrow margin, based on the reviews, but knowing that both are highly overclockable and would run most anything on ultra at 60fps (excluding Tomb Raider with TressFX, perhaps) once overclocked, I'm more worried about ease of use. I can just imagine the nightmare of converting all the graphics software on my PC to AMD equivalents... Ugh. When the decision is this close I think I'll just go for a 660 GC or a 660 TI to make the install simpler. I'm leaning towards the GC because the benchmarks are practically identical and it's a solid inch smaller all the way around.

[kalikka]

If you use a lot of CUDA, then stop thinking and take the 660ti!

 

Keep in mind that the HD7950 that is on the list is "reference design", meaning that it has silly low 800MHz coreclocks. For reference my HD7950 WF is OC'd @1200MHz, and that gives exactly the same scores from 3dmark as HD7970 GHz Ed.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/images/perfrel_1920.gif

 

For VRAM, my Skyrim build draws 2,6gb of it. And not even using HD3D.

RCRN2.0, 3 followers, all the highest texture packs/armors/weapons you can find = Alot of vram...

Edited April 27, 2013 by kalikka

[Rennn]

If you use a lot of CUDA, then stop thinking and take the 660ti!

 

Keep in mind that the HD7950 that is on the list is "reference design", meaning that it has silly low 800MHz coreclocks. For reference my HD7950 WF is OC'd @1200MHz, and that gives exactly the same scores from 3dmark as HD7970 GHz Ed.

For VRAM, my Skyrim build draws 2,6gb of it. And not even using HD3D.

RCRN2.0, 3 followers, all the highest texture packs/armors/weapons you can find = a lot of vram...

 

Hmm... I have no idea what CUDA does. O.o

 

I don't plan on using many texture mods for Skyrim, and I don't plan on playing above 1080p on a card from this generation. Skyrim is one of the least efficient games possible to use HD textures, so if you're drawing 2.6GB with a complete HD texture pack, I'm even more convinced I won't need 3GB. Even 2GB would overkill any game I own right now, even the modded ones, and the approaching generation will probably recommend 2GB cards.

 

I found a 660 GC for $200, which would be ideal. If I get that I won't even need to spend any of my own money. I've been offered $60 for my used GTX 460, and I have $150 that I forgot about (lol). I could get a 660 GC practically for free... That sounds like a very attractive option.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Rennn

[kalikka]

For me the textures dont actually draw that much vram, its just that RCRN/ENB mods amplify the vram usage.

Without ENB/etc. I would only draw around 1,6gb vram. And with ENB + HD3D the vram usage goes straight to 3gb (meaning that I run out of vram :blink: ).