• Updated: HIS Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card VS Gigabyte Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card
    23 replies, posted
[I]Ok so I have been looking at GPUs, and they are really confusing me! You can pay £35 for a graphics card with 2GB memory if you play your cards right and go for the offers (Like I did) Or you can end up in the £200s and £300s for 2GB of memory again, both with 256 bit connection and several monitors, could someone please explain the difference, why it is worth paying more and how it would affect gameplay? The first GPU is the MSI Nvidia GeForce 4330 GT (I have this) [url]http://uk.msi.com/product/vga/N430GT-MD2GD3.html[/url] And The second GPU the GeForce GTX 670 [url]http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-evga-gtx-670-ftw-28nm-pcie-30-(x16)-6208mhz-gddr5-gpu-1006mhz-boost-1084mhz-cores-1344-dp-dl-dvi[/url] Thanks ~Joe[/I] EDITED: I have been looking at the 7950 chipset GPUs and there seems to be a lot of price differences! In fact I am confuse between the [URL="http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-video-card-gvr795wf33gd"]Gigabyte Radeon HD 7950[/URL] and the [URL="http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/his-video-card-h795q3g2m"]HIS Radeon HD 7950[/URL]. The only difference in specs is the Gigabyte has 100MHz more than the HIS, which I can't see much difference, surly both of them will run Battlefield 3 on ultra settings?
It doesn't matter how much memory, it doesn't affect pefformance, the cards you pay more for may have 2gb of vram, but they will run much, much faster than the cheap ones
[QUOTE=ducsuus;39891856]Ok so I have been looking at GPUs, and they are really confusing me! You can pay £35 for a graphics card with 2GB memory if you play your cards right and go for the offers (Like I did) Or you can end up in the £200s and £300s for 2GB of memory again, both with 256 bit connection and several monitors, could someone please explain the difference, why it is worth paying more and how it would affect gameplay? The first GPU is the MSI Nvidia GeForce 4330 GT (I have this) [url]http://uk.msi.com/product/vga/N430GT-MD2GD3.html[/url] And The second GPU the GeForce GTX 670 [url]http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-evga-gtx-670-ftw-28nm-pcie-30-(x16)-6208mhz-gddr5-gpu-1006mhz-boost-1084mhz-cores-1344-dp-dl-dvi[/url] Thanks ~Joe[/QUOTE] A graphics card isn't just RAM - it's got a full processor on it. One with limited ability to function independently of the CPU, and designed to prioritize parallel processing over single-thread performance, but it's a full processor. The 430 is quite simply worse at actual processing. There's a lot of details I could go into (shader cores, fill rate, etc) but I won't*. The fundamental thing you need to know is that the "processing" part of the card is much, much worse. I'm talking one card gives you 5fps while the other gives you 250. The amount of memory a card has really only impacts how many high-res textures can be used, and how much it can output (mainly for multi-monitor gaming). Whereas the processor on the card affects how much it can render at once - whether it has to start fading away bodies once you hit five, or if it can pile thousands of objects onto the screen without lagging. In the grand scheme of things, the processor is more important, as long as you have enough. For current games, even 1GB is really sufficient, and the cards with 6GB are overkill. Look for the benchmarks. Those tell you the actual performance of the card in games (or other things, really). The 670 is a current-gen, near-top-of-the-line card. You'll find plenty of sites (I personally favor [url=http://www.anandtech.com]AnandTech[/url], but any reputable site is fine) comparing it to other cards, telling you how much faster it is and whether it's worth it for the money. Honestly, I don't think the 430 will even appear in reviews - it's the shit card from two or three years ago. It's not designed for gaming so much as it is video output. Your question is akin to saying "the Camry has four wheels, so does a Ferrari, why is it worth spending more for a Ferarri?". It's not just because it looks cool - it's because the engine, the parts that actually matter the most, are better. * OK, I lied. I'm going into it. The 430 is based off the "Fermi" architecture while the 670 is based on the newer "Kepler", so they aren't strictly comparable just by numbers. But this should show how much of a difference there is: 430: 96 shader cores, either 64-bit or 128-bit GDDR3 memory interface 670: 1344 shader cores, 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface Those are the two most significant factors in performance. Graphics is something incredibly parallel - the code is simple, but you're running it two million times to render every single pixel. That's why they have a ton of cores - they're incredibly simple cores, not at all comparable to a CPU core, but they work well for graphics. Having more of them means it can process more pixels simultaneously, handle more polygons on-screen or do more complex processing. In many cases, these cores are actually bound by how much they can read and write from memory. This is where the memory interface comes into play - that's the bottleneck connecting the processor to the memory. It's a good rule-of-thumb thing to look at - it's very rare (but not impossible) for a card with a smaller, slower memory interface to perform better than one with a larger or faster one. The 430 has, depending on the exact model, either a 64-bit or a 128-bit GDDR3 bus (GDDR3 being the type of memory used). The 670 has a 256-bit GDDR5 bus. GDDR5 is a weird bit, since it runs the bus twice as fast as GDDR3 (often manufacturers will double the memory clock to try to show this - technically inaccurate but not unreasonable), so it's as fast as a 512-bit GDDR3 bus. So that's four (maybe eight) times the memory bandwidth - that's a major change.
Last I heard, the only game that really likes lots of VRAM is Skyrim. Doesn't really affect many other games, not considering multiple monitor setups anyways.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39892393]A graphics card isn't just RAM - it's got a full processor on it. One with limited ability to function independently of the CPU, and designed to prioritize parallel processing over single-thread performance, but it's a full processor. The 430 is quite simply worse at actual processing. There's a lot of details I could go into (shader cores, fill rate, etc) but I won't*. The fundamental thing you need to know is that the "processing" part of the card is much, much worse. I'm talking one card gives you 5fps while the other gives you 250. The amount of memory a card has really only impacts how many high-res textures can be used, and how much it can output (mainly for multi-monitor gaming). Whereas the processor on the card affects how much it can render at once - whether it has to start fading away bodies once you hit five, or if it can pile thousands of objects onto the screen without lagging. In the grand scheme of things, the processor is more important, as long as you have enough. For current games, even 1GB is really sufficient, and the cards with 6GB are overkill. Look for the benchmarks. Those tell you the actual performance of the card in games (or other things, really). The 670 is a current-gen, near-top-of-the-line card. You'll find plenty of sites (I personally favor [url=http://www.anandtech.com]AnandTech[/url], but any reputable site is fine) comparing it to other cards, telling you how much faster it is and whether it's worth it for the money. Honestly, I don't think the 430 will even appear in reviews - it's the shit card from two or three years ago. It's not designed for gaming so much as it is video output. Your question is akin to saying "the Camry has four wheels, so does a Ferrari, why is it worth spending more for a Ferarri?". It's not just because it looks cool - it's because the engine, the parts that actually matter the most, are better. * OK, I lied. I'm going into it. The 430 is based off the "Fermi" architecture while the 670 is based on the newer "Kepler", so they aren't strictly comparable just by numbers. But this should show how much of a difference there is: 430: 96 shader cores, either 64-bit or 128-bit GDDR3 memory interface 670: 1344 shader cores, 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface Those are the two most significant factors in performance. Graphics is something incredibly parallel - the code is simple, but you're running it two million times to render every single pixel. That's why they have a ton of cores - they're incredibly simple cores, not at all comparable to a CPU core, but they work well for graphics. Having more of them means it can process more pixels simultaneously, handle more polygons on-screen or do more complex processing. In many cases, these cores are actually bound by how much they can read and write from memory. This is where the memory interface comes into play - that's the bottleneck connecting the processor to the memory. It's a good rule-of-thumb thing to look at - it's very rare (but not impossible) for a card with a smaller, slower memory interface to perform better than one with a larger or faster one. The 430 has, depending on the exact model, either a 64-bit or a 128-bit GDDR3 bus (GDDR3 being the type of memory used). The 670 has a 256-bit GDDR5 bus. GDDR5 is a weird bit, since it runs the bus twice as fast as GDDR3 (often manufacturers will double the memory clock to try to show this - technically inaccurate but not unreasonable), so it's as fast as a 512-bit GDDR3 bus. So that's four (maybe eight) times the memory bandwidth - that's a major change.[/QUOTE] Ok thanks! I think I understand it now, at least a million times better than before. Based on your knowledge what kind of GPU would be good for games like ArmaII/3 and BF3 on ultra settings? There is no doubt I need a new GPU as from what I can tell the 430 can render tons of low quality objects (which when I got it it was exactly what I needed, to render a load of low quality stuff in GMod while I crashed my friend's computer :P).
[QUOTE=ducsuus;39897364]Ok thanks! I think I understand it now, at least a million times better than before. Based on your knowledge what kind of GPU would be good for games like ArmaII/3 and BF3 on ultra settings? There is no doubt I need a new GPU as from what I can tell the 430 can render tons of low quality objects (which when I got it it was exactly what I needed, to render a load of low quality stuff in GMod while I crashed my friend's computer :P).[/QUOTE] The 430 isn't a bad card, it runs BF3 on medium-high with my rig. But to get max on newer games, you'll need something around a 660 Ti or radeon 7950. It really depends on whether you like nvidia or AMD/ATI better, it doesn't really matter that much. But yeah, a 7950 (possibly even a 7870) or a 660 Ti will max the newest games, provided the rest of your rig is up to par as well. I'd personally go with the 7950 just because the promotion gets you Crysis 3 and the new Bioshock, and where I live the 7950 is cheaper.
I have a 7870 and it will max every game that is out right now apart from ArmA3 Alpha, I would just buy a 7950 like DwarfOverlord said to get the free games.
[QUOTE=DwarfOverlord;39897433]The 430 isn't a bad card, it runs BF3 on medium-high with my rig. But to get max on newer games, you'll need something around a 660 Ti or radeon 7950. It really depends on whether you like nvidia or AMD/ATI better, it doesn't really matter that much. But yeah, a 7950 (possibly even a 7870) or a 660 Ti will max the newest games, provided the rest of your rig is up to par as well. I'd personally go with the 7950 just because the promotion gets you Crysis 3 and the new Bioshock, and where I live the 7950 is cheaper.[/QUOTE] Ok, sorry to be annoying but there are a ton of GPUs with 7950 in there names, so google hasn't helped me that much (I also can't find the free games promotion) could you please give me a link?
Gigabyte 7950 3GB. [url]http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-098-GI[/url] Since you're from the UK this is the ideal card with the ideal manufacturer. The warranty and support of Gigabyte is unrivalled, at least for the UK. I suppose for the rest of the world too. [url]http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18231329[/url] If you mean they all have 7950 in their names it's like MSI 7950, Sapphire 7950, right? That just means you buy them from different manufacturers, nothing else. It's still the same card. Also it has the games Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite as codes last.
[QUOTE=ducsuus;39901017]Ok, sorry to be annoying but there are a ton of GPUs with 7950 in there names, so google hasn't helped me that much (I also can't find the free games promotion) could you please give me a link?[/QUOTE] The different cards are mainly the same basic chip with different cooling. The way the business works, AMD or Nvidia designs and makes the processing chips, and sets standards for what RAM can be used with each chip, but lets several other companies take those chips and build a card around them. This mainly affects cooling, sometimes also which video ports it has. Nvidia (also AMD, I think) also makes "reference models", which is full cards they make themselves. These tend to be higher-quality than average (more reliable, quieter), but also a bit more expensive. So an XFX-made 7950 will run games almost exactly the same as an HIS-made 7950, or a Sapphire-made 7950. I'd check [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=+100007709&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=-1&description=7950&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=]NewEgg[/url] when searching for computer parts - they tend to be the best at this, although sometimes a few bucks more expensive than elsewhere. Although I have no idea how good they are in the UK - others might have better knowledge about UK shops. One thing you need to be aware of, though, is power. Big, powerful graphics cards use a lot of power, often more than your power supply can handle (I've seen some that hit 300W, more than some entire computers I've used). Check what your machine has and make sure you can power it before you buy one, otherwise you might fry your power supply.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39901337] One thing you need to be aware of, though, is power. Big, powerful graphics cards use a lot of power, often more than your power supply can handle (I've seen some that hit 300W, more than some entire computers I've used). Check what your machine has and make sure you can power it before you buy one, otherwise you might fry your power supply.[/QUOTE] Definitely this, a cheap and/or inadequate PSU can brick itself trying to draw too much power, and worst-case it can take the rest of your hardware with it. I've taken a liking to the Antec Neo Eco series, the 520W should be more than enough and give you headroom in the future. As far as brands go for PSUs, think of it like nVidia and XFX. Antec would be like XFX in this case, because Seasonic makes the internals (the important shit), but XFX does the rest. Take a gander at the link below and search up the power supplies labeled with [B]Seasonic[/B] since they're the best OEM in my opinion, if there are other good OEMs let me know because I wouldn't know. [url]http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/psu_manufacturers[/url] If you've found something you like (if your current power supply is not adequate) you should post it here and make sure it's good, the last thing you want is a piece of shit smoking, catching fire and destroying your new hardware.
Please read above for the edit (Original Post)
I'd get this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-11196-09-40G-HD7950-Vapox-X-Graphics/dp/B0091MFBZC/ref=sr_1_24?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1363472268&sr=1-24[/url] The actual link to the HIS GPU leads to a 7770 on Amazon.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39937555]I'd get this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-11196-09-40G-HD7950-Vapox-X-Graphics/dp/B0091MFBZC/ref=sr_1_24?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1363472268&sr=1-24[/url] The actual link to the HIS GPU leads to a 7770 on Amazon.[/QUOTE] I don't meen to be arrogant but this has basically added another option on to the GPUs I was trying to limit :P Anyway, what makes this better than the other two, especially the HIS. (The HIS GPU I am confused about, I swear the link changed when I went to amazon :S)
The only difference is the cooling, which depending on the model will very, but the HIS and the GIGABYTE will have similar temps
[QUOTE=ducsuus;39937781]I don't meen to be arrogant but this has basically added another option on to the GPUs I was trying to limit :P Anyway, what makes this better than the other two, especially the HIS. (The HIS GPU I am confused about, I swear the link changed when I went to amazon :S)[/QUOTE] Read gman003's post again, there's basically no difference - I chose the cheapest version from a reputable brand, so that's really what you should get. Now what PSU model have you got? I don't think you've answered this in the thread, and it's of paramount importance (that's serious).
Go with the cheapest one like said above as long as it's not some shitty brand. The only differences between the same graphic cards are the cooling and the warranty/support. Gigabyte's warranty/support being the best at 1st: [url]http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18231329[/url]. Greens are the best and you should aim for those, orange only if needed and never red when it comes to warranty/support. Graphic cards different cooling shouldn't change much, a few degrees I guess. The one you linked in OP is 7770? Typing 7950 is Amazon just leads to the same prices: £200 range. Using PCPartPicker this is the cheapest 7950 you can get: [url]http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-fx795atdjc[/url]. XFX is second bottom at the list linked above but warranty/support should only come into play when something goes wrong and you should hope to god something doesn't if you get this one. But yeah that's the cheapest you can get. Gigabyte is some more money but much better warranty/support. Your choice really. Is some more money worth a better warranty/support? You can get XFX but it's just that if something goes wrong you're going to be waiting a while to RMA it and so on. It's also 1 year less warranty compared to Gigabyte. Also supply information of your PSU please.
Well I am building a PC now, and as I went to check the PCPartPicker link I realised that the link was wrong(Again!). Anyway I was looking at a corsair 500W ([URL="http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-power-supply-cmpsu500cxv2"]http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-power-supply-cmpsu500cxv2[/URL]) keep in mind that this has the wrong link to amazon for UK residents, but for the US people seem to get the right link to US amazon. Basically I need to go for gigabyte :S, it's the warranty that separates them, not £100. If the HIS was £100 cheaper I would have gone for it and found some kind of third party warranty/insurance for sure. Just to note that the PSU is probably too small, I am aiming at a Corsair 600W.
Are you in the US or in the UK? And 500W is enough as long as it's not lacking PCI-E connectors.
500W will work, but 600W will give you more headroom if you ever want to add a second card or more hdd's or something.
[QUOTE=taipan;39943784]500W will work, but 600W will give you more headroom if you ever want to add a second card or more hdd's or something.[/QUOTE] The 7870 doesn't require that much power, and he can't add another card if he hasn't got the PCI-E connectors to do it - as far as I know, the 7870 requires two. HDDs use so little power it's almost irrelevant, and he won't be drawing more than maybe ~320W on the whole system anyway. Getting a 600W would be redundant.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39943660]Are you in the US or in the UK? And 500W is enough as long as it's not lacking PCI-E connectors.[/QUOTE] Well in my other post it has been made clear that it is not worth going with that case, so the MoBo will be the Asrock z77 extreme 4 so I will aim for 600W but everything seems to be going above my budget. Although I will be using 4 hard drives as I have 4 relatively small. And I am in the UK.
Again, there's absolutely no reason to get a 600W unless it adds something substantial. My power consumption figure from before was simply a guess, and apparently I aimed a bit high: [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5691/the-retail-radeon-hd-7870-review-his-7870-iceq-turbo-powercolor-pcs-hd7870/5[/url] This is with a i7 3960X at 4.3GHz mind you, so you're definitely not gonna draw more than that under normal conditions. And even then, you'll have 140W of headroom on the 500W version. Could you try recapping on [I]everything[/I] you need at this point, and exactly what your budget is? The thread has become somewhat messy.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39959409]Again, there's absolutely no reason to get a 600W unless it adds something substantial. My power consumption figure from before was simply a guess, and apparently I aimed a bit high: [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5691/the-retail-radeon-hd-7870-review-his-7870-iceq-turbo-powercolor-pcs-hd7870/5[/url] This is with a i7 3960X at 4.3GHz mind you, so you're definitely not gonna draw more than that under normal conditions. And even then, you'll have 140W of headroom on the 500W version. Could you try recapping on [I]everything[/I] you need at this point, and exactly what your budget is? The thread has become somewhat messy.[/QUOTE] I agree, this thread has defiantly become messy. In fact I only intended this to me a small thread discussing how the GPU specs affected what, I have a thread for my actual build. It is clear now that I need to get a 7950 GPU with a good PSU so I will link this post over to the thread. [B][URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1253733&p=39959840#post39959840"]The 'Current' thread ([url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1253733&p=39959840#post39959840[/url])[/URL][/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.