Page 1 of 2
#1
SAPPHIRE 100354XTL Radeon HD 7870 XT w/Boost 2GB 256-bit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202024&Tpk=Sapphire%20Radeon%20HD%207870%20XT&IsVirtualParent=1

or

SAPPHIRE 100352-3L Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202026

The latter comes with 4 free games, the first with crysis 3.

The 7950 has a lower initial clock speed but ppl overclock it pretty easily. I'm guessing 7950 right?
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#3
Do you really have a use for a 3gb card? I'm running an HD 7850 and playing all my games on high/max with no problems at all. I mean, if you want all the games that come with the 7950, then I guess it would be worth it cause you'd probably be saving money in the end.
#4
Dont need it but, they are basically the exact same price and I get more games with the higher end card. I def wanna play crysis 3 multiplayer and bioshock infinity, I'll mess around with tomb raider.
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#5
7950. OC'ing graphics cards can be a bit risky unless you've got awesome cooling, and it really doesn't do THAT much. When it doubt always get the faster card.

What games do you want to play with it? What resolution are you running?

If I were you I'd go check out some benchmarks. Tom's Hardware and HardOCP have some great stuff.
Quote by strat0blaster
This is terrible advice. Even worse than the useless dry, sarcastic comment I made.

Quote by Cathbard
I'm too old for the Jim Morrison look now. When I was gigging I had a fine arse.
#6
You may also wanna consider a GTX 760. I've been looking a lot into this price range as well and it looks like a great contender.
#7
For a difference that small in price, you'd be better off with the 7950.

EDIT: especially considering AMD's game offer
Last edited by Showiddlydiddly at Jun 27, 2013,
#9
7950 hands down. Not even looking at the 'extra' stuff. The difference in clock speed isnt going to matter with the increase you have in everything else.

Quote by archenemyfan
Spend a bit more and get this, deal of the month pretty much

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202008


The marginal benefits hardly makes spending an extra $60 worth it. I mean maybe if you wanted to play all 3 of the games at the same time on 3 monitors yeah it would help but honestly there is no one game out there that is going to be "that much better" with so little improvement in performance.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
Last edited by DamienEx1021 at Jun 27, 2013,
#10
Quote by archenemyfan
Spend a bit more and get this, deal of the month pretty much

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202008


This.
That's like $150 worth of games for an extra $60
Quote by strat0blaster
This is terrible advice. Even worse than the useless dry, sarcastic comment I made.

Quote by Cathbard
I'm too old for the Jim Morrison look now. When I was gigging I had a fine arse.
#11
Quote by stonyman65
This.
That's like $150 worth of games for an extra $60


Outside my budget and I'm already getting all these games with the 7950. Just bought it btw.

$249 after mail in rebate and free Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, and a few others.
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#12
Quote by GuitarGuy2387
Outside my budget and I'm already getting all these games with the 7950. Just bought it btw.

$249 after mail in rebate and free Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, and a few others.


Oh sweet! Enjoy the new card.

For reference, my machine is running a 2 year old GTX570 and I can pretty much max out all of those at full res getting 60fps. A 7950 would dominate those games!

I'm kind of jealous to be honest
Quote by strat0blaster
This is terrible advice. Even worse than the useless dry, sarcastic comment I made.

Quote by Cathbard
I'm too old for the Jim Morrison look now. When I was gigging I had a fine arse.
#13
Quote by stonyman65
I'm kind of jealous to be honest


Dont be. You're eyes can process anything faster than 30-35 FPS anyway. Anything higher than that doesn't really matter.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
#14
Running everything 1080p. I've got a 4870x2 in my machine right now and its finally starting to feel old. Trying to play Red Orchestra 2 and new company of heroes games. I'm in the process of rebuilding my pc I built in 2007

I've got:

Q6600 Quad @ 3.0
Gigabyte p-35 mobo
4 gigs DDR 2 6400 @ 800
1 4870x2
7200rpm drive
blu ray drive

Looking to throw this card in to have some fun until I get the new:

4570k
ASRock extreme 4
8 gigs DDR3 1500
Radeon 7950
120 Gig SSD
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
Last edited by GuitarGuy2387 at Jun 27, 2013,
#15
Quote by DamienEx1021
Dont be. You're eyes can process anything faster than 30-35 FPS anyway. Anything higher than that doesn't really matter.


Thats such bullshit I don't even know where to start.

But a GTX 570 is good for 60ish fps 1080p medium settings i presume.
#16
do you guys think I'll be able to run modern games on high scale graphics with my q6600 and ram and the new card?
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#17
Quote by DamienEx1021
Dont be. You're eyes can process anything faster than 30-35 FPS anyway. Anything higher than that doesn't really matter.


Thats complete horse shit. I would bet money you are a console player.
MY METALZ YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Quote by angusfan16
Okay UG where's my refund and free xbox. I need It for my 80 yr old grandma. She needs a new flower pot
#18
Quote by DamienEx1021
Dont be. You're eyes can process anything faster than 30-35 FPS anyway. Anything higher than that doesn't really matter.

That's not true. At all.
#19
Quote by GuitarGuy2387
do you guys think I'll be able to run modern games on high scale graphics with my q6600 and ram and the new card?


Not really. A q6600 will definitely show it's age in newer game engines like Frost Bite 3 and Cryengine.
#20
If you can get the 7950 get the 7950. The 7850 is no slouch either.

Also, everybody calm your tits with the eyes and fps. Yeah its wrong but whatever. No need to rip his head off. You could maybe explain instead of just going "OMG UR SO WRONG CONSOLE PLAYER OLOLOL".
--

How do you say "I'm okay" to an answering machine?

--
#22
No. The CPU will bottleneck the balls off of that gpu.

You should probably swap that out first, or wait until you have the funds for a new mobo/cpu/gpu.

I vote 990 chipset/83xx/7950.
--

How do you say "I'm okay" to an answering machine?

--
#23
Quote by stratman_13
If you can get the 7950 get the 7950. The 7850 is no slouch either.

Also, everybody calm your tits with the eyes and fps. Yeah its wrong but whatever. No need to rip his head off. You could maybe explain instead of just going "OMG UR SO WRONG CONSOLE PLAYER OLOLOL".


http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
#24
Quote by DamienEx1021
Dont be. You're eyes can process anything faster than 30-35 FPS anyway. Anything higher than that doesn't really matter.


Wrong. Your brain doesn't work in frames per second, it is all one constant stream.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Do you see how the cube at 60FPS is less choppy?

Also:

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Try setting the second ball to 30FPS and turning off motion blur on both. Major difference.
#25
Quote by stratman_13
No. The CPU will bottleneck the balls off of that gpu.

You should probably swap that out first, or wait until you have the funds for a new mobo/cpu/gpu.

I vote 990 chipset/83xx/7950.


I'm planning on getting a new cpu/mobo combo within the next few weeks. Just trying to find a nice z87 cpu/mobo combo with wifi
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#27
Quote by beadhangingOne

Which one has the higher framerate?


Left one is definitely higher.
"Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. 'Oh, you like those noises? Those sounds in your ear? Do you like them? They're the wrong sounds. You should like these sounds in your ear.'"
- Dara O'Briain
#28
Mine won't load all the way but the left is showing more frames as its loading. Anyone can seen the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Its night and day.
#29
Hmm z87 isn't much better than the Ivy bridge generation, only about 5-11% gains can be found in the newchip set in certin areas of work and most of them don't directly correlate to games.

Pick yourself up at i5 - 3570k and a half decent motherboard/RAM for about $550 and save yourself the $200-$300 bucks, you really won't see much gains going to the newest generation.

I think I will help clarify everyone's misconception here about FPS and what the human eye can see.

Human eye - 18-25 FPS (It can be a bit higher in stressful situations)

Monitor - 55-60-120 Hz

Firstly game fps does not correlate to the FPS the screen outputs at, the screen always refreshes at a set speed, if your games running at 120 FPS & your screen 60hz then your only seeing things at 60 FPS.

If a game starts dropping to lower FPS the computer will automatically start dropping frames to compensate for the lower fps (this gives it the skip effect).

They do this because the Computer still needs to render the next set of frames coming in and if it stopped to processes every frame when the FPS is below 20 then you would literately be seeing frames seconds later in games instead of as they occur.
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
#30
Quote by BigHeadClan
Hmm z87 isn't much better than the Ivy bridge generation, only about 5-11% gains can be found in the newchip set in certin areas of work and most of them don't directly correlate to games.

Pick yourself up at i5 - 3570k and a half decent motherboard/RAM for about $550 and save yourself the $200-$300 bucks, you really won't see much gains going to the newest generation.


Right now I'm looking at around $860-$890 for my "upgrade" which includes

New Cooler Master 311 case $53.20
i5 4670k / gigabyte z87 UD3H $339.98
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO CPU Cooler: $29.99 after rebate
Sapphire 7950 $249.99 after rebate
8 Gigs Corsair Vengance DDR3 1600 ram: $64.00
120 gig Samsung Electronics 840 Pro $134.99

I'm reusing the 650w OCZ power supply, blu-ray drive, and 500 gig 7200rpm HDD I have from previous build. Trying to sell all the other components: q6600, gigabyte p35, ocz stealth cpu cooler, 4 gigs ddr2 800, 4870x2, and cooler master case for like $200-$300 on craigslist.

So If I can get this stuff sold the upgrade will only cost around $600 or so which isn't bad. This last build lasted me about 6 years.
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#31
Ah kinda assumed you where going for a 4770k when there isn't much point, you've done a pretty good job for budgeting so not much I can recommend there. Your coolers good just be aware that Intel's new chip-set runs hotter than Ivy bridge so you may not get as much overclocking out of it without a pretty beefy cooler.

If your getting a SSD for the boot drive I don't really recommended it. With UEFI BIOS you can boot in under a minute anyhow, if you just plan to run games off it then knock yourself out.
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
#32
Quote by BigHeadClan
If your getting a SSD for the boot drive I don't really recommended it. With UEFI BIOS you can boot in under a minute anyhow, if you just plan to run games off it then knock yourself out.


explain that again? I was gunna use 500 gig for storage and 120 to install windows on..
My Gear:
-Fender American 1962 Stratocaster Reissue
-1984 Marshall JCM 800 2204
-Ibanez Wh-10 Original
-Boss DS-2 Distortion
-Boss CE-5 Chorus
#33
I'm saying do the opposite, use the 120GB for storing games/key applications and then only use the 500GB for Windows and your mass storage.

Here's an example:

Windows 7 on a SDD:
Boot time - 11-24 seconds
opening Documents - 0.12 seconds
Playing a Video - 1.2 seconds

Example of Windows 7 on a 7200 RPM HDD:
Boot time with UEFI - 37-50 seconds
opening Documents - 0.38 seconds
Playing a Video - 3 seconds

On average everything is about 30-60% faster with an SSD, but when you are dealing with small files that take almost no time to load then an SSD becomes rather pointless. It's when you use applications like Photoshop or games that have lots of loading that you see real benefit.
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
#34
No, partition off 60 GB of your SSD, and use that to cache your Hard Drive that you're booting Windows from. Then use the rest of your SSD to store high priority applications.
#35
You don't really see any real world gains once your booted into windows by having a 60 GB cache on the SSD, not only that with a 60GB cache you cut your storage for applications and games in half.

The smallest game I can think of is 4GB (LOL), most games these days are 8-12GB if they are a MMORPG like SWTOR or WOW they are 19GB or more. 60 GB of free space doesn't leave much for wiggle room, the pros just don't outweigh the con's from my point of view.
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
#36
Quote by leony03
Thats complete horse shit. I would bet money you are a console player.

Literally rolled my eyes.

But I agree with you nonetheless.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#37
Quote by BigHeadClan
You don't really see any real world gains once your booted into windows by having a 60 GB cache on the SSD, not only that with a 60GB cache you cut your storage for applications and games in half.

The smallest game I can think of is 4GB (LOL), most games these days are 8-12GB if they are a MMORPG like SWTOR or WOW they are 19GB or more. 60 GB of free space doesn't leave much for wiggle room, the pros just don't outweigh the con's from my point of view.

Yes you do. You trippin nigga. I've been running Windows cached by my SSD for quite a while now. My boot time is nearly the same as when I was booting directly from the SSD. Have you actually ever even done it?
#38
Quote by beadhangingOne


Which one has the higher framerate?

Trick question, dark souls renders at 30fps only.
#39
Quote by TheChaz
Yes you do. You trippin nigga. I've been running Windows cached by my SSD for quite a while now. My boot time is nearly the same as when I was booting directly from the SSD. Have you actually ever even done it?


I think your misunderstanding here, I was simply saying that 60 GB of free space is pretty small given how big games are getting (and will continue to get).

And by real world gains I mean this; if it takes you less than a second to open a file on a SSD/Cached drive are you really going to care that a normal HDD takes maybe 1 second?
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
#40
Quote by BigHeadClan

The smallest game I can think of is 4GB (LOL)

Minecraft.
--

How do you say "I'm okay" to an answering machine?

--
Page 1 of 2