What Graphics Card ?

Heyy,

so I have GTX 560 TI Graphics Card and now looking to upgrade :)

I have looked at the TITAN but not sure as its confusing to me. Can anyone recommend a fantastic graphics card that is highly rated ? looking to spend about £500-800 :)

thanks

Brad

gtx660 TI and save lots of money ? lol OR GTX680

i would bet on amd and their gcn architecture, both ps4 and xbox have it inside. expect bettter optimizations for this hw.

Thanks guys will take a look :)

GTX-680 is a great card. The GTX-690 is out there too and it's really two 680's in one.

-Charles

Wanna get best performance? Go for TITAN as it is single gpu and therefore wont cause any sli problems a 690 may cause.

Wanna get best performance for your money? You said 800 bucks. This kicks TITAN and 690 out. So go for the 680. If you want to save some money you should take a look at the 7970 as it delivers a bit more performance than the 670 but costs the same. I have found AMD cards being better for the money at all ranges except the ranges where AMD doesnt offer any card (680 and TITAN). But if you dislike AMD i give you the advice not to try the 650 as it offers very poor performance for the price. 660 Ti maybe an idea.

Go for Saphire TOXIC 7970 Ghz edition with 6 Gb of DDR5 ram it has base clock at 1100 mhz and 6400 Mhz for memory.Best card out there i think it has Much more power then the 680. trust me just look after rewiews.Here is the link:

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1157&lid=1&pid=1483

Go for Saphire TOXIC 7970 Ghz edition with 6 Gb of DDR5 ram it has base clock at 1100 mhz and 6400 Mhz for memory.Best card out there i think it has Much more power then the 680. trust me just look after rewiews.Here is the link:

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1157&lid=1&pid=1483

Its an overclocked 7970 with more memory. You can go for the 4gb version of the 680 and overclock it. It will give you more performance that this one. Overclocking doesnt make any card better than any other as all cards can be overclocked. Some more, some less. The difference isnt big though. Just go for a good 680, oc it and you will see that the card is better than any 7970.

PS.: If you find a serious comparison of an overclocked 680 and this card...that may change my mind :smilewink:

The difference isnt big though. Just go for a good 680, oc it and you will see that the card is better than any 7970.

Stick with the first part of your sentence, they're mostly the same:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555

The biggest difference will be the price and amount of VRAM.

I have tested both nvidia and amd. For DCS I would go nvidia.

Less then 2 weeks ago I bought a sapphire 7970 GHz edition. It gave me higher maximum fps, but a significant fps drop everytime my M 151 rockets made an impact in front of me. Took it out and put in my old 580 GTX. No such drop.

Returned it and got myself a nvidia card. Great card.

SLI also works much better then crossfire if you decide to go that route. I'm talking from experience as I used to run 580's in SLI before one card died on me.

The biggest difference will be the price and amount of VRAM.

Yeah the price i know. Its always like that with AMD basically the cards are bad. But they are so cheap that they compete with the next lower class of nvidia.

For vram: I dont think that you really need huge amounts of VRAM. Im running a Gigabyte GTX 670 (the card with the three Windforce fans). It has a very slight stock OC and 2 gb of vram. So far i didnt have to OC the card and i didnt get any VRAM problems. DCS is running on highest settings with 45 fps in MP on 1920x1080.

Yeah the price i know. Its always like that with AMD basically the cards are bad.

That's an interesting statement.. Care to explain?

Its just a feeling. Nothing more. I dont like those cards. When i look at the reviews of AMD cards and they take the card apart and show the details of the hardware i always think that the card isnt good. But the price is so low that they give you much performance per money. Once the "per money" aspect stops being important i find nvidia cards being being the optimal choice.

[edit: partially sniped by ijozic]

Yeah the price i know. Its always like that with AMD basically the cards are bad. But they are so cheap that they compete with the next lower class of nvidia.

But how do you end up with the conclusion that the AMD cards are bad? (reviews, examples, experiences or?)

Does the Nvidia cards solve the DCS problems with:

• Trails of dustclouds causing drop i FPS (flying below 5m or so at higher speeds)
  
• Multiple rocket explosions causing drop in FPS (stated above by TZeer to be solved with nvidia card)
  
• Cluster bombs causing drop in FPS
  

I dont think that you really need huge amounts of VRAM

I agree that an amount of VRAM above 1.5gb is enough for the moment.

Does the Nvidia cards solve the DCS problems with:

• Trails of dustclouds causing drop i FPS (flying below 5m or so at higher speeds)
  
• Multiple rocket explosions causing drop in FPS
  
• Cluster bombs causing drop in FPS
  

No they dont. Neither do AMD cards. But all cards can render clouds in an efficient way. The problem is DCS not using the new hardware features of modern cards.

I dont come to the conclusion in means of performance. It is something subjective. I just dont like them. Nobody of you has to understand that :)

Thats why im recommending AMD cards for the right price range. Even if i dont like them they deliver good performance when used the right way.

I've got an AMD HD 7950 3 Gb coupled with a 3930k processor. Everything maxed and using sweetfx I get over 60 FPS On the ground, never drop below 35 in the air and haven't noticed any FPS hits using rockets.

So far combination has been better than anything I have had before, including nVidia cards.

I've got an AMD HD 7950 3 Gb coupled with a 3930k processor. Everything maxed and using sweetfx I get over 60 FPS On the ground, never drop below 35 in the air and haven't noticed any FPS hits using rockets.

Try to fly at 250km/h or more below 5m (radar alt) - you'll get a slideshow (DCS 1.2.3.10201)! But please not that not all types of ground create dust when flying over them. Those that does results in slideshows. Just hovering and flying at lower speeds will not produce drop in FPS. (Instant Action/ KA-50 attack insurgents is a fine mission for testing how both dust cloud (after targets are destroyed) and rocket explosion (during mi-24 attack runs) creates big hits for fps)

Note that what goes on in the mission (weather, number of units and what they are doing) can also have severe effects on FPS, as well as multiplayer is usually more demanding than single player (probably also due to mission complexities).

I dont come to the conclusion in means of performance. It is something subjective. I just dont like them. Nobody of you has to understand that :)

It is perfectly understandable :)

Cluster bombs and fps drop is not due to gpu. It's a cpu issue. When you drop 1 cbu-87 that single bomb will generate over 2000 objects for the cpu to deal with.

I don't know why I got a fps drop with amd card and not the nvidia with the rockets. It could be driver related or something. But I don't care. I want performance without the need to do voodoo tricks om my card to make it perform.

I think this card does a great job http://hothardware.com/News/ZOTAC-Releases-GeForce-GTX-560-Ti-And-560-Ti-AMP-Edition-Cards/

560ti AMP the 680 is 50 MHz faster on the cpu and 2000mhz faster ram memory clock. Im not that impressed.

I think this card does a great job http://hothardware.com/News/ZOTAC-Releases-GeForce-GTX-560-Ti-And-560-Ti-AMP-Edition-Cards/

 

560ti AMP the 680 is 50 MHz faster on the cpu and 2000mhz faster ram memory clock. Im not that impressed.

You should be imppressed by that. Performance isnt only archieved by clock speed. If you have more shader units the card will be faster without any clock speed increase. And high clocks mean high power consumpion and heat dissipation. Thats why 680 runs at this clock speed and delivers much better performance at the same time.