|
sauer kraut posted:https://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-gtx970dcmoc4gd5 I'll see your 970 and raise you a 295x2. The upside is that it stomps all over the 970 for a $200 bump in price (I've seen them as low as $600), fits in standard 2-slot cases, dodges the airflow issues of tiny cases, and has much lower noise than air coolers. Depending on the resolution and benchmark it'll even knock off SLI 980s with ease. The downside is that you have to figure out a way to cram in a fairly beefy power supply into your mITX build. And it's not going to fit in cases with GPU length restrictions. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 18, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
There's some larger ITX cases like the new Core X1 from Thermaltake that can take large graphics cards. The Raven RVZ01 had to make a compromise on space usage by opting for an SFX power supply which limits your PSU pool pretty significantly. The Core V1 I'm on, however, won't take the Gigabyte GTX 970 that I was looking at with 3x DisplayPort outputs and also happens to have plenty of heatsink clearance for the CPU while I don't get that much height with the RVZ01 in comparison. And because of that I'm going to be a bump on a log and not even upgrade to a GTX 970 while I sit around for 4k displays to drop significantly in cost (providing that Intel has its way) at about the time that Pascal is released.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:There's some larger ITX cases like the new Core X1 from Thermaltake that can take large graphics cards. There's tons available. CM 130 Elite, CM 915F, Bitfenix Prodigy/Prodigy M, etc. Not that you can't find HTPC cases that have length restrictions, but there are plenty of mITX cases out there that will let you mount big graphics card and powerful coolers. You can cram a pretty powerful system into today's mITX cases, you just can't have it all. You'll have to move up to a real ATX case if you want to fit your 5-disk RAID array in the same chassis as your hotrod OC'd gaming CPU and flagship GPU, with mITX it's one or the other. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
does the "x2" on a 295x2 mean its dual GPU version of something? I dont see a 295, so what is it 2 of? What kind of resolutions or applications does a card like that make sense for? Does having both cards together like that bypass some of the hassles of SLI/crossfire or is it more of a convenience or space saving measure? From what I can tell from benchmarks, it appears to be extremely close in performance to 970's SLI. Both are the same price but with the massive power usage of the 295x2, im not sure why anyone would pick it. Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:does the "x2" on a 295x2 mean its dual GPU version of something? I dont see a 295, so what is it 2 of? What kind of resolutions or applications does a card like that make sense for? Does having both cards together like that bypass some of the hassles of SLI/crossfire or is it more of a convenience or space saving measure? Yeah it's crossfired 290X'es set on one board, with water cooling. It came out exactly a year ago for 1500$, a single 290X was 600$ iirc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Yeah it's crossfired 290X'es set on one board, with water cooling. It came out exactly a year ago for 1500$, a single 290X was 600$ iirc. does it show up on your device manager as 2, 290x's or as a single 295x2? I didnt know it came out that long ago, I was assuming it was built to compete with the current batch of nvidia stuff. With pure function in mind, is it a better idea than 2, 970's or is it too close to call safely? my 970 pulls up to 230W and 2 of them isnt significantly less than the 500w the 295x2 wants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:does the "x2" on a 295x2 mean its dual GPU version of something? I dont see a 295, so what is it 2 of? What kind of resolutions or applications does a card like that make sense for? Does having both cards together like that bypass some of the hassles of SLI/crossfire or is it more of a convenience or space saving measure? Yup, exactly right. Crossfire 290X on a single card with a mandatory reference implementation consisting of a 120mm liquid cooler. Like all AMD Crossfire, it bypasses the necessity of a SLI bridge, using the PCI-E interface is easier and significantly faster. AIO cooling is much easier and cheaper than a custom loop. You also consume far fewer slots and have a much simpler build. Fitting a SLI/Crossfire setup into a mITX or even uATX case(and then ensuring sufficient cooling) is going to be a tough, expensive squeeze. With the 295x2 you only really need to figure out how to fit the radiator and a sufficient PSU. In terms of performance it behaves the same as Crossfire 290Xs, except slightly better since they're usually the top bin and they're liquid cooled. You still need games that support dual-GPU rendering and stuff. Now, 295x2 / CF-290X vs Team Green depends on the benchmark. At 1080p it doesn't really hit its stride, yeah, so it's down around SLI 970 performance. The 295x2 starts competing with SLI 980s at 1440p and at 4K it becomes more or less a turkey shoot. Let's call it a 10-25% increase in FPS over SLI 980s at 4K in most games. It's more or less a strategy difference - NVIDIA clocked a narrow bus at fuckoff-high speeds, which wins at low resolutions. AMD uses a huge-rear end 512-bit memory bus clocked more slowly that wins at high resolutions. It's a questionable value at $1500 but at $650 it's a pretty obvious choice for high-res gaming. You have to jump to SLI 980s to compete with it at 1440p, and you'll need 2-way SLI'd Titan X's to beat it at 4K. $2000 vs $650, 2 cards vs 1 card. Of course you're going to eat way more power than pretty much any conceivable NVIDIA rig. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
thanks, that was a good explanation. I have a lot to think about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
I want what you're smoking if you call a 295x2 25% faster than sli 980s, at any resolution. Also it isn't "$200 more than a 970". You can get 970s for $300 flat, and the cheapest 295x2 I've seen was $660 after rebate. SLI 970s with an overclock are decidedly faster than a 295x2, same way that a single 970 is faster than a 290x. With the 970s being cheaper and faster and drawing half the power I really don't see much compelling argument for the 295x2 except for niche cheap 4K builds, and it'd be cheaper still to just get two 290s in that case. SLI 970s are faster at everything but 4K, SLI 980s maintain a 10% lead at 4K and a decisive lead at lower resolutions. This is at stock clocks, and most Maxwell cards get 40% overclocks easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:I want what you're smoking if you call a 295x2 25% faster than sli 980s, at any resolution. Sorry to say it - you're wrong. Here's a reference to 295x2's at $600. At the same time 970s hadn't even declined to $300, that's development within about the last week or two. http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/search?q=%22295x2%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on In terms of FPS - here's TweakTown's benchmarks: Metro LL 980 SLI: min 5 avg 15 Metro LL 295x2: min 4 avg 22 Shadows of Mordor 980 SLI: min 2 avg 4 Shadows of Mordor 295x2: min 1 avg 6 Sniper Elite 3 980 SLI: min 5 avg 15 Sniper Elite 3 295x2: min 5 avg 27 Tomb Raider 980 SLI: min 13 avg 17 Tomb Raider 295x2: min 6 avg 21 Pretty consistent lead for the 295x2. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Oh great, you corrected me on the value of one thing because I've not checked for a while. Everything else I said is still relevant. Sick "you're wrong" rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Yeah, don't buy 295x2, just get 2x290. You'll have less than 10% lower stock performance and way more overclock headroom, for nearly 20% less cash. Unless you absolutely require single slot 4k, in which case 295x2 trashes everything else but
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:Oh great, you corrected me on the value of one thing because I've not checked for a while. Everything else I said is still relevant. Go ahead and read the benchmarks too. Sorry I was too slow for your *sick posting* to catch it. Of course, you would have known if you would have actually, you know, checked the benchmarks, Doctor Hale. Here's another source if you like. The 295x2 even smokes the Titan X in terms of pure 4K performance. vvv I have no idea where you're getting 8K from - all these benchmarks are at 4K if you actually bothered to look. Maybe you're confusing 8GB with 8K? I'll even image-link them for you if that helps your comprehension! vvv 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
 8k benchmarks.e: Yes, radeons always have been better at high resolutions, but nobody has 8k monitors right now you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Man gently caress, I would've known about the superiority of the 295x2 if I could only have known to read the most irrelevant and pointless 4x4k (8k) benchmarks. I mean, 4FPS vs 6FPS, get poo poo on Nvidia! 50% lead! Also your original 25% performance difference claim was at 4K.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:There's some larger ITX cases like the new Core X1 from Thermaltake that can take large graphics cards. The Raven RVZ01 had to make a compromise on space usage by opting for an SFX power supply which limits your PSU pool pretty significantly. The Core V1 I'm on, however, won't take the Gigabyte GTX 970 that I was looking at with 3x DisplayPort outputs and also happens to have plenty of heatsink clearance for the CPU while I don't get that much height with the RVZ01 in comparison. And because of that I'm going to be a bump on a log and not even upgrade to a GTX 970 while I sit around for 4k displays to drop significantly in cost (providing that Intel has its way) at about the time that Pascal is released. Silverstone makes a 600W SFX power supply. Even accounting for a 295X2, I am pretty sure nobody is using the full 600W.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Silverstone makes a 600W SFX power supply. Even accounting for a 295X2, I am pretty sure nobody is using the full 600W. Silverstone and SeaSonic both make 850W Gold 160mm PSUs, which will fit into such cases as the BitFenix Prodigy mITX, even before we get into the M variant which rotates the PSU for better clearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Congratulations on changing your link from the 8K benchmarks, a real argument winner. Your new link also only features a single 980. It is normal for the 295x2 to be faster than a TitanX, so is SLI 970s. The TitanX is only a single card after all. If you actually read the benchmark you just posted an image of, it is running at 8K you idiot. Read where it says "3840x2160 WITH 4X SUPERSAMPLING".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
    At 4k 970 performance seems to drop off even below 290 at times. 3.5GB?  E: Also, I see SLI is pretty much the same as crossfire. Awesome fps boost at high resolution, minor at lower. Truga fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Truga posted:Yeah, don't buy 295x2, just get 2x290. You'll have less than 10% lower stock performance and way more overclock headroom, for nearly 20% less cash. Unless you absolutely require single slot 4k, in which case 295x2 trashes everything else but 295x2 isn't single slot, it's double slot IIRC. Now - you can realistically stack that double slot right against the wall of the case without an airgap, since it's also liquid cooled. In terms of performance at 4K, want another benchmark? quote:DirectX 11 4K synthetic performance — Heaven 4.0 Pro tip: Titan X > 980 in absolute performance. BurritoJustice posted:Congratulations on changing your link from the 8K benchmarks, a real argument winner. Your new link also only features a single 980. It is normal for the 295x2 to be faster than a TitanX, so is SLI 970s. The TitanX is only a single card after all. I didn't change a single link - I have no idea what you're talking about. quote:If you actually read the benchmark you just posted an image of, it is running at 8K you idiot. Read where it says "3840x2160 WITH 4X SUPERSAMPLING". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Oh, I mixed up your second link with your first. Either way, the benchmarks are 8K. The article is titled "GTX 980 SLI vs R9 290X 8GB CF vs R9 295X2 on the AMD FX-9590 at 8K". And no, I don't want another benchmark. I want a relevant benchmark. So far you have provided 8K, single 980 and TitanX SLI benchmarks to support your original claim that a 295x2 is on average 25% faster at 4K than SLI 980s. My very first post on the matter has a link which shows the averaged absolute performance of the 980s to be 10% greater, and that article in addition shows countless more games where the 980s are faster. Jesus Christ dude, 4x Supersampling at 4K isn't "turning the settings up". It is running 8K. The game is internally rendered at 8K. It is just done so they can have 8K tests without having to buy an 8K screen that doesn't exist. That is absolutely not relevant in the slightest, at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:295x2 isn't single slot, it's double slot IIRC. Sorry, I meant single pcie slot. Should have specified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:Oh, I mixed up your second link with your first. Either way, the benchmarks are 8K. The article is titled "GTX 980 SLI vs R9 290X 8GB CF vs R9 295X2 on the AMD FX-9590 at 8K". If it's rendered onto the screen at 4K, it's 4K with the settings turned up. Very few people review "ultra settings 1080p" as "4K". quote:And no, I don't want another benchmark. I want a relevant benchmark. So far you have provided 8K, single 980 and TitanX SLI benchmarks to support your original claim that a 295x2 is on average 25% faster at 4K than SLI 980s. My very first post on the matter has a link which shows the averaged absolute performance of the 980s to be 10% greater, and that article in addition shows countless more games where the 980s are faster. Again, if you think the 980 is going to outperform the Titan X feel free to post some benchmarks. Modern benchmarks with modern drivers are more relevant than 8 month old benchmarks with old drivers, particularly when it comes to Crossfire where driver support makes a huge difference. That's why I picked benchmarks of a card that came out a month ago that is frequently compared to the GTX 980 - instead of 8 month old benchmarks. quote:Jesus Christ dude, 4x Supersampling at 4K isn't "turning the settings up". It is running 8K. The game is internally rendered at 8K. It is just done so they can have 8K tests without having to buy an 8K screen that doesn't exist. That is absolutely not relevant in the slightest, at all. "Jesus christ dude, 4x MSAA at 1080p isn't "turning the settings up. It is running 4k. The game is internally rendered at 4k. It is just done so that they can have 4K tests without having to buy a 4K screen that doesn't exist. That is absolutely not relevant in the slightest at all." That's just like, your opinion man. Gee, people play games with antialiasing turned on, who would have imagined!? Why would a PC gamer ever enable ultra quality settings when they could play at a reasonable FPS at a fraction of the cost instead? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
SSAA is just running the game at a higher resolution internally. That is what it is, by definition. COD AW has 16x SSAA in the options, but you don't run the game at 4K with 16x SSAA and then complain that you game doesn't run (because you're trying to do 16K). Running a game at 1080p 4x SSAA is the same as running at 4K. Running 4K 4x SSAA is the same as running at 8K. That article, that the graph is from and that you linked, calls it 8K. Nobody playing at 4K needs SSAA, ever. It is completely irrelevant, and a case of forcing an extreme situation to favour AMD's architecture as much as possible, in a fashion that is simply not relevant to anyone who will actually buy these cards. MSAA is completely different but thanks for the worthless video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
holy poo poo this thread all of a sudden also $200 increase from 970 -> 295x2 is not a "bump" in price
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Multisampling is supersampling on edge detection. e: buy a 970
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Multisampling is supersampling on edge detection. This. But because MSAA is more dynamic and not a straight linear multiple for the whole frame like SSAA, the effect that MSAA has is actually relevantly different when compared to a higher rendering resolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:This. But because MSAA is more dynamic and not a straight linear multiple for the whole frame like SSAA, the effect that MSAA has is actually relevantly different when compared to a higher rendering resolution. Yeah, I aimed to just simplify it as best as possible for the argument. The actual nitty gritty implementation details of MSAA are much more complex and quite fascinating in fact. Especially once you get into things like subpixel masking, which I don't even think any game engines use presently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:SSAA is just running the game at a higher resolution internally. That is what it is, by definition. COD AW has 16x SSAA in the options, but you don't run the game at 4K with 16x SSAA and then complain that you game doesn't run (because you're trying to do 16K). Running a game at 1080p 4x SSAA is the same as running at 4K. Running 4K 4x SSAA is the same as running at 8K. That article, that the graph is from and that you linked, calls it 8K. Nobody playing at 4K needs SSAA, ever. It is completely irrelevant, and a case of forcing an extreme situation to favour AMD's architecture as much as possible, in a fashion that is simply not relevant to anyone who will actually buy these cards. More results? Here's HardOCP: quote:This was our first bout of testing with GeForce GTX 980 SLI. We were surprised by some of the results, performance, scaling, and the gameplay experience. For the most part, GeForce GTX 980 SLI did allow a high level of playable settings at 4K. We were concerned with what kind of gaming experience one can have now at 4K resolutions. Naturally, the GeForce GTX 980 SLI was poised to offer the best solution for 4K gaming, or was it? Let's break it down. Short version: they wanted to like the SLI 980 rig but it just didn't perform as well at 4K. Again, if you've got more up to date benchmarks where they go head to head feel free to post em, I think those are more relevant than 8 month old stuff. I'll take 290X CF as equivalent to the 295x2. Guru3d has pretty similar results. So I'll revise my statement to "ties a SLI 980 rig, to up to ~10% better performance at 4K depending on the game". Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:holy poo poo this thread all of a sudden From a single GPU to a double-GPU flagship card with water cooling? In PC gaming terms, that's a linear bump in performance, which doesn't happen often. It's pretty close to the ~$500 budget given - which SLI 970s do not fall into either. You can pick up a pair of open box 970s for $540 as of this week, and that's the absolute cheapest they've ever been. You can't pick up one of those mini 970s for less than $370 right now, so sayeth the google. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
please tell me more about how i can literally open up my wallet, insert my penis into the bill pocket, and copulate with the soft cloth-paper weave notes inside until they are nothing but pulp and i become a eunuch who is also unable to urinate
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
drat you people and your sane GPU prices. Fuckin' cheapest 970 is $400 + tax here in Canadaland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:please tell me more about how i can literally open up my wallet, insert my penis into the bill pocket, and copulate with the soft cloth-paper weave notes inside until they are nothing but pulp and i become a eunuch who is also unable to urinate Myself, I always preferred diving into a swimming pool full of money. Don't listen to Mr McDuck, you want bills rather than coins. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
This thread is getting a little hostile. It's almost like both the r9 290 and GTX 970 are BOTH good cards worthy of consideration depending on price! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:drat you people and your sane GPU prices. Fuckin' cheapest 970 is $400 + tax here in Canadaland. Cheapest 970 in Canada on pcpartpicker right now is $394 CAD Cheapest 970 in the USA on pcpartpicker right now is $301 USD $394 CAD is worth only $321 USD though. And that's a mid-market exchange rate, ie pretty much a theoretical rate that you can't actually obtain unless you are exchanging millions of dollars. If you walk into a bank with $394 CAD and ask to buy some USD you're actually only going to be able to buy about $300 USD. Hardware distributors and other companies exchanging tens or hundreds of thousands at a time get a bit better exchange rates but not as good as you would think. What I'm saying is canadian hardware prices aren't actually significantly higher than US hardware prices. They're just bigger numbers but it's because our dollar is worth less in the global economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Silverstone makes a 600W SFX power supply. Even accounting for a 295X2, I am pretty sure nobody is using the full 600W. Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:please tell me more about how i can literally open up my wallet, insert my penis into the bill pocket, and copulate with the soft cloth-paper weave notes inside until they are nothing but pulp and i become a eunuch who is also unable to urinate
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Trip report: 970 is a bit faster than my 5830.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
cisco privilege posted:I have one of these - it's ridiculous how much power they've stuffed in such a tiny, hand-held box, but drat if they didn't throw some lovely caps in there. Suiscon or whatever on the secondary is not cool. The semi-fanless PSU is quiet and runs very cool for being so small though which is kinda impressive I guess. Yeah are there any SFX supplies that aren't no-name or silverstone? Obvious reasons for the former and Silverstone products seem to be waaay overpriced for what they are from what I've seen. If I build a new PC at some point I'd love to stick it in something like the [url=https://www.ncases.com/[NCase M1[/url] since I don't use any expansion card slots anymore (GPU excepted) apart from a soundcard that I've perfunctorily transferred over for years. Obviously an ATX power supply with a full size graphics card in there is dicey to say the least and I'd probably prefer getting ripped off by silverstone. Generic Monk fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
cisco privilege posted:but drat if they didn't throw some lovely caps in there. Suiscon or whatever on the secondary is not cool. I've read in the past that poo poo-capacitor brands will often rate their parts highly, so it looks like you can get a higher capacitance capacitor in a small diameter than the good brands, which may be relevant in this situation; but no doubt it could have been designed with better caps. I would never buy such a PSU, because gently caress having horrible instability a couple of years down the line just because of a few cents saved. I'm rather interested in their SFX-L PSU size, though, that seems like it could be a cool standard. Same height and width as an SFX PSU, but just made a little deeper to accomodate a 120mm fan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
This is what I meant by using a SFX PSU limits your selection - you have to actually do a little bit of research and think through things a little bit when with just plain old ATX PSUs you have an incredible number of possibilities. I'm all for making powerful computers smaller, but if you're custom building stuff yourself having a limited selection of parts really hurts when something breaks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Trip report: 970 is a bit faster than my 5830. A nice 5-10% bump I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
