It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by caremuchless Originally posted by bigsmiff Originally posted by caremuchless Just a side note - Every ATI card I have owned put out way too much heat. And everytime I have seen someone build a full system, and they go with a ATI card, they replace the stock cooler for an aftermarket cooler.
I agree with you. My 5770 HD used to run very hot. I had to upgrade my case just for SWTOR. The overheating issues were crazy. I never had any heating issues with my 8800GT alpha dog.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it to bash the card. But every builder I saw that went this route, knew the cards would need an aftermarket cooler and built accordingly.
Do you mean "non-reference cooler" (which would include most cards, whether AMD or Nvidia), "non-reference card with a premium cooler" (e.g., MSI Twin Frozr or Sapphire Toxic), or "buy a card and buy a heatsink separately and then replace the heatsink that came with the card"? It makes a big difference. Thinking you need the last of those three is silly.
At the time, the card I was looking at that ATI made (can't remember exactly which one) was notorious for having cooling issues. Most of the posters at maximumpc.com that went this route replaced the stock cooler and replaced it with an aftermarket cooler. But they are pc enthusiasts.
If a specific card is known for heat issues and having poor stock cooling, it is entirely reasonable to replace the aftermarket cooler. A lot of those guys like to overclock to so, yeah. It makes sense.
Was some great deals.
Moved it over for you.
To give feedback on moderation, contact email@example.com
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Edeus Just when I was building my pc, an article like this is made. How convenient! I was thinking of getting a GTX 570 (because it's cheaper) while spending my money on a gen2 i7 2600. What do you think: save money on the GPX card and spend it on the cpu? Or spend money on the GPX card and save money on the CPU? (I'm not in the budget of spending huge amounts on both.)
I'd sooner save money up front on the video card, because a video card is easier to upgrade later.
But it looks like you're confused about processors and could probably do both. Get a Core i5-3570K, not a Core i7-2600K. For gaming purposes, that's both better and cheaper.
Then the question is whether you can fit a GeForce GTX 670 into your budget or not.
Make sure you get a good SSD, though, as it definitely fits your budget if you were looking at a Core i7 processor.
Ah thanks! the i5-3570k IS cheaper! With saving 100$ on the CPU I should be able to fit the 670 in. Thanks for the tip.
And yep! you're other article about SSD's made me realize I needed one, already have a samsung 128gb SSD 6gb/s.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
670 is not a bad card indeed but im to much AMD RADEON fan so i stick with 7970 card.
CPU:Intel Core i7-3770K 4GHzGPU:ASUS HD 7970 DirectCU II TOPMB:ASUS P8Z77-V DELUXECase:Cooler Master HAF XRAM:Corsair 16GB 1600PSU:Corsair gold 850HD:SSD OCZ 256 GB vertex4
Originally posted by StrangeEyes 670 is not a bad card indeed but im to much AMD RADEON fan so i stick with 7970 card.
I'm glad it's your money that is being spent, not mine.
There are some non-fanboy cases to be made for the 7970, such as if you want the particular free games that come with it, need AMD-only vendor-specific features, or need it for double-precision OpenCL computations. But on a purely price/performance basis, or even taking into account power consumption (where the GTX 670 is better) and feature sets, I'd sooner go with a GTX 670.
Higher clocked 7750 and 7770's getting released soon. 7750 is going to need a 6 pin power connector now but means it'll overclock better, the newer 7770 will apparently also overclock better.
Originally posted by Quizzical There are really only two good values on desktop video cards today: Radeon HD 7770 for $130 GeForce GTX 670 for $400 Yes, that's a huge chasm between the two, but nothing between them is a good value relative to those two cards. I do expect that to change soon, however. AMD has tons of Pitcairn chips to sell, and surely they want to sell something higher end than $130 cards. A Radeon HD 7870 for $300 or a Radeon HD 7850 for $200 would be a good value, and should still be profitable for AMD. I do expect to see the 7870 approach $300 soon. Whether the 7850 falls so far depends largely on yields. If 2/3 of Pitcairn chips can meet the 7870 specs, then the 7850 doesn't have to be that good of a value for AMD to sell off all that they need. It is likely that this is essentially the reason why the 7750 isn't a good value: too many Cape Verde dies can meet 7770 specs, so AMD would rather sell a 7770 for more. If far more dies go in the 7850 bin than the 7870, then I'd expect to see the 7850 going for $200 sooner rather than later. Nvidia will presumably shake things up with new cards, too. But GK106 is still nowhere to be found, and GK107 is very much taking its time in coming to desktops. GK107 will probably be quite a bit slower than a Radeon HD 7770, but could still be a compelling value at $100 if Nvidia prices it appropriately. ----- Edit: I meant to put this in the hardware section, not The Pub. Sorry. My mistake.
Abit of a strange post, as good value is determined by compairing them to the rest of the market. Seems as if OP implys all cards could have been best price/performance. Since this is obviously not the case, he finds in the budget and in the highend two cards that stand out.
Could have been two mid cards that were the best value, happens to not be the case .But all the cards can't be the best at the same time. That he finds two is subjective, he could have picked "best one" or "best three".