Please help me, I want change my vga with new one (AMD Radeon) My specs : AMD phenom II x6 1090T 3.2Ghz Ram 8Gb Windows 7 3-bit AMD Radeon HD5500 I better change Radeon R7 or R9? and which type? I like R7 250 iCooler 2Gb DDR5. What do you think? its suitable? or not optimal. Thank You.
Since you have a low CPU, an NVIDIA card would be better for DX11 games. The 960, if you can afford it, otherwise the 950. Waiting a bit for the 16/14nm cards as Onna said, is probably the best.
What kind of games u play and what are your exigencies regarding graphical quality ?? Because if you only do "light gaming" like 1080p "medium settings" a GTX 950 will be perfect !. Forget about Radeon with that CPU, the driver overhead will kill the performance
Come on guys, his cpu can still feed gpu like r9 270/x which can cost only 110€, difference would be night and day to his system. Reaching 3.5ghz on that Thuban chip is still capable.
Well, kinda yeah. If he can't afford a 4GB 960, a 4GB 270x should be a good lower alternative. Just make sure you get nothing less than 3GB in the GPU.
Yes, I would suggest an R9 270X or a R9 380 if it can be afforded. Both will give more than acceptable performance at 1080p. You'd be disappointed in an R7.
@all : I playing counter strike:global offensive, which suitable videocard? iwant minimum 200 fps at resolution 1280x1024 with all low setting. Thank you very much guys. and btw when polaris come out?
from available information AMD is 1st bringing "low-end" chip, but it is for mobile platform and it is quite decent at that. And 2nd GPU is bigger one, somewhere above Fury X performance. I do not think we will see those middle of the road GPUs you are looking for till June/July. My advice: get GPU which can do Freesync in games. That's r9-285/380(x). Forget about CPU bottleneck. It exists but it is not as big of a deal as in the past.
not big of a deal as in the past? I am sorry what past? Problem become more announced only as of late. Here is for example the fx 8350 bottelnecking both the gtx 960 and r9 380. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBBw5nssai0 And there are many more games that suffer. Anyways as for counter strike, any cards will deliver at that resolution and settings even a gtx 750ti.
380 or 960. Either will do fine. Nvidia maybe tad better. Just maybe. Or if you can wait until summer get something newer. You cpu is around the level of a Q6600 in single core performance. You might actually benefit more from a cpu upgrade then gpu upgrade...
That video does not even have consistency in content. There are very few cut-scenes and it is mostly dynamic gameplay making comparison invalid as it can. (at places that intel+nVidia combo is like 20% below framerate delivered by AMD+AMD = that video discredits itself) But look at it realistically r9-380x is half of Fury X. I have very few CPU bottlenecks and those come at very high fps or in poorly coded MMORPG games. Unless one is to believe that Phenom II X6 delivers less than half per thread performance of i5@4.5GHz, He'll be fine. And where he is CPU bottlenecked, he can just happily increase shader detail/AA/... without additional impact. But X6 is actually only 40% slower per core than OC i5. https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/4041383?baseline=2618832 And if you scroll down at particular instruction tests, you'll see that this total score is boosted in intel's favor in big part due to AES test where intel had special transistors and it is something what is not boosting game performance in any way.
I did little approximation on my part and then I did real world tests. My approximation is that: Fury X clocked to 525MHz performs along R9-380x Fury X clocked to 300MHz performs around r9-370 Now Here are 2 tables with CPU and GPU running different clocks: (Game details on lowest 1080p. Scripted FPS Benchmarking map from workshop. It is bit overkill as at moment you have like 20 smokes on screen and 60 characters. It still shows that low fps is not affected by CPU as much as GPU performance.) Code: [B]Min. FPS[/B] GPU/CPU 3.3GHz 4.5GHz 300MHz 18 20 525MHz 30 33 1050MHz 62 63 [B]Avg. FPS[/B] GPU/CPU 3.3GHz 4.5GHz 300MHz 134.3 181.4 525MHz 140.5 221.4 1050MHz 155.8 231.9 While CPU much more affects average and maximum fps, it does hardly anything at all to low fps situations like several smoke grenades in one place (God Forbid walking through such smoke). I consider that X6 CPU somewhat equivalent to mine running 3.3GHz. And question is, does someone who plays CS want to have super high average and max fps + dips to un-play-ability (Fast CPU + crappy GPU). Or is it preferred to have decently high average and max fps + good enough fps in tough situations (slower CPU + good GPU)? When you look at those Min. FPS, I can say from experience that in real matches even with lot of players, you can at least double them. Here is how Fury X 1050MHz + i5@4.5GHz works in real world max details:
He'll want to upgrade from 32bit Windows before he bothers doing anything else. It'd also be handy to know what PSU he's running.
