Recommended Posts

I've just had my XFX R7850 begun showing up artefacts and crashing the computer, it's over two years old and out of warranty so I'm reluctantly left with no choice to stump up for a new card.

 

Ive paid no attention to the current range and so would just like some advice on choosing please.

I have a Gigabyte mobo.

 

Budget is around

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1256784-graphics-card-suggestions-~/
Share on other sites

Any of the GTX750s would be a choice option - especially if you don't want to pony up for a new PSU atop the GPU change.

 

My current recommendation - ASUS GTX750 DirectCU Silent. http://www.asus.com/us/Graphics_Cards/GTX750DCSL2GD5/

 

Fanless and requires no extra power, either.  It even supports G-Sync and DX12.

On the site he linked, the warranty is 2 years.

 

As for choosing between the cards, I'd look for some review of that Powercolor model to see if it has any kinks. While I don't have any experience with the brand itself, it has been in the GPU business for a very long time.

 

Another thing to take note of, is that the 3xx series will launch next month and since anything not top end will (unfortunately) be a rebrand with higher clocks, they'll probably appear in shops very fast.

Yeah, I said most.

That's mostly in the US though. Can't say I've seen any lifetime warranties in the EU while glancing at their cards although I didn't thoroughly researched this.

If you're really on a budget you should get the Nvidia because the AMD uses more electricity at idle and for gaming and that will cost you more money down the road.

Yeah, an insignificant amount. (apply video logic to AMD vs NV)

 

That's mostly in the US though. Can't say I've seen any lifetime warranties in the EU while glancing at their cards although I didn't thoroughly researched this.

Yeah, an insignificant amount. (apply video logic to AMD vs NV)

 

 

Except the efficiency of the Nvidia over the AMD is much better than the efficiency of Intel vs AMD.

 

Nvidia cards also don't degrade and get artifacts and crazy glitches after a year like my AMD cards did.

  • Like 2

Except the efficiency of the Nvidia over the AMD is much better than the efficiency of Intel vs AMD.

 

Nvidia cards also don't degrade and get artifacts and crazy glitches after a year like my AMD cards did.

I doubt there's much difference when it comes to percentages. Regardless, it's still pocket change difference at the end of the year.

 

As for your second claim, I hope you have some proof of that being a widespread issue and that it affects current cards (if it happened at all the way you make it sound).

 

Fun fact about Nvidia: owners of previous generation cards are pretty ###### right now because Nvidia is neglecting them so much that a 780 Ti is equal at best to a 970 in Witcher 3 and Project Cars (Gameworks titles btw). Considering their next generation will be Pascal which will feature HBM memory (an even bigger difference than the one between Kepler and Maxwell), I'd expect Maxwell to go the way of the dodo once it's released. Say what you will about AMD, but they support their old cards.

I doubt there's much difference when it comes to percentages. Regardless, it's still pocket change difference at the end of the year.

 

As for your second claim, I hope you have some proof of that being a widespread issue and that it affects current cards (if it happened at all the way you make it sound).

 

Fun fact about Nvidia: owners of previous generation cards are pretty ###### right now because Nvidia is neglecting them so much that a 780 Ti is equal at best to a 970 in Witcher 3 and Project Cars (Gameworks titles btw). Considering their next generation will be Pascal which will feature HBM memory (an even bigger difference than the one between Kepler and Maxwell), I'd expect Maxwell to go the way of the dodo once it's released. Say what you will about AMD, but they support their old cards.

 

 

The support for ancient devices is why their drivers blow, you have to call it quits eventually, personally I thing 3 generations is more than enough to support, anything older is a waste of resources and AMD can't afford to be wasteful as it is

The support for ancient devices is why their drivers blow, you have to call it quits eventually, personally I thing 3 generations is more than enough to support, anything older is a waste of resources and AMD can't afford to be wasteful as it is

When's the last time you've used their drivers as the "their drivers blow" skit is a mummified horse by now. While I personally don't have any issues right now, from reading comment threads on both AMD and Nvidia driver release threads (on Guru3D), there are an equal amount of issues affecting both camps. While AMD may support too many generations (5 currently, although a good chunk are rebrands) it's still better for a consumer than just supporting only the latest one and crippling anything older.

When's the last time you've used their drivers as the "their drivers blow" skit is a mummified horse by now. While I personally don't have any issues right now, from reading comment threads on both AMD and Nvidia driver release threads (on Guru3D), there are an equal amount of issues affecting both camps. While AMD may support too many generations (5 currently, although a good chunk are rebrands) it's still better for a consumer than just supporting only the latest one and crippling anything older.

Not since 08, and everything I'm heading since makes me about them completely still

There's nothing wrong with AMD's drivers, ignore the silly fearmongering. I own an R9 280x, and before that I owned a 6950, a 5770, and a 4950 and the drivers were rock solid, I've had maybe 3 or 4 driver crashes in 6 years of AMD cards and most of those were caused by Valve's Hammer map editor.

I work a lot with AMD drivers for switchable graphics devices.

 

So from my experience it is best if you go with Nvidia. Especially if you are considering Windows 10.

 

Frankly speaking AMD was nearly down to a skeleton crew in terms of driver development.... and it shows in code, features and performance.

 

I wish it wasn't so. If you check the Windows Insider bug reports for drivers AMD is pretty much at the top with all sorts of interesting issues.

Not since 08, and everything I'm heading since makes me about them completely still

That sounds about right, the good ol' "I've used AMD cards when they were called ATI and nothing changed since then".

I work a lot with AMD drivers for switchable graphics devices.

 

So from my experience it is best if you go with Nvidia. Especially if you are considering Windows 10.

 

Frankly speaking AMD was nearly down to a skeleton crew in terms of driver development.... and it shows in code, features and performance.

 

I wish it wasn't so. If you check the Windows Insider bug reports for drivers AMD is pretty much at the top with all sorts of interesting issues.

See, I was with you when you started mentioning switchable graphics because that's where I've seen the bulk of current complaints about their drivers and where they are in a worse position than the competition (didn't mention the since this topic is about desktop GPUs), but then you go on and lie about code/features/performance. I guess the Omega driver, Mantle, TressFX, etc. never happened in your world.

 

By Windows Insider you mean W10 right which is unfinished right? And it's not like Nvidia's drivers are rock solid for it even though they have an "official" one out.

I work a lot with AMD drivers for switchable graphics devices.

 

So from my experience it is best if you go with Nvidia. Especially if you are considering Windows 10.

 

Frankly speaking AMD was nearly down to a skeleton crew in terms of driver development.... and it shows in code, features and performance.

 

I wish it wasn't so. If you check the Windows Insider bug reports for drivers AMD is pretty much at the top with all sorts of interesting issues.

 

I don't know why this has to be illustrated over and over again, but...

 

Windows 10 is UNFINISHED SOFTWARE.

 

Stable OSes... never had problems with AMD drivers.

 

See, I was with you when you started mentioning switchable graphics because that's where I've seen the bulk of current complaints about their drivers and where they are in a worse position than the competition (didn't mention the since this topic is about desktop GPUs), but then you go on and lie about code/features/performance. I guess the Omega driver, Mantle, TressFX, etc. never happened in your world.

 

By Windows Insider you mean W10 right which is unfinished right? And it's not like Nvidia's drivers are rock solid for it even though they have an "official" one out.

 

For threads sake I will glance over the point of you calling me a liar.

 

The amount of setups I come across isn't solely restricted to switchable cards but PXAI setups essentially allowed me to look into the code of CCC and into the kernel.

 

The first thing I advise you, is to understand that AMD as a company is short staffed, has a low employee retention rate and a bulk of their driver development team left over the years. Those Samsungs buyout reports aren't just fairy tales.

 

Currently the graphics division rides on creating new cards and fixating all their support on them. So the argument of AMD actively supporting older platforms is moot as Nvidia has a far deeper reache of support for older cards. Especially when it comes to supporting DX12 on much older Nvidia cards for Windows 10.

 

A huge shift in their strategy since the ATI days is to rely on their marketing. None the less Omega and TressFX is a huge part of that exact marketing campaign. I guess giving drivers special names is enough for some people these days. So all in all Mantle is one of the best techs to come out of AMD, unfortunately not without its issues.

 

Check out AMDs announcement on creating a "Tiger Team" which is supposed to respond to bug reports in a faster and more efficient way ( They are hiring now). Also a nice marketing move which was largely ridiculed by the community. Don't expect them to mention Tiger Team ever again.

 

One example of their marketing department doing "magic" is the "reintroduction" of GPUDownScalling features into their drivers with a nice new slogan of Virtual Super Resolution. Ensuring to the community that only new cards could support such a feature as it relies on an integrated special "chip".

 

Long story short... a quick changing of a few dwords showed everyone that everything down to an HD5000 supports this magic feature. Suffice to say that this backfired badly for AMD.

 

Now with the release of Windows 10122 Gabe Aul send out a tweet on how the recent AMD drivers cause quite a few issues for the OS and that AMD users should be aware of upgrading until AMD has a chance to fix it.

 

Unfortunately their fix failed and users are still reporting bugs with Edge/Spartan among other things.

 

Another example is the freesync driver for Crossfire setups. Wake me up when this happens.

 

Another personal example would be a current bug on AMD drivers that was reported 1,3 years ago which I have been looking into with an MS graphics tech.

 

AMD will hopefully fix it ... seeing as how they broke it for Windows 8.1 to begin with.

 

Nvidia had 4 WHQL drivers out for Windows 10. Guess how many WHQL drivers AMD had throughout all this year?!

 

 

 

PS. Next time watch your mouth.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!