1440p Gaming Build - Intel

[Meladath]

Okay, well, for arguments sake:

MSI R9 290X Gaming - $800 - 1040MHz - 4GB
MSI GTX 780 Ti Gaming - $760 - 1020MHz/1085MHz - 3GB
MSI R9 290 Gaming - $600 - 1007MHz - 4GB
MSI GTX 780 Gaming - $550 - 954MHz/1006MHz - 3GB
MSI R9 280X Gaming - $500 - 1000MHz/1050MHz - 3GB
MSI GTX 770 Gaming - $420 - 1137MHz/1189MHz - 4GB

Those are the prices on all the high end cards on Newegg Canada. I will not buy a card with a stock cooler, just much too loud. I honestly prefer nVidia to AMD for their drivers, and I prefer a strong single GPU to an SLI setup. A lot of you think I could do better for the money though, so have at it. What do you think would get me the best FPS for under $1000? Please back-up your answer with facts, benches are appreciated. Honestly, if I were to go SLI I'm thinking GTX 770 4GB would be my best bet.

Also, the more I look at the Corsair C70 Vengeance, the more I like it. I think that's going to be my case.

Wow those prices are horrendous...
I would go for 2 R9 280X. If you really want to get maximum everything at 60 FPS at 2560 x 1440, a single card, even an incredibly overclocked 780Ti just isn't enough. The extra VRAM in the 4GB 770 is not very useful at all due to its memory bus + you won't be playing multi monitor even at 1440p you don't really need it, and the R9 280X performs better at higher resolutions due to its larger memory bus.

However, after seeing those prices I am not so sure... I have never seen an AMD card more expensive than its nvidia counter part, even here with inflated prices, AMD is still cheaper. Maybe your best bet is indeed 770 4GB, I mean... they are so much cheaper and will perform very similarly.

http://www.techoftomorrow.com/2013/pc/amd-r9-280x-crossfire-results-benchmarks/

As you can see R9 280X in crossfire makes mincemeat out of literally everything.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_770_sli_review,17.html

770 SLI is close but very slightly slower, more so at 2560 x 1440 due to its memory bus.

From most benchmarks I can find at 2560 x 1440 770 SLI is usually around 3-5 FPS slower than 280X. Which isn't much at all, so might be worth going for since its much cheaper by your prices.

EDIT: Just looked up prices, cheapest decent 280X I can see on Newegg CA is $460, whereas you can get 2GB 770's for only $380 and 4GB 770 for $420! That is insane... you guys have rough prices.
Then again, we ALWAYS have rougher prices than you so I guess its not too bad

I would go SLI 770. Personally, go for 2GB, however if you plan for not upgrading for a while might be worth going 4GB, some games at 2560 x 1440 push 2GB atm.

 

[Dwarflord369]

Yeah, I think the reference AMD cards are quite a bit cheaper, but their coolers are also shite, lol.

Also, that Guru3D article you linked was for SLI GTX 770 2GB, stock clocks and cooler. I'm sure the MSI 4GB OC variant would score much higher.

 

[Meladath]

Yeah, I think the reference AMD cards are quite a bit cheaper, but their coolers are also shite, lol.

Also, that Guru3D article you linked was for SLI GTX 770 2GB, stock clocks and cooler. I'm sure the MSI 4GB OC variant would score much higher.

You can't get reference R9 280X's. R9 290(X)'s yeah, and yeah. The reference cooler on those is terrible.

Yeah, an overclocked 770 and overclocked R9 280X are within a margin of error really they are incredibly close.

770 4GB SLI it is then I think. Unless anyone else wants to show me some information I might have been missing all along... Although I don't think so.

 

[Dwarflord369]

So, I'm kind of embarassed to ask this, but how exactly does memory bus work? I mean how does the R9 280X (6000MHz - 3GB - 384 bit) compare to the GTX 770 (7010MHz - 4GB - 256 bit)?

 

[Meladath]

So, I'm kind of embarassed to ask this, but how exactly does memory bus work? I mean how does the R9 280X (6000MHz - 3GB - 384 bit) compare to the GTX 770 (7010MHz - 4GB - 256 bit)?

The memory bus is essentially how much data can be sent each cycle from the GPU. Its better to use a multiple of 8 of the bus when it comes to GPU memory, which is why the R9 280X has 3GB with a 384 bit bus, in comparision to the 2GB (or 4GB) on the 770.

Generally you find cards with a larger memory bus perform better at higher resolutions than cards with smaller memory buses (of the same speed obviously). This is why the R9 290(X) is so close to the 780Ti at very high resolutions, even though at lower ones the 780Ti is the clear winner, it has a 512 bit bus in comparison to the 384 on the 780Ti.

 

[barnsley]

I have the HAF XB. Its great if you move your computer alot but I must stress that the fans that come with it are crap. Also, as it is a HAF case you need a fan controller because there is no sound proofing. Cable management is stupidly easy as well.

You can't get reference R9 280X's.

You can but they're hard to find if you're talking about the stock amd cooler ones.

 

[Dwarflord369]

The memory bus is essentially how much data can be sent each cycle from the GPU. Its better to use a multiple of 8 of the bus when it comes to GPU memory, which is why the R9 280X has 3GB with a 384 bit bus, in comparision to the 2GB (or 4GB) on the 770.

Generally you find cards with a larger memory bus perform better at higher resolutions than cards with smaller memory buses (of the same speed obviously). This is why the R9 290(X) is so close to the 780Ti at very high resolutions, even though at lower ones the 780Ti is the clear winner, it has a 512 bit bus in comparison to the 384 on the 780Ti.

So if the bus is how many bits per cycle, and frequency is cycles per second, if you multiply them that gives you bits per second (bandwidth)? Making the bandwidth on the R9 280X 2,304GB/s and the GTX 770 1,795GB/s (roughly 78%). Do I understand correctly?

 

[dladdin]

nice build pictures soon

 

[NeverBackDown]

If you can follow or understand this... it should explain it all.
Click me!

In more simple terms...
"Memory Bandwidth: Bandwidth is the largest amount of data (counted in MB per second) that can be moved across the external memory interface within a second. It's worked out by multiplying the card's interface width by its memory clock speed. If the card has DDR type memory, it must be multiplied by 2 once again. If it uses DDR5, multiply by 4 instead. The higher the card's memory bandwidth, the faster the card will be in general. It especially helps with AA, High Dynamic Range and high resolutions."

This website has all theoretical performance figures based off non real situations but based off hardware specs and math formulas.
http://www.hwcompare.com/15840/geforce-gtx-770-vs-radeon-r9-280x/

This link compares the 280x vs the 770.

But IMO you would be better off buying from the US Newegg site... prices are far cheaper than yours! Or maybe even NCIX?

 

[Dwarflord369]

The prices might be better, but after exchange rate, shipping, and customs it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Would CFX R9 290's get me 60+ FPS with settings maxed? Would they perform better than SLI GTX 780's?

 

[NeverBackDown]

290 in Xfire would give better performance than 780s in SLI ya. I would try to find the cheapest 290 aftermarket card you could though. Look on Newegg or ebay or amazon and such.

 

[Edge]

The best way I've heard memory bandwidth is explained like this.

Imagine a huge reservoir of water. Connected to it is a tunnel. And on the other side, an empty reservoir.

The reservoir of water is your VRAM. 2, 3, 4GB, whatever. Bigger is.. bigger.

The tunnel is your memory bandwidth. This is how much data (water) can be moved across to the empty reservoir (or to your display, I suppose), at a time.

So, no matter how big your reservoir of water is, if your tunnel is small, it's just not going to go through fast enough to be fill the other reservoir (or displayed) effectively.

So a 3GB "reservoir" with a bigger, fatter tunnel, will get more data shifted than a 4GB "reservoir" with a thin tunnel.

Hence why a lot of these 4GB cards are pretty gimmicky really. The 270x 4GB Dual-X from Sapphire springs to mind. That VRAM is wasted/pointless if it can't be used fast enough to actually generate a better fps at higher resolution.

How's that? xD

 

[Meladath]

The best way I've heard memory bandwidth is explained like this.

Imagine a huge reservoir of water. Connected to it is a tunnel. And on the other side, an empty reservoir.

The reservoir of water is your VRAM. 2, 3, 4GB, whatever. Bigger is.. bigger.

The tunnel is your memory bandwidth. This is how much data (water) can be moved across to the empty reservoir (or to your display, I suppose), at a time.

So, no matter how big your reservoir of water is, if your tunnel is small, it's just not going to go through fast enough to be fill the other reservoir (or displayed) effectively.

So a 3GB "reservoir" with a bigger, fatter tunnel, will get more data shifted than a 4GB "reservoir" with a thin tunnel.

Hence why a lot of these 4GB cards are pretty gimmicky really. The 270x 4GB Dual-X from Sapphire springs to mind. That VRAM is wasted/pointless if it can't be used fast enough to actually generate a better fps at higher resolution.

How's that? xD

This is a pretty good explanation. It's also the reason I prefer AMD over nvidia usually, they tend to have larger buses (and thus, memory, unless you buy one of those "gimmick" cards), which is good for higher resolution gaming.

To OP, Crossfire R9 290 will beat SLI 780 (the R9 290(X) cards have the best scaling ever in multi-GPU solutions), give you 60 FPS at maximum everything at 2540 x 1440. Maybe not crysis 3 at 8xAA, but if you are running 8xAA at 2560 x 1440 you can't possibly complain about low FPS since its near pointless...

 

[Davva2004]

Absolutely shocked at the prices in Canada right now. In the UK, you can get an MSI R9 290X for less than £400 ($731) and the cheapest 780Ti is £560 ($1024). So over here, it's a complete no brainer going for the 290X.

 

[Dwarflord369]

After much deliberation I've finally settled on the MSI GTX 780 Ti (SLI at a later date) as it is cheaper here than the R9 290X, if you can believe it. The GTX 780 Ti is generally a faster card, and even though the memory bus is smaller, the higher memory clocks actually put it ahead of the R9 290X. The only thing it truly lacks is 4GB of Vram, but 3GB isn't really a limitation at 1440p except in the most extreme situations.

Also, I've decided to go with the Corsair C70 Vengeance as my case.

I have updated my initial post to reflect my final build.

 

[NeverBackDown]

The vram makes a difference.. i'm running 3gb of vram on 1080p with BF4 maxed out with 2x MSAA and i hit 2.7GB usage consistently.

 

[Dwarflord369]

Well, despite the smaller Vram the GTX 780 Ti beats the snot out of the R9 290X in the majority of benchmarks I have seen at 1440p. Also, here in Canada it's $60 cheaper than the R9 290X, making it a no brainer in my opinion.

 

[NeverBackDown]

The reference coolers yes. From the reviews i have seen of the 290 using the Tri-X cooler it nearly matches the performance of the 780ti.. now imagine the 290x using that cooler? Matches it

Though they are damn near same performance at OC'd for any non biased software, the 780ti selling for cheaper would be my choice as well.

 

[Dwarflord369]

Glad we finally agree

Any thoughts on the fans I have chosen? I have changed them from the Cougars, those orange accents didn't really fit with my color scheme.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Cougar have the same fans but in LEDs if you are interested?