LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Maxwell as it should have been.
Read more.Maxwell as it should have been.
I assume this is the £107 card you talk about:
http://www.shop.bt.com/products/best...ics&origin=pla
http://www.cclonline.com/product/141...MX-OC/VGA2260/
Its not the same model as you have tested in the review,as it looks the same as the reference model. So I assume the £107 card is the cheapest reference model??
Please correct me if I am wrong,otherwise the card tested does not look too bad a deal.
The model listed at Dabs and CCL Computers is the GTX 750 Ti StormX OC:
http://www.palit.biz/palit/vgapro.php?id=2253
The model tested is the GTX 750 Ti StormX Dual:
http://www.palit.biz/palit/vgapro.php?id=2252
There is a 117MHZ difference in base clockspeeds it seems.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-02-2014 at 04:58 PM.
I'm very tempted to get one of these, alas it all depends how they compare directly to my XFX 5870. Less power draw and more performance is exactly what I look for in a card these days.
Any of the current generation cards will do that as the HD5870 required dual PCI-E power connectors. Your HD5870 should get a reasonable price if you sell it now due to mining.Originally Posted by DemonHighwayman
Moreover,the GTX750TI 2GB is not that great when compared to the R9 270 cards at under £130.
Ebuyer had Powercolor R9 270 cards for £120 recently too.
They are also plenty of nice R9 270 cards for around the £130 mark.
This MSI has good reviews:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-m...ms-dp-dvi-hdmi
It has a quiet fan too. That is only a £10 difference when compared to the pre-overclocked Palit which is the fastest GTX750TI card ATM.
What you save in a bit of power consumption,won't make up for the fact if you get a slower card now,it will have to be replaced quicker. Hence over 5 years you will be spending more on hardware.
The GTX750TI is already struggling at 1920X1080.
If the R7 265 is under £120,its going to not look pretty. HD7850 cards can hit high overclocks too,which redeems them to a degree.
My GTX660 cost me just under £140 last year with a game worth nearly £30,and it is still 20% faster in BF4,even though I bought it 10 months ago. It is also a pre-overclocked one meaning it is probably closer to an R9 270.
My whole system including a SB based Xeon E3 1220 and a GTX660 at most consumes around 200W at the wall during gaming and is generally less than that.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-02-2014 at 05:13 PM.
No, we make mention that the basic OC version is available for £107 (now £108, funnily enough) and that this model, the Dual, is likely to be £120, based on conversations with Palit. We draw attention to this in the first page of the review.
'The basic, overclocked StormX is available from £107, and this dual-fan model is set to retail for £120, or £5 more than many other reference-like cards.'
CAT-THE-FIFTH (20-02-2014)
Why does this look like out of a cartoon or something ?
Cool, so it sounds like I should wait for another more powerful Maxwell card. Which is fine as my current card still seems to handle most modern games with relative ease.
It is good to see a review that doesn't disregard its own testing. What happened to the frame time graphs normally done on the top of the range cards? Is it not worth the effort for the lower end or is there another reason not to do them?
It looks like a 3D technical drawing using CAD software rather than a photo. The software does a good job to be honest.
Why does this look like out of a cartoon or something ?
It's good value for the performance and power usage, what more do you expect? t's only struggle because of ultra settings, it can get 60fps on medium/high at 1080p same as PS4.Any of the current generation cards will do that as the HD5870 required dual PCI-E power connectors. Your HD5870 should get a reasonable price if you sell it now due to mining.
Moreover,the GTX750TI 2GB is not that great when compared to the R9 270 cards at under £130.
Ebuyer had Powercolor R9 270 cards for £120 recently too.
They are also plenty of nice R9 270 cards for around the £130 mark.
This MSI has good reviews:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-m...ms-dp-dvi-hdmi
It has a quiet fan too. That is only a £10 difference when compared to the pre-overclocked Palit which is the fastest GTX750TI card ATM.
What you save in a bit of power consumption,won't make up for the fact if you get a slower card now,it will have to be replaced quicker. Hence over 5 years you will be spending more on hardware.
The GTX750TI is already struggling at 1920X1080.
If the R7 265 is under £120,its going to not look pretty. HD7850 cards can hit high overclocks too,which redeems them to a degree.
My GTX660 cost me just under £140 last year with a game worth nearly £30,and it is still 20% faster in BF4,even though I bought it 10 months ago. It is also a pre-overclocked one meaning it is probably closer to an R9 270.
My whole system including a SB based Xeon E3 1220 and a GTX660 at most consumes around 200W at the wall during gaming and is generally less than that.
It isn't that great value considering the price of the HD7850,HD7870,R9 270 and GTX660. I have been using SFF mini-ITX and Shuttle systems as my primary systems for over 8 years,and most modern midrange cards don't need uber power supplies.
Its a myth propagated by PSU companies to make more money. Its why you seem Valve using Silverstone small volume SFF PSUs to run a Core i7 and a Geforce Titan. The PSU was only 450W. Shuttle systems have 500W PSUs which can run overclocked socket 2011 Core i7s with high end cards fine. Shuttles gaming systems are small.
Heck,I have run massively overclocked 8800GTS 512MB and HD5850 1GB cards off small volume,group regulated SFF PSUs of 400W and 450W respectively.
The power consumption difference is not that great,plus if you overclock the other cards they will be faster too,whereas the GTX750TI OC is at its limits already. Overclocked R7 265 cards hit R9 270X level,which means the card is almost as fast or already faster than a GTX580 using a single PCI-E power connector!
Even in the R7 265 review Hexus says the card can probably run off a 300W PSU,and they are right. People have used sub 400W PSUs for them.
Plus,the PS4 will be last longer as a gaming machine than any midrange PC and has the convenience of plug and play.
I am a PC gamer through and though but I can understand why people want consoles.
The PS4 has a GPU which is in-between an R7 265 and a R9 270 but with enhanced compute,so technically the PS4 GPU is a tad faster in specifications than a GTX750TI. However,devs can do tricks which are not quite possible using Windows,so it really is hard to say. I don't presume to make such direct comparisons so easily as a result.
DIY PC owners might hate console owners,but they are a different audience and they need to just stop with all the silly wars with them.
They will have to learn to co-exist and both consoles have almost sold 10 million examples together,meaning they are popular.
Or the next AMD card. The problem is none of us know what AMD is up to - in fact AMD has always been tight lipped about its GPUs. Look at the HD4000 series - people did not even have a clue about its spec even a mere few weeks before launch. The same happened with the HD5870 and all the all major cards launches.
Nvidia has a tendency to overhype all their graphics cards - remember Fermi and when we had the Nvidia Focus Group people like Rollo,going on and on how it was the bestest in the world.
Remember,GCN1 and GCN1.1 were AMD's Fermi step in compute,and most of the AMD designs are now close onto 2 years old. Nvidia had Fermi which lead to Kepler and Maxwell.
AMD is using GCN in its APUs,which are at a process node disadvantage to Intel. Kaveri is more efficient than Richland due to its IGP mainly. The Kaveri successor drops the maximum TDP from 95W to 65W,while having a more complex CPU while using the same process node. It can only mean AMD is making the IGP more efficient and maybe the chipset.
Remember,if AMD does not do this,Intel will screw them over.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-02-2014 at 12:51 PM.
Personally I think this is looking good. Now just looking forward to the high end cards. AMD need to catch up soon though otherwise Nvidia is just going to keep jacking up the prices like they did with the 780 at launch.
Frankly, all the "photos" in the review look like renders to me. Poor show.
Why does this look like out of a cartoon or something ?
Not a bad card for the price all told and should hopefully bring faster performance to apps like adobe and other CUDA or OpenCL supporting cards.
Maybe that's something to include in the tests done with the graphics cards for the future - the performance they give when used for common CUDA or OpenCL accelerated applications.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
