What is more important in a GPU for high resolution gaming?

[Achilleslastand]

1440 and above....

More Vram?
Core clock speed?
Size of memory interface?

Your thoughts?

[Mossy Snake]

Clock speed and built-in features.

The R9 Fury X is still a decent 1440p GPU last I checked despite the VRAM size, although it loses to a 1070.

Vram is still pretty important though.

[Omega]

Everything is equally important, Vram, clockspeed etc..

[Mossy Snake]

Omega님이 먼저 게시:

Everything is equally important, Vram, clockspeed etc..

Especially LEDs
I don't think I'd worry too much about memory speeds if you're on a modern GDDR5/HBM/HMB2 GPU, so I'd consider that a little less important because those memory types are the standard.

[Master0fBlunt]

For high resolution gaming, I usually compare these physical traits when making a buy:

1. VRAM Amount in GB.
2. VRAM Bandwidth & Frequency.
3. Core Clock.

I rank core clock lower because in "similar" models, (as in same release series, same time period), I find that lower Core Clocked GPU's can often outperform Higher Clocked GPU's in benchmarks, and that the amount of available VRAM and how fast it can be used by the GPU makes the most severe impact between similar models. Take this for example:

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-Radeon-R7-240

When I made this upgrade, I gained only 270Mhz clock speed, but the increased memory specs and shaders is what I really gained from it. (among other things, point is Core Clock doesn't matter as much as people think)

[Big Boom Boom]

Generation and $. Modern gen and highest $ > all. Titan Xp with modded BIOS and custom loop water block > all.

[Achilleslastand]

Master0fBlunt님이 먼저 게시:

For high resolution gaming, I usually compare these physical traits when making a buy:

1. VRAM Amount in GB.
2. VRAM Bandwidth & Frequency.
3. Core Clock.

I rank core clock lower because in "similar" models, (as in same release series, same time period), I find that lower Core Clocked GPU's can often outperform Higher Clocked GPU's in benchmarks, and that the amount of available VRAM and how fast it can be used by the GPU makes the most severe impact between similar models. Take this for example:

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-Radeon-R7-240

When I made this upgrade, I gained only 270Mhz clock speed, but the increased memory specs and shaders is what I really gained from it. (among other things, point is Core Clock doesn't matter as much as people think)

Good point.......
I know GTX1060s are supposed to be great 1080 cards but lose ground as you bump up the resolution. Their scores are only marginally better than my R290 and has 2 more GB Vram and higher clock speeds but a much smaller memory interface, 192vs 512.

[Monk]

Intended resolution and refresh rate you are targeting along with what graphic level you are hoping for combined with budget is the best deciding factor over any if that, as those answers will clearly point towards one or 2 options. I mean you can game at 4k on a 1050, it will be at lower settings and unlikely to be at 60 FPS, but doesn't stop anyone from doing it.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

GTX 1080 or better yet GTX 1080 Ti for 1440p gaming. GTX 1070 mostly works too but you will most likley end up reducing some settings in some games.
For 4K I would not bother with anything less then GTX 1080 Ti.

[tacoshy]

everybody saying core clock but what they forgetting is to mention cuda cores / shaders aswell.
basically its:

cuda cores * clock = performance

You have certain GPU's with high clock speed but missing cuda cores and in the end they are not stronger.
On the Other hand you have cards like the GTX 1060 3GB which are strong but have to less VRAM to use their potencial at full effiency. Espacially for QHD and UHD 6GB VRAM are not enough but I had never problems with 8GB.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Clock is meaningless for the most part, cause this will of course scale to model.
And there is very little difference between a cheaper GPU with stock clocks vs one of the same core variant with higher overclocks by default. The pre-OC'ed ones are just a means of selling a factory-OC'ed GPU that was deemed "stable" as those higher clocks. Sure you might be able to take a "stock one and OC it heavily, but then again, it might not be as stable, reliable for the long-term at those clocks, or have better quality cooling to handle increased heat output.

Overall it's raw throughput of the GPU Core and Memory that are the more serious of factors.

For NVIDIA=Cuda Cores; AMD=Stream Processors
Overall...
> Memory Interface Width
> Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)
> Texture Fill Rate (GT/s)

VRAM amount is a factor as well, but again this will scale upwards as you lean towards higher-end GPU models.

[Achilleslastand]

Thanks everyone for the answers, so if i want a viable upgrade for my R290 what are my choices. Id like to stay around the 350$ range but know that may not be possible.

[FeilDOW]

The only GPU in that price range is a 1060 6gb and it's only about 15% faster than your 290. You would be better off getting a 1070 for alittle under $450 and would give you a nice 60%+ performance improvement.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Achilleslastand님이 먼저 게시:

Thanks everyone for the answers, so if i want a viable upgrade for my R290 what are my choices. Id like to stay around the 350$ range but know that may not be possible.

Decent GTX 1070 but they tend to cost around $440.
GTX 1080 would be better but they cost around $520.

Anything lower then that like GTX 1060 is better suited for 1080p gaming, not 1440p so if you want to use 1440p monitor then it's better to save for at least GTX 1070, better yet GTX 1080.

[Gen X]

Memory bus as well, FUrys were good at high rez cause of HBM memory 4096 bit

[Master0fBlunt]

Achilleslastand님이 먼저 게시:

Thanks everyone for the answers, so if i want a viable upgrade for my R290 what are my choices. Id like to stay around the 350$ range but know that may not be possible.

I have a re-badged/glorified version of your card; the ASUS Strix 390x; and as you can see HERE[www.game-debate.com] is only marginally better. ( +10 FPS[i.ytimg.com] in The Witcher 3 for example based on common benchmarks). With that said, I can personally vouch that your card is not really that dated/horrible, and that if you do decide to upgrade I would make it worth your while. For example I am making the leap from my ASUS Strix 390x[images.techhive.com] to an ASUS Strix 1080[www.overclock3d.net], which as you can see, is a clear leap. I personally, do not want to drop hundreds of $'s just to take a step backwards ( 1050Ti[gpuboss.com], 3Gb GTX 1060[gpu.userbenchmark.com]), or a baby step forward ( 8Gb GTX 1060[gpu.userbenchmark.com], GTX 1070: View all Benchmark slides[wccftech.com]) I am looking for a significant, undeniable, noticable, and extreme difference. One that after spending my money, I don't regret not one tiny bit, at all, ever. I would save your money just a little longer for a GTX 1080 if you can help it. It will be a purchase you will not regret after witnessing the outstanding and immense difference. Of course your GPU is a generation older than mine, so a "baby step up" may be my "backwards, etc etc. Even so, if you're gaming above 1440, go for the gold man, don't mess around or you may leave yourself wishing for more, and that is a horrible feeling after dropping $350-$400 or more on a GPU. What's an extra $150 anyway? I'm sure you can do it man, I have faith in you! lol.