Rethinking: R9 270 or HD 7870?

C4C

C4C

Well-Known Member
So my initial custom I have listed in my signature as of January 11th has a Sapphire Radeon 7870 I've had my heart set on.
But recently, I've noticed people have been talking about the R9 270 for a person with a $200 budget or so..

I did some research on the specs and noticed that the 7870 has a higher core clock overall. Specs listed HERE.
I also noticed that the R9 270 has a higher memory clock. Specs listed HERE.

I'd like to learn a little more about what I should choose for my budget. Since this is an 8 month build, I'm in no rush at all.

Thanks!
 
Thanks for the help man! I'm keeping the mobo on my list but I've thought about CrossFire in the future. I also noticed a few components I have will need 5 PCI slots total, which has brought me to the Gygabyte~990~ UD5..

The suggestion on the RAM was good though... I initially went with Kingston because it's a brand I've been satisfied with for my laptop..
 
a have sinds a few days a r9 270x.
so a can give you some info for my card how it wil perform.
I have the sapphire r9 270x toxic, and I,m playing at a resolution of 1920x1080.
in the havy games if you are looking for 60 fps you will have to drop down to, high settings, but on ultra it is still good playing.
I,m very pleased with this card, it will not hit 60 degrees in gaming, it is quit and I think it looks great.
I will get a second 1 to.

battlefield 4 on ultra first field in campaing recording with fraps, on a i7 2700k at 4.5 this I get

2014-01-09 23:59:37 - bf4
Frames: 62864 - Time: 1308844ms - Avg: 48.030 - Min: 18 - Max: 150

the metro benchmark

 
turbobooster said:
a have sinds a few days a r9 270x.
so a can give you some info for my card how it wil perform.
I have the sapphire r9 270x toxic, and I,m playing at a resolution of 1920x1080.
in the havy games if you are looking for 60 fps you will have to drop down to, high settings, but on ultra it is still good playing.
I,m very pleased with this card, it will not hit 60 degrees in gaming, it is quit and I think it looks great.
I will get a second 1 to.

battlefield 4 on ultra first field in campaing recording with fraps, on a i7 2700k at 4.5 this I get

2014-01-09 23:59:37 - bf4
Frames: 62864 - Time: 1308844ms - Avg: 48.030 - Min: 18 - Max: 150

the metro benchmark

Click to expand...

That's amazing... I'll definitely be looking at it. Thank you! :)
 
A minimum FPS of 18 is way below what I would call acceptable. I think the 'standard' is a minimum of 30FPS, 45 preferred. Below 30 is when you can really notice the lag. I would probably play on high settings with an R9 270X in BF4, as an example.
My HD 6950 2GB does high settings without dipping below 35FPS - and unless I'm mistaken, the R9 270X should be more powerful :)
Are you sure you didn't hit any cutscenes and such, Turbobooster? Your numbers seem a bit off. Where did you test it? Online or singleplayer?
 
Jiniix said:
A minimum FPS of 18 is way below what I would call acceptable. I think the 'standard' is a minimum of 30FPS, 45 preferred. Below 30 is when you can really notice the lag. I would probably play on high settings with an R9 270X in BF4, as an example.
My HD 6950 2GB does high settings without dipping below 35FPS - and unless I'm mistaken, the R9 270X should be more powerful :)
Are you sure you didn't hit any cutscenes and such, Turbobooster? Your numbers seem a bit off. Where did you test it? Online or singleplayer?
Click to expand...

it has to do with starting fraps, and recording.
just don't trust the log, I have 1 log its says min 0.
but on high with 2xaa I have an avg score of 61fps.

and I just did it again, bf 4 ultra
and now fraps gives me this score, but now the cpu is also stock.

014-01-15 21:06:43 - bf4
Frames: 21719 - Time: 458750ms - Avg: 47.344 - Min: 32 - Max: 70

as you can see the avg is about the same, so that's what I look at.

and I play the campaign, all the scores are the first field in bf 4 campaign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top