It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)GTX 750 Ti(51 posts)(51 posts)
(51 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 17, 2014
Devil's advocate. Build your system with an AMD APU like the A8 6600k (quad core, overclockable), which has integrated graphics (equivalent to HD6670) probably better than what you already have. Run that for a while and see if you even need a discrete GPU. By the time you decide whether you do or don't for sure graphics cards will be quicker and draw less power anyway so it's win win.

edited because of some of the points raised below. The A8 6600k runs most current games at medium settings/1080p and is about the equivalent of an i5 3570k for less money.
Post edited June 17, 2014 by coldtony
Posted June 17, 2014
Even if you don't care too much about graphics I highly recommend a med-end card that has high value (performance/money) so it lasts longer. I think a GTX760 is good and I would also advise against the i3 so most definitely pick a decent i5, preferably with 4 cores so it's future proof in case you don't want to upgrade as often.
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
Tallima: i3's don't have Turbo Boost. So if you have a 3GHz i3 processor, you've got 2 cores running 1.5GHz. If you're using something that only uses one processor, you're getting 1.5GHz. If you have an i5 with 4 cores at 3GHz and you're using a program that only needs 1 core, then you're getting 3GHz b/c the Turbo Boost architecture gives you access to all of that speed to one core.
No no no. If you have a 3GHz i3 CPU, you have two cores running at 3GHz. Turbo boost does mean that the CPU can run higher with fewer cores used, but the difference is small (for example the i5 4690 runs at 3.5GHz at standard and 3.9GHz when boosting[/url].

The main difference between an i3 and i5 is that the i5 has 4 cores, while the i3 has two cores with hyperthreading, which shows up as 4 cores in the OS but is slower in practice.

Core i3 is indeed slower than an i5 for gaming, especially for modern games which can take advantage of many cores, but it's still perfectly serviceable. (Example benchmarks.)
Post edited June 17, 2014 by ET3D
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
Tallima: i3's don't have Turbo Boost. So if you have a 3GHz i3 processor, you've got 2 cores running 1.5GHz. If you're using something that only uses one processor, you're getting 1.5GHz. If you have an i5 with 4 cores at 3GHz and you're using a program that only needs 1 core, then you're getting 3GHz b/c the Turbo Boost architecture gives you access to all of that speed to one core.
avatar
ET3D: No no no. If you have a 3GHz i3 CPU, you have two cores running at 3GHz. Turbo boost does mean that the CPU can run higher with fewer cores used, but the difference is small (for example the i5 4690 runs at 3.5GHz at standard and 3.9GHz when boosting[/url].

The main difference between an i3 and i5 is that the i5 has 4 cores, while the i3 has two cores with hyperthreading, which shows up as 4 cores in the OS but is slower in practice.

Core i3 is indeed slower than an i5 for gaming, especially for modern games which can take advantage of many cores, but it's still perfectly serviceable. (Example benchmarks.)
Well, thank you for the education! I had a complete misunderstanding on how that all worked. I'll link here in my above post as to not confuse.
Posted June 17, 2014
Don't buy a GTX760 the performance/wattage ratio is poor. There'll be a high performance, low wattage offering from Nvidia before you know it and the GTX 760 will look like a dinosaur. Buy a high wattage GPU now and not only will it cost you more, it'll actually cost you measurably more to run.
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
Narcia_: I just picked up this exact card for a modest little rig of my own. I've mostly been a console gamer over the past several years and I'm not particularly interested in what PS or XB has to offer at the moment. The price to performance as well as the low power consumption were real draws for me, too. It's great for playing games in the past few years that I've missed out on, but will also be able to handle future releases for a while, which is just what I'm looking for.
This is almost exactly me as well! I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, as I sort of "fell out of the loop" when it came to GPU tech (I was lucky enough to guess my way to a card I've been very pleased with in my current machine!) but I'll probably be upgrading in the next year *cough Witcher cough;* it'll be good to get an idea of what I should be keeping my eye on as far as what's around now and what will be around in 6 - 8 months or so.
Posted June 17, 2014
I got stuck using a crappy laptop recently so my mother brought home a computer from her work that was just collecting dust with a i3 sandy bridge that was probably $400 new. I dropped in a 750Ti and it runs great to hold me over till broadwell comes out. I just finished the new tomb raider game at 1080p on a mix of mid/high settings and the fps was smooth. The computer has just a cheapo 300 watt psu that is the standard for your white box computers.

Here is the one I got. Just search on google. I bought it off amazon for $160.
MSI Computer Corp. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Gaming OC 2GB GDDR5 VGA/DVI/HDMI PCI-Express Video Card N750TI TF 2GD5/OC
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
wolfsrain: The 750Ti is basically an overclocked 750, close enough to a 760. As for CPU, i5 is the minimum for a modern gamer. Make sure you grab a modular power supply, as it helps with the cable management. The PSU should be at least a true power 650W (I'd go for 850W, but that's me).
No; the 750Ti is a 5-module (750 is 4-module) chip. 640 shaders, where the 750 has 512. Neither is at all comparable to a 760, which is a much larger card.

Power supply is not critical with these cards; a first-rate 500-watt supply is far more than adequate. Leave the 850W jobs to people who are running high-power cards in SLI or have more money than ability to engineer computers.
Post edited June 17, 2014 by cjrgreen
Posted June 17, 2014
Personally, I'm running a GTX 760, and everything I've thrown at it in ultra/1080p hasn't really even made it sputter. This includes both older and newer games: BF3, Witcher 2, New Vegas, etc, etc.

A 760 would probably tide you over for awhile, imo. The only thing I haven't tested is 1440p, because my monitor doesn't support it. :(
Posted June 17, 2014
I got this card when it was first released because I only have a 300w psu and had been looking for something with very low power consumption but decent performance for ages (being a poor student I couldn't afford upgrading both psu and gpu). It's great for my needs currently, but clearly not the ideal card for witcher 3 when that comes out
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
Tallima: i3's don't have Turbo Boost. So if you have a 3GHz i3 processor, you've got 2 cores running 1.5GHz. If you're using something that only uses one processor, you're getting 1.5GHz. If you have an i5 with 4 cores at 3GHz and you're using a program that only needs 1 core, then you're getting 3GHz b/c the Turbo Boost architecture gives you access to all of that speed to one core.
avatar
ET3D: No no no. If you have a 3GHz i3 CPU, you have two cores running at 3GHz. Turbo boost does mean that the CPU can run higher with fewer cores used, but the difference is small (for example the i5 4690 runs at 3.5GHz at standard and 3.9GHz when boosting[/url].

The main difference between an i3 and i5 is that the i5 has 4 cores, while the i3 has two cores with hyperthreading, which shows up as 4 cores in the OS but is slower in practice.

Core i3 is indeed slower than an i5 for gaming, especially for modern games which can take advantage of many cores, but it's still perfectly serviceable. (Example benchmarks.)
Thanks for this discussion. It seems like an i5 is worth it if my budget can stretch that far but it's not essential, especially if I'm not using a higher end GPU.
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
ChrisSD: I'll probably go for something in an i3 unless I'm persuaded an i5 is really worth it.
You should think very carefully about future proofing. An i3 has enough grunt to play new games for a while, but will developers optimise properly? Probably not. My concern would be titles that arbitrarily 'need' four cores, given the specs of COD Ghosts (arbitrarily needs 6bg ram) this scenario could be a possibility. You would be safest getting a mid range i5.

I'm looking to the 'next gen' hoping it will provide true multi core scaling, as well as better use of hyper threading, essentially I'm hoping i7's will get used fully! So far I only know of one game that actually demonstrably utilises hyper threading, and it does so very well. I suspect many more games may benefit but am yet to see comparative benchmarks.

As someone who uses an i3 2120 in their gaming rig, you shouldn't be outright perturbed by performance concerns. People always think you need more power than you do whether it's gaming, editing or even sodding photoshop. The i3 pumps out a steady 60fps in basically everything I own (minus the odd strategy game). I would normally recommend it, but given the concerns I mention above the only truly safe option is a quad core cpu.
Posted June 17, 2014
I got a 750 TI recently and have been happy with it. I don't expect it to be able to run new games on the highest of settings in a year or so, but I think they will still look very good and play smoothly. Which is exactly what I was looking for in my price range. Power usage was also a concern to me as I didn't have the money to buy a new PSU or build an entire new system.

As long as you don't mind turning a few settings down for the most demanding games, it should be fine. I expect to be able to run Witcher 3, but I'm not expecting all High or Ultra settings.
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
ChrisSD: I'll probably go for something in an i3 unless I'm persuaded an i5 is really worth it.
avatar
rice_pudding: You should think very carefully about future proofing....
Yeah that's what I'm thinking about. And the rest of your post makes sense. I think I'm at the place where an i5 would be ideal but in the end it'll come down to what else I can afford to compromise on.

avatar
Fictionvision: I got a 750 TI recently and have been happy with it. I don't expect it to be able to run new games on the highest of settings in a year or so, but I think they will still look very good and play smoothly. Which is exactly what I was looking for in my price range. Power usage was also a concern to me as I didn't have the money to buy a new PSU or build an entire new system.

As long as you don't mind turning a few settings down for the most demanding games, it should be fine. I expect to be able to run Witcher 3, but I'm not expecting all High or Ultra settings.
Your perspective seems similar to what I was thinking. I don't need the latest and greatest graphics and I'm very much used to turning down the graphics settings. At the end of the day I'm on a budget and I'm never going to get a Tri-SLI Titan setup or whatever.

One thing I am interested in is having a smaller form factor desktop PC and I'm willing to compromise a little on components to achieve this within my budget. However, I don't want to make too many compromise, hence me making this topic :)
Posted June 17, 2014
avatar
rice_pudding: You should think very carefully about future proofing....
avatar
ChrisSD: Yeah that's what I'm thinking about. And the rest of your post makes sense. I think I'm at the place where an i5 would be ideal but in the end it'll come down to what else I can afford to compromise on.

avatar
Fictionvision: I got a 750 TI recently and have been happy with it. I don't expect it to be able to run new games on the highest of settings in a year or so, but I think they will still look very good and play smoothly. Which is exactly what I was looking for in my price range. Power usage was also a concern to me as I didn't have the money to buy a new PSU or build an entire new system.

As long as you don't mind turning a few settings down for the most demanding games, it should be fine. I expect to be able to run Witcher 3, but I'm not expecting all High or Ultra settings.
avatar
ChrisSD: Your perspective seems similar to what I was thinking. I don't need the latest and greatest graphics and I'm very much used to turning down the graphics settings. At the end of the day I'm on a budget and I'm never going to get a Tri-SLI Titan setup or whatever.

One thing I am interested in is having a smaller form factor desktop PC and I'm willing to compromise a little on components to achieve this within my budget. However, I don't want to make too many compromise, hence me making this topic :)
From experience, smaller is okay, but do NOT go slimline. I made that mistake on my last rig and NEVER again. Just adding RAM was an experience in skinned knuckles and having to entirely remove brackets in some cases.
Eurgh. lol
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)GTX 750 Ti(51 posts)(51 posts)
(51 posts)