dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1309
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

1 edit

JoelC707

Premium Member

GPU for World of Warcraft

I've been doing some research and think I have it narrowed down but wanted to get some input here. I don't have a hard budget number just yet but I can get pretty much any of the cards mentioned in here for under $200, some as low as $100 so that's probably a good soft budget.

My computer is an i5-3450, 16GB RAM, Samsung 840 EVO 250GB and currently running on the intel GPU. PSU is a Thermaltake Purepower 600 AP and has two 6-pin connectors only. I had a 6870 but it quit working and the 5830s I had also quit working. Probably due to the stress of mining and complications from a 6-8 foot fall for all of them LOL.

I have been getting the itch to play wow again and I know my integrated graphics aren't going to cut it unless I turn all the settings down to nothing (and maybe not even then). I keep it in windowed mode at 1920x1080 and I prefer to keep most of the settings turned up. One in particular, the view distance, has always had the largest impact on frame rates and I definitely want to keep that one turned up as high as possible.

From what I have found, an R7 265 to an R9 270/270x would be equivalent to the 6870 I had if not better due to architecture improvements. I've also been eyeballing the 750 ti but I'm not sure if that would be too low-end to work. I was also suggested to snag a used 560 ti from ebay which is in consideration too (all of my previous cards were bought used and I have no qualms about doing so again). I know wow typically doesn't need a lot of GPU power like other games so I'm hoping I can get away with what would otherwise be a low to mid range card and still keep the settings turned up. What does everyone else think?

Weasel
Premium Member
join:2001-12-03
Minnesota

Weasel

Premium Member

The 750 would be fine for WoW, however not sure if it would make it on all settings maxed and full draw distance. I play on a GTX 285 without issues. My resolution is lower (1280x1024) but I have everything maxed (except draw distance which I have at about half) and get 30-40 fps most of the time. Have not raided yet, would probably have to lower some settings once in a large group.

That said, I usually reference this when looking for video card stuff:
»www.tomshardware.com/rev ··· 107.html

It is updated monthly and I have found it be reliable. It has break downs of the best cards in various price ranges.
keno5net
join:2002-01-05
Milwaukee, WI

keno5net to JoelC707

Member

to JoelC707
WOW works better on an Nvidia graphics cards of the same leves than it does on AMD. At 1080P something like a 750 ti would be good and if your budget allowed a GTX 760 would be better. That said AMD cards are very affordable right now and the R9-280 cards are being phased out at great discounts.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707 to Weasel

Premium Member

to Weasel
said by Weasel:

That said, I usually reference this when looking for video card stuff:
»www.tomshardware.com/rev ··· 107.html

Sweet, I've used their site before for charts and such but that seems to be a better list right now. I've also used Maximum PC's best of the best list but it hasn't been updated in a while as they still recommend the R7 265 as the best under $200 card (I can actually get an R9 280x/285 or GTX 760 for under $200).
said by Weasel:

The 750 would be fine for WoW, however not sure if it would make it on all settings maxed and full draw distance. I play on a GTX 285 without issues. My resolution is lower (1280x1024) but I have everything maxed (except draw distance which I have at about half) and get 30-40 fps most of the time. Have not raided yet, would probably have to lower some settings once in a large group.

I don't plan to do any real raiding, I just don't have the time for it right now. I may do LFR but at least that way if I can't handle it I just won't do it and won't be inconveniencing a group of friends. My 6870 never gave me any trouble raiding honestly so that's really my benchmark here I guess.
JoelC707

JoelC707 to keno5net

Premium Member

to keno5net
said by keno5net:

WOW works better on an Nvidia graphics cards of the same leves than it does on AMD.

I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere before. I'm not stuck on AMD even though most of my previous cards were that. I have honestly loved the 750 ti ever since I first saw it (and really like many of the Maxwell features in general).
said by keno5net:

At 1080P something like a 750 ti would be good and if your budget allowed a GTX 760 would be better.

The 760 is apparently just within my soft budget (can be had as low as $180 for a decent one). Not sure what the 960 will release at but the 970 is too far out most likely. That said, the R9 280/285 can be had in the same price range and even the R9 280x isn't too much above $200 and should likely perform better since they're basically 7950s and 7970s respectively.

Would the 285 be better than the 280? It's basically the same core specs though it is a different core and features GCN 1.2 whereas the 280/280x are GCN 1.0.

Weasel
Premium Member
join:2001-12-03
Minnesota

Weasel to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
I can't answer your ATI question, I've been out of their game for a while.

On the topic of raids, I don't know if you have looked at their video settings, but at some point (might have been this xpac, I don't know), they added a feature where you can have two sets of video settings: one for individual play and one for raid groups. You can have the raid group settings lower to keep the FPS at a playable level.
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

BlitzenZeus to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
I've seen wow have playable fps on a nvidia 620 on a 1080 monitor, it's not even classified as a gaming card, but that was before the latest expansion. You don't need a really powerful card for wow.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

said by BlitzenZeus:

I've seen wow have playable fps on a nvidia 620 on a 1080 monitor, it's not even classified as a gaming card, but that was before the latest expansion. You don't need a really powerful card for wow.

Yes but what were the settings? I specifically want the view distance (or draw distance) to be as high as possible and I know from previous experience that setting has a large impact on framerate. I agree that I don't need a very high end card to make this work (the 280x and such I've been contemplating should let me run with every setting maxed most likely) but I think I need a better card than the 620 (at that point, I might as well just use my integrated GPU).
JoelC707

JoelC707 to Weasel

Premium Member

to Weasel
said by Weasel:

On the topic of raids, I don't know if you have looked at their video settings, but at some point (might have been this xpac, I don't know), they added a feature where you can have two sets of video settings: one for individual play and one for raid groups. You can have the raid group settings lower to keep the FPS at a playable level.

You know, I remember that too now. I'll have to look into that. View distance isn't an issue inside a confined raid so that along with a bunch of other things can be turned way down. Spell detail is really the only thing that needs to be kept high in a raid from what I last remember.
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

BlitzenZeus to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
I'm going from memory here... Ultra distance/objects, bilinear filtering, good textures, projected textures, good water rendering(the one where you could see into the water), and lower however not minimum setting for spell details. The other fluff was turned down, and raiding was fine. Effectively is was a custom minimum setting with only what you needed turned up. So anyone with a mid-range card of any kind should have no problem pulling good fps with some eye candy turned on.

Some people were raiding on intel gpus, not the new 4xxx models, but the old 2/3xxx ones. I can't imagine they had a great fps, but it was playable. I don't remember what it was anymore, but the 620 was like only 1.5 to 2x more powerful than the intel gpu.

Hell the 620 even ran some of the newest pc games, but yes with near minimal settings, the biggest difference was always disabling aa, and eye candy effects.
asdfdfdfdfdf
Premium Member
join:2012-05-09

asdfdfdfdfdf to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
if the 6870 is adequate then I think anything at 260X or 750TI (not to be confused with the 750) level and higher should be ok. A 270X(which is a rebranded 7870) should be much superior to a 6870.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Awesome! Am I going to benefit from more than 2GB of vRAM? Right now I have only 1GB and that was all that was in any of my other cards. I honestly don't know how to monitor video RAM usage to know if I need more or not.

Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN

1 recommendation

Ghastlyone to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
A potato could run World of Warcraft.

A 750ti would be plenty fine.
asdfdfdfdfdf
Premium Member
join:2012-05-09

asdfdfdfdfdf to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
2GB should be fine.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Well after playing around with it on the Intel GPU, it's actually playable. I get ~15 FPS with the preset slider at "good" (middle of the road) but bumping the view distance to ultra. Even with the slider all the way down at "fair" or whatever the lowest setting is I still get about ~25 FPS. Of course I can't see but 5 feet in front of me at that point but still. 15 FPS is low sure, but it's tolerable and preferred over the low settings. Oh and the separate raid/battleground option is present too.

I'm going to stick with the Intel GPU for now and keep an eye out for a hot sale coming up and grab something then.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

said by JoelC707:

I'm going to stick with the Intel GPU for now and keep an eye out for a hot sale coming up and grab something then.

Pretty much all the hot sales are out now. What's your budget?
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

That's what I was thinking, I've been browsing all the "pre-sales" and such this past week but didn't see many video card sales. I am currently starting to look though and figured if I didn't find anything now, I might on Monday. Budget is $200 tops as that's all I have currently and I've honestly been looking at $100-150 range (the 750 ti I've been eyeballing is about $130 on Amazon and I could probably get Best Buy to price match it (it's not exactly the same card but it's close enough that I don't think they will notice lol).

Amazon version: »www.amazon.com/EVGA-Supe ··· s=750+ti
Best Buy version: and their site is down.... basically it was the EVGA SC version but has the ACX cooler (though the box doesn't say ACX) instead of the single fan cooler.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

R9 280/280X (the old 7970) should be around $200 right now. That will last you for years and be substantially more powerful than the 750Ti (if memory serves, I believe it was at around 770ish performance levels)

R9 280 (= 7950) for $130 after MIR with Alien Isolation and Star Citizen for free. »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 14131570

R9 280X (= 7970) for $200 after MIR with Sapphire aftermarket cooler. »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 14202125

For bang-for-buck, I'd vote for the 280. The two free games brings the real price down even more.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

A quick search on Amazon reveals the 280x at about $230 and the 280 at about $200. I do have a $5 off cert at best buy, not deal breaking by any means but worth considering if I'm going to pay tax anyway (I have had to pay tax the last few times on Amazon).
JoelC707

JoelC707 to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:

R9 280 (= 7950) for $130 after MIR with Alien Isolation and Star Citizen for free. »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 14131570

That would be the one to do for sure. Haven't seen much about PowerColor, any opinions on them? Also, that has a 6-pin and 8-pin connector, I only have two 6-pin available. I could use the adapter, or can I just use the 6-pin (does it actually need the 8-pin)?

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

PowerColor is a decent brand. I'm confused about your post on Amazon and Best Buy--do you not intend to purchase the card from Newegg? $130 for a 280 + 2 free games beats pretty much any other deal out there.

The card has a six pin and an eight pin adapter. Per the photo on the product page, it comes with a something-to-8-pin adapter, it could be two 4 pin, or it could be a six pin.

If you want to be safe, you could get one of these:

• 6pin-to-8pin: »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 12200420
• 2x SATA-to-8pin: »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 12400105
• 2x Molex-to-8pin: »www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· G28N1565
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

I had previously been searching amazon (have prime) and as for best buy, as I said, I do have a $5 off coupon there and I know I can get them to match Amazon (probably Newegg too). Newegg is fine honestly. And yeah, after I posted that, I discovered the 6-pin to 8-pin adapter that's included (I first thought it was a molex adapter and I dislike those), that should cover the 8-pin needs.
JoelC707

JoelC707 to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

to Krisnatharok
I'm probably way over thinking this (that's what my fiance would say anyway lol) but here's what I'm coming up with so far.

I'm considering these three cards:
R7 260x - $79.99 after MIR
R9 270 - $109.99 after MIR There's also a HIS and PowerColor option for $10 less with progressively lower clocks
R9 280 - $129.99 after MIR

Here's the math I've been doing on them. I did two comparisons, one is a shader cycles/dollar (shader core count times core clock rate) and the other is passmark/dollar. Passmark does give a better "overall" view but may not consider differences in core speeds which is why I did both.

R7 260x - 896 shaders at 1075 MHz (no boost) and a passmark score of 3041.
Shader/dollar puts this one at 12040.
Passmark/dollar puts this one at 38.01.

R9 270 - 1280 shaders at 950-975 MHz and a passmark score of 4199.
Shader/dollar puts this one at 11055 - 11345.
Passmark/dollar puts this one at 38.17.

R9 280 - 1792 shaders at 855-960 MHz and a passmark score of 4674.
Shader/dollar puts this one at 11786 - 13233.
Passmark/dollar puts this one at 35.95.

Based on the shader/dollar, my best bang for the buck is the R7 260x or the R9 280 (only if it stays in boost). Based on passmark/dollar, the R7 260x or R9 270 is my best bang for the buck. I did gather data on others (750 Ti, 670, R9 285 and others) but they aren't price competitive like these three are.

I actually think the 260x's numbers are off as it lists the core clock at 1075 but AMD lists the stock clock at 1100 for that GPU so not only is it apparently running below stock clock, that card is supposed to be the OC'd version which is even more puzzling. I think it's actually supposed to be 1175 which would put it's shader/dollar at 13160 making it honestly the best choice all around. What do you think?

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

2 edits

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

That's not how you consider GPUS .... shaders and synthetic benchmarks don't really tell the whole story. I am going to type something that attempts to show you the real world difference between this range of cards.

Edit: OK, here's something that should help you out.

Methodology

I took two Anandtech reviews, one a review of the R7 260 and 265, which had benchmarks for the R7 260X, the R9 270, and the R9 270X. I then took a review of the R9 280X, which had benchmarks for the R9 270X, the HD 7950 Boost (aka the R9 280), and the R9 280X. I graphed the results for average frames per second for the games tested, and then normalized as a delta over baseline, which was the 260X in the first review, and the 270X in the second review. I always took the 1920x1080 benchmark with the highest quality presets.

Note that it is impossible to directly compare the two reviews, as individual settings are changed—the first review is looking at mainstream gaming video cards, the second review starts delving into enthusiast territory, which you can tell by the inclusion of a 2560x1440 resolution. The two reviews themselves are internally consistent, but the two reviews are not consistent to each other. For that reason, I change the average FPS to delta over baseline, and then used the average for each card to compare them against each other. To combine the two reviews, I used the average of the 7950 Boost (aka R9 280), which was only 106.3%, to combine the two.

Here are my results:

First review: 260 through 270X compared



Second review: 270X through 280X compared



To achieve the final table, I copy-pasted all models of the card available on www.PCPartsPicker.com and used the average price, as well as lowest price, to give you an idea of what was available.



EDIT2: delta increase in the above table is referring to the average performance, not the price.

So you can see the relative increases over the 260X. I would recommend a 270X or 280--the performance is not too different between the two, and the 270 just isn't powerful enough and the 280X is way too expensive. I think right around those two cards is your sweet spot.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Then tell me how I can objectively determine which one is the best bang for the buck....

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

Sorry, ninja edit. Read through what I posted. I think the 270X or 280 is your best option, depending on what sales are still going on and what model you can get.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Nice!!! Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the ones I used? I know the shader formula I did is probably a little whacky but it was the only way I could see to account for clock speed differences (it won't cross AMD/Nvidia lines but it should be valid within the same camp). I know it's not the entire story since you still have to consider memory bandwidth as well as memory capacity among other things. The passmark one was supposed to be the averaging one but is more subjective.

Let me see if I'm reading your tables right. The 270x to 280 is only a 6% increase in performance for a 10% increase in price? Or is the delta increase in the last table snippet a performance increase instead of price increase? I do see what you're saying about the two reviews not being cross-comparative since the 270x (present in both reviews) has significant changes between the two.

The 270 appears to be a massive 40% better than the 260x while the 270x appears to only be 12% better than the 270 (not bad for what appears to be just a clock speed increase in the 270x). If I got one of the better cooler cards (DirectCU II or Windforce for example) I could potentially close that gap myself, though I suspect the 270x has better binned parts.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

The delta increase column is based on the average performance.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Yeah, I saw your second ninja edit lol. So the 270 is a nice 40% increase over the 260x baseline but after that, the increases get smaller. The 270x is a 12% increase over the 270 and the 280 is a 10% increase over the 270x. That sounds like the 270 is the best one to get depending on price.

It looks like the Asus DirectCU II 270 is my best deal at the 270 level for $110. $120 is cheapest I see on Newegg for the 270x but it'll be $140-150 for a better card (MSI or Asus). And I'm looking at $130 for the lowest 280 or $160+ for a better clocked card. Of course, better clocked is subjective I think since I believe I can OC any of the lower ones too (to what level is unknown sadly).

So it looks like I'm paying at minimum $10 more and upto $30-40 more for the 270x over the 270. A $10 increase for 12% more performance isn't bad but 30-40 likely isn't worth it. Likewise, I'm paying at minimum $20 more and upto $50 more for the 280 over the 270. For an overall 22% increase, the low end is definitely worth it but again, maybe not at the high end.

I think I'm starting to see why she says I over think things LOL. Honestly I just want the best deal for the money, if that means the 280 so be it, but if that's something else I'd rather have that.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

You don't just want bang-for-buck, you also want acceptable performance. This is why we usually counsel that people buy the largest GPU their budget/PSU/case allows.

A slightly more efficient GPU that ranks higher on the bang-for-buck scale makes no difference if you can no longer get acceptable performance.

My advice is to get the R9 280, as the next big step up too much money.