New GPU!

[Hunter]

Nice.
I would have rather still stick with the GTX 760 as it has a 7% increase in performance.
mainly because a Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic Boost doesn't really compete with a EVGA GTX 760 SuperClocked.

The EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked has less core clock then the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic Boost, and the rest of the specs are equal (to both GPUs). How's isn't the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X better then the EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked?

[αяgуяσѕ]

The EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked has less core clock then the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic Boost, and the rest of the specs are equal (to both GPUs). How's isn't the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X better then the EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked?

You need to stop comparing based on core clock.
They both a completely different technology, it a lot better to go with a Nvidia card due to the fact that you can slight overclock it to beat the R270X.
You can go to any forums ask this same question and without a doubt most will tell you based on how much you can spend and the performance.
If you have the extra money its best to go with the GTX 760 because of its high performance technology. Whereas the R720X will only be really good for games that have mantle since mantle only works with AMD cards.

The choice is still up to you. Weather you have the extra money or not. If you did then it would've been good to get the GTX 760 SuperClocked.

[[MPGH]Doc]

The EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked has less core clock then the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X Toxic Boost, and the rest of the specs are equal (to both GPUs). How's isn't the Sapphire Radeon R9 270X better then the EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked?

Dude, I'm sorry you wasted money on that card without doing any kind of research. There's a reason why in most cases AMD CPU's never beat Intel CPU's on a clock for clock basis. The exact same goes for GPU's. I suggest you read up some more.

[Jew]

unless ur running 3 monitors in 4k.... i dont see why anyone needs more then 2 gig ram on a gpu

1080p is pushing 2gigs.
personal experience.

tripple 4k would need at least 20 gigs of vram.
not like you would get a playable framerate anyways XD

[daboi22]

Hate to burst your bubble but you would need a heck of a lot of horsepower to run 3 4K monitors in Surround/EyeFinity! There's also a lot more to doing SLI/XFire configs than the amount of VRAM the card has. You have to take into account the monitors you are using ie Resolution, Aspect Ratio, etc. I have a 2GB GTX 770 pushing out to a 29" UltraWide monitor and I can tell you now I could use more VRAM on my card because of the resolution and aspect ratio and that's just one single monitor.

u'll need 16 gigs of vram to run 4k triple monitors... i didnt knoe that up untill now... so I stand correted i quit giving a fuck before 4k became a thing... now unless his runing some ultra high reso with mutiple monitors I still dont think he needs more then 2 gigs or ram on a gpu. if his got a single monitor running on 1080p

[daboi22]

1080p is pushing 2gigs.
personal experience.

tripple 4k would need at least 20 gigs of vram.
not like you would get a playable framerate anyways XD

im running 1080p on a 3 year old card with 1.5 gigs of ram on it... no problem at all....