So recently I have been deciding on what I should get. Obviously both of these are extremely similar in performance and it comes down to the features that you get from either.
Which brings me to my question: Would it be worth the extra $20 to get access to Shadowplay and PhysX? (I do want to do streaming and recording.) And are there any other notable features from either card that should be considered for gaming/recording/streaming to Twitch?
Here's my build: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/LsgjBm
So if anyone has suggestions on the other parts of the build, that's be helpful too. But I am happy with everything as is, which is why I am mainly asking about the GPU.
I would recommend the 770 over the 280x, It has slightly better performance IMO. If your going to be streaming I would suggest the Shadowplay and Physx can be useful too. Nice build btw, should get you along great for years to come!
I have a 770 and I don't advise you to purchase based on first-party features, rather on actual game performance.
Check with whatever games your playing on multiple websites that aren't very biased (hardware canucks, 3dgameman, overclock.net) and make your decision based on that. If heat and noise is a problem for you the go with nvidia, it's better at this department.
Generally the 280X option ought to be a lot more than $20 cheaper, but I guess you've hunted down the best options. The GTX 770 performs well but might be a bit thin on graphics memory as a long term solution with 2GB. GTX 770 editions with 4GB are quite near R9 290 territory on price, which would offer more performance.
I have no experience with live streaming, but there seem to be more ways than Shadowplay to offload most of the encoding work to whatever graphics part just like when recording gameplay.
You can usually get a 280x for a lot more than $20 cheaper especially now since the ass has fallen out of the coin mining and AMD are cutting the prices all over the place.
There are ways to do Shadowplay type video caching/streaming with AMD cards, PhysX is not overly used at all any more and in most cases is dumped on the CPU anyway. For things like the Nvidia streaming Steam are working on it for general use and G-Sync is long dead.
So strip away almost all the Nvidia Killer features and they stack up pretty close, it comes down to the games and how they were made, so the price for me becomes the deciding factor and for that AMD wins out hard.
Look at what game youy play (I know other say this but its most important and they are correct)
Look at your resolutions typically if you like to run at a high res like 1440 or above or 2 screens a single ATI based car will often beat out the equivalent Nvidia card (due mainly to the extra RAM I believe). But if on a single 1080p monitor often the Nvidia will win. And if you are planing on future SLI or Crossfire apps they scale differently , I like the Nvidia for SLI. But that's my preference based on my games and uses. Also I don't really care for the ATI software just my personal feeling no real reason. On a single screen I like the GTX better , if some how you can find a great deal on a 4GB 770 then I really like the GTX better. Mind you on a single screen at 1080p the extra RAM in a 4gb vs 2gb 770 will do very little for you , it helps on higher res monitors like 1440p and up screens.
The 280X is faster most of the time. You also get Mantle support which can help out in some.games depending on your system. It is usually cheaper too and you get more VRAM which helps at higher resolutions and in some games.
Shadowplay is nice but there are alternatives and the rest of the nVidia features are gimmicks IMO. GeForce experience is silly. You can stream games in Steam. PhysX is a joke. It is hardly used in any games anymore and can be offloaded to the CPU and usually is.
i would go with the 280x, because in terms of performance, they perform realy close, but mostly the 280X is cheaper then a 770 2GB, and with the 280X you get 3GB of vram, 1GB vram extra could never hurt.
It really can't be a matter of opinion when it comes to performance..... it's either better or its not. or extremely similar to the point where it doesn't even matter.
Yeah I totally agree. But my question was mainly, is there any reason for me to pay the extra $20 for some of Nvidia's features. Which, so far, its sounding as if I should not. I do definitely plan on streaming and recording, so Shadowplay is VERY intriguing.
Haha, I actually had someone telling me the opposite. I was told to decide (because the GPUs were so similar in performance) between the different software offered.
According to a very helpful post: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1041?vs=1037
This shows me that at many points, the 280x gains a few more frames than the 770, but also vice versa. Which brings me to the fact that the 280x seems more well-rounded. Not only can it game, but it can do video rendering for me faster than the Nvidia card. Besides, it seems like I'd have more than enough power to sacrifice a few frames for recording without Shadowplay.
Anyone ever record on something similar to my build?
I don't really think GeForce Experience has any good features accept Shadowplay. Even then there are alternatives and the 8350 excels at streaming so it is debatable if it is even needed.
Just saying on your build the motherboard you chose is pretty bad I'd recommend the Asus M5A99FX Evo/Pro. You could also probably find some cheaper RAM. You also really don't need an optical drive.
I agree with that. the 8350 already is pretty good for streaming, so why should I pay more for something that negates that feature in the first place. Plus, the $20 can go into the MOBO. I had heard good things about the gigabyte 970 (such as it being useful for overclocking because something about having the same number of phases as a 990fx MOBO. I'm not experienced with overclocking as you can tell.) but I now have that $20 to spend into another category. Plus maybe taking out the optical (there are a few things I might need it for, just depends on whether I judge it to actually be worth it in the first place.)
EDIT: What exactly IS the difference between 970, 990x and 990fx?
GTX 770 if you want PhysX. Otherwise, they're both neck-on-neck performance wise, and with the exception of PhysX and TressFX 2.0, they have similar features.