Was planing on replacing my bits with a 4.7 GHZ AMD, new board, 4GB Video and a couple other little goodies, but monitor blew, so spending a chunk on a new one instead.
Don't be fooled by the numbers, a 4gb video card means nothing if it is weak. That amount of ram is only useful on maybe a gtx680,780, or a radeon 290.
Don't use an AMD chip Gotrox. Intel is better for the number of things optimized for it, even if it is slower base speed. Once you get the chance to replace it anyway.
Zoli, what you mean by 4gb is only useful on a 680 780 or 290. Especially the 290. Sure, a card needs to be fast also, but 4gb vram is still useful if you need a card that can bear load but not run things very fast. And the radeon 290 is a piece of shit.
I suppose the card is for gaming, not a single game requires more than 2gb videoram in full hd. If you use 2 monitors, sure, but then you might want to get 2 cards. Getting more ram won't do anything for you if you don't use it neither system or video. Some of the "weak" cards have a ton of vram, very slow ones. No point in that, its just marketing. You are right about Intel is better than AMD, but I don't know what is your problem with the 290, its a nice card, if you get...
ut now, the most expensive card we can get behind is the $140 Radeon R7 260X. Above that, Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 claims the recommendation right under $200, displacing the Radeon R9 270.
My only problem with the 290 is that it broke down a lot, at least the one I've used. Other than maintenance, I love it. And you're probably right about the x version being worse.
AMD all the way for me.
Intel/Gforce left a bad taste in my mouth (and a fat wallet fixing others boxes) throughout the 90's.
Never going back. Of course, Intel has it's fanbois---just a matter of personal opinion.