Originally Posted by PontiacGTX
1.this point was exclusive for Bit_Reaper`s Reply
2.I only can buy 300 usd per year for onlines purchases so i saved 200 this year,plus 300 from 2015 are 500usd in total but I want a bit of future proof maybe r9 290 will be cheaper but the psu supply I will need would be a bit bigger for that I prefer new hardware,and stacked dram will brong 1000gb/s to the tabl. Maybe overkill for 1080p..oh well
3.well as I said I want a bit of futureproof.. dx12 is more like an answer to mantle to share gpu`s load with the cpu and maybe optimize some points of dx11.1
4.my point there was.which would be the effect of a bottleneck using a powerful gpu with an 120hz refresh rate
5.yes I bought 8gb ddr3 2133mhz with an i7 2600k and a z68 mobo
I am sorry that I posted to the wrong person, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
2.) I doubt the R9 290 will be less expensive, until possibly may be 3rd or more likely 4th quarter 2015, or 1st quarter 2016, the world economy is still in bad shape, so, R&D will depend upon how much money is floating around or available [look for increased taxes to eat into income of most people, and hope that more people find good jobs.
I expect several variations of the current PCB components, and possible slight changes to the GPU if the economy is in bad shape.
Prices have fallen for most cards already after they went up $150 dollars because bit miners were buying most of them. I purchased my R9 290 several minutes after they became available, the bad of that was no specialized coolers [reference design only], the good is I paid $400 dollars. Although I have a Sapphire card, MSI Afterburner works well.
Power Supply: buy quality. There are several good companies. I have a 650 watt [Corsair TX650M - semi-modular], and it has no problem providing enough power for my i5 3570K at 4.4GHz [it will easily do 4.6GHz, however it is not necessary] and overclock my R9 290 to core clock 1119MHz [with a 10% bump up in power] and memory overclock to 1401 [x4 = 5604]. I only use air for cooling, and as I mentioned, the video card is reference. I do not want water cooling to try to push clocks higher, I do not need it, in fact, I do not need more than 4.0GHz on the CPU and an extra 5% on the GPU to give me very high to maximum eye candy in games.
If you are going to be doing a lot of demanding benchmarks, I suggest a good 750 watt power supply, because heavy load benchmarks demand much more power than games. Hope that helps.
I do not see a bottleneck with the CPU if it is overclocked to around 4.2GHz to 4.4GHz, on games that use the CPU heavily [most games still do not use more than 2 cores, a few use 4 cores]. Current games are not slowed down with very high to max or ultra settings at 1920x1080 resolution if your 2600K CPU is running around 4.4GHz and an R9 290 overclocked by 5% [if you have good case cooling and good CPU and GPU cooling you can safely overclock an R9 290 by 5% [+10% is very easy to reach on a reference unit in a well cooled case].
Note that even though I overclock and use air, I do not push it so far as to cause damage, I keep a close eye on temperatures. I want my equipment to last a very long time.
4.) 120hz refresh rate:
The answer to that question is determined by the game you play, some are demanding on the CPU, some are demanding on the video card, some are demanding on both so, it depends on the games you play, though more and more are becoming GPU dependent. Look up your games, do a search [name of game] demands on CPU or GPU. With the proper CPU [ yours at 4.2 to 4.4GHz] the R9 290 does OK even on 4K screens, that is plenty of power compared to a 1920x1080 screen at 120 refresh rate. The R9 290 and 290X excel as resolution is increased, especially if slightly overclocked, an R9 290 is faster than the best GeForce currently on the market. Frame rates will drop, but not so much that you will find yourself playing in nothing but chop. Remember the current R9 290s use 4GB frame buffer [VRAM] and the bus speed is 512.
The following is not a very good example in that only one popular game [Battlefiled series] is listed, and this was done with early drivers and no overclock.
Take a look at 2560x1600 results [ = twice as many pixels as 1920x1080], this will give you a simple result of how demanding the number of pixels are at high res. This may not equal x2 refresh rate of 1920x1080 at 60 compared to 120 [my monitor's native refresh rate is only 60, not 120 so, I cannot quote you numbers]. I highly doubt doubling the screen size in pixels [resolution] will equal doubling the refresh rate because the latter is the speed at which the screen will draw at your native resolution, which should not be as demanding as high native resolution.
You may have to do some searching on the internet to nail this down.
I hoped that covered your questions, and you could read it, it is 1:30a.m here, atm.
Edit: More information, sorry, it is late here.
.Edited by Dan848 - 3/29/14 at 10:24pm