This was posted 11 years 5 months 20 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

VTX3D Radeon HD7950 X-Edition with Boost 3GB - PCCG $269+P/H

260
VTX3D Radeon HD7950 X-Edition with Boost 3GB - PCCG $269+P/H
Go to Deal
Cashback
L[Deactivated] on 03/06/2013 - 02:11 pccasegear.com (793 clicks)

Pretty good bang for your buck card.

Cheaper to select StarTrak express shipping i believe.

Should be able to run most games at max settings @60fps/1080p except the "amazing" Metro Last Light, Crysis and a few other titles.

Reminder this is the boost edition. Add overclocking to this card and it'll perform pretty damn well for its price.

You can see it being benchmarked against a GTX 770 here @1080p. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAbBU43mpo

"Reduced to clear! The VTX3D Radeon HD7950 3GB has a core clock speed of 880Mhz with 3GB GDDR5 of memory at 5000Mhz. Includes a powerful dual fan aftermarket X-Edition cooler. Outputs include DVI, 2 x Mini DisplayPort and HDMI. Model: VX7950-3GBD5-2DHXV3. 2 year warranty."

Computing Computer Component Video Card VTX3D

Related Stores

PC Case Gear
PC Case Gear

closed Comments

  • bentan77 on 03/06/2013 - 03:42
    +3

    If you buy one or any mid range or better Radeon

    http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/never-settle/Pages/nsreloaded.…

  • carboncider on 03/06/2013 - 03:54
    +2

    An email reply from PCCG sales regarding never settle bundles:

    Hi Callistus,

    We can confirm that all of our HD7950’s do come with the bundles, if you were to order now we are able to source them however you will need to email [email protected] to get one of these codes once your order has been shipped J.

    Best regards,

    Jereon – PC Case Gear
    PC Case Gear Pty Ltd | 18 – 20 Glenvale Cr, Mulgrave VIC 3170
    Tel: 03 9560 2122 | Email: [email protected]
    Web: www.pccasegear.com.au

    Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 6:58 PM

  • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 06:02

    This would be a pretty top notch graphics card, though I'm not sure the 3 GB is necessary for a 7950, 2 GB would probably be enough. 3 GB is probably better for a 7970 or better.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/06/2013 - 06:49
      +28

      Good work, I will let the AMD engineers know

      • foobar on 03/06/2013 - 07:02
        +1

        To think that AMD and all of these card manufacturers have been doing it wrong all this time. Turns out all we needed were 2GB versions.

      • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 07:02
        +5

        I assume you are being sarcastic and have no intention of contacting anyone so you can look witty?

        I remember when picking out my 6950 1 GB, looked at the 6950 2 GB and people were saying get the 2 GB! The problem is, like people thought higher GHz always equals faster processors, people seem to think that more RAM equals better performance. However the price difference between 2 GB and 1 GB at the time was 23% while the performace difference was less than 5% on average and only 1 game got 7% performance increase with 2 GB.

        In relation to my comment, I was thinking of the OP's comment of Bang for Buck. A cheaper 2 GB version would have been nice. This is OzBargains after all, not Champion Gaming Site.

        Cheer up people, I know its Monday morning.

        • HeXa on 03/06/2013 - 08:37

          79xx series don't have a 2GB option…. they could have done 1.5GB, but that would be stupid for their high end

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 09:58
          +2

          I thought a 2 GB option would have been a good idea, looking at benchmarks the difference between RAM is not as great as people have been lead to believe by the marketing of the manufacturers.

          Below are real benchmarks of the 6950 1 GB and the 6950 2 GB, very little difference between them, only when you get to 2560 x 1600 and 4 x AA do you see a difference. So why would triple the amount of RAM on a 7950 compared to the 6950 make a big difference? It wouldn't. Sure the 7950 is faster, but is it 3 x faster? Of course not.

          Nvidia sports cards with 1.5 GB RAM and they do very well, so why do people think that 3 GB will suddenly make their graphics improve dramatically?

          http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-bench…
          http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/11/amd-radeon-hd-69…

        • foobar on 03/06/2013 - 10:07
          +1

          It's not necessarily about speed, it's about progress. Many recent games can actually use more than 2GB already, larger higher definition textures etc. As an example, Skyrim with all addons uses something like 2.5GB of VRAM, and then there's people that game on 2 or more monitors which can require insane resolutions which of course requires more VRAM.

          The single GPU GTX Titan has 6GB onboard and it might not be too long at all before that's needed.

          Here's the first two results from doing a quick search on the subject -

          http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1696720

          http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1684865&mpage=1&print=t…

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 10:14
          +1

          Yes, but when you look at bang for buck is the GTX Titan with 6 GB a good deal? No. Would the GTX Titan perform very similar if it had 3 GB of RAM? I bet it would.

          People who have screens at 2560 x 1600 or higher probably care about more RAM, which is good for them. But when you are looking at bang for buck and you are using a monitor at 1920 x 1080 /1920 x 1200 then why should you care about more RAM over a faster card? You wouldn't.

          The 7970 performs a lot faster than the 7950 despite also having 3 GB of RAM showing that the limiting factor isn't RAM. For most games would the 7950 perform slower at 1080 with 2 GB of RAM? Yes, but marginally I am willing to bet. I'd bet the cost difference between a 2 GB and 3 GB model would be greater than the performance difference.

          Can you tell me you don't think there would be a market for a 2 GB version of this card that would be a great bang for buck card?

          -Edit-

          As for Skyrim, I am aware. I do use mods on Skyrim but after usings Bethesda's High Definition DLC and a few other graphical mods my 1 GB is at its limit. That does not take a single thing away from the fact it was a great bang for buck card and that I can still play the latest PC games are bloody good graphics quality.

          All the charts you can produce will not take anything away from that.

        • Skinnerr on 03/06/2013 - 10:26
          +2

          I doubt you even know what vram on a gpu is for, so passing judgement on it is like me passing judgement on why ladies need to spend so much on makeup

        • foobar on 03/06/2013 - 10:32
          +2

          Can you tell me you don't think there would be a market for a 2 GB version of this card that would be a great bang for buck card?

          I think there's already too many cards in the lineup now, the 2GB 7870 is probably not too far below the 7950 performance wise, something a mild overclock could possibly solve, and would be my card of choice if I wanted a 2GB Radeon.

          Revisiting the subject of speed, I believe the 2GB cards have 256bit memory access where the 3GB cards have 384bit actually making them significantly faster in overall VRAM bandwidth.

        • HeXa on 03/06/2013 - 10:39
          +5

          the 79xx series uses a 384-bit memory bus, which means a proper config of 1.5GB or 3GB

          the lower end cards from AMD use 256 or 128 bit, so allow 1/2/4GB options for manufacturers.

          understand the hardware capabilities before making assumptions about what is "best"

        • Aragami on 03/06/2013 - 10:46

          Your posts were sh*tting me to the extent that i created an account on this site even though i had been using it for the past 2 or so years without creating one - thanks.

          This last post you made unfortunately made the most sense of everything you've said and peeved me off the least. Should new graphics cards have as much ram as possible? - yes. Is there a market for GPU's with lesser amounts of ram in order to make the GPU cheaper and more affordable whilst only losing marginal performance - yes/maybe.

          If someone is spending 300$ on a GPU already, then chances are they have a decent monitor or multimonitor setup - hence the need for high amounts of vram. If someone wants to spend 100-200$ on a GPU, then they should look at non-enthusiast grade GPU's (as defined by AMD's GPU structure when they released the tahiti series - 7000 series). So in other words, buy one of the 78XX's or 77XX's if you're on a budget, thats where the budget market is.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 10:57

          Hey Hexa, how do people learn things? Either from testing or being informed by someone who knows. I was, until your comment, not aware that you couldn't use 2 GB of RAM when using a 384-bit memory bus. I had basic understanding of what the memory bus was for, I didn't realise the limitations it caused by changing it.

          Nvidia has so many differeny variants of RAM, I incorrectly assumed you could use nearly any combination of RAM. However I noticed they use a memory bus of 380-bit in some cards, so that is why they have different values of RAM.

          If you also look at my posts, where have I shown any hostility? Yet look at what I got back. I'm glad HeXa helped my understanding of this, but I am disappointed a little in people here in general.

          I take back everything I said, this card is perfect as a 3 GB card!

        • Aragami on 03/06/2013 - 11:00

          This does not particularly change your arguement, by your logic, they should make a 1.5gb edition.

          Edit: FYI, it's not about hostility, its about integrity. When someone posts something here looking like they know what they're talking about - other less informed people will read your comments and take them for hard facts, hence spreading incorrect information. If you had worded your earlier posts in a more inquisitive fashion then the responses you'd receive would be much more respectful and educational without malice.

          Extra edit: Heck, as an extra bit of info since i forgot to post it earlier, an important consideration for AMD GPU's is the fact that they have this lovely thing called "Eyefinity". It's their brand of multi-monitor display driver and because it's so amazing, it can support 4 monitors on the one GPU - i believe this is true for the 69XX and 79XX series from AMD (not sure about other models from AMD). In order to support that many monitors, AMD knew they would have to pack as much ram on these GPU's as possible.

          Conversely, Nvidia GPU's from the 4XX, 5XX series only support 2 monitors each.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 11:07
          -1

          Aragmi, so the investment in my 6950 1 GB at the time was a poor choice for my 1920 x 1200 monitor? I can play the latest games, some with graphical mods to add the graphics but I should have went for a 68xx series card instead? I would disagree.

          As for my logic, my logic dictates you get rid of the biggest bottleneck first. If the amount of RAM wasn't the biggest bottleneck, then why add more? However, thanks to HeXa and no one else, it is irrelevant.

          -Edit-

          To your edit, you mean the part where I said "not sure" and "probably". You mean, people would take obvious guesswork as serious hardcore facts? Plus I plussed this deal from the start as I thought it was a good deal price wise.

          -Extra edit-

          Why are you carrying on since I've already been proven a fool?

          If we are debating my logic, then I am fully aware of it and I'd state that not everyone wants Eyefinity or uses it. That is why I wanted a 2 GB model as an alternative. Someone like me who has one monitor at 1920 x 1200 it is better to have a faster card than more RAM, however since the RAM comes in lumps of 1.5 GB then I'd state 3 GB is an awesome amount of RAM to have with the speed of the card.

        • ZRXS12 on 03/06/2013 - 11:17

          Personally I wouldn't consider a 1920x1200 to be anything special.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 11:19
          -1

          Who does?

          -Edit-

          That was my point, a 1920 x 1200 wouldn't need lots of RAM. Someone with 2560 x 1600 or higher would want it. But it is irrelevant now.

        • Aragami on 03/06/2013 - 11:46
          -1

          For the sake of making this easier to read, ill label points:
          1: 6950 1gb for a single 1920x1200? Not a problem, even for multimonitor this is fine. But you're limited, you won't be able to play 1920x1200 at max settings with an extra monitor attached as well not to mention any resolution higher than this - thats why i personally wouldn't go down this route. For you personally - seems to be the right choice if you're happy to stick to 1x 1920x1200 forever or change GPU's later down the track.

          For me: i personally have a 6970 and i'm glad i bought it. I've used 1920x1200 multi monitor setups with it whilst at max settings and resolutions whilst in games. As well as a bit later, using bigger monitors at 2560x1600 res whilst managing to pull through max settings as well on very recent games. The 6970 is much more flexible and as someone who likes to play games on the highest settings at great resolutions, as well as having multi monitor setups - i simply cant get the 6950 1gb, it won't work.

          2: (the first edit response) Won't bother responding to this, sorry. Just don't care to argue it.

          3: (to the second edit) Wasn't carrying on, i was simply adding more information to my post which i had forgotten in a previous post since i thought it was very relevant info to people reading who might not know about the 2 monitor limit on nvidia GPU's.

        • Lukian on 03/06/2013 - 11:54

          @Arigami, incorrect, the 6xx and newer series of nvidia (excluding the very low end models) support 4 simultaneous outputs.

        • Aragami on 03/06/2013 - 11:58

          ty for the correction, will edit above comment

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 12:41
          -1

          Aragami,

          What do you think you are telling me? I stated myself, that more RAM is better for mulitple monitors or for a single high resolution monitor in my posts. Please read through them. Your 2 first paragraphs tells me nothing, I haven't already said above.

          My 6950 1 GB has unlocked shaders and is overclocked to 6970 speeds, currently works well for my 1920 x 1200. Some AMD cards support 6 monitors off of 1 GPU. So despite the fact I was wrong on the 384-bit memory bus, does it seem I am totally clueless?

          My thoughts were simple, 1 GB less of RAM on the GPU for a better bang for buck card for those who have 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 monitors. You even agree that my 6950 1 GB is fine for my 1920 x 1200 monitor yet you joined in, so logically if a 6950 1 GB is fine why wouldn't a 7950 2 GB be fine also? Other than the small/tiny/insignificant detail of that it can't exist.

          To the point you don't want to disucss:
          "though I'm not sure"
          "2 GB would probably be enough"
          "3 GB is probably better "
          "A cheaper 2 GB version would have been nice."
          "I thought a 2 GB option would have been a good idea""
          "screens at 2560 x 1600 or higher probably care about more RAM"
          "using a monitor at 1920 x 1080 /1920 x 1200 then why should you care about more RAM over a faster card? "
          "would the 7950 perform slower at 1080 with 2 GB of RAM? Yes"
          "I'd bet"
          "Can you tell me you don't think there would be a market for a 2 GB version of this card that would be a great bang for buck card?"

          "If you had worded your earlier posts in a more inquisitive fashion" Where are the demands? Where are the brash statements?

        • ozhunter on 03/06/2013 - 12:49
          +3

          I'm going to need more popcorn.

        • Aragami on 03/06/2013 - 13:28

          Not sure what you're saying anymore, to be hoenst you're wasting my time. I have a feeling you think i have a personal vendetta against you, but i dont. I simply wanted the correct facts to be displayed for people to read, I'm not here to argue against you, im here to state my opinion based on what i think - not based on whatever is the opposite to what you said.

          Stop being a goose and move on.

        • bentan77 on 03/06/2013 - 13:34

          Comparison between 1GB and 2GB

          1% difference at 1200p
          63% difference at 1600p

          http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7850_SCS3_p…

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 13:47

          You created an account specifically to comment on me, then keep making comments on my comments, even one that was not directed at you, then say I'm wasting your time.

          Are you ill? Which fact of mine did you correct?

          I keep commenting because I always dislike in a dicussion when someone is proved wrong they run off and don't answer. I was incorrect, I admit it and I'm not hiding from my mistake.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 14:17

          Hi BenTan77, I've stated a few times more RAM is important for higher resolutions. I've already included links for that.

        • ZRXS12 on 03/06/2013 - 15:29
          +2

          Must have missed that in amongst all the other dribble.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 16:04
          -1

          Glad you read all the dribble though!

          -Edit-

          I prefer using the word drivel, makes you sound like a more intelligent troll. :D

        • kasp on 03/06/2013 - 16:48
          +2

          Most games won't touch that extra Gig of memory but there will be the odd game that does so it's good they have put it in there.

          However the most obvious reason they have extra ram is their Eyefinity feature which they are constantly pushing. How bad would it look with one of their top tier cards starts falling ass over tit when using eyefinity not because the card isn't capable but the amount of memory limits it. They would be destroyed in the reviews.

          Crossfire also actually comes into this equation as well so they don't want to be shooting themselves in the foot just to shave a tiny amount off the cost of the card.(Which they are already destorying nvidia in the bang for buck department) So someone decided to crossfire and purchases two of these cards so they can max out graphics settings to happen all to useless because crossfire will only use the 2Gb of ram so it is a wasted exercise.

          AMD knows what they are doing with their cards.

        • FabMan on 03/06/2013 - 17:22
          -1

          I like the logic about Eyefinity, thanks. I also realised the limitations of crossfire when I looked into it for extending my 6950 1 GB to crossfire.

        • 2024 on 03/06/2013 - 18:42
          +1

          So more gigabytes means more pew pews for my call of duties or less??

      • serideth on 03/06/2013 - 15:34
        +1

        The extra ram helps when using Eyefinity and multiple monitors. So yes it is useful to have 3GB of RAM in this card.

    • Yuri Lowell on 03/06/2013 - 15:13
      +1

      You're probably right but people were saying the same thing when AMD started releasing 2GB cards with the 6950 and 6970 and now 1GB is considered not enough for most 1080p modern games like Crysis or Battlefield. There's also only a tiny difference between a 7950 and 7970, even a small overclock to the 7950 will take it past the 7970 in terms of performance.

      Basically; 3GB may not be that relevant now if you're running a typical resolution like 1080p but it wouldn't hurt if you plan to keep the 7950 for a few years when games get more demanding.

  • millionairebargainer on 03/06/2013 - 07:29
    +1

    This is a really good deal, especially with the aftermarket cooler. I only recently purchased the 7870 around this price.

  • ozhunter on 03/06/2013 - 07:53

    Tempting to get this or the Asus 7950, this is better value(around $70 cheaper excluding shipping) but the Asus version from reviews runs cooler and quieter.

  • jackthefrost on 03/06/2013 - 15:12
    +1

    "StarTrak express shipping"?

    What if it gets lost in the Milky Way?

  • ChickenAdobo on 03/06/2013 - 15:30

    Would buy this card if i didn't have an 7870 OC already. (This card is better i know)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join