Pic related is an AMD R7 200 series graphics card. According to DxDiag...

It still should run games better than what OP describes.

I didnt mean to be a jerk, it's just my average demeanor.
When it comes to AMD cards, the ranking in cards goes like this: *95x2 is a special dual GPU card, then *90, *80, *70, *60 and below is not usable for video games. A capital X at the end usually means it has a higher core and memory clock than the other cards.
Your card was low end in 2013, the same year that Payday 2 was released. Generally, whatever game you want to play, and then compare it to the average tier video card of that year. If your card is less 'powerful' then you might have trouble running the game.

Video games can be an expensive hobby, but if you compromise somewhere between price and performance you can have an enjoyable time.

Go here for more info on this topic and choosing an appropriate card;
logicalincrements.com/

Would be a fair assumption if I don't run all my games on 1920x1080

Thank you for informing me. I wasn't intending to sound snappy in that reply, so I apologize if I did.

In all honestly it seems more logical to me to just get a new desktop instead of constantly replacing cards by now, even if it isn't cost-effective. The desktop I currently have is 6 years old with added RAM but the motherboard is very obsolete and some USB ports are already broken. I might just install the hard drives into the new one when I get it and call it a day from there.

Regarding that, I assume the NVIDIA GTX960 is a good card, correct?

The GTX960 isn't amazingly strong, however at 1080p it'll run anything as long as you don't try shit like 16x AA.

NVIDIA names their cards in a similar way. *90 being high, *80 mid, *70 low. *60 and below are for low tier and media PCs and office computers.

*70 is mid tier these days since they stopped doing the *90 cards.

That is true only for the 900 series cards. GTX 1090 is on the way.
logicalincrements.com/

Acknowledged. So then 980 would be better… and a 1080 would be best if I understand it correctly.

Anyhow, I can't stay any longer. I've got work to get to.

I'm going to leave the thread open for discussion instead of deleting it unless you guys vote otherwise.

But would you say the 1070 is a low end card? That fucking thing has more power than previous gen titans or the 980TI.

I got a R7 360 which is basically a overclocked 260x. I can run PD2 at max at 60 fps.

What card do you have? 200 series tells me nothing because it contains the 240, 250, 250x, 260 and 260x.

It's all relative and each generation has very different performance. For the 1000 series, the 1060 is the lowest and the 1090 is the highest. How would would you rank them relative to their series? I figure that the lowest was never intended for video games so i put it into a different category.

1060 is still a very good mid tier card, and performs better than the Rx 480 (according to the leaked benchmarks).

1060 is more expensive then the 480.
250 instead of 200, even worse in Europe.

I'm aware, and it's also stronger. They're both mid tier cards.

I'm considering upgrading from an r9 270 to an r9 380, is it worth it, or should I wait for the inevitable rx 480s with aftermarket coolers?

But the price doesn't make up for it, it isn't that much more powerful.

The 380 is a rebranded 285, I'd wait for the 480's.

don't buy new gpus until good games come out

Will do user

I got myself an rx 480 and it's been working great so far, I can't run Metro at 4k but I really didn't expect it to, If you're American the 480 is cheap as fuck so I would still advise that over the r9 380. If you want to wait or not, that's your decision.

why not play a good game instead. I have a PC with a Radeon 9600M that can play better games than Metro.

That's good to know. I'm not bothered about 4K right now anyway, seeing as I don't have a 4K monitor. Still, I've never been a fan of reference coolers, so I'll give until christmas to see if any get released with better coolers.

You fucked up, you fucked up bad.

Literally the same exact card with GDDR5 would be at the very least 30% faster, and that's just a generic figure you could probably get your FPS doubled in VRAM intensive games since the bandwidth is something like 30 vs 75 Gbps.

The card is performing as expected, it's just the DDR3 bottlenecking the shit out of it.

Why buy GPUs if you want to play good games?

It even runs unoptimized garbage like Evolve at 60 frames, it's pretty good for how cheap it is.

haven't upgraded my GPU since 2012, planning a mild upgrade but mostly focusing on cpu, ram, storage. Frankly PC gaming is a fucking joke with the retarded hardware prices, god awful ports and pathetic developer support. Not worth the time.

First time I upgraded since 2011, You should prioritize everything but GPUs at this point, they are way too expensive and even low range ones can run most games out there right now, unless they have a terrible optimization.
This is my current build of you want some reference.
Yeah I know, windows 8.1 is shit, I lost all my windows 7 copies and the only copy that a guy gave me that worked was 8.1, it was either that, a vanilla version of 7 or windon't 10

I'll be moving to windows 10 after using it on a laptop I recently bought. Very happy with it after tweaking it, and it's far better than win7.

Appreciate the reference, but I'm alright. Probably won't be upgrading for a few months, I do want to see how Zen turns out and how Intel responds.

It's not that it's a terrible OS, it's more about the stuff it does behind your back. Not sure how much of it you tweaked though.

There's been shit like this since XP. If they didn't get me for pirating the Matrix back in 2001, I don't think they'll get me for downloading sega saturn bin/cues now.

should've waited for an RX 460

Shitty graphics doesn't mean the game is going to run well. Payday 2 is probably one of the most unoptimized games I can think of.

sage for being a bit off-topic.