What Graphics Card should I buy?

tyr_13

Penultimate Amazing
tyr_13
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
18,095
Hi all, I haven't built a rig in a few years now, so I've kind of forgotten all my graphics card stuff. So what do you all consider a good card?

Right now I want to spend under $200 (which is probably more than I should spend, but I'm getting a bonus this year.) I'm not an uber gamer, but I do have to keep up somewhat with my buddies who love to play stuff like Left for Dead 2, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, etc.

My current rig is the HP Media Center m8457. I know, store bought, but I needed the monitor and it was a great price. It has the GeForce 6150SE nForce 430 chipset. The current card is the GeForce 8400 HD, which is nice because it has an HDMI port.

So what good PCI Express x16 cards do you all like?
 
ATI's 5000 series are currently the best video cards. The HD 5770 is $165-190 on Newegg.
 
Last edited:
I personally like the Nvidia cards as opposed to the ATI ones. Driver support seems a little more solid, especially for multiple-monitor setups. One thing to check, especially considering the price range you're looking at, is how much physical space you have inside your case. Some of the HP Media Center cases are a little tight, with a drive cage in line with the PCIe slot, making installation of some cards a little tricky. Most of the cards in the $150-$200 range will be pretty good sized cards, with a hefty cooler on them, and may not fit. Also, the HPs are notorious for providing the smallest possible margin for power supply amperage. You might want to budget some for a replacement PSU in addition to a video card. That aside, were it up to me, I'd probably go for an Nvidia GTS 250 at ~$150 and a replacement PSU at ~$50.

Something like these.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817159081

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125285
 
Thanks guys. Yeah, I thought about replacing the under powered power supply when I first bought it, but forgot about it. The case is a little tight, mostly due to the stupid Personal Media Drive Bay (which I have never seen anyone use ever). I'll likely take the chance to remove it.

I always used to prefer working with Nvidia cards, but as I said, I'm out of practice. That said, I will consider the ATIs anyway.
 
You want to spend around $200?

Then just go for the GTX 260 Core 216.

ATIs have HORRID drivers. HORRID.
 
I've been happy with my nVidia 9650GT (gig of ram on it) but it's not bleeding edge by any means.


ETA:

Also, I don't game and run linux or OpenSolaris (I have two of these one on ubuntu on on opensolaris.) But all 3d desk effects and openGL stuff I run runs flawlessly.
 
ATI is the way to go at the moment, they are by far the best value for money.
 
Radeon 5770 or 4890...easily the best cards for the money right now.
 
I bought a GT250, only to find it is just a slightly tweaked four year old chipset that is no better than what i already had. A total ripoff, and nvidia just lost a customer for the next card I buy. I'd go with those advocating a radeon.
 
a_unique_person said:
I bought a GT250, only to find it is just a slightly tweaked four year old chipset that is no better than what i already had. A total ripoff, and nvidia just lost a customer for the next card I buy. I'd go with those advocating a radeon.
Click to expand...

A GTS 250, or a GT 240?

For about $30-$40 more, you could get the GTX 260 Core 216, which is a value for the price.

And ATI cards usually have horrid drivers (unless something's changed recently).

ETA:

I'm aware the GTS 250 is just a tweak of the G92 chipset used in the GTS 8800 and GTX 9800+. But the comparable Radeon card, the 4870, will run you close to $180, instead of the $150 for the GTS 250.

And at that point, I think the better bet is the GTX 260 Core 216.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the Nvidia camp with a GeForce 8800 GTX (though my iMac Intel has an ATI card which works well). Nvidia typically has better drivers and offers better support of the hardware features. Although I'm not a gamer, I do utilize the 3D OpenGL support of the card near its limits for 3D CG. I also use a dual-monitor setup and, last I heard anyway, ATI hasn't figured out how to do it (or do it properly). That's not right.
 
kuroyume0161 said:
I also use a dual-monitor setup and, last I heard anyway, ATI hasn't figured out how to do it (or do it properly). That's not right.
Click to expand...

The newest ATI cards can do three monitors off one card, although I can't say how well it does it.
 
TriskettheKid said:
And ATI cards usually have horrid drivers (unless something's changed recently).
Click to expand...
Their drivers have been fine for the last 2 years I've been using them.
ETA:

I'm aware the GTS 250 is just a tweak of the G92 chipset used in the GTS 8800 and GTX 9800+. But the comparable Radeon card, the 4870, will run you close to $180, instead of the $150 for the GTS 250.

And at that point, I think the better bet is the GTX 260 Core 216.
Click to expand...
4890 is faster in most games while the 5770 supports DirectX 11.
 
I had to replace a blown up graphics card recently. I got an nvidia something for ~£28. That was still more powerful than the dead card.

ETA:The dead card before it was dead, you idiot!
 
TriskettheKid said:
You want to spend around $200?

Then just go for the GTX 260 Core 216.

ATIs have HORRID drivers. HORRID.
Click to expand...

There was a time 10 years ago that ATI had driver problems with one of their cards. NVIDIA fanbois keep saying it ever since as if it's still true for every card they put out, which it is not.

If you prefer NVIDIA fine, but please try keeping the invented bs to yourself.
 
Molinaro said:
There was a time 10 years ago that ATI had driver problems with one of their cards. NVIDIA fanbois keep saying it ever since as if it's still true for every card they put out, which it is not.

If you prefer NVIDIA fine, but please try keeping the invented bs to yourself.
Click to expand...

Nope, I can confirm this with first-hand experience ongoing. I've got 2 primary work machines here, one quad-monitor setup running off an ATI 4870 x2 and a dual-monitor system running off of an Nvidia 9600GT. They're otherwise identical Dell Optiplex 740s, with AMD Athlon X2 4600s, both clean installs of Windows 7, video drivers current as of November 8. The quad-monitor machine is intended to be the primary productivity desktop, but the extremely slow video performance on 2 of the screens makes it almost painful to use. 2 screens are set to portrait orientation and 2 to landscape; the portrait screens are so slow to update that i can move a window with the mouse and wait a good 2-3 seconds before it starts to follow the mouse. Some programs simply do not recognize mouse clicks when on a non-primary display on the ATI setup. Finally, resuming from a screensaver takes a good 15 seconds to refresh the screens, blanking and showing the desktop several times before finally giving me a usable desktop.

Thus, the Nvidia dual-monitor setup. For 3 of the vital programs we run, one a Redback monitor for our DSL lines, a Calix fiber management console, and a Televantage softphone client, the ATI setup is just too unresponsive and unreliable. The quad is used for Word, email, ticket tracking, and low-importance tasks, the dual is the workhorse, exactly the opposite of what was planned when the video cards were ordered.
 
Last edited:
I have 2 monitors on a 4870 and no problems at all ..

I tried to Google problems with ATI and 4 monitors, and did not come up with any pattern of there being problems with such a set up ..
I would think if ATI had pervasive driver issues, the word would be out ...

Are you using the ATI Hydravision utility, or just the Windows display manager ?

Was this a clean install, or was there another video set up running before you installed the two ATI cards ?


How do you know quad monitors running on 2 x NVIDIA cards would not present similar problems for you ?
 
Sounds like that's probably a bit big of a budget for what you're trying to do.

I play Bioshock, L4D, Fallout 3, even Crysis (in reduced resolution, admittedly) on my positively ancient GF8600M GT / 512. That's the mobile version, no less. Typically not at cranked detail levels, but from what I can tell, the visuals match what I see on the Xbox 360 pretty well, again sacrificing some resolution.

I'm not too hip with graphics hardware developments, but I do know that there have been a few generations since my card. What's that old rule of thumb? Get the previous generation flagship or one tier down, that should be a deal by now.

Also, if you can find a nice last-gen card at a steal, you could consider upping your system RAM for the rest of the money. That might give you better performance than a current top-of-the-line gfx card alone.

ETA: Note that it could also be that I'm just easily amused, eye candy-wise. The most twitchy game I play is L4D, and framerate shouldn't be a problem in that one, given that you can turn it down to Pac Man fidelity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom