$250 video card upgrade.. what to get?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
What is the best bang for the buck as far as video card upgrades right now? I am looking to spend ~250 but no more than $300.. I currently run an overclocked Nvidia GTX275... I think it has 768mb of ram on it. CPU is a i7-2600k clocked at 4.6ghz.

Looking for something that will play BF3 good (Monitor is a 24" 1920x1200) as well as other games like Fallout and older games like TF2 and L4D2.. Current video card seems pretty good for FO and TF2 etc, but I want to upgrade before purchasing BF3.

Not interested in a SLI setup.. so I am thinking something like the GTX560 would be appropriate? I do like to overclock my video cards to get additional performance. How much ram should I look for? I see some people saying 1gb isn't enough for BF3?

I've been running Nvidia for a while now so I am not real familiar with ATI/AMD's lineup of cards. Is there something better on their side?
 
RussianSensation

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Sapphire HD6950 2GB Dirt 3 Edition + Free DeusEx game = $249.99 after MIR - $15 off using code: SPOOKY = $235. Offer ends today.

If you don't mind waiting, HD7000 series is rumored to launch within 2-3 months.
 
J

Jhatfie

Senior member
Jan 20, 2004
749
2
81
For under $250 the Dirt 3 Edition Russian mentioned is a pretty good card and also has a decent chance of unlocking with the flip of the bios switch.
 
Rhezuss

Rhezuss

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,118
34
91
HD 6950 2gb!
And if you're lucky you'll end up with a HD 6970 2gb with the simple flip of a switch!
 
Leyawiin

Leyawiin

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2008
3,204
52
91
HD 6950 2GB looks to be the best bang for the buck at that price point.
 
Termie

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Yup, 6950 2GB and you're done.

By the way, yes, BF3 uses more than 1GB of VRAM at max settings (that's ultra with 4xMSAA), but a single 6950 can't push those settings anyway (despite what people might claim, it's not going to be playable). Here are benchmarks in the single-player game: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-12.html

Multiplayer is more taxing, while also requiring higher framerates than SP to play. So, no, the 6950 (or really anything under a 580, really), won't play ultra settings, but the 2GB of VRAM is still nice in case you want to try high with MSAA or ultra without MSAA.
 
happy medium

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
Best bang for your buck is a gtx 570 if you find one for under 300$.

1920_Ultra.png
 
Last edited:
Termie

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
bryanW1995

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Today the 6950 2gb card is probably your best bet, but I'd hold off a week or two if you can as we head into the Black Friday selling season. Don't be surprised if you can get that same card for ~ $200 soon. And keep your eyes on gtx 480 deals as well, several of us just jumped on a galaxy gtx 480 for ~ $183 AR shipped from newegg.
 
Termie

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
happy medium said:
oooopps I was wondering why it was so cheap.,missed that

gtx570 the best bang card for BF3.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...359&CatId=3669
Click to expand...

The GTX570 is a better card than the HD6950, but it's neither $250 (OP's target) nor really a "bang for the buck" card. At $290 after a big $50 rebate, it's an OK deal but not an amazing value. I'd say an HD6950 2GB for $235 is a better "deal," but not a better card.

BTW, I'm clarifying this for everyone here as I have in other threads - those Tom's/TechSpot numbers are interesting, but not even close to accurate for MP performance. Based on my testing, MP is 20-25% slower than SP.

Facts:
(1) Multiplayer game: Single HD5850 @850/1200, 1920 high settings - 43fps
(2) Multiplayer game: Dual HD5850 @850/1200, 1920 high settings - 80fps
(3) Singleplayer game: Dual HD5850 @850/1200, 1920 high settings - 110fps

If anyone with an HD6950 or GTX570 is getting 60-65fps in multiplayer gaming at 1920/high, which is what TechSpot found in single-player, feel free to correct me. My guess is that those cards will hit 46-48fps (HD6950) and 50-52fps (GTX570), on average.
 
Last edited:
lehtv

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,897
74
91
happy medium said:
No for high quality the gtx460 Hawk overclocked for 120$AR is the best deal.
Click to expand...
So, a $120 GTX 460 Hawk is the best card for $250?
 
cmdrdredd

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Turn the MSAA off and watch the 6950 edge closer to the 570 for almost $100 less. MSAA hurts the AMD cards in a non crossfire configuration pretty badly. I don't know exactly why. However, MSAA is such a huge performance hit that I'd turn it down to 2x at 1920x1080 or above. Not worth it to cut the FPS so much IMO.

Many, if not all the Sapphire Dirt 3 edition and Toxic cards unlock to 6970 shaders with the Bios switch. Many of them overclock well too.
 
Last edited:
bryanW1995

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
cmdrdredd said:
Turn the MSAA off and watch the 6950 edge closer to the 570 for almost $100 less. MSAA hurts the AMD cards in a non crossfire configuration pretty badly. I don't know exactly why. However, MSAA is such a huge performance hit that I'd turn it down to 2x at 1920x1080 or above. Not worth it to cut the FPS so much IMO.

Many, if not all the Sapphire Dirt 3 edition and Toxic cards unlock to 6970 shaders with the Bios switch. Many of them overclock well too.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, 4xAA at any resolution is the standard. If AMD cards suffer there it's because NV did a better job this round at maximizing their resources. In the past, there were many times where AMD cards pulled ahead or gained ground with higher AA levels, why should we give them a pass time when they dropped the ball?
 
cmdrdredd

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
bryanW1995 said:
That's ridiculous, 4xAA at any resolution is the standard. If AMD cards suffer there it's because NV did a better job this round at maximizing their resources. In the past, there were many times where AMD cards pulled ahead or gained ground with higher AA levels, why should we give them a pass time when they dropped the ball?
Click to expand...

wow...um I don't know where to start so here goes...

Have you used MSAA in Battlefield 3? Have you noticed how soft and blurry the image becomes? That's not better graphics, and it still leaves tons of jagged edges. Further, do you know that MSAA drops an average of 10fps on Nvidia hardware too? That's very significant when you jump online. Cause you might go from 45fps to 55fps and that is quite a bit better experience in a competitive game.

Honestly when you start getting to 1920x1200+ the AA is much less noticeable in terms of image quality than at 1280x1024 or whatever. You might not agree, but I'm perfectly fine not running huge AA levels. You also didn't specifically mention MSAA implimentation. Battlefield 3 with it's way of doing MSAA is a huge resource hog for no reason. It's the only game where AA really slows down the fps on every card.
 
Last edited:
wand3r3r

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
I have the GTX 560 TI HAWK and have found performance to vary widely on different locations/fights etc. I use 1680x1050 and Ultra settings but in different situations I can easily have AA on up to 8x but in other maps I have to tone it down to 2x or touch another setting to avoid 30fps dips. It's hard to predict but in heavy firefights on certain maps I tone it down but occasionally I ramp it up and never dip below ~60.

It's "almost" stock 570 levels but I doubt even the 570/6950 2GB can really handle 1920x1080 with ultimate and 4x (was there 8x?) AA. I've been debating going SLI so I don't need to turn AA off ever and never have to see the rates drop.

In the single player mode it probably hits 100fps and in most locations it never drops to a crawl.
 
Last edited:
Termie

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
bryanW1995 said:
That's ridiculous, 4xAA at any resolution is the standard. If AMD cards suffer there it's because NV did a better job this round at maximizing their resources. In the past, there were many times where AMD cards pulled ahead or gained ground with higher AA levels, why should we give them a pass time when they dropped the ball?
Click to expand...

In general, I agree...either a card wins apples-to-apples or it doesn't, and with MSAA, AMD fails badly, but...

cmdrdredd said:
...

Honestly when you start getting to 1920x1200+ the AA is much less noticeable in terms of image quality than at 1280x1024 or whatever. You might not agree, but I'm perfectly fine not running huge AA levels. You also didn't specifically mention MSAA implimentation. Battlefield 3 with it's way of doing MSAA is a huge resource hog for no reason. It's the only game where AA really slows down the fps on every card.
Click to expand...

This. MSAA just isn't necessary in BF3 for a clean image at 1920. At either high or ultra settings, the graphics are just stunning.

wand3r3r said:
I have the GTX 560 TI HAWK and have found performance to vary widely on different locations/fights etc. I use 1680x1050 and Ultra settings but in different situations I can easily have AA on up to 8x but in other maps I have to tone it down to 2x or touch another setting to avoid 30fps dips. It's hard to predict but in heavy firefights on certain maps I tone it down but occasionally I ramp it up and never dip below ~60.

It's "almost" stock 570 levels but I doubt even the 570/6950 2GB can really handle 1920x1080 with ultimate and 4-8x AA. I've been debating going SLI so I don't need to turn AA off ever and never have to see the rates drop.
In the single player mode it probably hits 100fps and in most locations it never drops to a crawl.
Click to expand...

Be careful. You're probably hitting the VRAM limit, and SLI won't help you with that. I just jumped to HD5850 crossfire, and I use 930MB per card in high, 950MB per card in ultra/no MSAA, and blow the memory limit at ultra/MSAA, all at 1920.

But scaling is otherwise fantastic:
(1) Single HD5850@850/1200, multiplayer, high, 1920: 43fps
(2) Dual HD5850@850/1200, multiplayer, high, 1920: 80fps (I actually now run ultra/no MSAA with vsync on while gaming - and I get a constant 60fps).
 
Last edited:
wand3r3r

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Termie said:
Be careful. You're probably hitting the VRAM limit, and SLI won't help you with that. I just jumped to HD5850 crossfire, and I use 930MB per card in high, 950MB per card in ultra/no MSAA, and blow the memory limit at ultra/MSAA, all at 1920.

But scaling is otherwise fantastic:
(1) Single HD5850@850/1200, multiplayer, high, 1920: 43fps
(2) Dual HD5850@850/1200, multiplayer, high, 1920: 80fps (I actually run this with vsync while gaming - so I get a constant 60fps).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the memory usage is 100% in the 560 ti - 1008MB. Good to know SLI won't help, I guess I'll have to try upgrade at xmas. :)

I was actually debating that myself, if the memory is limiting fps, or if it's just programmed in such a way to use all available memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom