• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Best AMD video card around 40-45 watts?

G

GunsMadeAmericaFree

Golden Member
I was recently using a Radeon 6570 video card in my system, which got completely fried, so I'm replacing things.

We mostly play casual games, with the occasional older games with some 3D aspects (like King's Bounty - http://legend.kingsbountygame.com/screens.php) The Radeon 6570 worked fine for us, and I liked that it was passively cooled with a huge heatsink.

As an environmentalist, I have tended to simply use motherboards with onboard video in the past, though I will consider standalone video cards under 50 Watts total.

Here's what I've been looking at:

card watts processing power Gflops/Watt

Radeon 6570 44 Watts 640 Gflops 14.2 - ~$55
Radeon R7 240 30 Watts 467 Gflops 15.6 - ~$50
Radeon R7 250 65 Watts 768 Gflops 11.8 - ~$70

I have been considering buying another 6570, but it is kind of dated. I've listed the R7 250 as a comparison above, but I would not buy it because the Gflops/Watt efficiency has decreased quite a bit, and it draws well over my 50 Watt maximum.

My overall concern here is not the original purchase cost, but best Gflops/Watt I can get under 50 Watts max.

I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements in AMD's lineup when it comes to processing power at the 45 Watt area.

You can see the comparisons here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_Series

I'd prefer to get a newer card than the 6570, but it seems like all of the newer cards are actually less efficient. (less Gflops per Watt) I'm annoyed over the fact that the R7 250 has to draw almost 50% more power than the 6570, but only gives about 20% better performance.
 
Dont use gflops to determine gaming performance. Check benchmarks instead.

You should consider the GTX750 or GTX750Ti is budget is not an issue. They are roughly twice as fast as the 250 and uses roughly the same power.
 
Last edited:
GTX 750Ti currently offers the best gaming performance/watt. If budget is not an issue, then that would be your best choice. It uses roughly the same amount of power (or less) than the 250. Twice as fast, but also more than twice the cost.
 
ShintaiDK said:
A 260X is just silly. Its slower than a 750Ti, only 10$ less and 115W TDP vs the 750Ti 60W.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe certain parts of the press though.

This 260X for example can be had for $115, with 2 free games.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202081

For 5% slower and a bit more power draw, yet 30% cheaper with 2 games? I'd take the 260X frankly. The 750 Ti is a nice card but laughably overpriced.

Edit - obviously if staying around 65W total card draw is a must then the 750 Ti is the best choice by far, but otherwise the 260X is clearly better value.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you guys suck at actually answering the user's question. 115W GPUs? Just wow.

The R7 240 would be the answer to your question, but I would also recommend looking at modern integrated graphics. An Intel i3-4330T fits both a powerful dual core CPU and a good integrated GPU into just 35W. If power consumption is a real concern for you it's a great choice.
 
According to TPU the HD7750 GDDR5 consumes around 40W to 45W,so technically that would be the best AMD at around 40W to 45W.

This passively cooler refurbished HD7750 looks OK:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121812

However,maybe you might also want to consider the upcoming A8 7600 at some point too. It is configurable in either 45W to 65W TDP mode,and the IGP probably is faster overall all than a HD6570 GDDR3.

Interestingly the A10 7850K seems to support configurable TDP too:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_kaveri_tdp&num=1
 
Last edited:
SiliconWars said:
Only if you believe certain parts of the press though.

This 260X for example can be had for $115, with 2 free games.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202081

For 5% slower and a bit more power draw, yet 30% cheaper with 2 games? I'd take the 260X frankly. The 750 Ti is a nice card but laughably overpriced.

Edit - obviously if staying around 65W total card draw is a must then the 750 Ti is the best choice by far, but otherwise the 260X is clearly better value.
Click to expand...
The 260X is not a bad card, TrueAudio aside tho the 265 kills it with the 256bit bus.

You can find 7850s for $120 every once in a blue moon.
 
ShintaiDK said:
A 260X is just silly. Its slower than a 750Ti, only 10$ less and 115W TDP vs the 750Ti 60W.
Click to expand...



OCGuy said:
The obvious answer at this point is either the 750 from Nvidia, or going with a new AMD A10 Kaveri chip to combine your CPU/GPU:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113359
Click to expand...


The guy asked for AMD. Although the 750ti is great perf/watt it loses every single benchmark against the R7 265 at the same price point, and the 260X is cheaper and performs the same.


Nvidia really has nothing available that is adequate in the <$190. They're concentrating on fleecing their customers in the $500-1000 range.
 
NTMBK said:
He wants something in 40-45 watts. Why are you recommending a 7850.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand where people get these power requirement numbers. There is a very good change he could run a 265 or 270 without having issues with power. The only way to find out is to try it.
 
TreVader said:
The guy asked for AMD. Although the 750ti is great perf/watt it loses every single benchmark against the R7 265 at the same price point, and the 260X is cheaper and performs the same.


Nvidia really has nothing available that is adequate in the <$190. They're concentrating on fleecing their customers in the $500-1000 range.
Click to expand...

Ummm, to be clear, the OP states he has looked at some AMD cards, he never stated he wanted AMD only, I guess that would be your bias showing through!

You should know better than to post this garbage. Actually, I think you do know but refuse to resist. So be it. Infraction issued.

-Rvenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SolMiester said:
Ummm, to be clear, the OP states he has looked at some AMD cards, he never stated he wanted AMD only, I guess that would be your bias showing through!
Click to expand...

Ummm, to be clear, the TITLE of the thread reads "Best AMD video card around 40-45 watts?"


Looks like your bias, and lack of reading comprehension, both show through!


Next time when you come back maybe take our advice for once. Read the forum rules, personal attacks are not allowed and will never be.

-Rvenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TreVader said:
Ummm, to be clear, the TITLE of the thread reads "Best AMD video card around 40-45 watts?"


Looks like your bias, and lack of reading comprehension, both show through!
Click to expand...

Ooo, Your right, didnt see that!...I might have missed a word in the title, but bias?....please!
 
GTX 750 ti

GeForce-GTX-750-Ti-front.jpg
 
Last edited:
the 750ti is 2-3x the current budget the op is looking at from above. Even the the cheapest 7750's are still i think 70-80$
 
Hmm I don't want to party pooper here, but is the extra power draw really that substantial? I haven't paid attention to GPUs, but I'd think that draw only increases when you play a game (kind of like Intel/AMD chips down clocking at basic idle tasks). If you add up the hours a day that you play games that actually loads the GPU, I'd assume that its quite a small amount.

As others pointed out, Gflops isn't a reliable metric by any means. As time moves on, the low end discrete market will continue to experience attrition, and its all attributable to onboard GPUs.

Even at 115W...if you play 2 hours you are burning 0.2kWh; that isn't anything substantial. As long as you have good electronics practices (don't leave it un-necessarily on, calibrating your displays to reduce brightness, don't run Furmark 24/7 ;-)) you can probably hit 95% value in terms of impact.

At the same time, like others pointed out, technology is getting more efficient; I would imagine you should feel worse running older processors that draw more juice compared to today's more efficient systems.

Good luck!
 
frozentundra123456 said:
An i3 or an APU would be a good choice, but that would require a new cpu and motherboard most likely, depending on what the op has.
Click to expand...

But it is quite likely to be an older platform like LGA775, which will be much more power hungry than a modern two-chip solution like LGA 1150.
 
A advice of someone that reads tons of reviews to op: If you want the fastest low profile card you can buy, pick the 7750, even if the price is not good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top