Best graphics card for around $250

[akugami]

Originally posted by: offspringfan23
Is it true that the ATI drivers are bad?

so far out of this list, which one would be the best?

https://secure.newegg.com/Wish...etail.aspx?ID=15190267">https://secure.newegg.com/Wish...etail.aspx?ID=15190267</a>

Contrary to popular FUD, ATI drivers are not really that bad. They work very well in most situations, much like nVidia drivers work well in most situations. I personally feel that nVidia has a slight extra polish to their release drivers but it's not like they haven't had issues (and major ones) in the past much like ATI.

I don't think you can really go wrong with a nVidia GTX 275 or Radeon 4890. Both are very very good cards for the money.

 

[lasoski311]

Originally posted by: offspringfan23
Is it true that the ATI drivers are bad?

so far out of this list, which one would be the best?

https://secure.newegg.com/Wish...etail.aspx?ID=15190267">https://secure.newegg.com/Wish...etail.aspx?ID=15190267</a>

You are going to get mixed answers because the GTX 275 and the 4890 are pretty equal cards when it comes to performance, but id go with either one of these...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814102831

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130478

if I were you id get the 4890, but thats just my opinion

 

[MrK6]

I'd stay away from dual GPU solutions if you can. At 1680x1050, you don't really need it, so I'd grab a 4890 or GTX 275. Personally, I'd get the 4890, as it's cheaper and runs better with higher levels of AA.

 

[alcoholbob]

I don't know if its the Windows 7 drivers, but yeah, dual GPU is massive fail on Crysis for me. I'm selling one of my GTX 285 SSCs because I'm tired of dealing with it. A single card is only getting 17-21fps while dual I'm getting 35-45, but there's constant skipping that its giving me a headache. I can't wait for GT300. If it can break the 30fps barrier for single cards in Crysis (1920xVH) it would be a godsend.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
I don't know if its the Windows 7 drivers, but yeah, dual GPU is massive fail on Crysis for me. I'm selling one of my GTX 285 SSCs because I'm tired of dealing with it. A single card is only getting 17-21fps while dual I'm getting 35-45, but there's constant skipping that its giving me a headache. I can't wait for GT300. If it can break the 30fps barrier for single cards in Crysis (1920xVH) it would be a godsend.

Probably is the drivers, but try typing r_DynTexMaxSize 130 into the console and reloading the level. It stuttered like hell for me too when I first got my GTX 295 and that was the cvar that fixed it until NVIDIA updated their drivers.

 

[Wreckage]

An overclocked 4890 pretty much matches a stock GTX275.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

As for drivers....
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=23

However, we have to factor in the fact that AMD driver support doesn't have the best track record as of late for new game titles. Add in the fact that NVIDIA's developer relations seem more effective than AMD's could mean more titles that run better on NVIDIA hardware in the future.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
An overclocked 4890 pretty much matches a stock GTX275.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

As for drivers....
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=23

However, we have to factor in the fact that AMD driver support doesn't have the best track record as of late for new game titles. Add in the fact that NVIDIA's developer relations seem more effective than AMD's could mean more titles that run better on NVIDIA hardware in the future.

A stock 4890 is generally faster than a GTX275 at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 while an overclocked 4890 can even beat a stock GTX285.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../radeon-hd4890_16.html

Highs:

* High performance in contemporary games;
* Outperforms GeForce GTX 285 in a number of tests;
* Wide range of supported FSAA modes;
* Best Edge-detect CFAA in the industry;
* 1024MB of local video memory onboard;
* 800 ALU and 40 texture processors;
* DirectX 10.1 and Shader Model 4.1 support;
* Fully-fledged hardware HD video decoding;
* High-quality HD video post-processing with scalability;
* Built-in 8-channel audio controller with HD support;
* Sound over HDMI;
* Excellent overclocking potential;
* Low noise;
* Comparatively low power consumption;
* Lower heat dissipation compared with Radeon HD 4870 1GB.

Lows:

* No serious drawbacks found.

As for drivers....

As we have already said, we had a pre-production sample, so there was no accessories bundle with it. Besides that, there are no other drawbacks that we might want to mention here.

Go ahead Wreckage, try another one. I can keep this up all day.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

An overclocked 4890 pretty much beats a stock GTX285.

LOL! That card was clocked @ 1000/1200 (4800) MHz. You can't buy one with that clock, not even close. In fact it would be a crap shoot for a non review sample to clock like that. Talk about a joke.

Go ahead Wreckage, try another one. I can keep this up all day.

You failed miserably.

Here ya go. Stock vs stock. The GTX275 wins the majority of benchmarks especially at higher resolutions.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1

 

[cbn]

Since the prices on 4890 have increased I would get a 275 GTX.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

An overclocked 4890 pretty much beats a stock GTX285.

LOL! That card was clocked @ 1000/1200 (4800) MHz. You can't buy one with that clock, not even close. In fact it would be a crap shoot for a non review sample to clock like that. Talk about a joke.

It was overclocked. I think that fact was mentioned. You did say:

Originally posted by: Wreckage
An overclocked 4890 pretty much matches a stock GTX275.

There are various overclock reviews out there, some stock, some not. Perhaps you should be more specific next time regarding what type of OC you're referring to.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Here ya go. Stock vs stock. The GTX275 wins the majority of benchmarks especially at higher resolutions.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1[/quote]


I think you'll have a hard time selling, "An overclocked 4890 pretty much matches a stock GTX275." here. As you can see, AT's review put a stock 4890 ahead of the GTX 275 at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 while the GTX 275 pulled ahead at 2560x1600.

From the review you linked to above with a 4890 running at stock clocks vs a GTX 275.

On a pure performance level the 4890 and GTX 275 trade blows at different resolutions. The 4890 tends to look better at lower resolutions while the GTX 275 is more competitive at high resolutions. At 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 the 4890 is nearly undefeated. At 2560 x 1600, it seems to be pretty much a wash between the two cards.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=23

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Just learning
Since the prices on 4890 have increased I would get a 275 GTX.

They have? I see most 4890's at around $229-$239 after rebate (which is where they debuted at) while the GTX 275 is still at $249. In fact, you can pick up a 4890 OC at ZZF for $205 after MIR. That's $45 cheaper than the least expensive GTX 275.

All GTX 275 at ZZF
All 4890 at ZZF

 

[Spike]

One thing to think about is if you care about PhysX in it's current incarnation. If not, then the field is open and I would personally get the 4890 since most reviews I have read put it ahead in the "low" res of 1680x1050. If you do care about PhysX and want to play games like Mirrors Edge with the extras then the GTX 275 is only real choice in your price bracket.

As a user of both nVidia and Ati cards (my 4870 is my at home card, my 8800GTS 512 is my LAN card) I don't find any noticable difference in drivers between them. I like the ATI control panel slightly better but find the nVidia drivers always seem more polished though I'm not sure why. In actual performance of new games (Empire TW, Stalker CS) I am primarily using my 4870 since thats in my home pc and I have noticed no issues besides the occasional texture problem. My lanbox is used for playing mostly older engine based games like CS:S, UT3, TF 2, WiC, and L4D. I have noticed random texture issues with most of those games but again, not really an issue.

All that is to basically say don't worry about the drivers. Ask yourself if the somewhat limited, but kinda cool, PhysX is worth if. If not, then look at game performance in the games you play. Really it comes down to the deals, right now I have found more 4890's on sale for cheaper than the GTX 275's but that can change at any moment. If you do go ATi I would get an XFX for the warranty, if you go nVidia and eVGA, BFG, and XFX all work great as well and have good warranties.

Good luck!

EDIT* As a note to your original question I did play Crysis Warhead at mostly very high settings using my 4870 512 at 1680x1050. I don't recall having any issues with FPS though it has been quite some time since I played it. I played the first Crysis on both my old 7800GT and 8800GTS 512 and neither could give me the smooth play I wanted though the 8800GTS came very close. Of course these are older cards so they should not be considered.

 

[TC91]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=823&p=4
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/6/
http://guru3d.com/article/gefo...gtx-275-review-test/14
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...force-gtx-275-review/4
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-11.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-12.html

In crysis the 4890 even loses to a stock GTX 260 core 216 in a bunch of these reviews; using 9.4 catalysts too. Not to mention the other games, its a coup for nvidia. I'd go with the GTX 275.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: TC91
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=823&p=4
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/6/
http://guru3d.com/article/gefo...gtx-275-review-test/14
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...force-gtx-275-review/4
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-11.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-12.html

In crysis the 4890 even loses to a stock GTX 260 core 216 in a bunch of these reviews; using 9.4 catalysts too. Not to mention the other games, its a coup for nvidia. I'd go with the GTX 275.

I must admit, I'm a little confused. I only saw one (legitreviews) where it showed the 260 above the 4890 which was odd considering they had the same avg in one res but the 4890 beat it in another res so why was the 260 on top? While the rest do show the 4890 below the 275 (normally but just a little) they all show it above the 260. I didn't check out the legionhardware (had issues with the site) but I did see the rest.

These reviews also disagree with a number of others, including Anantechs own, that show them more neck in neck with the 4890 generally winning at lower resolutions. In Crysis Warhead on the same gamer settings (except the shadows) the 4890 is above the 275 in 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 but loses to it at 2560x1600 though all margins where very slim.

 

[TC91]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: TC91
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=823&p=4
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/6/
http://guru3d.com/article/gefo...gtx-275-review-test/14
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...force-gtx-275-review/4
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-11.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-12.html

In crysis the 4890 even loses to a stock GTX 260 core 216 in a bunch of these reviews; using 9.4 catalysts too. Not to mention the other games, its a coup for nvidia. I'd go with the GTX 275.

I must admit, I'm a little confused. I only saw one (legitreviews) where it showed the 260 above the 4890 which was odd considering they had the same avg in one res but the 4890 beat it in another res so why was the 260 on top? While the rest do show the 4890 below the 275 (normally but just a little) they all show it above the 260. I didn't check out the legionhardware (had issues with the site) but I did see the rest.

These reviews also disagree with a number of others, including Anantechs own, that show them more neck in neck with the 4890 generally winning at lower resolutions. In Crysis Warhead on the same gamer settings (except the shadows) the 4890 is above the 275 in 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 but loses to it at 2560x1600 though all margins where very slim.

Well if you did take a look you would see that the bit-tech and legionhardware reviews showing a huge margin between the radeons and geforces. The hwc and guru3d ones are a bit closer but still show the GTX 275 coming out on top. This IS crysis, even if the margins are slim, it matters every little bit since the fps are not very high.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: TC91

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: TC91
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=823&p=4
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/6/
http://guru3d.com/article/gefo...gtx-275-review-test/14
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...force-gtx-275-review/4
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-11.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...5-896mb-review-12.html

In crysis the 4890 even loses to a stock GTX 260 core 216 in a bunch of these reviews; using 9.4 catalysts too. Not to mention the other games, its a coup for nvidia. I'd go with the GTX 275.

I must admit, I'm a little confused. I only saw one (legitreviews) where it showed the 260 above the 4890 which was odd considering they had the same avg in one res but the 4890 beat it in another res so why was the 260 on top? While the rest do show the 4890 below the 275 (normally but just a little) they all show it above the 260. I didn't check out the legionhardware (had issues with the site) but I did see the rest.

These reviews also disagree with a number of others, including Anantechs own, that show them more neck in neck with the 4890 generally winning at lower resolutions. In Crysis Warhead on the same gamer settings (except the shadows) the 4890 is above the 275 in 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 but loses to it at 2560x1600 though all margins where very slim.

Well if you did take a look you would see that the bit-tech and legionhardware reviews showing a huge margin between the radeons and geforces. The hwc and guru3d ones are a bit closer but still show the GTX 275 coming out on top. This IS crysis, even if the margins are slim, it matters every little bit since the fps are not very high.

Your correct there though there are other reviews, like Anandtechs, that show the 4890 beating the GTX 275, plus the review you linked to, hardware canucks, shows the 4890 has higher min frame rates than the 275 which is arguably the more telling stat.

Either way my main point was to refute your claim that the GTX 260 was in anyway better than the 4890. There are going to be isolated cases where the architecture difference between the two shows the nVidia cards taking an advantage (and visa versa) but in general the 4890 is faster than the 260.

Anyway, I'm still of the mindset that they are about equal and it comes down to PhysX (if that means anything to you) and the price. Right now since PhysX is not something I would consider the 4890 is the clear winner (to me) since it's cheaper. If the 275 dropped to $200 tomorrow or the 4890 went to $260 I would say the 275 was now the clear winner. There are plenty of reviews that show the 4890 beating the 275 in the res the OP is talking about, and just in general. However, as parts of the reviews you linked to show, the 275 can also win. It comes down to where you get your info from and who you want to believe.

 

[offspringfan23]

Wow, thanks for all the replies. What about Direct X 10.1, does that make a difference with the 4890?

 

[TC91]

DX10.1 will do nothing in 99% of today's games. It's just another checkmark on the feature list. PhysX and CUDA > DX10.1 IMO. DX11 is pretty close too so I don't really think DX10.1 is going to make any noise.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Creig

As for drivers....

As we have already said, we had a pre-production sample, so there was no accessories bundle with it. Besides that, there are no other drawbacks that we might want to mention here.

.

Uh that quote says nothing about drivers. Way to quote an unrelated statement and try to spin it like it discounts what they clearly said earlier in the article regarding ATI's tendency to have more driver-related stability issues in games.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Creig

As for drivers....

As we have already said, we had a pre-production sample, so there was no accessories bundle with it. Besides that, there are no other drawbacks that we might want to mention here.

.

Uh that quote says nothing about drivers. Way to quote an unrelated statement and try to spin it like it discounts what they clearly said earlier in the article regarding ATI's tendency to have more driver-related stability issues in games.

I was referring to, "Besides that, there are no other drawbacks that we might want to mention here." If they had experienced major driver issues, I'm sure they would have listed it as a drawback.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: TC91
DX10.1 will do nothing in 99% of today's games. It's just another checkmark on the feature list. PhysX and CUDA > DX10.1 IMO. DX11 is pretty close too so I don't really think DX10.1 is going to make any noise.

This is true, DX 10.1 really does not mean much. I get a few more effects in Stalker Clear Sky so I guess I got some benefit out of it but I would not base any choice on that. It all comes down to what you want it for; for me CUDA and PhysX are about useless as DX 10.1 (at this moment) so I went with ATi because it was cheaper.

As many here have said about the best you can do is go by price. If you can find the GTX 275 for cheaper than the 4890 then go for it it and same with the reverse. Either way I don't think your going to be dissapointed with the performance.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: offspringfan23
Wow, thanks for all the replies. What about Direct X 10.1, does that make a difference with the 4890?

DX10.1 has been buggy and useless so far. With DX11 coming at the end of the year most (if not all) developers will skip it.

 

[Spike]

Dang it, quoted myself instead of edited... please ignore

 

[offspringfan23]

I do like the idea of the lifetime warranty, and if it comess with a game, that sweetens the deal

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: offspringfan23
Wow, thanks for all the replies. What about Direct X 10.1, does that make a difference with the 4890?

DX10.1 has been buggy and useless so far. With DX11 coming at the end of the year most (if not all) developers will skip it.

Physx and CUDA are massively overhyped by nvidia and its acolytes, and completely irrelevant for most users.

Here's the straight dope from our very own anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=7