Best value card for casual gaming

[Winterpool]

My ex-girlfriend has an Athlon X2 4600+ machine she uses as a server (AMD 780G chipset). However, she also has a 40-inch Samsung telly and is willing to try some games on it. I could instal a moderately-priced video card, output through HDMI, and probably play older games and ports from consoles at respectable framerates, particularly if she plays at 1280x720 and lets the TV upsample the picture to 1080. (I'm thinking of games like Bioshock and Fallout 3...)

I was debating whether to buy the ASUS EAH4670 for $38, but it's $45 AR now. I think this card should be sufficient for 1280x720, presuming the card and games permit output at this res. I've also wondered if I shouldn't shell out a few more Hamiltons for a GeForce 9600 GT ($70-80) or even a 9800 GT (there is an ASUS card for $85 AR). Getting a better card introduces the possibility of playing Dragon Age, especially since I'll probably upgrade her cpu to an Athlon II X4 in the near future.

Of course there may be physical limitations to what sort of card I can instal: her machine is inside an Antec NSK4480B, which is a somewhat compact case, and it's using the case's included EarthWatts 380W psu, which may be a tad weak for a GeForce 9 card?

Edited: there's no particular rush, but I have noticed that many older cards are disappearing (the superaffordable HD 4850s and 4870s have dried up), and I'm not confident about budget cards in the next several months, given the problems with new production (eg the Radeon HD 5000s) and lacklustre competition from nVidia. If the GT 240 were at least $20 cheaper, it might be preferable to the GeForce 9 cards for its lesser power demands, but all the models I see are essentially priced at MSRP.

 

[dguy6789]

4670 is a good idea. It's cheap, it's extremely fast for the price, and it will work in virtually any machine regardless of power supply.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

That power supply could easily handle a Geforce 9 series.

I would suggest you test to see how a game would look "upscaled" on your TV. You can do this by testing an older game: Just play it at the TV's native resolution and then try a different resolution. See how big of a difference there is, particularly in blurriness. If it's huge, I would suggest you get the most powerful card you can afford. If it's not a big deal, then the HD4670 will definitely be just enough for a resolution of 1280x720. Depending on the game it could probably do better, too.

 

[happy medium]

I'd go for the hd4770 for 109$.Quiet, Coolest running,lowest power usage ,and smallest (7.5 inches) card for the money. And with a small overclock will match a 4850's performance. And it will overclock like a champ if you want it to.

And if you upgrade the cpu soon like you said,it will give you more performance.

It's worth the extra $ in my opinion.

 

[Swivelguy2]

IMO, these are the only relevant graphics cards at the moment:

HD 4350 - not really for games, but a full-featured and very low power htpc card - ~$35
HD 4670 - can handle some games at lower resolutions - ~$65
HD 4770 - handles older games at high resolutions, newer games at low res - ~$110
HD 5750 - handles all but the most demanding games at high res - $145

Nvidia's not really putting out anything competitive at the moment, considering the three simultaneous criteria of heat/noise, cost, and performance

 

[Wreckage]

Newegg has several GT 240's for $89.99 that will be faster than a 4670

For $109 (or less AR) you can get a GTS250 that will edge out a 4850.

These will also give you the advantage of CUDA/Physx.

ATI is not much of a value these days.

 

[dflynchimp]

Newegg has several GT 240's for $89.99 that will be faster than a 4670

For $109 (or less AR) you can get a GTS250 that will edge out a 4850.

These will also give you the advantage of CUDA/Physx.

ATI is not much of a value these days.

funny because that last blanket statement pretty much sums up "flamebait" in a nice little package.

 

[happy medium]

IMO, these are the only relevant graphics cards at the moment:

HD 4350 - not really for games, but a full-featured and very low power htpc card - ~$35
HD 4670 - can handle some games at lower resolutions - ~$65
HD 4770 - handles older games at high resolutions, newer games at low res - ~$110
HD 5750 - handles all but the most demanding games at high res - $145

Nvidia's not really putting out anything competitive at the moment, considering the three simultaneous criteria of heat/noise, cost, and performance

how about a gts250 for $109! the prices dropped!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261051

 

[frozentundra123456]

I would agree that 4770 is a good choice. However, with that power supply, I would also suggest the 9800GT/GT250.

 

[Swivelguy2]

how about a gts250 for $109! the prices dropped!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261051

14% more performance than a 4770*:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...uality/3DMark06-v1.1.0-3DMark-Score,1533.html

64% more power consumed:
http://xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-hd4770/other/rhd4770_power.png

Also, you need more room in your case for the GTS 250, and two PCIe power connectors.

* Actually, it's a little less than 14% additional performance, because that chart only has 1GB GTS 250s, and to match the price of the 4770, you can only get a 512MB one.

 

[happy medium]

I would agree that 4770 is a good choice. However, with that power supply, I would also suggest the 9800GT/GT250.

4770 draws less power then the gts250, mabe about = 9800gt?

 

[happy medium]

14% more performance than a 4770*:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...uality/3DMark06-v1.1.0-3DMark-Score,1533.html

64% more power consumed:
http://xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-hd4770/other/rhd4770_power.png

Also, you need more room in your case for the GTS 250, and two PCIe power connectors.

* Actually, it's a little less than 14% additional performance, because that chart only has 1GB GTS 250s, and to match the price of the 4770, you can only get a 512MB one.

A earthwatts 380 will handle a gtx260. It will handle a gts250 with ease.

The 4770 draws 70/75 watts load. where do they get that from? If it only drew 50 watts load it wouldn't need a pci-e connector.

 

[Qbah]

45$ for that hd4670 is a sweet deal. If you want to go cheap it's perfect. A 90$ gt240 is such a poor value for the money it's not funny. The next level I would consider is a hd5750. Low power with excellent performance.

 

[happy medium]

45$ for that hd4670 is a sweet deal. If you want to go cheap it's perfect. A 90$ gt240 is such a poor value for the money it's not funny. The next level I would consider is a hd5750. Low power with excellent performance.

4670 is a nice deal for cheap.

A 5750 is 5%/10 faster then a gts250 for 35$ more. When they first came out they were 119$ I believe. Now they are 144$? Not a great deal but ok. It would be better if you could actually use direct x 11 but at this time you can't.

 

[yacoub]

5750 would get you DX11 longevity, so if you only buy once every few years, it would give you the most bang for your buck over time, if you can find one in stock and under $130, but right now that's tough. If you can wait until January, things will be much more available. If it's a holiday gift, maybe spending a few bucks extra will be worth it to you.

 

[evolucion8]

Newegg has several GT 240's for $89.99 that will be faster than a 4670

For $109 (or less AR) you can get a GTS250 that will edge out a 4850.

These will also give you the advantage of CUDA/Physx.

ATI is not much of a value these days.

GTFO of this forums troll, that's why you got banned so many times. Stop spreading lies and misinformation. Both vendors have great values under $100 with the slight edge going to ATi.

Back on topic, a HD 4770 will allow you to play most games on high with such resolutions, it's almost as powerful as the HD 4850 which is not a small feat considering that the HD 4770 consumes considerably less power than the HD 4850 which is a good match against the GTS 250 512MB.

4670 is a nice deal for cheap.

A 5750 is 5%/10 faster then a gts250 for 35$ more. When they first came out they were 119$ I believe. Now they are 144$? Not a great deal but ok. It would be better if you could actually use direct x 11 but at this time you can't.

The main problem is that with such price tag, is that's reaching HD 4870 territory which is considerably faster, though it lacks DX11.

 

[jvroig]

4770 draws less power then the gts250, mabe about = 9800gt?

4770 draws less power than a 9800GT

No sense in getting a 9800GT if you are worried about performance and power consumption, since a 4770 is superior in both. As for the price, I have no idea, but it makes sense for the 9800GT to be a little cheaper.

 

[zod96]

A GTS250=9800GT just a name change. A ati 4850 would kill a GTS250 hands down....

 

[jvroig]

A GTS250=9800GT just a name change.

No, the GTS250 is a 9800GTX (or GTX+, whatever), not a plain "GT".

 

[Cookie Monster]

A GTS250=9800GT just a name change. A ati 4850 would kill a GTS250 hands down....

Not quite. A GTS250 is a 55nm 9800GTX+ which is alot faster than a 9800GT. A HD4850 is just a hair faster than the GTS250.

 

[edplayer]

A GTS250=9800GT just a name change.

NO,it is not.

 

[edplayer]

I was debating whether to buy the ASUS EAH4670 for $38, but it's $45 AR now. I think this card should be sufficient for 1280x720, presuming the card and games permit output at this res. I've also wondered if I shouldn't shell out a few more Hamiltons for a GeForce 9600 GT ($70-80) or even a 9800 GT (there is an ASUS card for $85 AR). Getting a better card introduces the possibility of playing Dragon Age, especially since I'll probably upgrade her cpu to an Athlon II X4 in the near future.

all good choices. Just so you know, I have a factory overclocked 9600GT (eVGA SSC) and I game at 1920x1080. It doesn't have enough power to play new games at that res and with AA, nor could it do Crysis at that res (and maybe a handful of others). So with a 9800GT and up you could game at 1920x1080.

Others to consider (already mentioned) would be the 4770 and the GTS250.

If she doesn't game a lot, maybe a 4670 now and you could always replace it in the future. The 5770 will be sub $100 in around six months or so...

 

[Malak]

Stick to the 4670 idea and ignore the rest of the nonsense here. I game at a higher resolution than that and I am on a 3650. She'll do just fine on a 4670.

 

[jvroig]

Stick to the 4670 idea and ignore the rest of the nonsense here.

+1. For 1280x720, a 4670 will do the job nicely.

If she suddenly becomes a convert and becomes addicted to games and wants everything in the highest settings possible and somehow the 4670 fails to cut it in the latest games, then at least you are just replacing something worth $50 or less. By that time, some other card might be in that price range that is more powerful.

 

[s44]

4770 draws less power than a 9800GT

Wrong, that's the old 9800GT. Most of the current ones (all the 550mhz) are low-power versions.

4770 = 81W, needs power connector
9800GT = <75W, no power connector

Add in the $20 price advantage and the 9800GT is the better buy for this application.