GTS 250 or ATI's 4770?

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
Hey guys!

I am looking to get my young brother a video card for some gaming. His 7950GT recently died, and his birthday is in a few days, so I am looking to get him one of those two cards as a present.

He games on a 17'' monitor, so either of those cards should be sufficient. Trouble is I can't decide.

The 4770 looks pretty cool because of the better power efficiency, but the GTS 250 should be more future proof because of the CUDA, right?

Opinions?

edit:

Should mention, that the GTS 250 is 1GB! Also, the 4850 is also an option.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
CUDA isn't really a concern for a gamer unless you do a bunch of CUDA enabled apps, which is far from what I imagine your brother would do with it. I'd hardly consider it a factor in buying the card.

GTS250 would perform a bit better, but 4770 would probably run cooler and use less power. If your brother doesn't have Call of Duty but would like it, theres usually several nvidia cards with a free copy included
 

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
I am sorry, I think I was confusing CUDA with PhysX.

The 4870 seems to be coming in 512 and the GTS 250 is in 1GB. That probably won't make a huge difference I suspect on his 17'' monitor though.

I live in Asia, and can either get the XFX 4770 512 or the GTS 250 1GB for about 15 dollars more.

Also, it says that the 4770 is 128BITS DDR5 on the store's website, while it lists the GTS 250 as being 256BITS.... would that make a difference?

 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Depends on the pricing situtation.

GTS250/4770/4850 and 4870 512mb are very close in price.

Considering you can get 4850 1GB for $90, I am not sure I would consider a 4770 since they are generally more expensive.

You can pick up a 4870 512 for $117 and it comes with a free game

GTS250 1GB will be faster than 4850 1GB though, but slower than the 4870 for 17 inch monitor.
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Originally posted by: Pugnate
I am sorry, I think I was confusing CUDA with PhysX.

The 4870 seems to be coming in 512 and the GTS 250 is in 1GB. That probably won't make a huge difference I suspect on his 17'' monitor though.

I live in Asia, and can either get the XFX 4770 512 or the GTS 250 1GB for about 15 dollars more.

Also, it says that the 4770 is 128BITS DDR5 on the store's website, while it lists the GTS 250 as being 256BITS.... would that make a difference?

I think the decision is really in your hands: The GTS250 will give you better performance, but the HD4770 will use less power.

If power consumption would benefit your brother (a good deal), then I'd give the edge to the HD4770. But otherwise, go with the GTS250. Both cards would give acceptable performance on a 17" monitor, but over time the GTS250 should have slightly more staying power since it does perform better.

AS for your memory question, the GDDR5 on the HD4770 effectively runs at twice the speed as comparable GDDR3 memory (like the GTS250 has). So the bandwidth is doubled. Thus ATI only put a 128-bit bus on the card, and in essence you can think of the 128-bit bus in combination with GDDR5 giving you the same bandwidth as a 256-bit bus paired with GDDR3 memory when assuming the GDDR5 and GDDR3 run at the same "real clock speed."

In this case, since the GDDR3 in the GTS250 does run at a bit higher "real" speed, it does have a bit more bandwidth than the HD4770. However, it does not have near twice the bandwidth as the bus width would indicate, as GDDR5 runs at twice the effective speed as GDDR3.
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,381
2,415
146
Between just the 2, i'd get the GTS 250. Though you might want to consider a 4850, 4870, or GTX 260, if prices are reasonable.
 

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
Guys, I really appreciate the replies, especially from cusideabelincoln.

I just checked and the 4770 and the 4850 are practically the same price here where I live. The GTS250 isn't bad either.

So between the GTS 250 and the 4850, would I still be better off with the Nvidia card?

From what I read on the anandtech review, doesn't the 4850 get outperformed by the 4770?

Also, he lives in a hot climate... so... I am looking for something with good build quality.

BTW, all three cards are from XFX.

I prefer BFG, but none of these are available in that.

Again, everyone has been really helpful, which is appreciated. :)
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
I'd assume his 17" monitor would be relatively restrictive when it comes to resolution, there really wouldn't be much need for a GTS250, which really wouldn't be much faster (if at all) no matter the resolution. The extra RAM might be useful for newer games, but for the here and now the 4770 would be the more efficient solution.
 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: Pugnate
Guys, I really appreciate the replies, especially from cusideabelincoln.

I just checked and the 4770 and the 4850 are practically the same price here where I live. The GTS250 isn't bad either.

So between the GTS 250 and the 4850, would I still be better off with the Nvidia card?

From what I read on the anandtech review, doesn't the 4850 get outperformed by the 4770?

Also, he lives in a hot climate... so... I am looking for something with good build quality.

BTW, all three cards are from XFX.

I prefer BFG, but none of these are available in that.

Again, everyone has been really helpful, which is appreciated. :)

I used to have a Gainward 4850 and it got very hot (80c during the summer) although it was always stable.

The 4850 should always outperform the 4770, if it does not then something is wrong with the review.

I recommend the GTS 250 (especially if it's an OC version) because it usually performs better than a standard 4850.

I rate XFX as a good reliable brand because i've owned lots of XFX video cards. :)
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Between the GTS250 and HD4850... just flip a coin. And like mentioned, no the HD4770 does not outperform the HD4850. The 4850 is faster, although the difference isn't huge. But between the GTS250 and HD4850... they perform so close to one another in a lot of games. There are a few "oddball" games where one will be a lot faster than the other, but for the most part expect these cards to perform within 5% of each other.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Between the GTS250 and HD4850... just flip a coin. And like mentioned, no the HD4770 does not outperform the HD4850. The 4850 is faster, although the difference isn't huge. But between the GTS250 and HD4850... they perform so close to one another in a lot of games. There are a few "oddball" games where one will be a lot faster than the other, but for the most part expect these cards to perform within 5% of each other.

+1

Originally posted by: Phynaz
17" monitor?

Get a HD4670.

Smaller monitors users doesn't mean that they don't deserve to turn eye candy on, playing a game at such screen with 8x FSAA and all the detail levels maxed is more impressive to me than playing on a 32" screen with all the details on high with no Anti Aliasing. HD 4670 is just weak to play all games maxed with anti aliasing at a 17" screen.
 

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
I'd assume his 17" monitor would be relatively restrictive when it comes to resolution, there really wouldn't be much need for a GTS250, which really wouldn't be much faster (if at all) no matter the resolution. The extra RAM might be useful for newer games, but for the here and now the 4770 would be the more efficient solution.

Yea I think he is going to be gaming at a resolution of 1280x1024.