• 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.

Your ideas for better entry level half height/low profile ready gamer video cards

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
XavierMace said:
I'm a dedicated PC gamer, but you can get a PS3 for about $150 which will do a far better job of playing games and streaming video if that's what you're wanting to do.
Click to expand...

PS 3 is a really really old machine with extremely dated hardware.

It only has 256 MB of system RAM!

I'm sorry but no way is it going to be faster than a $105 to $110 Core 2 machine with E5440 quad core , 2GB RAM and GT 630.
 
That is true (it is terrible hardware), but it does have the weird advantage of having a rabid pile of developers making the most optimized possible pile of games for it. It's funny when you think how old the consoles actually are... even the brand new ones!!
 
evilspoons said:
That is true (it is terrible hardware), but it does have the weird advantage of having a rabid pile of developers making the most optimized possible pile of games for it. It's funny when you think how old the consoles actually are... even the brand new ones!!
Click to expand...

Agreed. It depends on what you want it to do, I suppose. My PS3 is a dandy media machine and the games looks pretty nice to me!
 
cbn said:
PS 3 is a really really old machine with extremely dated hardware.

It only has 256 MB of system RAM!

I'm sorry but no way is it going to be faster than a $105 to $110 Core 2 machine with E5440 quad core , 2GB RAM and GT 630.
Click to expand...

Console games are insanely well optimized. You will get a much better gaming experience from a PS3 or a 360. No, really.
 
cbn said:
PS 3 is a really really old machine with extremely dated hardware.

It only has 256 MB of system RAM!

I'm sorry but no way is it going to be faster than a $105 to $110 Core 2 machine with E5440 quad core , 2GB RAM and GT 630.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised.

Be prepared to run games at much lower graphical settings than they run on the old consoles. Some might not even run playably regardless of settings.
 
It looks like the GTX 730 is where you need to go if you want some kind of basic gaming.

I suspect you'd be happier paying the extra few bucks to get a 7750 or a GTX 750. The used 7750 linked to earlier for $75 looks pretty good actually.

My low profile 7750 got loud after the heatsink was choked with dust, but it worked fine for basic gaming. I'm replacing it with a GTX 750, cheapest i found was $114 shipped (+tax).
 
NTMBK said:
Console games are insanely well optimized. You will get a much better gaming experience from a PS3 or a 360. No, really.
Click to expand...

I realize the console benefits from optimization, but It doesn't appear to be enough to close the gap. (Example: PS3 is only capable of 24 players in BF3 and BF4).

That is really low performance, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Core 2 duo could beat that quite frankly. (No need for the E5440 Xeon quad core).

Now granted to play BF3 and BF4, A Core 2 SFF machine would need Windows (which adds to the price compared to Core 2 SFF machines without OS, but typically the premium is not too bad depending on the sale and where it is bought.)

P.S. I looked around for PS3s that a person could buy for $150 and from what I gather that is definitely not for a new machine. It is a price for a used machine.
 
Whatever, dude. You're already 100% convinced the Core2Duo machine you bought and the GT 630 you have your eye on is "good". You want our approval but the consensus is "no, it's crap."

Do what you're gonna' do since you refuse to listen to anyone.
 
cbn said:
PS 3 is a really really old machine with extremely dated hardware.

It only has 256 MB of system RAM!

I'm sorry but no way is it going to be faster than a $105 to $110 Core 2 machine with E5440 quad core , 2GB RAM and GT 630.
Click to expand...

Ya how about no?

I have a Core 2 Duo with 8GB of ram and a 9800M GTS and the graphics of games are not equivalent to the PS3/Xbox 360.

As for the thread title, my idea is APU/Integrated graphics. Low Profile/Cheap GPUs in todays market at the price bracket you're talking about, I'd rather just have stronger integrated graphics. I think Skylake and AMD strong AMD APUs come close.

The market for $50 graphics cards is so tiny, hence why neither company puts much effort into it.

Edit: Especially since you're talking about new games like BF4, there is no way that system will handle it. My Core2Duo system I played Dark Souls at 30 FPS and below, I played Skyrim at 720p and got low frame rates, etc.
You're better off with a console, but hey, you'll do what most people do who makes these threads, you'll do the exact opposite of what every person in the thread says to do and come back later asking for help/reasons why your system won't perform and blame everyone but yourself.
 
Last edited:
Gaming on cheap PC's is so not worth it. The whole point of PC gaming is to maximize graphics and performance as good as developers possibly intended and then some. $50 graphics card? why bother? PC is a convoluted and inconsistent experience as it is already, I'd rather have a PS3 or 360 otherwise just for the streamlined experience before I'd waste my time with a $50 card.
 
Blue_Max said:
Whatever, dude. You're already 100% convinced the Core2Duo machine you bought and the GT 630 you have your eye on is "good". You want our approval but the consensus is "no, it's crap."

Do what you're gonna' do since you refuse to listen to anyone.
Click to expand...

LOL Wut?

I am not asking for your opinion about GT 630 because I already own the hardware!! (And I play games with it)

In fact, if you would have read the thread (including the opening post) you will have seen I have even reported the Gt 630 capable of playing TF2 on 1080p low (in open gl linux).
 
tential said:
Ya how about no?

I have a Core 2 Duo with 8GB of ram and a 9800M GTS and the graphics of games are not equivalent to the PS3/Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

What is the clockspeed of your C2D? (I am assuming this is mobile C2D since you mention 9800M GTS)

P.S. I can tell you didn't read my post either (see below) because I mentioned E5440 quad core (which is the same as Q9550 desktop quad core with respect to clockspeed and cache).

cbn said:
PS 3 is a really really old machine with extremely dated hardware.

It only has 256 MB of system RAM!

I'm sorry but no way is it going to be faster than a $105 to $110 Core 2 machine with E5440 quad core , 2GB RAM and GT 630.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
LOL Wut?

I am not asking for your opinion about GT 630 because I already own the hardware!! (And I play games with it)

In fact, if you would have read the thread (including the opening post) you will have seen I have even reported the Gt 630 capable of playing TF2 on 1080p low (in open gl linux).
Click to expand...

Oops on my part. But still, if you HAVE a GT630, why on earth are you even considering buying a 720/730 which is barely any improvement at all? That's an even bigger waste than buying one in the first place!

You should SELL that 630 and put the $30 into the pot for a 7750/R7-250 or add a little more for the very capable GeForce GTX 750.

Don't bother sinking money into anything less, ESPECIALLY if you already have a 630!!
 
tential said:
Edit: Especially since you're talking about new games like BF4, there is no way that system will handle it.
Click to expand...

I don't own BF4 so I can't comment on that game. (My only experience with BF4 was with my OC G3258/R7 250X system on Orgin's Game Time).

I do own BF 3 however, and I did some testing with it on Windows 8.1 using my E5440 quad core, 2GB RAM, GT 630. I played at 1366 x 768 low on the Large 64 player conquest maps. I also played a game on the 64 player Metro Map.

Overall, I thought the experience was pretty good considering how old the system is. My average FPS was over 30 FPS (range of ~25 to ~45 FPS most of the time). Game play was smooth most of the time, and I would consider it playable.

Now as modest as my report sounds, I think compared to the 720p, 30FPS, 24 player PS3 specs for Battlefield 3 the E5440, 2GB, GT 630 results I just posted make it the clear winner:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-20-why-ps3-battlefield-3-is-720p-and-30fps

P.S. Regarding system noise, I did not notice any increase in fan noise while playing the game.
 
cbn said:
In a nutshell, considering the good value of a used or refurb Core 2 based SFF system (especially with an economical CPU upgrade I mentioned in post #14) I think there needs to be a good low cost half height video card to go along with that.
Click to expand...


I like the Optiplex's, they're built far better than the consumer grade Inspiron and XPS systems.

You may be able to find a GTX 745 off Ebay. Dell and HP are putting them into their more game-oriented / higher end consumer products (as opposed to the GTX 720 or Intel Hd), including some of the lesser Alienware desktops. They are not available through retail channels.

Quick comparison using passmark 3D :
GT 640 1286
GTX 650 1838
GTX 650TI 2695
GTX 745 2177
Radeon 7770 2153
GTX 750 3272

If you look at the specs, they are basically a higher clocked GTX 740, performance equivalent to a vanilla Radeon 7770.

I have this card in my XPS 8700, verified the result above for the 745 is legit. It's small, super quiet, and runs cool. You can pull off the VGA connector and put on a half-height bracket and use just DVI. Many of these come with 2 or 4GB of DDR3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top