Buying a new graphics card - (read first post)

My advice would be to go with
http://www.newegg.com/p/product_info.php?c...oducts_id=6004

THANKS! I was actually looking at two different super overclock models, but I couldn't find a single site that actually had them in stock... supposedly they run faster than the standard GTX 275?

What’s your take on the MSI N275GTX TwinFrozr OC, 896 DDR3, 448bit? It's listed at $467, or so they claim... would an overclocked 260 super still beat it regardless?

Casey Palmer9 said:THANKS! I was actually looking at two of those super overclock models they have out there, but I couldn't find a single website where I could actually grab one... supposedly they run faster than the standard GTX 275?

So what's your take on the MSI N275GTX TwinFrozr OC, 896 DDR3, 448bit? They're claiming the price is $467, anyway... would a clocked-up 260 super still end up being better regardless?

Honestly, you're probably gonna need a beefier power supply if you're seriously looking at picking up that MSI card!
And when it comes down to actual performance, you're basically looking at two cards that are going to pull nearly identical numbers!
If you're really planning on stepping up to a higher class of card instead of just sticking with this one, then you should just go straight for the Zotac GTX 285

feralseal11 said:If you’re eyeing that MSI card, you’re probably gonna need a beefier PSU!
And honestly, the performance difference between them is going to be pretty much negligible.
If you want to step things up a notch beyond this tier, just go for the Zotac GTX 285.

I'm guessing that one's pricier too, and I'm definitely not rolling in cash right now... being a college student means I can't exactly live on nothing but cheap canned meat every single day. xD

Anyway... not sure if this counts as off-topic since we're talking GPUs, but what kind of power supply am I actually looking at here? Like, would I really need something stronger for this 260?

Kyle Gray89 said:Here is my current setup:

DualCore Intel Core 2 duo E8200, 2000 MHz (6 x 333)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
1 GB DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512 MB
Win 7

Philips 190X6, might replace this soon

I think I need more memory, but should I also upgrade my graphics card? If so, what would you recommend for roughly $333? $33 +/-

You definitely need more RAM, and as for a GPU, it really depends on what resolutions you're playing at, or what you plan to play eventually.

I'd love to get some thoughts on this one:

Kyle Gray89 said:Here is my current setup:

DualCore Intel Core 2 duo E8200, 2000 MHz (6 x 333)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
1 GB DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM
ATI Radeon HD4870 512 MB
Win 7

Win 7 Philips 190 X6 - might upgrade this soon

I'm thinking I definitely need to bump up the RAM, but should I also look into swapping out the graphics card? If so, what would you guys recommend for around $333? $33 + -

Data read error
2x 1 GB DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM

Alright, I'm back in a dilemma... a trilemma... call it whatever you want at this point.

- Gigabyte GTX 260 Super Overclock Series, 896Mb GDDR3 448bit, Core Clock : 680MHz, DVI+VGA+HDMI, PCIe 2.0
(price $450)
http://www.giga-byte.co.uk/Products/...=GV-N26SO-896I

- Sapphire HD 4890 OC, 1GB GDDR5 256bit, Dual DVI+HDTV out
(price $500)
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presenta...000101&pid=256

- Sapphire HD 4890 Vapor-X, 1GB GDDR5 256bit, Dual DVI+HDTV out
(price $483)
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presenta...000101&pid=262

P.S. Honestly, I’ve got no clue what the actual gap is between this GTX and those two 4890 cards—not even sure who’s winning that fight. But I am curious about how big the difference is between the two Sapphire models:

hd4890 oc :
Core Clock: 901 MHz
Memory Clock: 1000 MHz, 4.0 Gbps
Dual Slot Active Cooler

hd4890 vapor-x:
Core Clock: 850 MHz
Memory Clock: 975 MHz, 3.9 Gbps
dual slot Vapor-X Cooler +

+ also, the Vapor-X caught my eye because it has two direct HDMI outputs, while the OC doesn't.

@Paul Ross81/">@@Paul Ross81
What resolution are you running? What else is in the build?

@Casey Palmer9/">@@Casey Palmer9
It's a 4890 Vapor-X.
Generally speaking, the 4890 performs better than the GTX 260. It’s more in the same league as the GTX 275. I think overclocking a 4890 past 1 GHz isn't really an issue if you do it manually at home, so there isn't much point in paying extra for a factory OC. The Vapor-X has a really solid cooler—much better than the stock one found on the standard 4890 (the kind seen on the more expensive 4890 models). It should handle things just fine, even if you decide to volt mod for a 1GHz+ core clock overclock.

James Morris4 said:@Paul Ross81/">@@Paul Ross81
What's the rest of the build look like?

@Casey Palmer9/">@@Casey Palmer9
4890 Vapor-X
Generally speaking, the 4890 outperforms the GTX 260. It’s actually sitting right up there with the GTX 275. Honestly, pushing a 4890 past 1 GHz is pretty easy if you do it manually at home, so I don't see the point in paying a premium for a factory OC. Plus, the Vapor-X cooler is solid—way better than the stock one you get on the more expensive 4890 models. It'll handle the heat just fine, even if you decide to mess with voltage to hit that 1GHz+ core clock target.

gotcha, thanks.. though for what it's worth, the Gigabyte GTX 260 Super Overclock Series actually beats the GTX 275 🙂

Right now I'm rocking an ATI Radeon 2600 Pro. It’s probably a bit of a weak card by today's standards, but honestly, I'm not exactly a power user or anything. I'm planning on swapping it out soon—all I know for sure is that it uses PCIe, but I haven't checked which version yet.

So, I've been looking at two options...
The Sapphire ATI 4650, which seems to run on PCIe 2.0, though I'm not totally sure if it'll play nice with my motherboard.
And then there's this
Zotac 9400 GT Synergy Edition (which I think is just a budget-friendly Nvidia option) that's also PCIe 2.0, but supposedly backwards compatible with 1.1.

I'd love some advice on which way to go. I don't need anything high-end for gaming, so please, no suggestions from $333. These are slightly pushing my limits, but nothing crazy.

Thanks!

Casey Palmer9 said:Alright, thanks... though it seems like the Gigabyte GTX 260 Super Overclock Series actually beats out the GTX 275 🙂

So if I end up picking the supposedly slower GTX 275, just to run OCam on it, it'll probably turn out to be the faster one anyway. xD

Kenneth Nguyen35 said:Right now I'm running an ATI Radeon 2600 Pro. It might be a bit weak, but I'm not exactly a power user. I'm planning on swapping it out, though all I know for sure is that it uses PCI-E, not which specific version.

So I'm looking at two options...
A Sapphire ATI 4650, which uses some kind of PCIe 2.0, but I'm not sure if it'll work with my motherboard.
And
A Zotac 9400 GT Synergy Edition (which I think is a cheaper Nvidia option) that is PCIe 2.0, though it's compatible with 1.1.

I'd appreciate some advice on which way to go. I don't really need a high-end gaming card, so I'd prefer if we didn't get any suggestions from $333. These are slightly above my usual budget, but not by much.

Thanks!

It doesn't really matter if it's PCI-E 1.1, 2.0, or whatever else; everything is backward compatible.

If you aren't gaming, why bother with a new graphics card at all?

James Morris4 said:It doesn't really matter if it's PCIe 1.1, 2.0, or whatever—everything is backward compatible anyway.

So you're saying you don't game... why even bother with a new GPU then?

Look, I didn't say I *never* pick up a game. I mean, I definitely enjoy grabbing something to play when my schedule clears up and I have some downtime. But I don't need a high-end gaming card just because that's its main label—I'm not buying hardware solely for gaming purposes. Lately, I've been spending a ton of time working in Photoshop.

Between these two, which one is actually better, and which would you recommend?😕

I’d probably lean toward the 4650, since it is from a newer generation. Have you considered looking at something a bit more powerful, like a 4670?

It really just comes down to the price gap—since I’m more of an occasional gamer rather than someone constantly glued to their rig, as I mentioned before. If the difference isn't huge, I might actually give it some thought.

For me, the fact that it’s a bit more recent is a massive plus. We're talking 10.1 DirectX (Zotac 10) (even though I don't have a clue) and 4.1 shaders (Zotac 4)... My only real hang-up is this whole CUDA and PhysX thing. Does that actually cause headaches with certain games? I know how it goes—some titles lead with an Nvidia logo, others go with something else entirely...

Also, does it matter at all that I'm running DDR2 RAM while some of these cards are rocking DDR3?

Regarding Nvidia's performance in gaming... I suppose Nvidia has been performing slightly better than ATI lately, so they can afford the massive advertising budget. If you want to figure out which card is actually superior, it’s best to just look at raw brute force performance in actual games rather than comparing memory or clock speeds and all that stuff.
ATI has had DirectX 10.1 for quite a while now, whereas Nvidia doesn't have it—not even in the same generation as ATI. DirectX 10.1 mostly just offers slightly better performance over DirectX 10; beyond that, there isn't much significant difference. The GeForce 9 series is roughly on par with the Radeon HD 3000 series.
The fact that you're running DDR2 on your PC doesn't really have anything to do with the video card's memory.
The 4670 provides somewhat limiting gameplay (though that depends heavily on the resolution, I guess), and it's probably even worse on a 4650.😁
What resolution are you even using?
CUDA doesn't mean much for your gaming experience, and PhysX just gives you things like glass shards staying on the floor after a window breaks, or maybe more realistic fabric physics—basically just some eye-candy related to physics. It's not a huge deal. Some games support PhysX, while others use Havok or other tech that doesn't get nearly as much hype. Personally, PhysX doesn't mean much to me; I've played games with PhysX enabled and I've played them without it, and in my opinion, the experience is pretty much the same.

James Morris4 said:The 4670 hits a wall when it comes to actual gameplay—it's pretty limiting depending on your resolution—and honestly, the 4650 is even worse 😁

Can someone explain, please? 😁

How bad is "limiting" really? Like, what does that actually mean if we aren't talking in technical GPU jargon? 🙂

You're kind of killing my vibe here—I was thinking this card had decent graphics, and while I know there are better options out there, I’m just not looking to drop a massive chunk of change on a high-end rig right now. 🙂🤷

I'm currently running at 1280x960 (which makes all my icons look huge 😁 ), and it probably isn't even optimized for my monitor.

I don't have anything against the 4650; it's a decent enough card for an HTPC setup, but if you're planning on actually gaming, you probably won't get very far with it. I'd personally go for the 4670 just for the extra performance.

So, I might just grab the 4670 instead—the price difference isn't even that big of a deal. I'm actually heading out to pick one up later today.

Thanks!

So, those cards were nowhere to be found today.

I was just looking at some prices, and it turns out my current AMD Radeon HD series is sitting right around the same price point as a Sapphire ATI 4670. Is there actually any meaningful difference between them? The price list I’ve been staring at is pretty outdated, but still...

Anyone got any suggestions? Though, honestly, I'm still not really looking to drop a ton of cash on this.