Slashdot Mirror
Budget Graphics Cards Compared
EconolineCrush writes "Tired of reading reviews of high-end graphics cards that cost several hundred dollars or more? The Tech Report has a round-up of three budget cards that cost $80 or less. ATI's Radeon X1300 Pro, NVIDIA's GeForce 7300 GS, and S3's Chrome S27 are compared in an array of gaming, video playback, power consumption, and noise level tests against not only each other, but also a typical integrated graphics solution. As one might expect, the budget cards offer significantly better 3D performance than integrated solutions. What's even more impressive is the fact that even with newer games, the sub-$80 cards still have enough punch to deliver respectable performance."
Budget video cards almost always suck. You're better off buying the best of the previous generation or, even better, buying refurbished or open box hardware from sites like Newegg. I was browsing their open box section the other day for a friend, and came across a Radeon x1600 Pro 256mb for $90. A little bit more money than their target, but for $10 you get a card that's not intentionally crippled.
Exactly! I use the horribly outdated and underpowered Geforce FX6600 card and I can play ANY game very nicely. Even the Quake 4 watermark is very VERY playable at 1024X768 at mid level quality settings.
I suppose "very nice" and "playable" is subjective.
The idea that you can play "ANY" game at a quality that other people would find acceptable is laughable. I have a 6600GT, and Battlefield 2 starts stuttering seriously (hugely ruining immersion) beyond 1024x768 / everything at low / no AA. I've seen how unbelievably gorgeous the game looks at high, but there's no way my graphics card can even come close to playing it well, much less turning on any form of AA, or handling some of the ultra high resolution displays that are available now.
In other words, your comment, and comments like it, is nonsense. Just becuase you don't see a need for a better video card doesn't undermine the value for serious gamers who are willing to put one car payment towards a better video card (the same guys who'll blow their paycheque on a $50,000 car when a Civic gets there just as fast blow their gaskets about a $500 video card).
Their conclusion? The best budget card is the most expensive one they looked at, the Radeon X1300 Pro.
My ancient Geforce4 ti4200 can play all of those at more than 10fps (using the oldblivion patch, because bethesda are the whores of the graphics card industry).
Just don't run with stupid levels of detail.
These are all PCI-E cards. Most people that have upgraded from AGP to PCI-E aren't going to be getting a budget card.
Maybe if someone is rebuilding their PC and switching to a new motherboard with PCI-E, they might pick up one of these as an interim card because they spent everything on the new board and a dual core Athlon 64.
That's really the only market I could see for these. "I spent everything on my motherboard and CPU and can't afford a faster video card for awhile, so I'll get the cheapest PCI-E card I can find."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a HUGE market for a budget PCI-E card.
Does the S3 have open drivers for the DVI interface? I'm looking to ditch Matrox.
On most 21" (4:3 AR) LCDs, the native resolution is 1600x1200. I think you should be able to set your 3D game at 800x600, then stretch it to full screen. Each 800x600 pixel would then be simply traslated to four 1600x1200 pixels, right? If this works, then setting your 3D game at 800x600 (with some AA) would be a better experience (decent FPS and quality) than setting your 3D game at native 1600x1200 (bad FPS).
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...