Slashdot Mirror


Getting Away With a Cheap Graphics Card

theraindog writes "High-end graphics cards get all the glory, but most folks have a difficult time justifying $300 or more for a single PC component. But what if you could get reasonable performance in all the latest games from a budget card costing as little as $70? With game developers targeting the relatively modest hardware available in current consoles and trickle-down bringing cutting-edge features down to budget price points, today's low-end graphics cards are more capable than ever. To find out which one offers the best value proposition, The Tech Report has rounded up eight graphics cards between $70 and $170, comparing their game performance, Blu-ray playback acceleration, noise levels, and power consumption, with interesting results."

49 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Wow.... $170 is cheap? by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, to me at least, $170 for a graphics card is not "cheap"...

    1. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the high end of cheap. $170 is going to get you a midrange graphics card, which, while not cheap in an absolute sense, is cheap compared to other graphics cards out there.

      Cheapness always has to be compared to other objects in its class. Would you say a $170 car is not a cheap car? Of course not, because most cars are far more expensive than that. The idea is the same here.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by c_forq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still bullshit. By using your useless relative scale a new Jaguar is cheap, because it is way less than a Ferrari, Maserati, or Bugatti. (Dang it, I used a car analogy; enter moderation limbo).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    3. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's not my fault if you don't understand how this concept works. A Ferrari, Maserati, or Bugatti is so much more expensive than a normal car that they make the price curve look exponential. Graphics cards, by contrast, tend to have a pretty damned linear price curve. Price comparisons against the most expensive member of the class fail when that member is so expensive it completely fucks up the curve.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    4. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Luckily, for people like you and me, there are cards closer to $70 than $170.

      I actually read that Tech Report article earlier today, and I've read a couple of other reviews of the 4670. It looks really good, especially considering that it's a small card with no extra power connector.

      Of course, my needs aren't very high- the #1 game I'm looking forward to is Starcraft 2- but I'd still like to be able to play at the native res of my 24" monitor.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by Migity · · Score: 2

      Hmmm...I wonder if he's ever heard of saving?

    6. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 3, Funny

      That sounds like the words of a terrorist.

      Why do you hate America?

    7. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by c_forq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While Ferrari and Bugatti may be out there the Maserati entry level is comparable with the high end of Jaguar, but my point is $170 is still a hell of a lot for the budget minded consumer, substantial for the budgeting consumer, and considerable for the consumer with a flexible budget.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    8. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by c_forq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have, and have used the concept to acquire many things I highly enjoy. However you still could not convince me to save up for a high-end luxury car rather than the car I drive today (bought with savings, not with financing). On the same sentiment, I was able to be convinced to buy a (refurbished) MacBook Pro rather than a Macbook; there are many times the upgrades are worth the time/convenience - I understand this but still don't see how the $170 card falls into the "cheap" category.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    9. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by SnEptUne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For people who only use computers for school works, occasional videos, audio sequencing, and 2d games like wesnoth, even a $70 graphics card is an overkill. I don't see how that would be a "shitty" performance.

    10. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by oddfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then don't spend 70$ on a graphics card like this when you can easily get by spending 10-25$ at Newegg for something that suits your needs.

      Price:

      $10 - $25 (27)

      $25 - $50 (125)

      These are cards that are far more than you need for the tasks you mention.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    11. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a choice - spend big and get great performance, or spend small and get shitty performance.

      Not like it's fucking rocket science.

      Let me get this straight -- in rocket science, you can spend small and get great performance?

    12. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. For the average user, integrated graphics work just fine. It's only gamers and video professionals who need more.

    13. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by nsayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not quite. Rocketry is not unlike cars in this respect. There are three choices: price, performance and reliability. You can pick at most 2.

    14. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by MojoMagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest... I would have marked *myself* down for that one. It was a cheap shot.

    15. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by purpledinoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      $170 used to be cheap, when all other components were quite a lot more expensive. But today $170 would probably make it the most expensive component (maybe next to the CPU).

    16. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by petermgreen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because compared to the 'good' cards, it's less than 1/2 the price people pay to game.
      I guess it's a matter of perspective but I don't consider a review of cards that cost arround 2-4 times what I paid for the last few graphics cards I bought to be a review of cheap cards.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by oliderid · · Score: 2, Informative

      I buy a laptop each two years. around $700 each. I play video games occasionally. Those "cheap" laptops and desktops form the core of the PC market.
      Instead of developing games for this core market, they develop games for the tiniest fraction (ie hard core gamer) ready to spend $400 on a video card.
      Horsepower of those cheap computers? Well mine runs flawlessly vista and all its 3D gimmicks.

    18. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by sgbett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate the oft used "But I only use my computer for internet and e-mail" that people constantly tell me when I advise them on what spec hardware they need.

      People just won't accept that their spunky new "vista" laptop thay are planning on buying is going to be crap unless thy get some dual core with min 2gig, and preferably dedicatd graphics (oh you dont play games? my ass you won't)

      Their logic is that "they don't need to do all that complex stuff that you do". ORLY?

      Funny, I can run a full LAMP stack with X, and vi on a P3 with 256meg of ram. Let me know how all that rich multimedia content that's 'only internet and eamil' does on a similar spec, and then tell me again that what I do needs more grunt. /rant over

      --
      Invaders must die
    19. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $70 or $170 - it's still too high, and the companies are being greedy. I'd rather just go to isohunt.com and download thee graphic cards for free, until these companies set FAIR and reasonable prices. Think of it as a silent protest.

      (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
      (yes I'm making fun of the entitlement generation)
      (stop being so darn cheap - $70 or $170 is a GREAT price for a graphics card. I remember paying twice that amount just to buy a freakin' 2.4k modem)

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    20. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by rogermcdodger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article isn't a review of cheap cards. It is a review of the gaming and HD decoding and playback performance of sub $100 graphics cards.

    21. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by Firehed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A LAMP stack is pretty damn lightweight, just like WAMP. Apache just listens on port 80 and processes accordingly, and MySQL/PHP/Perl/Python are only called on a subset of those apache requests. It's not like they're constantly under heavy use, unless you're running an active server in which case a P3 with 256MB of RAM won't come close to cutting it.

      Yeah, in order to get any reasonable amount of graphical flair, you need a bit more horsepower, but 2GB/dual core/standalone graphics are overkill for a lot of people's needs even on Vista, though they'll certainly see some added benefit. The biggest speed issues on Vista are caused by all of the bundled crapware you'll find on off-the-shelf systems and bad drivers. Of course, dual core is standard these days and really has been for a decent amount of time now, and RAM is so stupidly cheap that you'd be absolutely foolish not to get at least 2GB, but that doesn't make it necessary by any means.

      For all of the problems I did have with Vista, speed was never one of them. I think there were some very poor choices made in terms of the UI (I like Aero, but they took a mile hike backwards with everything that they rearranged, going from illogical in XP to completely nonsensical in Vista) and one of my systems (which was fairly high-end at Vista's release) still can't run Vista stably thanks to nVidia, but even my retired fileserver box has no problems with speed in Vista.

      And this is coming from the Mac fanboy. I switch well before Vista came out, but I've got plenty of experience with it - I spent more than enough time dabbling with the old betas, RCs, and of course the actual shipping versions. So could we just get past this? You can't legitimately expect to run a year-and-a-half-old OS on decade-old hardware, and the fact that you can run some very non-demanding apps on that same hardware isn't surprising in the slightest.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    22. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by WDot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think of it this way--It costs $200 to get the cheapest of the current-gen consoles. Or, you could spend $170 on a video card and put it in the computer you already own, and after about the same amount of work as hooking up and configuring your console, you can play PC games. For $30 less. If you're clever and have some PC-gaming friends who upgrade every new generation, you can pick up that same card as a hand-me-down for less.

      So, I'd say $170 is pretty cheap considering a $170 video card is designed for gaming. The really cheap cards are more for video decoding and Aero/Compiz, so if that's all you want then don't get a $170 card.

    23. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by RulerOf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      - $70 or $170 is a GREAT price for a graphics card.

      $70 is great, $170 is a little high.

      I mean, think about it, a console can debut as high as $600 (thank you Sony), and computers cost as little as $300.

      I think it's great that the time has finally come when I can seriously find a deal on a computer for $300-400, spend $100-200 on a graphics card and have a system that can honestly play damn near any game on the market at my monitor's maximum supported res.

      The other $600 between what I'll actually spend and the best card on the market is for the insane people that just have to turn every single goody the graphics engine supports up to the maximum setting.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    24. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by hurfy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "How else do you want them to compare graphics cards?"

      Actually since you asked.....

      How do they compare to my CURRENT card :) That's the one i want to see.

      All the $100 are similar, got it. How much better are they than the $150 card card i got 2 years ago? Any old reviews tend to use different test rigs and different benchmarks :(

    25. Re:Wow.... $170 is cheap? by SnEptUne · · Score: 2

      Once again, it depends on your need. If the clients are just going to use the computer for legacy DOS applications in a factory, why do they need a sempron?

      I don't know where you get the statistic, but I am really skeptical about the deduction that people who don't spend money on graphics card will not spend money on stable motherboard and harddisk. For example, I only use on board video card, but everything else are solid (although not new, because low end new parts are often so fragile these days). Granted, it is just a sample of one, but I am sure there are many other people who just don't buy video cards because they don't play games.

  2. who gauges what acceptable performance is? by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's subjective, and I can't really justify spending $500 on a video card, but I still want to.

    I have bought high end cards for over a decade. I've been happy with all of the except the first. I originally bought an ATI Rage128 card before they came out from buy.com. The product didn't ship on time, and so I waited six months (buy.com was happy to take my $160), and I got an obsolete product. After that I got my first geforce 2 card. And the rest is history. I'm an nVidia fanboy and I'm not ashamed of it.

    Those who spend that much money on a single component are usually going to spend a lot more on the rest. There's nothing worse than a yugo with a chevy 350 big block in it (to use a car analogy).

    If you don't want to sped that much, you will get far less performance than me. And that makes a lot of difference to the experience of gaming.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:who gauges what acceptable performance is? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Informative

      a 350 can also be a 32 valve Lotus-designed mercury Marine-built engine whose outside dimensions is as large as a rat motor, that found its way into 9,939 production Corvettes. =)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  3. Do a little more price checking first! by GlobalColding · · Score: 5, Informative

    Prices on graphic cards have been plummeting, both due to the overall memory prices dropping fast and because of the huge saturation of inventories in the market. Cards that few months ago were going for $300+ have been getting blown up for under $100. So before you compromise, make sure you do your due dilligence and check price engines like google shopping or pricewatch, you will be surprised how far your buck travels these days. Also, don't bother with brick and mortar retailers, they turn their inventory slower and their best deals are still month or so behind and usually involve some mail in rebates.

  4. Hmmm by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Informative

    My Radeon X1650 has no trouble playing 1920x1080 movies, and it cost around $50.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Hmmm by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, not many movies came out in 1920. Even fewer in 1080 - the Norman cameramen could never grasp the fact they needed to hold the camera straight.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. What is this bullshit? by Seriman · · Score: 5, Funny

    The 8600GT 512 has been available for a while now, I have one myself, and it was ~$120. They're even cheaper these days. That card can handle about anything you care to throw at it, unless you're running Vista, at which point you shouldn't care about the cost, because you're already paying Mistress Xanthia hundreds per month to kick you in the beans.

    1. Re:What is this bullshit? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No more nvidia trash for me

      Well, I guess you might be unlucky. I have had lots of nVidia cards over the years, and I have found them to be literally 100% reliable. I have never had to throw one out, which is why I have a lot of them sitting in a crate in my garage, since they always outlive the architecture that supports them. Who makes a motherboard that will take a Riva TNT any more?

      But the thing I like best about them is that they are so active in their Linux support. Having, over many years, been subject to the line that "such-and-such is not supported under Linux", I find it gratifying that one outfit at least isn't going to cause me any grief like this. Sure, from time to time, new versions of the kernel do break their drivers, but on every one of these occasions nVidia have already had a fix in place before I found that out.

  6. Those 8800GTs by iteyoidar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't really keep up with video cards except when I'm trying to buy one ever 3 or 4 years, but those 8800GTs are like $100 and can run just about anything. $100 isn't cheap but for a card that will let you play every game out right isn't bad, especially when getting that last 10-20% performance increase bumps your price up a few hundred dollars

    1. Re:Those 8800GTs by Kargan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, I just bought a factory overclocked 8800GT (ZOTAC Amp! Edition, to be specific) for $117 a couple of weeks ago. It does indeed run Crysis, COD4, Assassin's Creed, etc. at very high quality and framerates. And NVIDIA just released driver update 178.13 today, with the following changes:

      # WHQL-certified driver for GeForce 6-series, 7-series, 8-series, 9-series, and 200-series GPUs, including the newly released GeForce 9800 GTX+, 9800 GT, 9500 GT, and 9400 GT GPUs.
      # Adds support for NVIDIA PhysX acceleration on all GeForce 8-series, 9-series and 200-series GPUs with a minimum of 256MB dedicated graphics memory (this driver package installs NVIDIA PhysX System Software v8.09.04).
      # Experience GPU PhysX acceleration in several full games and demos today by downloading the GeForce Power Pack.
      # Adds support for 2-way NVIDIA SLI technology with GeForce GTX 200-series GPUs on Intel® D5400XS motherboards.
      # Supports single GPU and NVIDIA SLI(TM) technology* on DirectX 9 and OpenGL.
      # Supports CUDA(TM).
      # Supports Folding@home distributing computing application. Download the high performance client for NVIDIA GPUs here and join the NVIDIA team: #131015.
      # Supports GPU overclocking and temperature monitoring by installing NVIDIA System Tools software.
      # Includes several 3D application performance improvements. The following are examples of improvements measured with v178.13 WHQL versus v175.19 WHQL driver:

              * Single GPU increases up to 11% in 3DMark Vantage (performance preset)
              * Single GPU increases up to 11% in Assassin's Creed DX10
              * Single GPU increases up to 15% in Bioshock DX10
              * Single GPU increases up to 15% in Call of Duty 4
              * Single GPU increases up to 8% in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
              * 2-way SLI increases up to 7% in Bioshock DX10
              * 2-way SLI increases up to 10% in Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts DX10
              * 2-way SLI increases up to 12% in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
              * 2-way SLI increases up to 10% in World in Conflict DX10

      # Includes numerous 3D application compatibility fixes. Please read the release notes for more information on product support, features, driver fixes and known compatibility issues.

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  7. I never spend more than by mandark1967 · · Score: 4, Funny

    $700 for a video card solution. Unless I'm going SLI, then it's like $1200 or so for two cards because you gotta get 'em the day they're released...NOT after the inevitable price drop. Of course, you gotta throw in extra for the water blocks and pump, and tubes, and reservoir and such, so in reality I never spend more than like $850 each...Unless I am buying for my Tri-SLI capable board...then it's like $2450, and add like $250 for a 1200watt PSU and like $550 for three water blocks and stuff, so it's like close to, but under $3000 for video cards...wait...why is there only Raman Noodles in the cupboard?

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  8. 790gx and 780g with side port ram are good for bas by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    790gx and 780g with side port ram are good for basic video work / vista and you can add $50 card for a boost as well. Also they cost less then Intel board that cost more and are slower with poor divers that use system ram.

  9. This has worked for me all the time in fact... by holywarrior21c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before i switched to ppc-mac/xbox 360 few years ago, i owned a self-built PC with cheapest functional hardware. what i did was getting a used parts from ebay. i got new graphics card for $30 in order to play WOW because the old one couldn't render 3D graphics so WOW looked like a mozaic slush. I was never fond of spending too much money on gaming so i looked for alternative; XBOX 360. Cheap. no upgrade required. no installation. being a busy university student and having number of part time jobs going on , i barely find time to play games and money to buy new titles. Yet, this has made me to be the best player around me because i play one title for long time. so, even if i suck at most of the games, i have name among my friends. being a fan of game doesn't mean that you need latest $4000ailienware pc. and i have tone of things to make up for and brand new pc comes least priority on my list. in fact, i didn't have that in my list.

  10. Cooling by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to see more graphics cards with passive cooling. Every time I see one of these cards with a big honking fan on it, I wonder how long it will last and whether it is even possible to replace the fan if it fails.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  11. Re:Failing the spork test? by Cochonou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Be careful, MB might have worked good in retail space as "everyone except hard drives manufacturers" knew what it was supposed to mean, but it didn't work as well in engineering space as soon as you mixed storage space (power 2) with data transfert rates (power 10). A MP3 encoded at 128 Kb/s is encoded at 128000 b/s, not 131072 b/s.
    So, regardless of the fact they were coined rather abruptly, I find the whole Ki / Mi / etc prefixes to be a rather good move forward.

  12. No, there's cheaper ones. by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 2, Informative

    I feel like I'm plugging myself, but the Radeon X1950 is a massively capable card, and is available for as little as $60-70. It's also fully accelerated with the open-source driver stack as of Mesa 7.1. (I'm currently on one, running Compiz Fusion with Xserver 1.5. It's good times.)

    --
    ~ C.
  13. "Trickle-down?" by hdon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only person who found this to be a *really* strange turn of phrase?

    With game developers targeting the relatively modest hardware available in current consoles and trickle-down bringing cutting-edge features down to budget price points, today's low-end graphics cards are more capable than ever.

  14. Re:Failing the spork test? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find the whole Ki / Mi / etc prefixes to be a rather good move forward.

    I disagree. If we have a problem with the units of measurement being disparate, we should reconcile them, not split them into two. Not to mention that the Ki/Mi/etc prefixes sound like baby talk, which makes me want to smack whoever came up with them upside the head.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  15. If $170 is cheap... by Judinous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I managed to pick up an HD4870 from Newegg this week for $200 with a combo deal on a motherboard that I was going to get anyway. If the high end is only $200, I think that they'd be hard-pressed to call $170 a budget card. Then again, maybe it was just a really good deal.

  16. MSI return policy worked great for me by Simpsoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    July last year saw me splurge out on a new box. At the time I got an MSI GeForce 768MB O/Clocked 8800GTX. It cost me a decent chuck of the final PC price ($820 AUD).
    This card was beautiful. It just ate up every game I threw at it smoothly and perfectly. Running at 1920 resolution on my 26 inch Acer.
    A year later my PC died whilst playing HL2. Turns out that between my GFX card and Sound card was a small little firewire chip that controlled the 1 firewire port at the back (that I had an external HDD plugged to with all my mp3s).
    The poor little chip got so worked up after 6 or so hours of gaming and simultaneously listening to music that it burnt out.
    Needless to say it fried a few components in my system. Graphics card, RAM and motherboard.
    It took many months for Asus to replace my board (as they didn't sell them anymore).
    However MSI quickly replaced my video card. Upon handing in the card I learnt that it was old stock and no longer produced.
    I was quite anxious to learn what I would get back. However 4 weeks later (ok so that part wasn't great) they returned to me a brand new 1GB MSI GeForce 9800 GX2 (SLI on the one board).
    I was extremely happy as I got a great, more powerful, newer generation of card replaced for my faulty card for free.

  17. Comparison to older cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish these reviews would give comparisons to older cards so people thinking about upgrading could tell how much of a performance increase they're getting for their money. As it is these data are pretty meaningless to me.

  18. Re:Failing the spork test? by BrentH · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing is that IT-people and Computer Scientists have this uncanny drive to keep talking of and thinking in powers of two, insisting on starting the counting with 0 and generally don't care about the long standing conventions there already were in the rest of the world. k=1000, M=1000000, etc, period. If you insist on using rediculous numbers like 1024, 1048576, etc, you're gonna use your own damn prefixes for them. No hijacking please.

  19. Re:$70 is cheap? by Ragzouken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This argument doesn't work unless you assume anyone who's serious about gaming plays subscription games.

  20. Byting off more than you can chew... by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then quit calling then "bytes". I've used computers with 5 to 10 bit characters and 8 to 13 bit "bytes". The correct standardized term for 8 bits of data is an "octet".

    So it's either MB (traditional) or MiO (formal). Never MiB.