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."

23 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 i_liek_turtles · · Score: 3, Funny

      That sounds like the words of a terrorist.

      Why do you hate America?

    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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?

    10. 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
    11. 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?
  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.
  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.

  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. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.