Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Budget Graphics Card Roundup

Posted by samzenpus on from the looking-good-for-less dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "Not all of us are prepared to drop $500 for a killer graphics card. Generally, the sweet spot in price and performance is in the budget category of GPUs. Joel Durham Jr. over at ExtremeTech reviews nine current graphics cards, all of which are below $250, some below $150, to determine which cards are worth the time and money for the gamer on a budget. In the sub $150 category, the ATI Radeon 4770 performed the best for its price. Spend a little more and Joel recommends the GeForce 260."

5 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong... by Schnoogs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the sweetspot is in the mid range. The budget cards are only good for playing those 2-3 year old games you've been putting off forever. The midrange cards allows you to play the current games at modest framerates without having to break the bank. For $200 I can get a card that will play Crysis, STALKER Clear Sky, etc at a reasonable resolution. Try doing that with a budget card.

    1. Re:Wrong... by Itninja · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah that works. But the money you are saving on the card(s) will be more than eaten up by the need to a crossfire compatible board (i.e. one with 2+ PCI x16 slots). Mobos with only a single slot are less than half the price.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:Wrong... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "For $200 I can get a card that will play Crysis, STALKER Clear Sky, etc at a reasonable resolution. Try doing that with a budget card."

      RTFA Crysis, high settings, 1680x1050... 32.7 fps from the $100 Radeon 4770. Anyone want to argue that 1680x1050 isn't a "reasonable resolution"? And remember this was a benchmark, so no doubt there were 100 guys on the screen moving and shouting and explosions and all that stuff that never really happens when you're playing normally, crouching behind a tree trying not to be sniped.

      If that's not enough, spend another $100 and run 1900x1200 at 43fps

      And we haven't even touched the 20% fps gains from overclocking: "At 1680x1050, with 4xAA, you're looking at a greater-than 20% boost - nothing short of incredible."

      Yes, I bought one and it's amazing for $100. Wonder what I'll be buying in 2-3 yrs? A $70 card?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Wrong... by winphreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember that when SLI was new.
      People would buy two mid range cards and it had enough kick to run everything for a few years at a decent rate.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
  2. eVGA GTX260 216 SC and CUDA by StarHeart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just bought a eVGA GTX260 216(core) SC at Fry's for $200+$20 tax. But it had a mail in rebate for $50. Which will bring the price down to $150+$20 tax. I bought it not as a gaming card, but as a second CUDA card. I already had a PNY GTX260(192 core).

    CUDA doesn't play nice with regular graphics usage. Your machine will be really jerky every few seconds. I also didn't have room in my main computer, motherboard or power supply wise. So I put it in my second desktop that I use for iSCSI and a third monitor via synergy. The machine already had a 6600GT, which then became the secondary card. I run X off it. Which leaves the eVGA card just for CUDA. Then I can run it all day and not even notice a performance hit.

    --
    Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.