Which graphics card to buy?

DublinWriter

Which of these looks better? I'm not a heavy gamer and just like the occasional game of BF2.

Gigabyte GV-R485MC-1GI ATI Fanless HD 4850 1GB GDDR3 PCI-E HDMI
or
Gigabyte GV-NX96T1GHP NVIDIA Fanless 9600GT 1GB GDDR3 PCI-E

TerrorFirmer

9600GT would be my choice, still a solid performer and at titles like BF2 it'd be double what you'd need to run it at full whack at 1920x1200. 4850 is by far the better card, but you wouldn't need that sort of performance really.

Though a 1GB 9600GT is useless, in so far as that it would not perform even a frame better then the 512mb model. If you can get an even cheaper 512mb model, it'd be a bonus.

Genghiz Cohen

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

9600GT would be my choice, still a solid performer and at titles like BF2 it'd be double what you'd need to run it at full whack at 1920x1200. 4850 is by far the better card, but you wouldn't need that sort of performance really.

Though a 1GB 9600GT is useless, in so far as that it would not perform even a frame better then the 512mb model. If you can get an even cheaper 512mb model, it'd be a bonus.

Won't the 1GB allow (needless) larger screen resolutions?

Solitaire

Not really. It would only help around 2560*1650 and up, and the GPU itself just doesn't have the grunt to power a 3D app at that kind of resolution regardless of the amount of texture/shader data it could hold in its framebuffer.

Woden

I'd go for the 4850. Its a solid card no need to cripple yourself on a 9600gt

cherryghost

cripple yourself? sounds like you're giving out bad vibes for the 9600GT there!

9600GT provides great value for money, and yes, the 4850 does perform better for a bit more cash. but for any battlefield game the 9600GT is the more viable option

TerrorFirmer

Woden wrote: »

I'd go for the 4850. Its a solid card no need to cripple yourself on a 9600gt

If you call about 150 uncapped Frames per second in BF2 at 1920x1200 maximum settings then yes....he's crippling himself with the 9600GT.

Won't the 1GB allow (needless) larger screen resolutions?

Not with the 9600GT. At resolutions that demand 1GB of memory the 9600GT doesn't have a fast enough core to keep up anyway.

here.from.day.1

If your only occasionally playing and its games like BF2, then I would agree with Mr. TerrorFirmer, you wouldnt be disappointed with the 9600GT and you'd save yourself a few quid.

Woden

cherryghost wrote: »

cripple yourself? sounds like you're giving out bad vibes for the 9600GT there!

9600GT provides great value for money, and yes, the 4850 does perform better for a bit more cash. but for any battlefield game the 9600GT is the more viable option

Yes I concur in as far as the original requirements however I feel should the op require any newer game in the future he would be better served by the 4850 for the sake of 60 euro.

TerrorFirmer

The 9600GT is still a good card, and the OP mentioned he's not a hardcore gamer....if he had said that he enjoys playing the latest games at maximum settings, then yes a 4850 would guarantee a longer lifespan, but the 9600GT can play almost any game out at the moment at high to max settings on a 'normal' sized monitor, and will continue to play most games at a respectable level for quite some time to come. I've been using an 8800GTS 320MB lately while I get a new card, and being slower then the GT, it still copes pretty well at 1920x1200 medium-high settings in most games - and at normal resolutions below 1440x900 it's still capable of playing those games at high-max...the card is 2 years old this April. So you can imagine for someone not overly concerned with games or settings, these cards offer a very healthy lifespan, for most of which they would play games at a very reasonable level..

DublinWriter

Thanks all - I think I'll go with the ATI (glutton for punishment) as, was pointed out here, it provides some measure of future-proofing.

I just hope the fanless Gigabyte model doesn't fry my new PC!

DublinWriter

I installed the fanless 4850 last Tuesday...big problem was the PCIeX16 slot in my PC is the last in the line of slots and is situated just beside the PSU.

As the fanless unit is twice as wide as a regular card (due to the complex heat-sinks), it wouldn't go into the PCIeX16 slot and had to go into the neighbouring x4 slot instead.

Bummer.

Still, performance is really good running BF2 at my LCD's native of 1650 X 1050 with all the options for graphics performance at the max.

The card is running really cool too, and the whole rig is whisper-quiet.

It should suffice for what I need, that is, until I discover Crysis!