Buying a replacement GFX card...

ixoy

I had a beautiful graphics card [Asus 6870 1GB] which appears to have died on me. It's being returned and, right now, I'm using an old GFX card that doesn't let me play any games.
I need a replacement (which I won't get on the return, only a refund). I'm wondering should I get the same fancy GFX card or settle on something cheaper?

Here's some of the games that I'm looking to play:
Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Arkham Asylum.

All relatively new. However my current monitor (19") only supports a max. resolution of 1280 x 1024 which means I doubt I'd ever get full use of a top-end GFX card. Should I only go mid-range as a result? Or would I see the power even at that (relatively low) resolution?

lmimmfn

tbh with you most of those games are Unreal Engine 3 games and dont require a great gfx card to max out, especially at 1280x1024. If it was me i would probably just get a second hand Nvidia 260 or 4870 for about 80 euro, or if you want a new card, i would go with the Nvidia 460 786Meg model, performance wise its only slightly slower than your 6870, but you can get them for £114 compared to about £174 for the cheapest 6870. You wont notice any difference in your games performance.

marco_polo

I would just get a HD5670 tops, and pocket the remainder of the cash if I were you.

It will perform great with the games mentioned @1280X1024, and will be able to pump out over 60 FPS on average for both ME2 and Fallout and 100+ FPS for both Batman and Bioshock 2 at that resolution

Mass Effect 2
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/Mass-Effect-2,2477.html

Fallout 3 (Engine very similar to NV)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/14/ati-radeon-hd-5670-review/4

Batman
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5670_1gb/12.htm

Bioshock 2
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5670__hd5550/12.htm

lmimmfn

marco_polo wrote: »

I would just get a HD5670 tops, and pocket the remainder of the cash if I were you.

It will perform great with the games mentioned @1280X1024, and will be able to pump out over 60 FPS on average for both ME2 and Fallout and 100+ FPS for both Batman and Bioshock 2 at that resolution

Mass Effect 2
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/Mass-Effect-2,2477.html

Fallout 3 (Engine very similar to NV)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/14/ati-radeon-hd-5670-review/4

Batman
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5670_1gb/12.htm

Bioshock 2
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5670__hd5550/12.htm

i think the performance of that card is too low, the batman benchies are medium settings with no AA( AA takes a huge hit on ATI cards because it doesnt support it in game, but you can fudge it to pretent an ATI card is an Nvidia card ).
Fallout 3 has a min FPS of 22 which is too low. Bioshock 2 results are on low settings with 0AA and 0AF. Theyre not comparable to running games on high, also 1280x1024 needs AA

ixoy

I don't want to go too bargain basement either. How much of a difference does anti-aliasing generally make? Does it give a marked improvement on jagged edges even at 1280 x 1024?
I'd also want to be able to upgrade a monitor in the next two years and avail of better resolutions. If I pitched a budget of €150 (instead of €250), would I be able to make a good trade off? I'd assume that €150 should match anything the X-Box 360 / PS3 crowd are throwing out given their technology is 5 years old!

lmimmfn

ixoy wrote: »

I don't want to go too bargain basement either. How much of a difference does anti-aliasing generally make? Does it give a marked improvement on jagged edges even at 1280 x 1024?

Yes it makes a huge difference, no AA means crappy jaggies everywhere, its worse at 1280x1024 compared to a 22" screen which is 1680x1050 because the pixels are bigger on your screen

ixoy wrote: »

I'd also want to be able to upgrade a monitor in the next two years and avail of better resolutions. If I pitched a budget of €150 (instead of €250), would I be able to make a good trade off?/QUOTE]
Depends on the screen you get, if its a 24" and you expect max in 2 years, not a chance, a 22" 1680x1050 screen maybe,

ixoy wrote: »

I'd assume that €150 should match anything the X-Box 360 / PS3 crowd are throwing out given their technology is 5 years old!

You can match console gfx with a 40euro second hand gfx card. €150-160 will bag you a decent card.

marco_polo

lmimmfn wrote: »

i think the performance of that card is too low, the batman benchies are medium settings with no AA( AA takes a huge hit on ATI cards because it doesnt support it in game, but you can fudge it to pretent an ATI card is an Nvidia card ).
Fallout 3 has a min FPS of 22 which is too low. Bioshock 2 results are on low settings with 0AA and 0AF. Theyre not comparable to running games on high, also 1280x1024 needs AA

You are quite right sir, I have just facepalmed myself. I was aiming foor the lowest price acceptable card but I undershot a little for maxing out games.

I don't know why I didn't check the settings used . I was debating between the 5750 and the 5670 and I let those numbers tip me towards the 5670 (who benchmarks at low quality seriously ). Turns out Mass Effect 2 with all bells and whistles would be only borderline acceptable.

A 5750 would definately be enough for the current monitor,but I see the possibility of a monitor upgrade has been thrown into the mix which changes things signifigantly.

lmimmfn wrote: »

Yes it makes a huge difference, no AA means crappy jaggies everywhere, its worse at 1280x1024 compared to a 22" screen which is 1680x1050 because the pixels are bigger on your screen

Depends on the screen you get, if its a 24" and you expect max in 2 years, not a chance, a 22" 1680x1050 screen maybe,
You can match console gfx with a 40euro second hand gfx card. €150-160 will bag you a decent card.

I think you are being slightly pessimistic the longevity of cards in this age of console ports, the HD 4870 which I am using was launched 2 1/2 years old and there are probably less than half a dozen games it cannot completely max out @1080p (but get very close to max all the same) and I don't see that list increasing greatly in size in 2011 I have to say.

I could definately see say a 460 or 6850 performing admirably @1080p in two years time.

lmimmfn

marco_polo wrote: »

I think you are being slightly pessimistic the longevity of cards in this age of console ports, the HD 4870 which I am using was launched 2 1/2 years old and there are probably less than half a dozen games it cannot completely max out @1080p (but get very close to max all the same) and I don't see that list increasing greatly in size in 2011 I have to say.

I could definately see say a 460 or 6850 performing admirably @1080p in two years time.

not at all, if you see my post above, second hand i recommended a 260 or 4870, the thing is those were top end( 4870 )->mid range( 260 ) cards at the time and had fantastic performance but like anything techy, instead of them becoming cheaper over time, they just release replacements and even a 5770 at stock was below 4870 performance. So a 4870/260 for 80euro second hand will beat any new card that costs 120euro @ stock clocks on all cards

marco_polo

lmimmfn wrote: »

not at all, if you see my post above, second hand i recommended a 260 or 4870, the thing is those were top end( 4870 )->mid range( 260 ) cards at the time and had fantastic performance but like anything techy, instead of them becoming cheaper over time, they just release replacements and even a 5770 at stock was below 4870 performance. So a 4870/260 for 80euro second hand will beat any new card that costs 120euro @ stock clocks on all cards

That is all true, however I was only really disagreeing with the sentance "Depends on the screen you get, if its a 24" and you expect max in 2 years, not a chance", for a card with a 150 euro budget. Simply becasue I feel that a stage has been reached where even with the current upper mid range / lower high end cards like the GT460/6850 (not sure exactly where they belong), will probably be comfortably maxing out games @1080p in two years time. For two main reasons, firstly that games that will really push the boat on PC in the immediate future look to be few and far between, and secondly few enough are likely to go beyond 1080p to even higher resolutions / eyefinity setups because of the expense involved.

It could be I am just over pessimistic about near future gaming innovation and development though .

Also comparing 5770 to 4870 performance is a little unfair as the launch price of the 4870 was about 300 dollars compared to roughtly 160 for the 5770. As high end cards though the 5870/5850 should be though of as the real replacements for the 48XXs.

lmimmfn

marco_polo wrote: »

That is all true, however I was only really disagreeing with the sentance "Depends on the screen you get, if its a 24" and you expect max in 2 years, not a chance", for a card with a 150 euro budget. Simply becasue I feel that a stage has been reached where even with the current upper mid range / lower high end cards like the GT460/6850 (not sure exactly where they belong), will probably be comfortably maxing out games @1080p in two years time. For two main reasons, firstly that games that will really push the boat on PC in the immediate future look to be few and far between, and secondly few enough are likely to go beyond 1080p to even higher resolutions / eyefinity setups because of the expense involved.

It could be I am just over pessimistic about near future gaming innovation and development though .

Also comparing 5770 to 4870 performance is a little unfair as the launch price of the 4870 was about 300 dollars compared to roughtly 160 for the 5770. As high end cards though the 5870/5850 should be though of as the real replacements for the 48XXs.

i agree completely on the fact that the next 2 years of PC gaming will be mostly ports unfortunately, however to run most games at max settings( but only 2xAA ), youre talking minimum 4870 or nvidia 260 in the second hand market. New theres only really the Nvidia 460 768Meg card. You can of course run games on lesser cards like the 5770/5750/5670/Nvidia 450 etc. however average performance will be down.

My point on comparison of the 5770 wasnt to make it look unfair, but simply to highlght older top end cards dont become cheapo low priced cards and nothing else really.

My trusty old Nvidia 260 216SP would max everything, but theres been no proper replacements for that card by ATI or Nvidia in the cheapo sector.

If i was asked to do this the cheapest way i would say OP, buy a second hand 8800GT for 50euro, it will run most things maxed at 1280x1024 with 2xAA. Then when you get your new screen go for a 150euro card at that time.

ixoy

Oh 2nd hand - not so sure about that, given I'd like a guarantee (after all my current card broke!).
I'm surprised that the current mid-range cards don't equal top-end cards from a couple of years ago!

What about the 6850 series? It sems to almost hit the same highs as the 6870, but is about €50-€70 cheaper and would serve me well if I upgraded my monitor sooner. FWIW, one other game I have to play is 'Crysis: Warhead', and I'm pretty sure that pushes a card as much as any game.

lmimmfn

ixoy wrote: »

Oh 2nd hand - not so sure about that, given I'd like a guarantee (after all my current card broke!).
I'm surprised that the current mid-range cards don't equal top-end cards from a couple of years ago!

What about the 6850 series? It sems to almost hit the same highs as the 6870, but is about €50-€70 cheaper and would serve me well if I upgraded my monitor sooner. FWIW, one other game I have to play is 'Crysis: Warhead', and I'm pretty sure that pushes a card as much as any game.

Crysis, Crysis: Warhead and Metro 2033 are the most demanding games on the PC,its only now after 3+years since release that i can run Crysis at 60FPS maxed @1680x1050 lol.

So yeah if you like that then you will need a decent card, the 6850 is good, its not as good as a 6870 but you can overclock it to 6870 performance easily, in that bracket the Nvidia 460 1Gb card is the alternative, so go with whatevers cheaper.

Heres a comparison( note: medium i.e. gamer settings with 2xAA ) - http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-review/19

Also Nvidia are about to launch the 560 card very soon, it might be worth waiting to see how that performs as it also might drag down prices on AMD cards

ixoy

lmimmfn wrote: »

Crysis, Crysis: Warhead and Metro 2033 are the most demanding games on the PC,its only now after 3+years since release that i can run Crysis at 60FPS maxed @1680x1050 lol.

So yeah if you like that then you will need a decent card, the 6850 is good, its not as good as a 6870 but you can overclock it to 6870 performance easily, in that bracket the Nvidia 460 1Gb card is the alternative, so go with whatevers cheaper.

If I looked at the 6850, would it best to go with ASUS, Sapphire or MSI? They all seem to get roughly the same marks, so it's probably just a matter of price.

Oh and I got it wrong above - I had a 5850 that died on me!

Also Nvidia are about to launch the 560 card very soon, it might be worth waiting to see how that performs as it also might drag down prices on AMD cards

Ah but can I wait much longer with this 7 year old GFX card...

lmimmfn

ixoy wrote: »

If I looked at the 6850, would it best to go with ASUS, Sapphire or MSI? They all seem to get roughly the same marks, so it's probably just a matter of price.

Oh and I got it wrong above - I had a 5850 that died on me!


Ah but can I wait much longer with this 7 year old GFX card...

ahhh, a 5850 is faster than a 6850, however not by much( its just the reference models of the 5850 had overvolting so you could OC them like the clappers and go beyond 5870 stock performance )

As for branding, well theres hardly any difference, Asus give warranty support on overclocking and overvolting so personally i would go with that for the simple fact that youre covered if you want to get more out of your card, you normally get 15% extra performance from overclocking( some cards are nuts and will go to 50% lol, my old 3750 managed that ). Doesnt sound like much but if your game is running at 35 FPS it brings it up to a nice 40-41FPS. Again base it on price. My current card is a Sapphire 6970 but i only went with that because it came with a mini displayport->Displayport adapter in the box which i need for eyefinity.

I know what you mean, using old cards suck lol, theres very little performance difference between the 6850 and Nvidia 1Gig 460 so make your decision on price there also.

Nothingbetter2d

i'd get a good midrange card or lower priced toprange card and then using the difference in cash saved buy a better monitor

Serephucus

I'd vote for a better card now, to be assured of playing games at higher settings for longer. DX11 isn't going anywhere soon, so the cards won't go "out of date", and it's looking like the current generation of consoles will be around for at least another two years, so you'll at least get that much time out of your card.

I'd vote for a 560 when they arrive, or a cheaper 470 second hand.

ixoy

Ended up getting the ASUS 6850. Very happy with it so far!