Graphics Card Confusion/Questions

[Zack Alklazaris]

I want to upgrade my graphics card, I'm looking for a Nvidia because I've always used them without any problems. I haven't updated mine in a while because I usually update my computer's weakest part piece by piece, the graphics card is now that weakest piece and I'm having trouble finding a new one. I usually buy cheap graphics cards (£40-80) so that my PC is still good enough to run new games to a nice standard, but not a cutting edge monstrosity. My current graphics card is a Nvidia GTS250, I'd like to upgrade it in anticipation for Skyrim and other future releases.

I'm currently considering buying a GTX 520 [http://www.microdirect.co.uk/Home/Product/52123/EVGA-Graphics-Card-GeForce-GTX-520-1GB-PCi-E]. I've read that the "X" usually means it's a faster card, but then why does this GT440 [http://www.microdirect.co.uk/Home/Product/50267/Asus-GeForce-GT440-1GB-GDDR5-PCI-E-2-0-DVI-Native] cost more? Can anyone recommend a good Nvidia graphics card in the £40-80 range? I'd prefer it to be cheaper, but if there's a noticeable difference I'd pay more, just not as much as the £100-300 things that get replaced by something else at the same price ridiculously quick.

Thanks!

Have you considered SLI the 250? (You know, combining two Nvidia Geforce 250 GTS cards together)

I have almost the exact same card (mines the overclocked BFG version) and can run BF3 fairly well. So I can't see why you couldn't put an RPG game on max settings. Love RPGs, but lets face it, they just are not graphically demanding.

 

[Joccaren]

"above average" settings for the next 2 years.

I'd beg to differ. With the exception of BF3, NOTHING has put ANY strain on my 9800GTX from six years ago, and I have no reason to believe that things will be different in the future so long as consoles are the main platform of games. Crysis, Crysis 2, SC2, DA2, ME2, Medieval 2 with over 6000 units, nothing has actually taxed my GPU. But then again, the 9800 was a damn good card, so I'm not surprised.

The choice you have is either paying 130 quid because it says GeForce on the box or paying 80 quid for a card that isnt a Geforce, but has the exact same specs and possibly even better performance.

In my experience, ATIs have tended to be louder, have had more driver issues with my PC, and been of an all round lesser quality, with the exception of a max 10 FPS increase on some programs. If he has used Nvidias and is comfortable with them, I see no reason to change. I have had no problems with Nvidia, but the ATI cards I've installed haven't worked too well for me. Personal experience only, I know a number of people who prefer ATI and have had problems with Nvidia, but for the the extra 50 $ or so is worth it.

The one big difference, apart from price, are the drivers and the control panel interface. Chances are, your experience with the drivers for both cards will start and end with downloading an .exe and installing it, or clicking one button in the Steam interface.

Pretty much. Both drivers are installed basically the same way, but if he's more familiar with Nvidia interfaces, let him use them.

Like I said, im going into this with no bias, but anyone that will pay twice as much money for a brand name isnt going to get my respect. Not that you have to care, mind.

As I've said, its not necessarily the brand name you are paying for. I've had generally crappy experiences with ATI cards, but pretty good ones with my Nvidias. I personally would never recommend an ATI unless on a very tight budget, but that is due to my personal experiences. There is nothing wrong with getting an Nvidia if you've had no problems with them over an ATI which you may yet have problems with.

Have you considered SLI the 250? (You know, combining two Nvidia Geforce 250 GTS cards together)

I have almost the exact same card (mines the overclocked BFG version) and can run BF3 fairly well. So I can't see why you couldn't put an RPG game on max settings. Love RPGs, but lets face it, they just are not graphically demanding.

Yeah, I suggested that earlier, not sure if it was noticed. And also, define 'fairly well'. My 9800GTX from 6 years back can run it on medium settings with about 40 FPS, or on High with about 12 FPS >.>. I'd recommend the SLI as it doubles youe FPS (Approximately) by simply buying and using another cheap card (The 250).

Also, BF3 is the ONLY graphically demanding game I've found out there. It is the exception that proves the rule, and that rule is almost nothing is graphically demanding.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all honesty, unless something major happens to the console gaming majority in coming years, you won't need to upgrade your card to play max settings on most games. An SLI of two 250s would see you set for at least the next 3-4 years. I've kept my computers graphics card the same 9800GTX since 2005, and it runs everything I've come across, except BF3, Max settings with an at least reasonable FPS. Hell, when I get my 560Ti, I'm still not going to retire it. I'm going to hook it up as a dedicated PhysX card, and hopefully it won't slow the system down due to its age.

Which is another thing I'd suggest, if you do end up getting a different card to a second 250, keep your 250 and use it as dedicated PhysX. Should increase your frame rate by a reasonable amount.

 

[Raziel Paragorne]

If you're looking to check the specs on a card versus another card try using GPUReview. It's a site that allows you to look at the specs of two cards side by side so you can see where each one out-performs the other.

If you're not technically minded though I'd recommend getting yourself a Nvidia card as a fair number of high end games are optimised to use Nvidia cards by default. Generally they're more reliable than ATI cards in terms of driver support as well.

That being said many of the posters in the thread have pointed out that the ATI's give more bang for your buck, which is generally true. I bought a 4870 a few years back and it ran everything I threw at it (Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Dragon Age, Borderlands, etc) flawlessly. The only thing to be aware of is getting greedy and over clocking it, since the ATI control panel allows you to over clock it very easily.

 

[Joccaren]

So, your 9800GTX runs everything well. I have one thing to say, and it completely destroys every argument you had.

Try enabling DX11.

Oh wait. You cant. Because the 9800GTX doesnt support DX11, and thus you arent putting any real strain on your graphics card in the first place. Its outdated, plain and simple.

Oh wow, DX11, something I honestly have barely even noticed. For a comparisson of older DX vs DX 11, though maybe an unfair one, check Crysis v Crysis 2. Get screenshots of each, Crysis with lower DX, and Crysis 2 with DX 11. I personally prefer Crysis, though that is largely due to its aesthetics. Crysis 2 is marginally better, but not in any really noticeable way. As I've said maybe an unfair comparison as Crysis was made for the PC, and Crysis 2 for Consoles porting to PC.

DX11 is about the only thing the 9800 can't do, and I'm fine going without it. As I've said, I'm getting a 560Ti later, and that will run DX11 perfectly fine. For a six year old card, only being unable to activate the latest DX isn't too bad. I fail to see how that destroys 'every argument (I) had'.

Also, last time I checked ATI cards aren't able to run PhysX without hacked drivers. Just thought I'd point it out.

 

[i2esol]

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Scroll down the list and find which one fits your budget.

 

[SquirrelPants]

I know it's slightly out of your price range, probably, but the GTX 560Ti is the best graphics card I've ever had. If you're willing to wait and save a little longer, I'd go for one of those. It seems to me that it has more longevity than the cards you're looking at, and it'll run most things at max settings(Battlefield 3 notwithstanding.)

As for your problem, the larger number is generally the better card, but I don't really know the direct difference between those two. I'm sure if you took a look at the specs, you'd see a difference in the numbers. Even if you don't know what the number means, bigger numbers=better card.

EDIT: Here's a thing from the nvidia website: http://www.geforce.com/Hardware/GPUs/geforce-gt-520/performance

It appears the 440 does have relatively better performance. I'm really confused as to how Nvidia's numbering system for their GPUs works now.

 

[Joccaren]

So - just to clarify - just because YOU cant see the difference between DX10 and DX11, that means it doesnt count? Even though you will need DX11 to play new releases in the very, very near future? Even though you cant possibly be playing at high settings because DX11 is the most vital part of high settings?

"Oh, yeah, I can run all new games at high to ultra settings. No, I dont have tessellation turned on." ---> Any idea how stupid that sounds? On top of that, you state that DX11 is "about the only thing the 9800 cant do". Bull. Fucking. Shit. How about double precision capability for a start? Or a HDMI output? Im not trying to point at your PC and scream "HAHAHA LOOK AT THE OUTDATED CASUAL" or anything, but come on dude.

If your graphics card is not DX11 compatible, it is outdated as a mofo, end of fucking story. Im not saying you need to get a new card, thats entirely up to you, but you certainly cannot brag about running the newest games.

OP, do what you must, but I really wouldnt take advice from a guy who pretends he cant see the difference between DX10 and 11 and thinks you can go without.

All new games I have gotten, with the sole exception of BF3, have run on maximum settings, and I haven't even seen any DX11 options in them.
HDMI output, there are converters. Its how I've linked mine up to a HDMI screen.

I know the 9800 is now outdated, and that is why I am getting a 560Ti, but the point was how many years it has lasted. 6 for me. If new graphics cards last that long, then there isn't a lot of point in upgrading too much. Though, in its day, the 9800 WAS a damn legendary card.

Can I also ask how ATI cards can run things on Maximum settings without PhysX? Yeah, you can hack them to run with PhysX, but not everyone can/will do that so... Yeah. Due to this, all ATI cards are utter crap and there is a MASSIVE difference in quality from PhysX vs Non-PhysX cards, right?

DX11 doesn't add all that much. Once again, see Crysis v Crysis 2. There is not a huge difference. I have stated that there is some difference, but it is not that big.

I have never said that I couldn't see the difference, I stated that there wasn't a lot of difference, and I never said the OP should go without. Where did I say 'get a 9800GTX'. I said that I had one, and was upgrading. It has lasted 6 years, that is a damn long time. I'm sorry if I decide that I will now upgrade because I can foresee things getting beyond the 9800's capabilities, but to date it has run everything I have bought, except BF3, on highest settings. Actually, scratch that earlier comment about DX11 settings, I think there was one game that had them.

For the amount of time it has lasted, and saying that new cards MIGHT last as long, I think it is a damned fair thing to bring up.
Also, the OP isn't going for 'OMG JIZZ IN MAH PANTS THIS IS AMASING' Graphical capabilities, hence why he isn't going for a couple of 590s in quad SLI. He is looking for something that will run things well for the next few years, and that is something my 9800GTX has done for me, and likely new cards will do for him. That was my purpose for using the 9800GTX, how long it has lasted for me, not how great it will be in the future.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

"above average" settings for the next 2 years.

I'd beg to differ. With the exception of BF3, NOTHING has put ANY strain on my 9800GTX from six years ago, and I have no reason to believe that things will be different in the future so long as consoles are the main platform of games. Crysis, Crysis 2, SC2, DA2, ME2, Medieval 2 with over 6000 units, nothing has actually taxed my GPU. But then again, the 9800 was a damn good card, so I'm not surprised.

Have you considered SLI the 250? (You know, combining two Nvidia Geforce 250 GTS cards together)

I have almost the exact same card (mines the overclocked BFG version) and can run BF3 fairly well. So I can't see why you couldn't put an RPG game on max settings. Love RPGs, but lets face it, they just are not graphically demanding.

Yeah, I suggested that earlier, not sure if it was noticed. And also, define 'fairly well'. My 9800GTX from 6 years back can run it on medium settings with about 40 FPS, or on High with about 12 FPS >.>. I'd recommend the SLI as it doubles youe FPS (Approximately) by simply buying and using another cheap card (The 250).

Also, BF3 is the ONLY graphically demanding game I've found out there. It is the exception that proves the rule, and that rule is almost nothing is graphically demanding.

I had to play around with it, but I'm at about a medium high. IDK... I like the games I pay for on the best possibly quality they can spit out. So having to settle for less the top settings (yea I know cry me a river) kind of bums me out. I tried putting everything on max and it worked, but I ended up getting about 20 frames a sec. You can't play multiplayer on that frame rate.