Best Graphics Cards For The Money: January 2012 (Archive)

[cleeve]

The new year promises availability of AMD's new Radeon HD 7970 3 GB. Also, we see a spate of surprise price shifts that change some of our most consistent recommendations. We're also getting more information about what will happen in the coming months.

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: January 2012 : Read more

 

[ufo_warviper]

Hey Don!
Thanks for the December update! You're "For the money" guides are a staple hardware read for me every month! Keep up the good work!

First of all, i would like to note that the comments to the November 20th article are showing up on the December article instead of the December ones...

OF OTHER NOTES:
1....
I suggest adding Honorable mentions for Triinity APUs in the low end market. If someone already has a Radeon 7660D on their APU, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a 7670 DDR3. They would be much better served by saving up for a $100 card or waiting for the prices of 7750 cards to fall. Trinity (and to some extent )Ivy Bridge HD 4000), are truly kissing the heels of the low end discrete market, and are vastly superior than virtually all of the crap floating around the ~$50 price point on Newegg. Although detail settings and resolutions will most definitely have to be lowered somewhat, sticking with these on-die APU solutions are compelling for Casual gamers that can't afford more than a $50 card.

In the near future it will be increasingly difficult to ignore discussing APUs as they continue to get better and better. I can't wait to see how well Haswell holds up.
2....
The Radeon 7990 doesn't seem to show up on the Hierarchy chart nor mentioned in the $375 and up section. I can only find 2 Powercolor variants, but they are both in stock. For some reason, i can only find a modest amount of press coverage on Radeon 7990 overall.

 

[beninchi]

The reason there is little coverage of the 7990 is because there "officially" is no 7990. Because AMD has yet to spec one, hardware vendors have taken upon themselves to mash two 7970s and call it a 7990. It exists, but is not very official from AMD's point of view.

 

[beninchi]

And big kudos for adding the Trinity 7660D to the chart!

 

[wdmfiber]

@ufo_warviper if you really appreciate Don's review you should re-read it; as he wrote a paragraph about the 7990, or the lack there-of (beninichi summed up).

And there is no honor in running intergrated graphics/APU's at this point. Hense no honourable mention...

As for Haswell. As an enthusiast I'd love for the i7-2700K/3770K successor to have weak integrated graphics. Weaker than HD3000, have a TDP of ~110 watts and use fluxless solder in it's construction! Sadly though, I know that's unlikely to happen.

 

[DEY123]

I am confused on how the 560 SE is a tie with the 7770. The 7770 is $10 cheaper, uses less power and is rated one level higher in Tom's Hierarchy of Cards. Seems like it should be the 7770 as the sole suggestion at the price point.

 

[hytecgowthaman]

Thanks for helping to buyers. also give very very low cost gpus for bussiness systems.

 

[army_ant7]

I am confused on how the 560 SE is a tie with the 7770. The 7770 is $10 cheaper, uses less power and is rated one level higher in Tom's Hierarchy of Cards. Seems like it should be the 7770 as the sole suggestion at the price point.

I have given that some thought. It could be for the sake of being fair and providing options from both sides/companies as much as possible. Also, it could be because some games run better using Nvidia cards and they also have PhysX, CUDA, etc. support for whomever may value them.

Take note of how, in the Best Gaming CPU series, the AMD FX-4170 is also tied with the Intel Core i3-3220 even though the latter is superior in terms of power consumption and possibly plain (gaming) performance.


On a side note, aw... Even the comments posted after this Dec. update were wiped out.

 

[mikenygmail]

AMD Trinity APU's need to be added to the chart, above intel integrated graphics.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]beninchi[/nom]And big kudos for adding the Trinity 7660D to the chart![/citation]

Thanks for adding it toms. It was added as "Integrated: HD 7660D" which will not be enough information for people to properly recognize and consider it.

It needs to be identified as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU." This name change would be appreciated.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]AMD Trinity APU's need to be added to the chart, above intel integrated graphics.[/citation]

Good, I see that "Integrated: HD 7660D" was added 4 tiers above Intel's best integrated, but it needs to be listed as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU" so that people can properly recognize and consider it. The change would be appreciated TH.

 

[mikenygmail]

Please fix the Hierarchy Chart.
APU's are not "Radeon" products, so a new column is needed, entitled "AMD."
Then in the appropriate tier, list each AMD APU
in the same format as this example: "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU."

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]Please fix the Hierarchy Chart.APU's are not "Radeon" products, so a new column is needed, entitled "AMD."Then in the appropriate tier, list each AMD APU in the same format as this example: "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU."[/citation]

Nothing to fix.
APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.

Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Nothing to fix. APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.[/citation]

Plenty to fix, actually.
Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.

Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.

AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
Radeon's column products are listed as such:
"Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
"APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
Come on, this is ridiculous...

I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.

 

[army_ant7]

Aw... What did I do to get thumbed down? :lol:

Don, is what I said above really the reason you still recommended the GTX 560 SE? Some people are wondering.

 

[mikenygmail]

Actually, Intel graphics are in fact listed by the CPU, for 3 of the top 5, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.

The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.

The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!

 

[army_ant7]

Plenty to fix, actually.
Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.

Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.

AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
Radeon's column products are listed as such:
"Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
"APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
Come on, this is ridiculous...

I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.

Well actually...

Maybe Intel's name is listed to differentiate its HD's from the Radeon HD's? You know, because AMD's Radeon HD's are really iconic and people might confuse Intel's HD graphics for them in the chart. Plus, Intel doesn't really give a name like "GeForce" or "Radeon" to its graphics so...

The "D" or "G" after the APU graphics' names are there to denote that they are APU graphics. (Some of) Intel's GPU's are technically what APU's are as well I think. Should they be denoted as well as such?

 

[army_ant7]

Actually, Intel graphics are in fact listed by the CPU, for 3 of the top 5, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.

The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.

The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!

Oh, so that's what you meant. The reason they do that I assume is because Intel names some of it's GPU's the same even though they vary in specs between processors. AMD on the other hand has specific models for different spec'ed IGP's. I'd say what they did was only right.

 

[eisley]

Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here!
I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.

But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?

Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.

Please read the rest here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html

Thank you very much!

- L.

 

[randomizer]

Come on, this is ridiculous...

I'll say. You could complain about the choice of cards. You could complain about the analysis of each product. You could even go as low as complaining about grammar. Instead, you chose to complain that AMD is not listed in the column headers of a table.

You, sir, are the most petty person I've run into all day.

 

[army_ant7]

Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here!
I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.

But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?

Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.

Please read the rest here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html

Thank you very much!

- L.

Hello there! Welcome to Tom's Hardware and I hope you stick around and participate inn the forums.

I'll have a shot at your inquiry, though if I'm wrong, I bet someone else could correct me.

IMO, the chart is very general and "rough." As I know, the performance of some of the cards listed are pretty much approximations/educated guesses. Not all of them have been tested under the same benchmarks so there's no perfect comparison.

Also, you may very well be aware of how older generation cards don't support some technologies like DirectX 11 for one. I don't think this chart really takes that into account. As for the RAM amount, you may already know this but I'll say it anyway, as I know, how much RAM needed is highly dependent on the resolution and anti-aliasing levels you use, aside from a lot of other things like the game itself.

So anyway, since this chart is very general in nature (and possibly could use updates with older cards, though that's too much to ask for I would say) you'd have to take other factors into consideration like those I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

BTW, 9/8 tiers are pretty substantial in terms of a performance difference I think. Also, each tier might not represent that equal of differences in performance, though I'm not totally sure. I wouldn't know if the 8800 GTS is misplaced on the chart, but if it isn't then it looks like it was quite the performer during its time. A good performing card's merit could carry over through multiple generations past its own.

I hope I helped, but feel free to say if not...

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]You, sir, are the most petty person I've run into all day.[/citation]

You, sir, are the most random troll I've ever run into - but at least your name kinda fits.

Petty, if anything, is picking out 1 random thing and emphasizing it to the point of untruths.
Stop whining about my post and try responding to it in a proper manner.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]eisley[/nom]Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here! I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good. But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.Please read the rest here:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1743.htmlThank you very much!- L.[/citation]

512 is not enough to play modern games nicely with medium to high settings.
I'd recommend getting something with at least 2 GB, or 1 GB at an absolute minimum.
Get at least an AMD Radeon 7770 or equivalent.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]army_ant7[/nom]feel free to say if not...[/citation]

not.

you did not answer the question, but luckily I did.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]eisley[/nom]Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here! I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good. But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.Please read the rest here:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1743.htmlThank you very much!- L.[/citation]

I just wanted to add that Intel HD Graphics 4000 is not "pretty cool" and in fact it's absolutely horrible compared to AMD's APU's which provide vastly superior GPU's, 3 to 4 tiers higher.

The 8800 GTS 512 is 9 tiers down because that's where it belongs. 3 tiers or more represents a significant difference.