Best Graphics Cards For The Money: June 2010

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]@MU_Engineer: the 440BX started with Slot 1 CPUs (PII) and ended with Socket370 ones (PIII) - starting at 266 MHz and ending up at one GHz (except some very limited samples that could reach 2 GHz - a friend of mine ended up with one through military contacts, and you couldn't get much better at the time than his 2 GHz PIII - I know, I couldn't believe it either until I saw it).The reason I say 440BX ran like a champ, is that when the i815 came out (it was a PIII chipset), it actually had worse RAM performance than the BX! I'm not kidding, THG's benchmarks of the time are still online - it shows i815 beating the BX only on those cases where an AGP 4X interface was required not to bottleneck the GPU...And, yes, the Rambus thingie was a debacle; I dare say that, had Intel not entered that deal with Rambus, AMD would probably not raised from the boonies of IT so much (regardless of how good the K7 was, the truth is that Rambus cost an arm and poor students had to buy their GHz machines somewhere...)[/citation]

What you're saying isn't really true. The 440BX was not for 266 MHz Pentium III, although, if you were stupid you could buy one and use it that way. The 440LX was used for the 66 MHz parts, and when Intel came out with the 100 MHz bus, they came out with the 440BX which supported it.

The Pentium III never ran at 2 GHz. The last model was 1.4 GHz, and without a lot of effort you could get it to 1.6 GHz. But, most importantly, the 440BX did not support these processors anyway. Tualatins were only supported on the updated 815, the Apollo Pro 133T, and Apollo Pro 266T. There were also some ServerWorks chipsets, which had excellent memory performance (using SDRAM), but had too many problems with AGP to be useful outside of the server environment.

The fastest processor Intel released for the 440BX was at 1.1 GHz. Try tried a 1.13 Coppermine, but it was withdrawn. As I mentioned, the Tualatins after that were not supported by the 440 BX, and could not be used without adapters.

Of course there were dual processor 440BX, but the i840 ate them up with two processors instead of one. The 440GX was generally used for dual processor motherboards, also.
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
Prices always seem to align every 4-6 months to provide an uber-sweet-spot at a particular price point. I'm interested in the ~$200 range and we just aren't there right now. I'll stick with my 4850.
 
G

Guest

Guest
WooHoo!
Love the chart!
Was looking for a graphics card to buy, but couldn't find the graphics hierarchy table!

Anyways, I found out for me the Radeon 5770 got all that I need, and is much lower in powerconsumption than the 5830 (or higher) cards!
Besides I need to drive only one 1080p screen, where the 5770 will do just fine!
 
Is it me or are we getting more and more categories each month ? :)

Only selection omission I see is why twin 470's aren't mentioned in the $700 category. Seems most of the single card selections, got a second nod when doubled up in SLI or XFire except that one. Given the performance advantage (23% increase in min. frame rates), would think both choices are viable. Twin 5850's also outperform the 5970 making the $700 choice even more suspect.
 

idisarmu

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2008
511
0
18,980
WTF happened to fermi's performance if a 352 shader part performs like a 240 shader part from a PREVIOUS GENERATION!?!?!

No wonder Nvidia isn't doing well. They deserve it.
 

idisarmu

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2008
511
0
18,980
[citation][nom]JackNaylorPE[/nom]Is it me or are we getting more and more categories each month ? Only selection omission I see is why twin 470's aren't mentioned in the $700 category. Seems most of the single card selections, got a second nod when doubled up in SLI or XFire except that one. Given the performance advantage (23% increase in min. frame rates), would think both choices are viable. Twin 5850's also outperform the 5970 making the $700 choice even more suspect.[/citation]

Twin 5850s are faster than a single 5890? Please explain. They have the same clocks but the 5970 has more shaders than dual 5850s. I think you meant dual 5870s. Sadly, they are WAY over $700
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
The GTX 480 is on sale at NCIX this weekend for $469 Canadian and the 5750 is on for $119. Pretty good prices considering they're in CAD$.
 

pirateboy

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2008
307
0
18,780
[citation][nom]cobot[/nom]These best GPU and CPU lists are very appreciated by most of us, so shoo.[/citation]

Nah.
These articles are up here way to frequent. Most people just don't take the time make a negative comment about them. They just skip the article alltogether. Hence the thumbs down votes from the sheep.

 

rohitbaran

Distinguished
The list doesn't include the newcomer GTX 465 from the green camp. But given the poor performance to price ratio and high power consumption of the card, it wouldn't have been recommended for the $280-$300 price bracket.
 

rohitbaran

Distinguished
While the GPU hierarchy list is good, I think it could be more informative to readers if a performance factor was introduced with each card, say 1x, 1.5x etc. which could give a roughidea of the relative performance gains.
 
[citation][nom]pinkfloydminnesota[/nom]How on earth can you give an honorable mention to the 5970 when it's about equal to the Xfired 5850s and 20% more $$? Do you really believe single slot motherboards exist on any systems with $600 invested in graphics?[/citation]
A single chip from the 5970 has higher specs than the 5850 chip but lower than the 5870 chip.
 

f4phantom2500

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2010
22
0
18,510
[citation][nom]stickmans88[/nom]Don't know about enzo matrix ,but I need to update my tri 3870... Any ideas with a $200 budget?[/citation]

For that price you should be able to find 2 4870's or possibly 3 4850's.
 

csuwrx

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2009
12
0
18,510
One thing I´d like to see in the list is the power compsumption of each card, I think it would help a bit
 

volks1470

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
262
0
18,790
My 5870s in crossfire are serving me well. There's definitely a need for that much graphics power when you play at 5948x1080 ;)Some games still can't be played maxed out.
 

W Craven

Distinguished
May 8, 2009
57
0
18,630
Most of the benchmarks out show the CX 5850 matching the 5970 or alittle better because of software scaling is better with the CX ribbon then the hardware 5970 uses to crossfire... the $120 cheaper price can be used to buy a new mobo with CX and the x58 platform has x16 / x16 in CX and not 8x /x8 that the p55 is limited to.

So if you had a fixed budget the CX 5850 would allow for a new Mobo in the build or even some DDR3 ram and not lose much speed to a 5970.. CX 5850 is epic in BC 2 at 5760 x 1080 in Eyefiniy.
 

maxpain12

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2009
39
0
18,540
The reason why Nvidia cards like the 260 are still expensive compared to ATI cards like the 5770 is because all the issues they have been having. It seems like buying a 5000 series card is like flipping a coin. Better hope your on the winning side. Just look at the 'Grey Screen Issues' on prominent hardware sites like Egg. The issue is painfully present across most brands which points the finger at AMD. Bottom line is DX 11 and good performance is not going to change the fact that the hardware and drivers are iffy, at least to a significant portion of users. So as long as AMD struggles to get their act together we are gonna have to pay big money for outdated and pricey but more stable Geforce cards.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]maxpain12[/nom]The reason why Nvidia cards like the 260 are still expensive compared to ATI cards like the 5770 is because all the issues they have been having. [/citation]

Ludicrous propaganda. GeForce GTX 260 cards used to be the same price as the 5770, they're more expensive now because Nvidia isn't trying to compete on price anymore. They're too expensive to manufacture and they're being end-of-life'd.

There are only 5 GTX 260s available on newegg, but there are about 20 5770s.

As far as problems, that's ridiculous. Googling 'Radeon problem' or 'Geforce problem' both gets you about 4 and a half million results. It's my job to mess with these cards on a constant basis and they all have quirks, but it's been years since I've seen a show-stopping problem from either camp.
 

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
Congrats on finally getting this article finished so early in the month, this is very much appreciated. Now just don't fall behind and end up posting the next article in late July or not at all!
 

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
Cleeve, great work here but I'm going to have to disagree with your above post. Nvidia is always *trying* to compete with AMD/ATI in every possible way they can, but the fact of the matter is that AMD/ATI has been kicking Nvidia's butt all over the place for some time now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.