Best Graphics Cards For the Money: March 2011

[Kewlx25]

I'm glad I didn't purchase a 6970. My 6950 is not only fast enough, but the $80 I saved can go towards an Ivy Bridge or a 7k series. There are almost no games that can push even a 68XX card. Save your money and wait until this fall when the new cards come out.

Instead of spending $300 now, spend $150 and save that other $150 for a low end new card. The cards coming out this fall are supposed to be about 3 times faster. So a $150 card in 6 month will out-perform a $500 card now.

That's my tip.

I'm holding out for 2013 to upgrade my 6950. The cards coming out in 2013 are supposed to be 16 times faster.

Technology has never seen such a fast increase in computing power.

Moores "law" states 2x increase every 18 month, we're going to be doing 4x increase every 12 months(but only for 2 years). That's crazy.

 

[nandopb]

I think some people just dont get the point of this monthly article.It's a about gaming,nothing more, nothing less.Conventional gaming, just 1 rig and 1 monitor.Linux support, power efficiency and multi monitor setups are not covered.

 

[nandopb]

I think some people just dont get the point of this monthly article.It's a about gaming,nothing more, nothing less.Conventional gaming, just 1 rig and 1 monitor.Linux support, power efficiency and multi monitor setups are not covered.

 

[geok1ng]

[citation][nom]psyndrome[/nom]I am a little surprised that the HD 4870 X2 are so high in the list. Are they still that capable?[/citation]


Take a closer look to the hierarchy chart and you will notice two points outside the curve: the 8800 Ultra and the 4870x2, videocards "with amazingly long life spans- the 8800 Ultra and video cards "far ahead of its time" the 4870X2.

there was no reason to upgrade an ultra for almost 3 years after its launch. And it took Dx11 games to make the 4870x2 "obsolete". Still there are NO Dx9 titles outside of Crysis that this card can not handle at 2560x1600. Most of then with AA enabled. But it uses more power than anything out there. a Geforce 480 is a power sipping kitten next to a 4870X2.

http://www.geeks3d.com/20090302/graphics-cards-power-consumption-geforce-gtx-295-radeon-hd-4870-x2-and-furmark/

 

[JackNaylorPE]

[citation][nom]preolt[/nom]I would much rather buy the gtx 560ti with an after market cooler. They have 2x the headroom of the 6950. Not a fan boy I just believe in bechmarks for comaprisons not overall company review.[/citation]

Same here the OC headroom on the 560 Ti's is insane with 20% OC's readily accomplished and approaching 570 / 6970 levels. The 560 (stock) lost to the 6950 by a score of 479 to 455 (5 %) but twin 560's (stock) outperform the 6950's by the same 5 %. However, we have the 560 Ti Cu also on the market for the exact same price and it scores 495 "outta the box" and when over clocked to its limits, it's only 1 or 2 fps behind the 570 / 6970.

 

[caamsa]

How about the 5550 GDDR5 over the 5570 GDDR3, it performs better and is cheaper. I have never seen a GDDR5 5570, but the 5670 is a great card.

 

[Guest]

Honestly does Tom's ever look around for prices? You can get a gtx460 768mb for $80 or less after rebate. They put a gts 250 half gig as a good buy for under $100? Those prices are good if you care nothing about money but really who doesn't shop around? You can get gts250's on ebay for $50 or so.

 

[Kewlx25]

[citation][nom]JackNaylorPE[/nom]Same here the OC headroom on the 560 Ti's is insane with 20% OC's readily accomplished and approaching 570 / 6970 levels. The 560 (stock) lost to the 6950 by a score of 479 to 455 (5 %) but twin 560's (stock) outperform the 6950's by the same 5 %. However, we have the 560 Ti Cu also on the market for the exact same price and it scores 495 "outta the box" and when over clocked to its limits, it's only 1 or 2 fps behind the 570 / 6970.[/citation]

On the flip side, a stock 6950 can outperform a 6970 if you increase the overdrive in CCC to 20%. All it does is not power limit the card. So, a non-powerlimited 6950 can outperform a powerlimited 6970.

I should think a 6970 with +20% would easily surpass the 5% difference.

But really, who cares, right? Get what makes you happy as any current card is going to be 2 generations behind in 6 months.

I love my 6950, but I think nVidia is going to scale better with the 28nm and 20nm shrinks.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]again, predominantly AMD cards at the low end. However, what this does not take into account is Linux support and HDTV support. Yes, I spent $80 on a GT430 so I could use my Linux system as a HTPC on my HDTV. The Radeon 4650 I had just would not work properly with Linux, and under Windows it would leave huge black borders around the screen. With my GT430, it takes up the whole screen and works properly with Linux. I think it deserves mention at the $80 mark just for that.[/citation]
it doesnt deserve any mention because it is SLOW! and notcapable for gaming. You may as well use onboard gfx.

 

[Bigmac80]

This Article is kinda dumb. If you have money to buy the best graphics card you get the best one. If your on a budget get a mid range card easy as that. Plus some people prefer AMD or Nvidia. Some games run faster on AMD some run faster on Nvidia. Some games don't use Crossfire or some use SLI. People always tend to care about what kind of cpu or graphics card you have. To me one of the most important components on your pc is a good brand power supply. Please guys if you buy a good graphics please make sure you have a good quality power supply. Not some cheap one you bought off Walmart.

 

[tokadub]

Why do you say the 6950 is better then the 560 ti?

The 560 ti is 2 inches smaller. It runs about 10 degrees cooler. It's several dba quieter. The 560 ti also overclocks very well.

Sure the 6950 is a few frames per second faster (in some games) at 1920x1080 resolutions and up. But most peoples monitors only get 60 fps anyways so for most games this doesn't even matter.

Just seems like it should be pretty much a tie in my opinion. And in this article you make it sound like it's a blow out. Personally I wouldn't want the 6950 because it's 11 inches long, it runs hotter, and it's louder then the 560 ti.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]psyndrome[/nom]I am a little surprised that the HD 4870 X2 are so high in the list. Are they still that capable?[/citation]

There are only two things that can stop an 4870x2 !
1) directx11 requirements from the user
2) window mode gaming (breaking cf)

I've got one of those (had an 8800gtx before and would've kept that if it hadn't broken). In tdu2 I can't quite run it at max with 3 monitors active, but it does run just fine with decent graphics (though shadows are broken, probably due to the game being really badly made). Same with new vegas. Runs great on this old beast.

 

[landos]

Not just the 4870s, but the 2x 4850s are also surprisingly high on the tier list. The amd 4850x2 is listed in the third highest tier, and only costs $89x2. Are these simply not being recommended for their lack of DX11 support? That seems totally reasonable to me, but perhaps that should factor into their tier positioning. Otherwise, it seems odd that the 2x4800 series aren't mentioned in the articles, but offer a surprisingly compelling bang for the buck.

 

[RazberyBandit]

From the article:

The new Radeon HD 6950 offers similar performance to AMD's previous-generation single-GPU flagship, the Radeon HD 5870, but at $280.

Similar performance? Awesome. But have you noticed 5870 prices have dropped to around $220-230, and with rebates they're under $200? Given their performance similarities, the 5870 has a better price/performance value and at least deserves an honorable mention at around $225. Personally, I think it deserves a firm recommendation.

5870's have been priced like this for well over a month now, yet you've ignored them for a 2nd month straight. (This despite my pointing their price drop out last month as well.) C'mon Don... You recommended 4850's at around $100 for roughly a year, yet now you're ignoring the 5870?

 

[robd007]

[citation][nom]tokadub[/nom] But most peoples monitors only get 60 fps anyways [/citation]

uh, yeah. this statement is very newbish, incorrect...u might be referring to vsync, which would only lock the frame rate at 60 fps to match the typical monitor refresh rate of 60Hz (to prevent tearing). Could easily be disabled, however...

 

[tokadub]

Yeah you can easily disable vsync. But that doesn't change the fact that most monitors are 60hz. Meaning the monitor is only capable of displaying 60 frames per second. So any game running higher then 60 frames per second won't be that noticeable for the majority of people because the monitor can't display them fast enough.

So yeah you might be rocking over 100 fps technically, but your monitor is only showing 60. Which is why I consider these extra couple frames per second of the 6950 compared to the 560 ti negligible because you can't even see more then 60 frames unless you have some crazy good monitor.

My point being that the 560 ti pretty much destroys every game right now for probably 99.9% of gamers. So I don't really understand this article dismissing it as so inferior.

So I am still trying to figure out the point of your comment... maybe you are the noob.

 

[akula2]

Am really bored of these Graphic card models and their boasts!

 

[mike80]

Where did the HD 5870 disappear to?

Last month it was tied with the HD 6950 1GB at the $275 price point. This month, the HD 6950 1GB is alone at the $250 price point.

But this month the HD 5870 dropped in price $40 to $230 (at least the XFX variant). (Now that I check again, 2 Gigabyte brand models are both $230 and the XFX one is now $210 at Newegg. While other brands range from $245 to $280)

The 5870 and 6950 1GB are both Tier 3 cards. Last month said the 5870 is "about as fast" as the 6950. So is the HD 6950 really worth $20 more (or $40 more)?

And the Hierarchy Chart should probably differentiate between HD 6950 1GB and 2GB.

 

[Guest]

Why is the 560ti not included in this roundup?

 

[rolinx]

damn i Like it....

 

[ironmb]

Ill stick with my x2 580's...

 

[vjsoto]

Hmmm... I was looking at this guide thinking it was time to upgrade my 2 year old 4870 1GB DDR5 board but it's still so close to the top of the list it's hard to justify spending the extra money. Seems like the best solution for my setup is to buy another 4870 and go cross-fire (my mobo and power supply already support SLI). Is it just me, or does Moore's law no longer apply to graphics card technology? I suppose it would have happened eventually.

 

[TheTrueGamer]

Why is the GTX 260 and GTX 275 ranked higher than the GTX 280?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]TheTrueGamer[/nom]Why is the GTX 260 and GTX 275 ranked higher than the GTX 280?[/citation]

They aren't.

 

[jwl3]

I don't get it: The 560Ti in THG's 2011 gamer charts beats the 5870 in all games (by a wide margin) except for Mafia 2. Why, then, is it lower than the 5870 in this hierarchy chart? I almost bought an 5870 at 200 because of it. Until I realized that the 560TI is only $30 more.