Can you recommend a strong graphics card for gaming?

You mean with 2GB of VRAM? Do you have a budget? Can it be more than 2GB? If so, then the Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon HD 7970 GHz. If not, then the Asus GeForce GTX 670/680.

We really need a budget to make a proper recommendation.

M

be nice to know all the hardware and monitor/res./budget.

In that price range I'd go for the Sapphire 7870 XT. It's an amazing card for the price, since it's really a gimped 7950 (a 7940 sort of) but for $50+ less. It's great value for money.

M

On the lower end of the scale, I would go for a radeon 7870 from msi. I personally don't prefer the xt cards because of a personal lacking of proper cooling and the idea that they are gimped instead of having the cards do what they were originally intended to do.

@Fishwithadeagle The Sapphire 7870 XT has exactly the same cooling as the Sapphire 7870. Sapphire coolers are pretty solid in my opinion, so I don't really see the problem there. Yes it runs a bit hotter and draws more power, but it also performs much better, so that's really to be expected!

It's really not very different from the 7950, it has a lower memory bandwidth, and fewer stream processors, but as benchmarks have shown it really hasn't made much of a difference in performance at all (less than 5%). The MSI 7870 Ghz. Ed. is only $20 cheaper than the 7870 XT, that doesn't make much sense given how much better the 7870 XT is.

M

My concern is that while it performs much better, it will die much sooner. You either have the lowest of the best or the best of the mid range cards is the way I look at it. Also, people on newegg have reported issues with cooling and power draw.

What? So you're saying that lower end cards have longer lifespan?

I think he is saying that the 7870's cooling is barely enough for the 7870 XT.
I can see his point but I doubt they would build it if it doesn't work right.

@Fishwithadeagle I don't really understand your argument. Saying it's a "high-end mid range" card or a "low-end high end" card is a completely artificial division that you have come up with in your head. It doesn't effect anything. Perhaps you meant a high-end Pitcairn based card vs. a low-end Tahiti based card, which would have made more sense, but either way what matters is that the 7870 XT is (significantly given the small price difference) faster than the 7870 in gaming, while being comfortably within the OP's price range. Whether or not you classify it as a "mid-low high end whatever" is irrelevant.

Secondly I don't see any information to backup the claim that it will have a shorter life-span. Surely the low-end Pitcairn/Tahiti cards (the 7850/7870 XT) should have longer lifespans then their high-end equivalents (the 7870/7970) since the lower end ones have slower clocks, and lower voltages, which (by common sense) would lead to a longer lifespan. Anyway this is completely irrelevant, since any card from a decent manufacturer will have a fairly long warranty anyway. Not that you should expect any card to have a lifetime less than it's warranty (it wouldn't be good business for the manufacturers), but I think it shows that they have confidence that their products will last for some time (and against popular belief, 99% of the time you do not know more about the electrical engineers who designed the card themselves).

People on Newegg aren't exactly your "unbiased reviewer". You can always find negative reviews on Newegg, since no manufacturer can ensure that every single unit is going to be fault free and not DoA. I agree that the 7870 XT does have a slightly higher power draw, but it's still nothing that a standard PSU can't handle. More power equates to more heat, that's a fact, and I haven't seen any convincing proof that this heat is "too much" for the cooler by any means or any information to back up your claim that "it won't have as long of a lifespan".

At the end of the day, for the same amount of money (or just a little more) I'd rather have the graphics card with the better architecture and the superior gaming performance, wouldn't you? The fact that it's maybe 5C hotter and draws 30 more watts under load, is of really of no concern to me, given that it's still going to be way below the recommended maximum. It games better, and that's what people notice and care about.

All the best,

M

Good choice.

My comparison is like saying you are buying the highest quality card that ford makes to a porsche that has an engine problem, which means that it is capped at 90 mph, and has the cooling for a v4 even though it has a v6. It is all what you want to gamble, a mid range card with hardware that is designed for it, or a slightly higher card using that same cooling hardware, just with higher performance and therefore higher temps. I am just leery because I found out that the one 6970 I bought was actually a 6950 that company unlocked the cores on to bring it up to a 6970. You could tell this by the memory bandwidth and power connections. This card ended up dying after it has many crashing problems and ran hot, plus, it was locked down from future modification to clock speeds and voltage unless you installed a custom bios. Once again, it is all about what you want to gamble on. A ferrari with a defect in the motor, or a highest end model ford.