Solved

i need a graphic card to play nfs rivals

i need a graphic card to play nfs rivals smoothly my system specs are:
intel core i3 3210
zotac h61
ram 4 gb
intel hd graphics

budget rs 4000-5000
17 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about graphic card play nfs rivals
  1. Best answer
    The Radeon HD 6670 ought to do the trick. It is a fairly weak card, but NFS is not a very demanding game if you lower some settings.
  2. well that is $65-81 USD

    i would say a 7750 or 7770

    7750 is 79.99 plus a 30 dollar rebate but im not sure if you can find a better deal near you

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131481&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=
  3. What's the case type/size and power supply wattage, brand and model? That is a micro ATX motherboard, if it's in a small case, you need a small video card.
  4. Don't go with ATI going Nvidia you might have to shop around for the video cards for your small micro-ATX motherboard ATI graphics are pretty good but most games like need for speed: rivals are being optimize would Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better. Just don't buy any fat video cards May I ask what version is PCI Express X16 is 2.0 or 3.0.
  5. ITsonic said:
    Don't go with ATI going Nvidia you might have to shop around for the video cards for your small micro-ATX motherboard ATI graphics are pretty good but most games like need for speed: rivals are being optimize would Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better. Just don't buy any fat video cards May I ask what version is PCI Express X16 is 2.0 or 3.0.


    Everything you just said is irrelevant. It won't matter what PCIe version he/she has, as it will not affect performance in that price range. AMD has MUCH better performance per dollar in low end graphics cards, and no amount of game "optimization" will make up for that. You also stated "Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better". What evidence do you have to support this claim?
  6. expl0itfinder said:
    ITsonic said:
    Don't go with ATI going Nvidia you might have to shop around for the video cards for your small micro-ATX motherboard ATI graphics are pretty good but most games like need for speed: rivals are being optimize would Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better. Just don't buy any fat video cards May I ask what version is PCI Express X16 is 2.0 or 3.0.


    Everything you just said is irrelevant. It won't matter what PCIe version he/she has, as it will not affect performance in that price range. AMD has MUCH better performance per dollar in low end graphics cards, and no amount of game "optimization" will make up for that. You also stated "Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better". What evidence do you have to support this claim?


    This is all I can find:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/326391-33-nvidia-which-best

    the PCI -e express gets faster with every version so it has to be important that you upgrade your motherboard even though the speed might be lower if you buy a PCI-e 3.0 video card. PCI-e Per lane (each direction) for a V1.x is 250 MB/s (2.5 GT/s) which means the 16-lane slot for the V1.x (each direction) would be 4 GB/s (40 GT/s) right? On on the Nvidia/ATI issue let's just say I've had my experience with their drivers and one of those experiences was very very bad. I'm no graphics card expert but whatever graphics card you buy make sure it's not a fat card that blocks one of your slots.
  7. That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.
  8. ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    ITsonic said:
    Don't go with ATI going Nvidia you might have to shop around for the video cards for your small micro-ATX motherboard ATI graphics are pretty good but most games like need for speed: rivals are being optimize would Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better. Just don't buy any fat video cards May I ask what version is PCI Express X16 is 2.0 or 3.0.


    Everything you just said is irrelevant. It won't matter what PCIe version he/she has, as it will not affect performance in that price range. AMD has MUCH better performance per dollar in low end graphics cards, and no amount of game "optimization" will make up for that. You also stated "Nvidia graphics cards which are a lot better". What evidence do you have to support this claim?


    This is all I can find:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/326391-33-nvidia-which-best

    the PCI -e express gets faster with every version so it has to be important that you upgrade your motherboard even though the speed might be lower if you buy a PCI-e 3.0 video card. PCI-e Per lane (each direction) for a V1.x is 250 MB/s (2.5 GT/s) which means the 16-lane slot for the V1.x (each direction) would be 4 GB/s (40 GT/s) right? On on the Nvidia/ATI issue let's just say I've had my experience with their drivers and one of those experiences was very very bad. I'm no graphics card expert but whatever graphics card you buy make sure it's not a fat card that blocks one of your slots.


    I run 2 7970s on pcie 2.0 with no issues.

    3.0 is just better for multiple card setups.
  9. expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.
  10. ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    Hmm? Im not sure what that means. But either way you dont need to upgrade the mobo to play nfs rivals. Its a pointless upgrade with no benefit.

    You could play on a 8x slot with those cards and be fine
  11. ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    That is not true. An x16 PCIe slot of either 2.0 OR 3.0 would be more than enough to drive any modern graphics card to it's near full potential. The OP would be more limited by his CPU than anything, but in a game like NFS Rivals, that shouldn't be much of an issue.
  12. ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    PCIe x16 is the fastest PCIe slot type, why are you saying it will slow it down even further? There is not need for a new motherboard. Even very high end video cards will not saturate a PCIe x16 bus, rev 2 or 3 does not matter at all. The CPU being an i3 will give out trying to keep up with the video cards WAY before any video card he can get will start being limited by the speed of ANY PCIe bus. I bet even an x8 slot will be plenty to keep up with an i3 CPU.
  13. hang-the-9 said:
    ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    PCIe x16 is the fastest PCIe slot type, why are you saying it will slow it down even further? There is not need for a new motherboard. Even very high end video cards will not saturate a PCIe x16 bus, rev 2 or 3 does not matter at all. The CPU being an i3 will give out trying to keep up with the video cards WAY before any video card he can get will start being limited by the speed of ANY PCIe bus. I bet even an x8 slot will be plenty to keep up with an i3 CPU.


    If that the case that he needs a new CPU.
  14. There you go. The OP does not NEED a CPU, but it would definitely be of benefit. Since all the OP has currently, is Integrated Graphics, a GPU is in order first.
  15. ITsonic said:
    hang-the-9 said:
    ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    PCIe x16 is the fastest PCIe slot type, why are you saying it will slow it down even further? There is not need for a new motherboard. Even very high end video cards will not saturate a PCIe x16 bus, rev 2 or 3 does not matter at all. The CPU being an i3 will give out trying to keep up with the video cards WAY before any video card he can get will start being limited by the speed of ANY PCIe bus. I bet even an x8 slot will be plenty to keep up with an i3 CPU.


    If that the case that he needs a new CPU.


    Not that either, in his budget any video card he gets will be fine running on an i3.

    To need a faster CPU he'd need to go to the mid range video cards which will be close to double his high range price of 5000 rupes.

    Everything you say IS true, but only for high-end stuff, fast i5 or i7 CPU with a $300+ video card that may come close to needing the highest bandwidth transports a motherboard offers. Not for most computer users, even true games. The only time you'd run into issues with a motherboard spec bumping up to max usage is with very high overclocks which is often just done in competitions not in regular use.
  16. hang-the-9 said:
    ITsonic said:
    hang-the-9 said:
    ITsonic said:
    expl0itfinder said:
    That is correct, however, putting a PCIe 3.0 video card into a PCIe 2.0 Slot will have very minimal impact on performance. Why? Because graphics cards simply are not powerful enough to push enough pixels to saturate the PCIe 2.0 bus. Especially in the low-end budget range.


    ANd putting a PCIe X16 slow it down even further like I said he needs a new motherboard.


    PCIe x16 is the fastest PCIe slot type, why are you saying it will slow it down even further? There is not need for a new motherboard. Even very high end video cards will not saturate a PCIe x16 bus, rev 2 or 3 does not matter at all. The CPU being an i3 will give out trying to keep up with the video cards WAY before any video card he can get will start being limited by the speed of ANY PCIe bus. I bet even an x8 slot will be plenty to keep up with an i3 CPU.


    If that the case that he needs a new CPU.


    Not that either, in his budget any video card he gets will be fine running on an i3.

    To need a faster CPU he'd need to go to the mid range video cards which will be close to double his high range price of 5000 rupes.

    Everything you say IS true, but only for high-end stuff, fast i5 or i7 CPU with a $300+ video card that may come close to needing the highest bandwidth transports a motherboard offers. Not for most computer users, even true games. The only time you'd run into issues with a motherboard spec bumping up to max usage is with very high overclocks which is often just done in competitions not in regular use.


    Ok ok I see.
  17. I will also recommend Radeon HD

    I am currently using it in my setup and it runs the game flawlessly at * 1024*768 resolution.

    Further, I can see that your CPU is relatively weaker. So, even if you go for a better GPU, it may not help.

    Verdict: HD 6670 is the best choice. I bought it for around INR 5500 two years ago
Ask a new question

Read More

NFS Graphics Cards Intel