Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget GPU

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • GPUs
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 5, 2009 4:10:28 PM

'lo guys, I'm in the process of building a second "gaming" pc. It's a pretty low budget model and I'm looking for a decent gpu. I was thinking a 4670 because it won't require me upgrading my psu. My max resolution is 12x10 as I play on my HDTV and that's as high as she goes. UT3, TF2, L4D, those types of games are what I play atm.

Current build:

Intel Dual Core 2160e (overclocked to 3.2Ghz)
Cheap biostar mobo
8400GS (ew)
Consair 400w PSU
3GB DDR2 800Mhz ram
640GB HDD

I think that's all the important stuff.

More about : budget gpu

a c 130 U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 4:29:10 PM

Consair or corsair? Corsair makes quality PSU's, and if it has some 6pinz you can do with a 4770 or a 4850.

40$: 9500GT (Not recommended)
50$: 4650
70$: 4670
_______________ *Requires better PSU* ____________________
90$: 4850
130$: 4870
170$: 4890

The 4670 is the best. Low power, and at that res it'll max out Tf2, maybe L4D.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 5, 2009 6:42:50 PM

Basically I need a GPU that runs only off the PCI-Express port, and not a seperate connector. And I meant corsair :p  That's what happens when you post without your cup of coffee haha.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 6:59:27 PM

Then the 4670 is your best bet. Awesome card.
m
0
l
a c 199 U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 7:07:41 PM

Also look at the HD4770, it's a good deal faster than a HD4670 and although it needs a 6 pin connector it only draws a little more than the 75Watts a PCI-E slot can provide and so will run off your PSU if you use the molex/PCI-E adaptor that should come with the card.
The main downside is that it is quite expensive for its performance, the upsides are: Good performance, low power draw and low heat output, the latter is very useful if, like me your case is a stock ATX type with just one front intake and one exhaust fan.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And this is where it falls in relaton to other cards:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-graphics-card,review...
m
0
l
October 5, 2009 7:21:09 PM

Id go with the re-released 9600gso. Its got 512mb of VRAM, 96 stream processors, etc. The older 384mb card with lower clocks ( and perhaps fewer stream processors, I dont remember which versions had fewer sp's ) ran neck and neck with the 4670. Id bet money the newer one will beat it by a noticeable margin. Not to mention CUDA, physx, overclocking, and not dealing with ATI's driver BS.

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/features/132550.20081110.GP...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 7:43:19 PM

Your vitriol in relation to "ATI's driver BS" is a fanboy talking point, which, in my years of working on friends and families computers (as well as my own) is completely false. All the ATI driver problems I have seen have been from user error. Leave that sort of bias out when someone is asking for assistance.

The comparison that you posted does not include the non-reference cooling that is available on the 4670 now. They run cool, quiet, and OC quite well. But that is a good price on the 9600GSO that you linked.

Also, Tom's hierarchy chart places the 4670 above the 9600GSO. Either would be good, but I would recommend the 4670 first.
m
0
l
a c 148 U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 7:59:49 PM

Yeah what ATI driver BS? Yes they have fatter drivers than nvidia, but they do A GOOD job especially with older systems. They are more driver dependent where as Nvidia loves fast CPU's.

I still say 4850
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2009 8:32:51 PM

mcnuggetofdeath said:
Id go with the re-released 9600gso. Its got 512mb of VRAM, 96 stream processors, etc. The older 384mb card with lower clocks ( and perhaps fewer stream processors, I dont remember which versions had fewer sp's ) ran neck and neck with the 4670. Id bet money the newer one will beat it by a noticeable margin. Not to mention CUDA, physx, overclocking, and not dealing with ATI's driver BS.

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/features/132550.20081110.GP...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Actually, the new 9600 GSO runs considerably slower than the old one, as Nvidia dumbed down the card even further.

The old 9600 GSO was the same as an 8800 GS, with 192 bit memory interface. The stream processors and clocks were similar, so all that was affected was memory bandwidth (192 bit vs. 128 bit) which became 33 % slower.
m
0
l
October 5, 2009 9:17:15 PM

Im talking about the countless issues ive had with ATI drivers in Linux. I love my 4850 and love how far ive been able to push it with Rivatuner in Windows. But outside of that environment Ive had nothing but headaches in Debian, Gentoo, OpenSuse, and Fedora.

and yeah, thought the bandwidth mightve dropped considerably with GDDR2 and a 128bit interface but dont have any numbers to go by.
m
0
l
October 6, 2009 3:47:27 AM

The 4850 looks like it might be pushing it power-wise for my pc. Plus at 1280 and under rez, would it really be worth the price? :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:00:16 AM

It's true, it would be putting you right around 400 W, and possibly just a tad over. If you want to play it safe, I recommend going with the 4670 or the 4770.

I've posted a 4670 above, and I coozie posted a 4770.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:01:25 AM

Yes, you can max out a 4850 in 1280 and under res, I do it all the time with mine. That said, a 4670 is a great card and is really low power. it will still do well enough in games and obviously will put less stress on your PSU/wallet.
m
0
l
October 6, 2009 4:10:41 AM

4770 is, again, a price thing. Remember, my main build has 4870s crossfired. I'm just looking for a nice card to put in here at an okay price. That said, looks like a 4670 will be what I get. They look delicious for overclocking and are pretty damn cheap at 60 USD. Thanks guys.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:49:16 AM

Using a power supply calculator, and factoring everything in his system, I got 394W at 100 % load (granted I guessed on his cpu voltage, so it may be off by a few watts). This has to more to do with the "not every chip is created equal" statement. Also, they state that the power is recorded at a certain point during a 3dmark benchmark, meaning the system was probably not 100 % taxed.

He could go with the 4850, but there is the possibility that he might see some instability.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 5:18:49 AM

Be sure to avoid the reference cooler versions of the 4670. They are inferior.
m
0
l
a c 148 U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 3:06:07 PM

^ Ba Humbug...... then 4670
m
0
l
!