Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the best video card for my pc?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 25, 2010 5:01:32 PM

Hello all, Ive been wandering around here and it seems to be a pretty good site with helpful people! Now I'm quite new to computers all Ive ever done was switch rams video cards and PSU. Anyways MY QUESTION is: I'm looking to buy this computer (link below)


http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=12...


Which video card would be the best for its mother board? My price range would be approximately 130 dollars.
I am planning on switching the original PSU with my TX 750 watt corsair PSU. So power wouldnt be a problem. To recap which would be the best video card for me considering the computer, my psu, and my price budget? A side note I am going to be playing mostly left 4 dead 2 on this machine (its windows 7). Thanks all in advance.

More about : video card

Related resources
January 26, 2010 2:24:43 AM

sweet thanks for the hookups guys. I am leaning towards the radeon 4850 right now due to budget. As for the quad core, I honestly think its awesome, but since its refurbed, I just want to stick with the emachine (also if something goes wrong I can just exchange in person and dont have to deal with shipping hassles). On the other hand I am still open to suggestions for video cards around 130. Thanks again for the replies!
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 6:47:40 AM

Well,
If you havent yet bought the 4850
I suggest you wait some time and think again
The New Radeon 5750 is in the same price range which performs quite similar adding:
DirectX11
Shader Model 5.0
New Card(Will be great for a couple of years or so)


Think again for 5750 HD
Also 5750 uses far less Power and produces minimum heat


GooD LucK
January 26, 2010 7:27:19 AM

I'd say go for the 5750 ATI or NVIDIA GTS 250 it i's around your price range as well
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 7:29:55 AM

I would agree with 'hero16' to go 5750
As I posted above.
You will get a newer card which is great for long run
and performs good enough upto 1920x1200

Also, GTS 250 performs slightly better than 5750 but cuts DirectX11.

But who cares about the card when you are playing games smppthly.
a c 125 U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 8:19:56 AM

mfarrukh, You really think that a HD5750 will handle tesselation? My 5850 crawls along when running the heaven benchmark (DX11).

I get 34.2FPS Average running that benchmark at 1920 x 1080 high details no AA 4xAF
A HD5750 would mots likely get half that score.

The OP hasn't said hes interested in DX11, so I feel that the 4850 is a better card for him.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 8:32:17 AM

Rustyy117 said:
mfarrukh, You really think that a HD5750 will handle tesselation? My 5850 crawls along when running the heaven benchmark (DX11).

I get 34.2FPS Average running that benchmark at 1920 x 1080 high details no AA 4xAF
A HD5750 would mots likely get half that score.

The OP hasn't said hes interested in DX11, so I feel that the 4850 is a better card for him.



Whatever you say
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 10:38:32 AM

mfarrukh said:
Also, GTS 250 performs slightly better than 5750 but cuts DirectX11.

No, it doesn't. It's slightly faster than the HD4850 but the HD5750 is faster than either.
January 26, 2010 3:04:19 PM

thanks for all the replies everyone. So its probably going to be the Radeon HD 5750 1GB, but will my PCU bottleneck it? Just wondering.

2.7GHz AMD Athlon II X2 dual-core processor
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2010 3:12:00 PM

Not at all
You aren't buying $600 5970


GooD LucK
And do tell us about your experience
January 26, 2010 6:30:57 PM

There is no way a 5750 can take advantage of DX11 and still have acceptable performance. Its been shown over and over...the lower end 5xxx cards lose about 40% - 50% when DX11 enabled. A 4850 gives you very close performance at a much better price point.
January 26, 2010 6:41:05 PM

belial2k said:
There is no way a 5750 can take advantage of DX11 and still have acceptable performance. Its been shown over and over...the lower end 5xxx cards lose about 40% - 50% when DX11 enabled. A 4850 gives you very close performance at a much better price point.


Agreed, but that may improve with better drivers and better coded games. I am curious to see how Alien vs Predator and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 perform with the 5700 series.
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 27, 2010 1:13:06 AM

belial2k said:
There is no way a 5750 can take advantage of DX11 and still have acceptable performance. Its been shown over and over...the lower end 5xxx cards lose about 40% - 50% when DX11 enabled.

This is total nonsense. It hasn't been shown "over and over." You are basing this on ONE game and entirely ignoring the other DX11 games. Even if the other games didn't directly contradict what you are saying making an assumption that you know what kind of performance hit DX11 will usually cause based on the first handful of games implementing it is extremely shortsighted.
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 27, 2010 2:07:31 AM

Those cards have an almost identical percentage of 1 star ratings (15% vs 17%)
When looking at the ratings on newegg you must keep in mind that people who have a bad experience are MUCH more likely to leave feedback than those who don't. Plenty of people use the HD5750 with win7 and have no problems. That HD4850 is a good deal but the HD5750 is definitely the better card(better performance, twice the memory, DX11, uses much less power, ect.) if you can afford it. I would get this one instead as it has a $20 rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
It also has no one star ratings if that makes you feel better(it shouldn't.)
January 27, 2010 10:41:44 AM

jyjjy said:
This is total nonsense. It hasn't been shown "over and over." You are basing this on ONE game and entirely ignoring the other DX11 games. Even if the other games didn't directly contradict what you are saying making an assumption that you know what kind of performance hit DX11 will usually cause based on the first handful of games implementing it is extremely shortsighted.


To me its you people who keep recommending DX11 cards (and their associated price premiums) that are being short sighted. By the time DX11 is mainstreamed there will be a whole new generation of cards out there. You are right....there are only a handful of games, and those games all take a huge performance hit when using DX11, so much so as to render the lower end cards unplayable. So who is speculating more...the person who is using the data to support their recommendations, or the person who is hoping all the current data will somehow change with new drivers and new games? Why would you go out and buy a card to play games that don't exist yet when you can get a better value card to play all the games you already own and that will still play all those future games with a higher fps without DX11? Some people just can't stop themselves from buying new for the sake of buying new. So you would have someone spend $30 -$50 more for the same performance just so they can say their card starts with a 5? Show me the benchmarks that make a 5750 worth $50 more. Show me the proof there will be lots of DX11 games that people will want to buy that these cards can play at acceptable framerates. Show me the huge in game difference DX11 makes over DX10. When you can do all of that I'll start recommending 5xxxx series cards, but until then I'll keep recommending the cards that give people the best price to performance ratio for what they want the cards for.
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 27, 2010 1:13:54 PM

Aright, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Let me explain the reality of the situation. There are THREE, count them, three DX11 games out there. Dirt 2, Battleforge and Stalker: Call of Pripyat. ONE of them has a large performance hit in DX11 mode. That one is Dirt 2 but I'm sure you are aware of this as it is the only data that supports what you say. What about the other 2? They have HIGHER frame rates in DX11 mode. Yes, let me repeat that, HIGHER frame rates. You ask "who is speculating more" well the answer is clearly you. You aren't even basing what you are saying on the limited data available you are doing so based on ONE point of data(which is what I said to begin with) and not only that you are assuming the other games show the same when they show the exact opposite(which I already pointed out.) And on top of this the main point of what I was saying was that these cards performance in future DX11 games is entirely an unknown and the first few DX11 games should not be used to make broad assumptions(even if the data was consistent which it isn't) like you are doing. But let's move on.
The HD5750 is NOT $50 more. Simply clicking the links being discussed in this thread would show you that it is $22 more(after MIR) but I guess you couldn't be bothered. What does that $22 get you besides "a card that starts with a 5?" Well even if you ignore DX11 entirely the HD5750 has twice as much memory, uses MUCH less power/runs cooler and supports 3 monitors. Furthermore the card is simply faster and by a decent margin, almost 10% overall, and it also OCs very well;
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_P...
To sum things up you are talking out of your ass. Next time someone suggests you are wrong maybe you should do some basic research to see if it might actually be the case rather than launch into some ignorant rant.
January 27, 2010 6:20:55 PM

Hmmm...you want the facts and the reasoning I use in more detail? Okay, but lets not resort to name calling and personal attacks. We can have an honest difference of opinion without either of us going down that road.
There is a reason we never count MIR in prices...because they can never be relied on. If you want to play that price game I can point you to 4850s on ebay for around $75. So lets just agree the 4850s and gts 250s can be found for quite a bit cheaper than the 5750 right now.
Across all games benchmarked at 19x12 the 5750 is slightly over 5% faster than a 4850, and a gts 250 is 5% faster than the 5750.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...
At the resolutions a budget gamer like this is likely to be playing at there would be even less difference in total performance, and the 1gb vs. 512 will make no real world difference.
Battleforge and Stalker do not make full use of DX11 protocols and tessellation, Dirt2 is the closest we have so far of a full implementation, so it is considered THE benchmark for what we can expect in future games that make full use of it.
A 4850 has the same OC headroom as does the 5750, at least without a firmware hack.
AT the AC source 5750 uses 135 idle 256 load. The 4850 uses 163 idle and 291 load. Good savings, but not so much to call it MUCH less power. Same applies for temps...load temp of the 5750 is 84c and the 4850 is 90c
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3658
Okay, add it all up and I obviously don't think a DX11 card is worth the price premium over a DX10 card. With all these benchmarks and facts in hand, I'll let the OP make his decision. I don't want to argue it any more because we have both made our points and all the data is out there, so anything more is arguing for the sake of arguing.

a c 376 U Graphics card
January 27, 2010 8:12:58 PM

belial2k said:
Across all games benchmarked at 19x12 the 5750 is slightly over 5% faster than a 4850, and a gts 250 is 5% faster than the 5750.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...
At the resolutions a budget gamer like this is likely to be playing at there would be even less difference in total performance, and the 1gb vs. 512 will make no real world difference.
Battleforge and Stalker do not make full use of DX11 protocols and tessellation, Dirt2 is the closest we have so far of a full implementation, so it is considered THE benchmark for what we can expect in future games that make full use of it.
A 4850 has the same OC headroom as does the 5750, at least without a firmware hack.
AT the AC source 5750 uses 135 idle 256 load. The 4850 uses 163 idle and 291 load. Good savings, but not so much to call it MUCH less power. Same applies for temps...load temp of the 5750 is 84c and the 4850 is 90c
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3658
Okay, add it all up and I obviously don't think a DX11 card is worth the price premium over a DX10 card. With all these benchmarks and facts in hand, I'll let the OP make his decision. I don't want to argue it any more because we have both made our points and all the data is out there, so anything more is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Tom's graphics card charts are known to be sketchy at best. Almost all other sites show the HD5750 to be superior to both the HD4850 and GTS 250 and most of those reviews were based on beta drivers so the difference is undoubtedly larger at this point.
This class of cards is often used for 1680x1050 and the extra memory will make some difference at that resolution, especially when high levels of AA are applied and in certain games that are memory hungry a la GTA IV.
Your statement that Dirt 2 is considered THE benchmark is only true among people who have a similar agenda to your own. Stalker: CoP actually has much more obvious visual improvements from using DX11. And for the third time, I don't think ANY of the DX11 benchmarks should be taken too seriously at this point. Initial implementations are almost always inefficient and tacked on.
If you use a review that actually considers just the card(much more appropriate dont you think?) the HD4850 uses 3x as much power at idle and over 50% more under load. That definitely earns a capital MUCH in my book.
Yes, it's been obvious you don't think DX11 cards are worth the price difference but to cram that opinion down people's throats with made up statements like "There is no way a 5750 can take advantage of DX11 and still have acceptable performance. Its been shown over and over..." and "there are only a handful of games, and those games all take a huge performance hit when using DX11" is pure misinformation. The HD4850 is the better buy from a pure price/performance but the HD5750 is certainly also a good choice for a good number of other reasons. And you are right, people should make their own choice but it's hard for them to make an informed choice when being fed BS.
January 27, 2010 11:41:46 PM

who has the agenda here? My only agenda is to recommend the best card for the money based on all current data. I posted the data to back up my claims, something I haven't seen you do. I see lots of speculation that DX11 will get better and the drivers will get better and it will make a bigger visual difference without giving so much of a performance hit. But speculation is not facts, benchmarks, or data.
Unless you can find a way to run a graphics card without the rest of the system, I don't see how "just the card" has any real world significance in power draw or is appropriate at all. And I would have to see that data...who is the one giving out pure misinformation here?...the guy who post links to all the data or a guy who just claims things are true because he says them.
Depending on the games, settings, and resolutions all review sites will come to a slightly different conclusion about exact numbers. But they all pretty much fall into the same category that the 4850, gts 250, and 5750 are VERY close in performance, close enough you would probably not notice a significant difference when switching between the cards. Certain titles will slightly favor one over the other.

Your Quote "This class of cards is often used for 1680x1050 and the extra memory will make some difference at that resolution, especially when high levels of AA are applied and in certain games that are memory hungry a la GTA IV."

Please show the evidence there is a noticeable difference using benchmarks from the same card, one with 512 and one with 1gb. I've looked for this evidence, and have not found it.

Your quote "Your statement that Dirt 2 is considered THE benchmark is only true among people who have a similar agenda to your own. Stalker: CoP actually has much more obvious visual improvements from using DX11."

Once again, please show the evidence of the games looking that much better with DX11. The only benchmarks I've found show the cards run faster in DX10 than DX11 in that game. They also show very little difference between gts250, 4850, and 5750 in DX10.

Your quote " And for the third time, I don't think ANY of the DX11 benchmarks should be taken too seriously at this point. Initial implementations are almost always inefficient and tacked on. "

YES! This is my point. There are very few titles to choose from, and there won't be for quite some time. It doesn't make sense to spend a premium for something you won't be able to use much now, and will no longer have a price premium by the time it is widely available and ready to taken full advantage of. By the time DX11 is mainstreamed and optimized all the way around (games, hardware, drivers) there will be a whole new generation of hardware to choose from, and this generation will have lost its price premium. If at that time the data shows DX11 1) makes a significant visual improvement 2) does not cripple a game when enabled 3) there are enough games available that are of high quality that people want to play 4)does not have a huge price premium to get a small amount of visual gain.....THEN I will gladly recommend DX11 cards all day long based on their price/performance ratio. But I'm not holding my breath for all that to happen under this generation of video cards.
January 28, 2010 1:15:23 AM

alright all, I am thankful for the fair amount of knowledge you guys have contributed to this thread. As of right now I have decided to bid on a 250 GTS on ebay. Which to me seems decent deal if I win it, if that route fails then I am going with the hd4750 as mentioned earlier. I know I have been changing my mind alot but I geuss this is why Im posting here. You guys seem to have a few different pov but you all did narrow down the choices for me! Thank you.
!