Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Budget video card

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Pentium
  • CPUs
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 22, 2010 7:33:19 PM

im looking for a budget video card to run borderlands

cpu: Pentium dual core

pcie slot

will i be able to run borderlands?

thanks!

More about : budget video card

a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2010 10:34:12 PM

a 5750 should run fine with the Pentium Dual core
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 11:11:10 PM

is there anything cheaper that would work? i need vga too
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2010 11:15:57 PM

What exactly is your processor? "pentium dual core" can mean a lot of different things.
Before making a recommendation we need to know your resolution, specs of your power supply and budget.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 12:50:40 AM

sorry

Intel Pentium E5300 2.60 ghz

350W power supply

windows xp

VGA monitor 1024x768

PCIe card slot

I would like something less than $100 for some decent gaming.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 1:05:31 AM

That is much better than say a Pentium-D.
Yes, the high clock rate (for a Pentium) should run borderlands quite fine with say a 4670.
m
0
l
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 487 à CPUs
February 23, 2010 3:52:56 AM

A low power 9800GT's performance is between a "full power" 9800GT and the slower 9600GT (closer to the 9600GT).

The HD 5670 is on average about 35% - 40% faster than the HD 4670 (in Fallout 3 it is almost 80% faster) which makes it faster than the 9600GT as well and should equal a low power 9800GT.

See reviews:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3720
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5670,2533...

My pick is the HD 5670. As THG's benchmarks reveals, the drop in performance between DX10 and DX11 is pretty harsh.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 4:25:41 AM

The HD5670 is more like 20-25% higher than the HD4670.
There's only one game so far with any noticeable drop in performance in DX11 mode(out of 4), although I haven't seen the numbers for A vs P.
m
0
l
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 487 à CPUs
February 23, 2010 4:36:54 AM

jyjjy said:
The HD5670 is more like 20-25% higher than the HD4670.
There's only one game so far with any noticeable drop in performance in DX11 mode(out of 4), although I haven't seen the numbers for A vs P.


Crunching the benchmark scores states otherwise (which I did from the two reviews) in general at least a 40% increase in performance over the HD 4670. Crysis showed one of the lower performance increase of only about 34%; Fallout 3 being the highest at nearly 80%. Crunch the numbers yourself if you wanna verify.

Dirt 2 is the only DX11 benchmark, the drop in performance going from DX10 to DX11 is roughly 35% - 38%.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 4:48:34 AM

I was going based on this;
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_5670_I...
It seems to match what all the other reviews say; Slightly more powerful than a 9600GT.
Dirt 2 is the only DX11 benchmark in that article perhaps but even if there were no others already assuming that other/future DX11 games will perform the same seems rather inappropriate.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 5:08:41 AM

At that low resolution anything above 4670 and 9600gt is a waste, u don't need directX 11 right now. I think 5670 still sucks with directX 11, wait until better directX 11 card hit the market. Better.. wait until much more directX 11 games hit the market. At that time...u will need to upgrade your cpu as well. For now 4670 or 9600gt is perfect. Both that cards are excellent up to 1280 x 1024 resolution.

At 1024 x 768 resolution...with 4670 or 9600gt...your cpu is bottleneck already, i bet u can't tell the difference if u are using 9600gt or gtx295, 4670 or 5970.

Just grab 4670 512mb now ($60 here), save your money to upgrade your monitor later, say...18.5 inch 1368 x 768 widescreen lcd ($120 here), after that your 4670 still perform excellent with that new lcd.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 6:34:57 AM

jyjjy said:
I would probably get an HD5670. It should perform very well at your resolution and is DX11 compatible;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Another option is one of the low power 9800GTs. It's a bit more powerful but lacks DX11;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


9800 gt's arent low power, I had to replace my stock 300 watt psu and put a 450 watt in when I got mine. There are much better low power options for budget gaming on the market now.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 8:31:40 AM

There are two different versions of the 9800GT. The newer one is low power and doesn't have a power connector. It is also underclocked slightly for 600mhz to 550 but that can be fixed with software like rivatuner.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 8:39:47 AM

For Borderlands, I recommend that you buy the Geforce 9600GT low profile.

I think that this is the best and most powerful video card you can buy below $100 and your system with 350W power supply can handle.
Forget about the HD4670, HD5670, and the 9800GT because I found out that even the HD4650 low profile has a minimum power requirement of 400W.

Keep in mind that it should be the low profile version of the 9600GT(59 Watts), otherwise your power supply cannot handle it.
Reference:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9600gt_us....

Lastly, your system must have at least 1GB of RAM in order to run Borderlands, I hope I have helped you.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 9:00:27 AM

jfem said:
I think that this is the best and most powerful video card you can buy below $100 and your system with 350W power supply can handle.

You definitely should not go by manufacturers suggest power requirements. They have nothing to do with reality. Any card without an external power connector necessarily uses at max 75w and all of them should run easily on any decent 350w PSU including the two cards I recommended.
Also you mean the low power 9600GT, not low profile. Low profile means a half height card and the only low profile 9600GT is not one of the low power versions.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 9:13:58 AM

Ok, I mean the low power version of the 9600GT.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 8:35:56 PM

No, that isn't a gaming card and even if you wanted a 9400GT that one is overpriced, especially considering it is refurbished.
If you want to spend around $50 instead of the $100 you mentioned before you should be looking at an HD4650 like this;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
That's actually the DDR3 version which I haven't seen around in a long while. It's a nice card for that price and should do well at low resolutions.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 8:49:27 PM

yeah i really wanted something more around $50 and that one looks great thanks alot
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 8:56:24 PM

If you can afford a bit more this is also a good deal
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
and worth the extra money.
Share
February 23, 2010 9:07:57 PM

oh i see they have three biostar ones on the site

i think i will just go with the $50 one but thanks alot

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 9:29:12 PM

Actually you just made a good decision spending much less than $100. Gaming at 1024x768 resolution does not demand lots of GPU power... But be reminded that if you decide to upgrade your monitor to say 1360x768 then that HD4650 will bottleneck your games. There will be no future for that card... Go get the HD4670 only for $12 more and you can still use it when you later decide to upgrade your monitor...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 23, 2010 9:37:49 PM

jaguarskx said:
Crunching the benchmark scores states otherwise (which I did from the two reviews) in general at least a 40% increase in performance over the HD 4670. Crysis showed one of the lower performance increase of only about 34%; Fallout 3 being the highest at nearly 80%. Crunch the numbers yourself if you wanna verify.

Dirt 2 is the only DX11 benchmark, the drop in performance going from DX10 to DX11 is roughly 35% - 38%.


STALKER: Call of Pripyat never came out!
Stay with the times...

HD 5870 in STALKER: Call of Pripyat

DX11:


DX10.1:


DX10:


DX9:


Link:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,700136/Stalker-Call-...

Average changes:

DX11 / DX9:
Day - 44/108 = .41 = 41% DX11 performs worse, 59% drop
Night - 38/119 = .32 = 32% DX11 performs worse, 68% drop
Rain - 41/128 = .32 = 32% DX11 performs worse, 68% drop
SunShafts - 29/54 = .54 = 54% DX11 performs worse, 46% drop

DX11/DX10:
Day - 44/38 = 1.16 = 116% DX11 performs better, 16% gain
Night - 38/33 = 1.15 = 115% DX11 performs better, 15% gain
Rain - 41/35 = 1.17 = 117% DX11 performs better, 17% gain
SunShafts - 29/27 = 1.07 = 107% DX11 performs better, 7% gain

DX11/DX10.1:
Day - 44/37 = 1.19 = 119% DX11 performs better, 19% gain
Night - 38/33 = 1.15 = 115% DX11 performs better, 15% gain
Rain - 41/34 = 1.21 = 121% DX11 performs better, 21% gain
SunShafts - 29/26 = 1.12 = 112% DX11 performs better, 12% gain

Quote:
The differences between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10/11 as well as DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 are quite obvious.


DX11 only performs worse than DX9 (around 60.25% worse), while being better than DX10 (13.75%), and DX10.1 (16.75%)
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 9:38:14 PM

yeah i really dont care much about graphics my next system will be better

i haven't bought it yet and i might spend a little more to get that card
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 11:40:46 PM

Is there a way to run stalker Call of Pripyat on static lighting or dx 7 like the original stalker? or how can you run it on an hd 3200 integrated laptop card (most laptops come with this) and still make it playable?
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2010 11:44:09 PM

I don't know about DX7 but you can probably run the game on an HD3200 just by lowering the setting to a minimum in the options.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 11:45:37 PM

Best answer selected by trez.
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 11:46:47 PM

i got the one that cost a little more thanks
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 1:03:29 AM

jyjjy said:
I don't know about DX7 but you can probably run the game on an HD3200 just by lowering the setting to a minimum in the options.


jyjji, the thing is that the original stalker runs too slow on my system anything above 800x600 and I have to have lighting at dx 7 (static). Now I can run it at 800x600 at medium but this is the original stalker. Here is more information between the 3 different dx types for lighting:
http://www.tweakguides.com/STALKER_5.html

IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE TO RUN THE NEW STALKER LIKE THAT (STATIC DX 7 LIGHTING)?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 24, 2010 1:35:32 AM

There was never any DX7 support in any of the games.
There is a DX8 static renderer (SoC), in CoP I think it is a 9.0b/9.0c renderer.
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 5:01:46 AM

WHy dont they make these new games scale and playable on slow-older hardware? How hard would it be adding dx8 static renderer to the new stalker for anyone purchasing a laptop since almost all of them come with an hd 3200 or worse? Not everyone cares about or needs those new lightings and textures just let us buy the game.
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 5:02:00 AM

I mean look at blizzard.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 24, 2010 5:09:53 AM

The HD3200 is in fact DX9 compatible you know.
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 5:13:39 AM

but it runs real slow in it.
m
0
l
!