Without a doubt, high-end gaming PCs can get really expensive. Even our definition of "mid-range" hovers around the $1000 mark. With a bunch of PC-derived technology at the heart of Sony's PlayStation 4 and Microsoft's Xbox One, it's no wonder the latest consoles are so appealing at $400 and $500.
There's another way to think about the market, though. Consider how many people own desktops. Sure, a lot of them have old, crappy integrated graphics engines wholly insufficient for gaming. Often times, though, the only component differentiating a weak word processing machine and a capable entertainment platform is a decent graphics card. Adding one might turn a modest little box into a system strong enough for Battlefield 4 or Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag.
But what if you're on a strict budget? Can you achieve that goal with a hundred dollars or less?
Today we're going to compare inexpensive graphics cards to see what they're capable of in modern titles at fairly demanding settings. We're also going to scrutinize AMD's recently introduced Radeon R7 240 and 250 cards. Do they offer good value to gamers with limited funds for new hardware?
Here are the cards we're comparing, along with their specifications:
| GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 | GeForce GT 640 DDR3 | Radeon R7 240 | Radeon HD 6670 | Radeon HD 7730 | Radeon R7 250 | Radeon HD 7750 GDDR5 | Radeon HD 7770 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shader Cores | 96 (Fermi) | 384 (Kepler) | 320 (GCN) | 480 (VLIW5) | 384 (GCN) | 384 (GCN) | 512 (GCN) | 640 (GCN) |
| Texture Units | 16 | 32 | 20 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 32 | 40 |
| Color ROPs | 4 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 16 |
| Fab Process | 40 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 40 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Core (Boost) Clock | 900 MHz | 900 MHz | 730 (780) MHz | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | 1000 (1050) MHz | 800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 900 MHz DDR3 | 891 MHz DDR3 | 900 MHz DDR3 | 900 MHz DDR3 or GDDR5 | 900 MHz DDR3 1125 MHz GDDR5 | 900 MHz DDR3 1150 MHz GDDR5 | 1125 MHz GDDR5 | 1125 MHz GDDR5 |
| Memory Bus | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s DDR3 | 28.5 GB/s DDR3 | 28.8 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s DDR3 64 GB/s GDDR5 | 28.8 GB/s DDR3 72 GB/s GDDR5 | 28.8 GB/s DDR3 73.6 GB/s GDDR5 | 72 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| TDP | 65 W | 65 W | 30 W | 44 W DDR3 60 W GDDR5 | 47 W | 60 W | 55 W | 80 W |
| Newegg Price Range | $65 | $60 to $120 | $70 to $90 | $70-$102 DDR3 $80-$125 GDDR5 | $80 to $125 (Amazon) | $87 to $103 | $100 to $137 | $100 to $170 |
| Typical Price | $65 | $80 | $70 | $80 DDR3 $90 GDDR5 | NA | $90 | $100 | $110 |
A lot of these cards are available across a fairly wide price range. For example, the GeForce GT 640 goes from $60 to twice that number on Newegg. So, I'm citing the third-cheapest price I can find as "typical". No matter how you do the math, though, this is a bit of a challenge for nailing down value. We should still have enough performance data by the end of this story to draw sound conclusions, though.
While the Radeon R7 240 and 250 are new in the retail space, they've been available to OEMs for a year as the Radeon HD 8570 and 8670, respectively. Both cards are based on the Oland GPU. Although the graphics processor does support higher clock rates through PowerTune with Boost, it's considered a first-gen GCN-based GPU and does not offer any of the features introduced with the Radeon R9 290-series cards, such as TrueAudio, precision improvements to the native LOG and EXP operations, or optimizations to the Masked Quad Sum of Absolute Difference (MQSAD).

As the Radeon R7 240, AMD's Oland Pro is limited to five of the GPU's six available Compute Units, each with 64 shaders and four texture units. Do the math and you get 320 total shaders and 20 TMUs. Two ROP partitions are capable of processing eight operations per cycle. Additionally, a pair of 64-bit dual-channel memory controllers yield a 128-bit aggregate pathway. This is the smallest we've ever seen Graphics Core Next scaled down, so I'm personally curious to see how it'll compare to previous-gen parts like the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 with 480 VLIW5 shaders.
In fact, comparing the Radeon R7 240's 730 MHz base and 780 MHz peak clock rates to the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3's 800 MHz frequency should shed some light on how much more (or less) efficient GCN is next to VLIW5 (which we already know was not as efficient as VLIW4). A 128-bit memory bus laden with 900 MHz DDR3 memory is used on both cards, so memory bandwidth is identical.
The Radeon R7 250 comes equipped with an uncut version of the GPU, called Oland XT. All six of its Compute Units are operational, exposing 384 shaders and 24 TMUs. The back-end is unchanged; you still get two ROP partitions and a 128-bit memory interface. So, overall, there's not a ton of difference between the two GPUs. The Radeon R7 250 has other advantages, though. Its core operates at 1000 MHz and can accelerate up to 1050 MHz under the right thermal conditions. Manufacturers can also choose to arm it with GDDR5 memory. I'd even go so far as to say avoid models with DDR3, since they sell for close to the same price.
Perhaps you noticed that the Radeon R7 250 sounds a lot like the Radeon HD 7730, a card based on a cut-down Bonaire GPU with the same number of CUs, shaders, and ROP partitions. The Radeon HD 7730 runs at 800 MHz though, and the GDDR5-based version sports memory operating 25 MHz slower. We're including it in our benchmarks for comparison.
XFX Radeon R7 240 Core Edition

XFX provided two Radeon R7 240 samples. Both are able to accelerate up to 780 MHz under the right conditions and feature 2 GB of 800 MHz DDR3. Also, they're based on the same half-height 7" x 2.75" PCB. The only functional difference between them concerns cooling; one model is actively cooled by a 50 mm fan, while the other is passively-cooled.

Interestingly, XFX's memory clock is 100 MHz under AMD's 900 MHz reference spec. We increased this using Overdrive, so our benchmark results reflect AMD's proposed performance levels, rather than XFX's.
Not surprisingly, the cards are similar around back. They employ the same Hynix H5TQ2G63BFR memory packages and rounded PCB edges.
XFX equips both cards with dual-link DVI, HDMI, and VGA outputs.


The Radeon R7 240 has a relatively low 30 W TDP, so the power it needs is easily delivered by a PCI Express slot.
It would have been possible to build these cards in a single-slot form factor. However, XFX chose a dual-slot design for improved cooling.
This class of Radeon card doesn't come equipped with bridge connectors for CrossFire (nor does it enjoy the benefit of AMD's integrated XDMA engine). Instead, it can be linked to a second board using the PCI Express bus.
XFX bundles its cards with warranty information, a quick install guide, a driver install guide, a graphics card and peripheral pamphlet, a power supply pamphlet, and support information. They also come with a driver CD and half-height output bezels.
XFX Radeon R7 250 Core Edition

The XFX Radeon R7 250 Core Edition adheres to AMD's reference peak clock rate of 1050 MHz, complemented by 1 GB of 1150 MHz GDDR5 on a full-height 7" x 4.5" PCB. The black acrylic Ghost cooler has an understated style that's not flashy and is still classy-looking.

Like the Radeon R7 240 cards, this one's PCB also has rounded edges.

The display outputs are similar, too. You get dual-link DVI, HDMI, and VGA connectors.

XFX's Ghost cooler uses an 85 mm fan to contend with the GPU's 65 W TDP. There's a space between the fan bezel and card itself for airflow, and the large heat sink covers both the graphics processor and memory packages. This card also lacks a physical CrossFire connector, just like AMD's Radeon HD 7750. Two-card configurations communicate over PCI Express.

The same support documentation is included: there's a warranty information card, a quick install guide, a driver install guide, a graphics card and peripheral pamphlet, a power supply pamphlet, and support information. A driver CD is also included, but there's no half-height bezel option for this full-sized product.
Because we want a sense of the entire sub-$100 graphics card market, we're generating two sets of benchmarks. For the first set, we're dropping detail settings and resolutions to the point where very low-cost cards can contend (down to a minimum of 1280x720). The next set is at 1920x1080 at more demanding detail settings.

We've almost completely eliminated mechanical storage in the lab, and instead lean on solid-state drives to alleviate I/O-related bottlenecks. Samsung sent all of our offices 256 GB 840 Pros, so we standardize on these exceptional SSDs.

Naturally, discrete graphics cards require a substantial amount of stable power, so XFX sent along its PRO850W 80 PLUS Bronze-certified power supply. This modular PSU employs a single +12 V rail rated for 70 A. XFX claims that this unit provides 850 W of continuous power (not peak) at 50 degrees Celsius (notably higher than the inside of most enclosures).
| Test System | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i5-2550K (Sandy Bridge), Overclocked to 4.2 GHz @ 1.3 V | ||||
| Motherboard | Asus P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155, Chipset: Intel Z77M | ||||
| Networking | On-Board Gigabit LAN controller | ||||
| Memory | Corsair Performance Memory, 4 x 4 GB, 1866 MT/s, CL 9-9-9-24-1T | ||||
| Graphics | XFX Radeon R7 240 DDR3 730/750 MHz GPU, 2 GB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 MT/s) XFX Radeon R7 250 GDDR5 1000/1050 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1150 MHz (4600 MT/s) Sapphire Radeon HD 7730 GDDR5 800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4500 MT/s) Reference Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4000 MT/s) Gigabyte Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 800 MHz GPU, 1 GB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1600 MT/s) Reference AMD Radeon HD 7750 800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4500 MT/s) Gigabyte Radeon HD 7770 1000 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4500 MT/s) Zotac GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 810 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 900 MHz (3600 MT/s) Reference Nvidia GT 640 900 MHz GPU, 1 GB DDR3 at 891 MHz (1782 MT/s) | ||||
| Hard Drive | Samsung 840 Pro, 256 GB SSD, SATA 6Gb/s | ||||
| Power | XFX PRO850W, ATX12V, EPS12V | ||||
| Software and Drivers | |||||
| Operating System | Microsoft Windows 8 Pro x64 | ||||
| DirectX | DirectX 11 | ||||
| Graphics Drivers | AMD Catalyst 13.11 Beta 9.5, Nvidia GeForce 331.93 Beta | ||||
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
| 3D Games | |
| Metro: Last Light | Version 1.0.0.0, DirectX 10, Built-in Benchmark |
| Grid 2 | Version 1.6.89.06, Version 1.5.26.05, 25-Sec. Fraps |
| Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag | Version 1.04, Custom THG Benchmark, 60-Sec. Fraps |
| Battlefield 4 | Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark, 60-Sec. Fraps |
| BioShock Infinite | Version 1.0.1441711, Built-in Benchmark, Fraps |
Like many of the games we're using to test these entry-level graphics cards, Metro: Last Light is not a casual title. It can be brutally demanding, in fact. To make it run well on these modest GPUs, we're forced to drop the detail levels as low as they'll go at 1280x720.


Even at 720p, this game is an insurmountable challenge for some of these cards. It takes a Radeon HD 6670 equipped with GDDR5 memory to maintain a minimum frame rate around the 30 FPS level.
Lower-end offerings like the GeForce GT 640 and Radeon R7 240 really only dip below 30 FPS briefly during one demanding part of the test, so I'll begrudgingly call them playable as well. But the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 and GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 do not give us acceptable performance.


Fortunately, the frame time variance averages are pretty low. There are a few spikes during the benchmark, but nothing we'd flag as an issue for one card or another.


At 1920x1080, many cards are forced under 30 FPS for extended periods of time. The Radeon R7 250 is still probably playable, since they only fall under the threshold briefly. But for a smoother experience, you'd want at least a Radeon HD 7750 or 7770.


A majority of cards demonstrate low variance with occasional spikes, but the Radeon R7 240, GeForce GT 630 GDDR5, GeForce GT 640, and Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 really struggle at this resolution.
Grid 2 is a beautiful game. But like many race sims, it's not very graphics-bound. This allows us to test at 1920x1080 using the High Quality preset. In addition, we enable Conservative Morphological Anti-Aliasing (CMAA), a post-processing technique developed by Intel and incorporated into this game.


Despite our stepped-up settings, most of these cards achieve playable performance. Only the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 and GeForce GT 640 GDDR5 drop below 30 FPS for significant amounts of time. The Radeon R7 240 and Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 are slightly smoother, spending most of the run above our target frame rate.


There are occasional spikes in our frame time variance chart. But, on average, the results are low through most of the benchmark.
These cards really aren't meant to handle higher detail settings, but we're enabling 4x MSAA anyway to see how it affects the results.


Most of the numbers don't change dramatically. But AMD's Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 does do better than it did with CMAA turned on.


Frame time variance spikes less with MSAA turned on. Perhaps CMAA's variable post-processing load makes it more difficult to deliver a consistent frame rate.
We're keeping the resolution set to 1920x1080 for BioShock Infinite. To do that, though, we have to adjust the detail level down to Very Low quality. Otherwise, these cards can't handle the workload.


The good news is that every card posts playable minimum frame rates in excess of 30 FPS. The Radeon R7 240, Radeon HD 6670 DDR3, and GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 trail the pack, though.


The frame time variance is also quite low. There are small spikes from the slower graphics cards, but nothing as worrying as just outright slow performance, which is more of an issue with entry-level GPUs.


With the detail setting at BioShock's High preset, only three cards consistently stay above 30 FPS for most of the benchmark: the Radeon R7 250, Radeon HD 7750, and Radeon HD 7770.


The tougher settings are accompanied by significantly more variance in the frame times. Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 and AMD's Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 are particularly affected by the change.
Although Battlefield 4 has a less-than-stellar reputation for launching before its issues were worked out, it remains one of the best-looking titles in our suite. In order for it to run smoothly on low-end hardware, we dropped the game's resolution to 1680x1050 and set a Low quality preset.


Only the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 and GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 are pushed under our 30 FPS target; the rest of the cards run more smoothly. The newer Radeon R7 240 is (strangely) faster than those other cards in this specific benchmark.


The frame time variance numbers generated by Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 are particularly bad, though a few cards encounter larger spikes than we'd prefer to see.
Next, we bump the resolution to 1920x1080 and step up to the Medium detail preset.


Now it takes at least a Radeon R7 250 or HD 7730 to maintain more than 30 FPS.


Once again, Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 struggles with Battlefield 4. With that said, most of the lower-end cards exhibit pretty big spikes, and are really too slow for this game anyway.
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag is a beautiful-looking game. But it's also quite a challenge graphically. We had to drop the title's detail settings as low as they'd go at 1280x720 to give these entry-level cards a chance.


The Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 outperforms XFX's Radeon R7 240 by a small amount, though it's significant enough if you consider 30 frames per second as low as you'll go for a smooth experience. Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 shows its age, but the rest of these cards perform quite well.


Frame time variance is very low across our tests, which is ideal. Raw performance is the limiting factor in this game.
Can any of these cards contend with an increase to 1920x1080?


Only the Radeon R7 250, HD 7750, and HD sustain minimum frame rates close to 30 FPS at this resolution.


Despite low frame rates, variance isn't bad at all.
With our performance tests finished, we turn our attention to power consumption. The chart below shows total system power. But it begins at 57 W, which is the idle system use with its monitor output shut off. After all, our primary interest is each card's impact.

The XFX Radeon R7 240 wins this round with the lowest active idle and load power usage. Interestingly, the new Radeon R7 250 draws more power than the older Radeon HD 7750, likely due to its higher clock rates.
AMD's Radeon HD 7770 pays a price for its segment-leading performance; it's the only card requiring a six-pin auxiliary power cable.

When it comes to thermals, the results are definitely biased to the cards with non-reference coolers. XFX's Radeon R7 240 does well, while the R7 250 isn't as impressive. Then again, a 65 degree maximum load temperature is low compared to what we're used to on the high-end graphics side.
I want to start by issuing a bit of guidance to budget-driven gamers: if there are DDR3- and GDDR5-based versions of a given card available, always snag the board with GDDR5 memory. In pretty much every case, you'll get a ton more memory bandwidth, which is a limited resource in the sub-$100 space, especially as you increase resolution. The reason I say anything at all is because there are Radeon HD 7750 and R7 250 cards with DDR3, and you want to avoid them completely.
Before we formulate our conclusions, take a look at game performance in the following chart. The red bar denotes our measurements at low-detail settings, while the black bar indicates what we saw at more demanding presets and 1920x1080. Everything is relative to the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3.

How about the recently-introduced Radeon R7 240? With performance a few points higher than the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 at playable low detail settings, and a price that averages a bit lower, AMD's latest looks better than we assumed it would based on specifications alone. It's actually surprisingly nimble for a board with only 320 shaders. Paying around $70 seems acceptable, though we wish it were a few bucks cheaper to stand out more prominently from Nvidia's superior GeForce GT 640.
We're more impressed with the Radeon R7 250. Its 200 MHz core clock advantage really distinguishes it from the Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 and 7730 GDDR5, approaching the performance of AMD's Radeon HD 7750. Does that make it a great buy? It's hard to say; this is where the market gets a little complicated. Boards priced under $100 can change prices quickly. For example, the average cost of a Radeon HD 7750 and 7770 is up about $10 since I started writing this piece. Additionally, we know that the Radeon R7 260 is about to surface for roughly $110. And last, we anticipate the Radeon HD 6670, 7750, and 7770 disappearing soon to make way for the R7 240, 250, and 260.
The more important point to make is that AMD's Radeon HD 7770 is very fast for the $100 it's still selling for. It never dropped below 30 FPS, even in our higher-detail 1920x1080 testing. Given the relatively tame premium, does it make sense to spend $90 or even $70 for a significantly slower card? Our chart suggests not.
Then again, a low-cost Radeon R7 240 manages playable performance at 1920x1080 in some games, so long as you're willing to except the lowest-quality settings available. That doesn't mean a modern game is going to look bad, per se. A lot of these titles actually look pretty good. And it's significant that at 1280x720, a resolution even the Xbox One is forced to contend with on occasion, all of the games we tested are playable on the Radeon R7 240.
At the end of the day, though, the existence of a $100 Radeon HD 7770 makes it extremely hard to recommend any alternative under it, since performance drops much faster than price. Until the 7770 disappears, giving way to the more expensive Radeon R7 260, we have to endorse it above everything else. And if price is your number-one priority, the Radeon R7 240 is as low as you should consider going. Every $10 you spend beyond that card's price should yield more than your money's worth in average performance.





