Double-slot graphics cards seem to be the norm, much to the chagrin of enthusiasts trying to build systems with only a single slot of upgrade space. We hunted down three of the fastest cards able to slip into one slot and tested their gaming mettle.
Any enthusiast who builds systems to-order for family and friends will, at some point, be asked to work magic with parts that fall outside the realm of traditional. Nowadays, we simply come to expect that any graphics card purporting to be high-end is going to end up eating two expansion slots worth of space. This problem is particularly vexing to gamers, since compact systems often require a card that’s either shorter in length, height, or thickness than the fastest boards, which absolutely tend to also be the largest. We’ve even reviewed so-called performance-oriented graphics card in a half-height format, but that supposedly-compact part still required two slots. What’s a builder with minimal expansion options to do with only one available slot?

When we heard that a few vendors were finally going to buck the trend and nudge us back in the direction of enthusiast-class graphics cards designed to fit within a single slot of space, we invited 17 of our closest industry contacts to take part in a roundup. Four companies promised us a card to test, and only three delivered on that promise. Today we get to see how these three solutions compare.
| Single-Slot Graphics Comparison Specifications | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Afox Radeon HD 6850 AF6850-1024D5S1 | ECS GeForce GT 440 NGT440-1GQI-F1 | MSI GeForce GTS 450 N450GTS-M2D1GD5 | |
| GPU Clock | 775 MHz | 810 MHz | 783 MHz |
| DRAM Rate | GDDR5-4000 | GDDR5-3200 | GDDR5-3606 |
| DVI | One Dual-Link | One Dual-Link | Two Dual-Link |
| HDMI | Full | Full | Mini |
| DisplayPort | Full and Mini | None | None |
| VGA | By Adapter | Onboard | By Adapter |
| Output Adapters | None | None | DVI-to-VGA Full-HDMI |
| Length | 8.2" | 6.5" | 8.3" |
| Height | 4.4" | 4.4" | 4.4" |
| Total Thickness | 0.8" | 0.8" | 0.8" |
| Cooler Thickness | 0.6" | 0.6" | 0.6" |
| Weight | 14 Ounces | 8 Ounces | 13 Ounces |
| PCB Version | Custom | V1.0 | 000(B) |
| VRM | Four Phases | Three Phases | Four Phases |
| Warranty | One Year | Three Years | Three Years |
- Redefining Compact Graphics
- Afox AF6850-1024D5S1
- ECS NGT440-1GQI-F1
- MSI N450GTS-M2D1GD5
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: F1 2010
- Benchmark Results: Just Cause 2
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033
- Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Performance Analysis
- Power, Heat, Noise, And Efficiency
- Conclusion
For example, there are few, if any, reviews on noiseless CPUs (meaning, fanless) and too few if any reviews on GPUs without fans. Small form factors have thankfully been addressed a bit, but some of the smallest sizes are still not represented well in reviews.
Even if you are into killing evil Zargons with your pimped out main computer (which many are not anyway), there is still a cool factor of a computer that fits in your hand that can be used in other locations like a kitchen, or living room, or both since you can pick it up and move it easily.
Articles like this, that might not pertain to a main computer (or may), are interesting, since most of us have several computers, and know several people that ask our assistance in making decisions, and there are often criteria like this involved.
Still, I also like the idea of reviewing different approaches of hardware pieces. We all have different needs, so different hardware (forms) need to be addressed as well 8)
Cheers!
For example, there are few, if any, reviews on noiseless CPUs (meaning, fanless) and too few if any reviews on GPUs without fans. Small form factors have thankfully been addressed a bit, but some of the smallest sizes are still not represented well in reviews.
Even if you are into killing evil Zargons with your pimped out main computer (which many are not anyway), there is still a cool factor of a computer that fits in your hand that can be used in other locations like a kitchen, or living room, or both since you can pick it up and move it easily.
Articles like this, that might not pertain to a main computer (or may), are interesting, since most of us have several computers, and know several people that ask our assistance in making decisions, and there are often criteria like this involved.
Still, I also like the idea of reviewing different approaches of hardware pieces. We all have different needs, so different hardware (forms) need to be addressed as well 8)
Cheers!
The Tom's Hardware team put a lot of effort into getting as many companies onboard as possible for this. PowerColor should have been excluded since its product was actually too late to meet the test deadline, but that's a non-issue since the card didn't show up. And Galaxy, Galaxy Where Art Thou? You would think companies like that would be in touch with ALL the major sites, wouldn't you?
I wasn't questioning the work ethic of Tom's Hardware's authors and reviewers, you guy's almost always deliver high-quality review material. But thanks for clarifying the situation.
I really don't know what I would think, I'm completely unfamiliar with the process of acquiring test hardware from companies. Is this really unusual behavior from Galaxy and Power Color (ignoring or passing up a request to review one of their new products)?
As for PowerColor, they said they sent one. Either they screwed up, or something happened to the card along the way. Either way, I wasn't going to worry about the cause of this conundrum since it was too late to deal with.
I really don't know what's up with Galaxy. Chances are they might have simply cut their marketing department.
It drives a pair of 1080x1920 Samsungs. But they aren't the screes I game on. It does render .pdf a hell'of'a lot faster…
Glad I picked the better of the two nVidias!
Benchmark Results: F1 2010
Noticed a typo on the F1 2010 1080 chart.
Resolution is listed as 1800 not 1080
Do you have a link to an article or something with regards to this? I've not heard of latency induced performance bottlenecks in recent years (then again I'm running C7 parts)
That sounds worthy of an article but it's not, because the Far Cry 2 settings that showed the huge performance difference were far lower than anyone would use with those graphics cards. We're talking about way more than 100 FPS for the "slow" system. In other words, it's not a realistic test scenario and should be ignored.
ps. usually only browse thru the smb articles to see if I agree with your hardware picks - mostly don't bother reading the blah blah surrounding it.