Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: April 2013

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: April 2013
By

In this month's market analysis, we discuss Nvidia's new GeForce GTX Titan, PowerColor's Tahiti LE-based Radeon HD 7870, and a number of price fluctuations. If you've been holding off on an upgrade, now might be the best time to buy.

Detailed graphics card specifications and reviews are great—that is, if you have the time to do the research. But at the end of the day, what a gamer needs is the best graphics card within a certain budget.

So, if you don’t have the time to research the benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right card, then fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best gaming cards offered for the money.

April Updates:

The graphics world continues to evolve. Since our last monthly update, two new cards are available (three, possibly, by the time you read this). Let's discuss them in the order they were introduced. First up is AMD's Radeon HD 7790.

Sporting a new GPU (not an overclocked Cape Verde from the Radeon HD 7700 series or a crippled Pitcairn from the Radeon HD 7800 family) called Bonaire, the Radeon HD 7790 sports 896 shader cores, 56 texture units, and 16 ROPs, all running at 1 GHz. Its GDDR5 memory operates at 1,500 MHz on a 128-bit aggregate interface, delivering a little less than 100 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD claims to enable more granularity in its power management, facilitating improved efficiency during intermediate workloads. And with an 85 W TDP, it's only rated 5 W higher than the Radeon HD 7770, despite a significant performance advantage.

When AMD introduced it, the Radeon HD 7790 looked great at $150, particularly since the new card performs a little better than Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti. In fact, everything was coming up roses for AMD in the $100-$200 segment until Nvidia struck back with three notable blows: dropping its GeForce GTX 650 Ti to $130 (undercutting the Radeon HD 7790), dropping the GeForce GTX 660 to $200 (undercutting the Radeon HD 7870 and encroaching on the slower Radeon HD 7850), and introducing its GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 1 GB at $150 and 2 GB for $170. With those three strikes, Nvidia assumed total control of the very same $100 to $200 market. That's something it hasn't had for a very long time.

The GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is pretty much a hybrid of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (with 768 shader cores and 64 texture units) and GeForce GTX 660 (24 ROPs, 192-bit aggregate memory bus, 980 MHz base clock rate, and 1,502 MHz memory frequency). Incidentally, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, 650 Ti Boost, and 660 all employ the same 28 nm GK106 GPU. This latest addition to Nvidia's portfolio is on par with the Radeon HD 7850, but the aforementioned pricing is where is secures its win.

As a result, the Radeon HD 7790 gets undercut by a pretty significant margin. It the company wants to stay competitive with that product, it'll need to start cutting some prices. We'd actually be surprised if the Radeon HD 7790, 7850, and 7870 don't drop to match the equivalent GeForce cards. No matter what, though, you come out the winner from all of this, getting better performance from both companies for less money than ever before.

Not all news is good, though. The GeForce GTX 670, Radeon HD 7970, and Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition are more expensive this month, running $370, $400, and $450, respectively. This is quite a bummer, considering the good things happening at the lower end of the price spectrum.

What about upcoming products? At this year's Game Developer's Conference, AMD indicated that we should see an official dual-GPU Radeon HD 7990 card in the near future (it might have even launched by the time you read this). This is a surprise; the company originally promised its arrival about a year ago, and we gave up on an official dual-Tahiti board long ago. The partner-designed attempts were pretty inelegant, so it's likely that AMD took its time with something a little less obnoxious.

Some Notes About Our Recommendations

A few simple guidelines to keep in mind when reading this list:

  • This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the cards on this list are more expensive than what you really need. We've added a reference page at the end of the column covering integrated graphics processors, which is likely more apropos.
  • The criteria to get on this list are strictly price/performance. We acknowledge that recommendations for multiple video cards, such as two Radeon cards in CrossFire mode or two GeForce cards in SLI, typically require a motherboard that supports CrossFire or SLI and a chassis with more space to install multiple graphics cards. They also require a beefier power supply compared to what a single card needs, and will almost certainly produce more heat than a single card. Keep these factors in mind when making your purchasing decision. In most cases, if we have recommended a multiple-card solution, we try to recommend a single-card honorable mention at a comparable price point for those who find multi-card setups undesirable.
  • Prices and availability change on a daily basis. We can’t base our decisions on always-changing pricing information, but we can list some good cards that you probably won’t regret buying at the price ranges we suggest, along with real-time prices from our PriceGrabber engine, for your reference.
  • The list is based on some of the best U.S. prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary.
  • These are new card prices. No used or open-box cards are in the list; they might represent a good deal, but it’s outside the scope of what we’re trying to do.
There are 251 Comments. B
Top Comments
  • 26 Ð
    DEY123 , December 14, 2012 9:00 AM
    I am confused on how the 560 SE is a tie with the 7770. The 7770 is $10 cheaper, uses less power and is rated one level higher in Tom's Hierarchy of Cards. Seems like it should be the 7770 as the sole suggestion at the price point.
  • 17 Ð
    beninchi , December 14, 2012 6:31 AM
    The reason there is little coverage of the 7990 is because there "officially" is no 7990. Because AMD has yet to spec one, hardware vendors have taken upon themselves to mash two 7970s and call it a 7990. It exists, but is not very official from AMD's point of view.
Other Comments
  • 8 Ð
    ufo_warviper , December 14, 2012 5:44 AM
    Hey Don!
    Thanks for the December update! You're "For the money" guides are a staple hardware read for me every month! Keep up the good work!

    First of all, i would like to note that the comments to the November 20th article are showing up on the December article instead of the December ones...

    OF OTHER NOTES:
    1....
    I suggest adding Honorable mentions for Triinity APUs in the low end market. If someone already has a Radeon 7660D on their APU, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a 7670 DDR3. They would be much better served by saving up for a $100 card or waiting for the prices of 7750 cards to fall. Trinity (and to some extent )Ivy Bridge HD 4000), are truly kissing the heels of the low end discrete market, and are vastly superior than virtually all of the crap floating around the ~$50 price point on Newegg. Although detail settings and resolutions will most definitely have to be lowered somewhat, sticking with these on-die APU solutions are compelling for Casual gamers that can't afford more than a $50 card.

    In the near future it will be increasingly difficult to ignore discussing APUs as they continue to get better and better. I can't wait to see how well Haswell holds up.
    2....
    The Radeon 7990 doesn't seem to show up on the Hierarchy chart nor mentioned in the $375 and up section. I can only find 2 Powercolor variants, but they are both in stock. For some reason, i can only find a modest amount of press coverage on Radeon 7990 overall.
  • 17 Ð
    beninchi , December 14, 2012 6:31 AM
    The reason there is little coverage of the 7990 is because there "officially" is no 7990. Because AMD has yet to spec one, hardware vendors have taken upon themselves to mash two 7970s and call it a 7990. It exists, but is not very official from AMD's point of view.
  • 5 Ð
    beninchi , December 14, 2012 6:32 AM
    And big kudos for adding the Trinity 7660D to the chart!
  • -1 Ð
    wdmfiber , December 14, 2012 8:24 AM
    @ufo_warviper if you really appreciate Don's review you should re-read it; as he wrote a paragraph about the 7990, or the lack there-of (beninichi summed up).

    And there is no honor in running intergrated graphics/APU's at this point. Hense no honourable mention... ;) 

    As for Haswell. As an enthusiast I'd love for the i7-2700K/3770K successor to have weak integrated graphics. Weaker than HD3000, have a TDP of ~110 watts and use fluxless solder in it's construction! Sadly though, I know that's unlikely to happen.
  • 26 Ð
    DEY123 , December 14, 2012 9:00 AM
    I am confused on how the 560 SE is a tie with the 7770. The 7770 is $10 cheaper, uses less power and is rated one level higher in Tom's Hierarchy of Cards. Seems like it should be the 7770 as the sole suggestion at the price point.
  • -3 Ð
    hytecgowthaman , December 14, 2012 10:22 AM
    Thanks for helping to buyers. also give very very low cost gpus for bussiness systems.
  • 1 Ð
    army_ant7 , December 14, 2012 11:27 AM
    Quote:
    I am confused on how the 560 SE is a tie with the 7770. The 7770 is $10 cheaper, uses less power and is rated one level higher in Tom's Hierarchy of Cards. Seems like it should be the 7770 as the sole suggestion at the price point.
    I have given that some thought. It could be for the sake of being fair and providing options from both sides/companies as much as possible. Also, it could be because some games run better using Nvidia cards and they also have PhysX, CUDA, etc. support for whomever may value them. :) 

    Take note of how, in the Best Gaming CPU series, the AMD FX-4170 is also tied with the Intel Core i3-3220 even though the latter is superior in terms of power consumption and possibly plain (gaming) performance. :) 


    On a side note, aw... Even the comments posted after this Dec. update were wiped out. :( 

  • -3 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 14, 2012 7:06 PM
    AMD Trinity APU's need to be added to the chart, above intel integrated graphics.
  • 0 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 14, 2012 8:15 PM
    beninchiAnd big kudos for adding the Trinity 7660D to the chart!


    Thanks for adding it toms. It was added as "Integrated: HD 7660D" which will not be enough information for people to properly recognize and consider it.

    It needs to be identified as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU." This name change would be appreciated.
  • -3 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 14, 2012 8:18 PM
    mikenygmailAMD Trinity APU's need to be added to the chart, above intel integrated graphics.


    Good, I see that "Integrated: HD 7660D" was added 4 tiers above Intel's best integrated, but it needs to be listed as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU" so that people can properly recognize and consider it. The change would be appreciated TH.
  • -5 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 15, 2012 6:45 AM
    Please fix the Hierarchy Chart.
    APU's are not "Radeon" products, so a new column is needed, entitled "AMD."
    Then in the appropriate tier, list each AMD APU
    in the same format as this example: "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU."
  • 9 Ð
    cleeve , December 15, 2012 7:47 AM
    mikenygmailPlease fix the Hierarchy Chart.APU's are not "Radeon" products, so a new column is needed, entitled "AMD."Then in the appropriate tier, list each AMD APU in the same format as this example: "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU."


    Nothing to fix.
    APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.

    Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.
  • -4 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 15, 2012 9:11 AM
    CleeveNothing to fix. APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.


    Plenty to fix, actually.
    Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.

    Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
    "Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
    So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.

    AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
    Radeon's column products are listed as such:
    "Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
    The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
    "APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
    Come on, this is ridiculous...

    I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.
  • 3 Ð
    army_ant7 , December 15, 2012 9:14 AM
    Aw... What did I do to get thumbed down? :lol: 

    Don, is what I said above really the reason you still recommended the GTX 560 SE? Some people are wondering.
  • -4 Ð
    mikenygmail , December 15, 2012 9:18 AM
    Actually, Intel graphics are in fact listed by the CPU, for 3 of the top 5, for example:
    "Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
    That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.

    The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.

    The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
    For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
    The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!
  • 1 Ð
    army_ant7 , December 15, 2012 9:21 AM
    Quote:
    Plenty to fix, actually.
    Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.

    Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
    "Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
    So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.

    AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
    Radeon's column products are listed as such:
    "Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
    The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
    "APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
    Come on, this is ridiculous...

    I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.
    Well actually...

    Maybe Intel's name is listed to differentiate its HD's from the Radeon HD's? You know, because AMD's Radeon HD's are really iconic and people might confuse Intel's HD graphics for them in the chart. Plus, Intel doesn't really give a name like "GeForce" or "Radeon" to its graphics so... :) 

    The "D" or "G" after the APU graphics' names are there to denote that they are APU graphics. (Some of) Intel's GPU's are technically what APU's are as well I think. Should they be denoted as well as such? :) 
  • 0 Ð
    army_ant7 , December 15, 2012 9:27 AM
    Quote:
    Actually, Intel graphics are in fact listed by the CPU, for 3 of the top 5, for example:
    "Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
    That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.

    The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.

    The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
    For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
    The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!
    Oh, so that's what you meant. The reason they do that I assume is because Intel names some of it's GPU's the same even though they vary in specs between processors. AMD on the other hand has specific models for different spec'ed IGP's. :)  I'd say what they did was only right. :) 

  • 1 Ð
    eisley , December 15, 2012 4:59 PM
    Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here!
    I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.

    But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?

    Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.

    Please read the rest here:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html

    Thank you very much!

    - L.
  • 4 Ð
    randomizer , December 15, 2012 6:48 PM
    Quote:
    Come on, this is ridiculous...


    I'll say. You could complain about the choice of cards. You could complain about the analysis of each product. You could even go as low as complaining about grammar. Instead, you chose to complain that AMD is not listed in the column headers of a table.

    You, sir, are the most petty person I've run into all day.
  • 0 Ð
    army_ant7 , December 15, 2012 10:53 PM
    Quote:
    Hi! I'm new! Happy to be here!
    I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.

    But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?

    Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.

    Please read the rest here:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html

    Thank you very much!

    - L.
    Hello there! :)  Welcome to Tom's Hardware and I hope you stick around and participate inn the forums. :D 

    I'll have a shot at your inquiry, though if I'm wrong, I bet someone else could correct me. :) 

    IMO, the chart is very general and "rough." As I know, the performance of some of the cards listed are pretty much approximations/educated guesses. Not all of them have been tested under the same benchmarks so there's no perfect comparison.

    Also, you may very well be aware of how older generation cards don't support some technologies like DirectX 11 for one. I don't think this chart really takes that into account. As for the RAM amount, you may already know this but I'll say it anyway, as I know, how much RAM needed is highly dependent on the resolution and anti-aliasing levels you use, aside from a lot of other things like the game itself.

    So anyway, since this chart is very general in nature (and possibly could use updates with older cards, though that's too much to ask for I would say) you'd have to take other factors into consideration like those I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    BTW, 9/8 tiers are pretty substantial in terms of a performance difference I think. Also, each tier might not represent that equal of differences in performance, though I'm not totally sure. I wouldn't know if the 8800 GTS is misplaced on the chart, but if it isn't then it looks like it was quite the performer during its time. A good performing card's merit could carry over through multiple generations past its own. :) 

    I hope I helped, but feel free to say if not... :p 
Display more comments