Help with Graphics Cards

PZH

I recently upgraded my PC to include an ASUS motherboard with integrated Graphics. Whilst it is more than adequate for everyday stuff and things like iPlayer, etc, I have been thinking about maybe getting a Graphics Card and a few "up to date" games.

This is where the fun starts - I am sooo out of date with the Graphic Card technology...

I am currently looking at the nVidia GTX 460 (seems to be a decent card for the money).

Now, my logic would say that the GTX 550 Ti would be better (higher number, etc), but it appears that this is not the case. Am I right to assume that it is due to the number of cores? (336 on the GTX 460 as opposed to only 192 on the GTX 550 Ti)

Is the "Ti" significant ?

I also notice that there are a few cards out there that are "factory" overclocked. I would rather avoid any overclocking - but this is only personal preference.

So - any recommendations ?

For information - I'm looking at maybe £120 maximum

EchoLocation

I'd just suggest looking at the sytem requirements of the games you're likely to buy and go from there.

PZH

EchoLocation wrote: »

I'd just suggest looking at the sytem requirements of the games you're likely to buy and go from there.

Agreed - and hence my looking at the GTX 460.

However, I do like to build a slight bit of "future proofing" into the equation with a minimal spend - which is why I looked at the GTX 550 assuming it would have an advantage over the 460 cards - but reviews suggest this is not the case.

What would the equivalent ATI card be compared to the GTX 460 ?

Which drivers are the best for a Windows-7 64-bit machine ?

Anyone got any experience, feedback or "avoids" ?

grumpycrab

Don't buy an ATI (AMD now) card. The recent release of Rage (by makers of Doom, Quake) has shown iD, or AMD, or both to be incompetent. I advise sticking with nVidia.

PZH

grumpycrab wrote: »

Don't buy an ATI (AMD now) card. The recent release of Rage (by makers of Doom, Quake) has shown iD, or AMD, or both to be incompetent. I advise sticking with nVidia.

Thanks for the information :T

I used to have a Sapphire Radeon X1950 on my old motherboard (AGP) so it shows how long ago it was since I bought a graphics card.

The Sapphire ran ok - but the Catalyst Drivers stopped working with the 3D after a while so had to stick with what I had and not upgrade to the latest drivers. Not that this would be an issue with the new system...

spakkker

Hope these help -
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-radeon-geforce,3018.html

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

PZH

spakkker wrote: »

Hope these help -
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-radeon-geforce,3018.html

Very interesting to read in the article what I suspected..

Nvidia mentioned that we could expect the GeForce GTX 460 768 MB to slowly evaporate from shelves when the GeForce GTX 550 Ti was launched to replace it, but we were hoping the older and more powerful model would hang around to keep pressure on the Radeon HD 6790.

I assume the "older and more powerful model" refers to the GTX 460. And even better is that I was looking at the 1GB model :T

EDIT: Mind you - the GTX 550 Ti is a lot cheaper

GeoffX

Avoid the 768MB model of the GTX 460. It's much slower than the 1GB original version due to it having less memory bandwidth. There's a third version of the card - which also has 1Gb - which you should also avoid, the GTX 460 SE.

As to the AMD/nVidia nonsense, seriously, it's 2011 and I thought we were well beyond that. You could just as reasoably point out that nVidia has in the not so distant past released drivers that cooked cards. Both make excellent cards: nVidia's are better for 3D support, while AMD's are generally better at handling multiple monitors. nVidia has the annoying and confusing habit of releasing similar cards each year with new version numbers. It's the second digit of the model number that gives an approximate indication of its rank.

If you want an nVidia card then the 460 is a good choice - it was nVidia's first really good new card in years - and if you can find a bargain, or stretch your budget, then the 560Ti is an excellent choice.

This will give you and indication of the relative performance of different cards:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-performance-radeon-geforce,review-32274-7.html

james123

first things first, make sure you have a good enough PSU to run the cards you are looking at, I would say between 450w and 500w should be ok, but nothing lower. If your PSU is ok then the previous poster is spot on, the 1gb 460 is one of the best budget cards around, the ATI equivalent is the 6850 which is a little cheaper and a little more powerful. I have always prefered ATI and currently have a (underpowered) 5670, HOWEVER next card will be an nvidia, more and more new games seem to run better/have less issues on nvidia cards.



hth


Jim,

PZH

james123 wrote: »

...make sure you have a good enough PSU to run the cards you are looking at, I would say between 450w and 500w should be ok, but nothing lower.

Thanks Jim, thats a good point. Should be ok though - I'm currently running with a 650W PSU :T