Originally posted by Lucrecia

1920*1080

probably should have mentioned that I was looking at the GTX 550 Ti version (2GB edition)...which I *think* is more performance than the regular 560 or am I wrong? The 2GB Ti version of the 560 is well over the $200 while the regular 560 looks to be around $130 (the EVGA GTX 550 Ti 2GB is around $170)

Let's put it this way:  which would you expect to run games better:

A dual core Core i3-2120 together with 16 GB of system memory, or

A quad core Core i7-2700K together with 8 GB of system memory?

The answer is, if you only actually use about 3 GB of system memory, then it doesn't matter whether you have 8 GB or 16 GB available.  But the faster processor will help, so the latter option is better.  And for video cards, the extra "cores" would make a much bigger difference, as graphical computations trivially scale to thousands of shaders, while programs that run on a CPU often don't.

So how much video memory do you actually need?  Unless you're playing at a resolution above 1920x1200, 1 GB is probably enough.  If you are playing at a higher resolution, then you should seek out a card with at least 2 GB.

-----

So what does that have to do with video cards?  The GF116 GPU chip in a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is basically a GF114 chip from a GeForce GTX 560 Ti, except cut in half.  That's not really true on some things that don't affect gaming performance (e.g., they'll probably have the same video decoding hardware), but it's half the shaders, half the TMUs, half the polymorph engines, etc.

A 2 GB version of a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a completely stupid card.  If you genuinely need more than 1 GB of video memory for gaming purposes, then it's pretty unlikely that a GF116 GPU chip can keep up.  Then again, the 1 GB version of a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is also a stupid card.  The mismatched memory channels in a product that is heavily dependent on memory bandwidth (as all video cards are) makes it not at all clear whether the card performs any better than if it had 768 MB of video memory wired in and the other 256 MB were duct taped to the outside of the card and not electrically connected at all.

The 1 GB and 2 GB are there for marketing reasons.  Nvidia should have made it a 768 MB card, but then they feared that people who wrongly think that more memory is always better would shy away from the card.  But then, Nvidia isn't actually trying to sell the card to anyone who knows about hardware.  Pretty much continuously since the GTX 550 Ti launched, AMD has offered the Radeon HD 5770/6770 (two different numbers for the same card) that gives comparable performance for cheaper.  And can put the full 1 GB of video memory to good use, too, if you're worried about that.

More recently, AMD launched a Radeon HD 7750 that gives the same performance as those cards.  It also offers a much better feature set and much lower power consumption.  And look at the price:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Note that you don't have to mess with rebates to get that price, either.  The older Juniper-based cards seem to be on clearance now, too, as they're surely discontinued by AMD.  Some underclocked versions of the card have recently appeared, so you will lose a bit of performance.  But if you like rebates, they're sure cheap:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Note the promo code there:  $104 before rebate, $84 after rebate, free shipping, and you maybe lose 10% of the performance as compared to a stock 6770 or GTX 550 Ti.

So why buy an AMD card?  Because Nvidia doesn't have anything serious to offer below $200.  Well, unless you don't mind paying an extra $20 or so for an Nvidia logo on the card, without any real advantages.  If you're fine with paying more for the box to say Nvidia on the side, then it's your money, not mine.  But it's not something that people who shop on a price/performance basis would seriously consider.

Now, the trouble with the cards I've just mentioned is that, while they're faster than a GeForce GTS 250, they're not very much faster.  I'd generally recommend against upgrading a video card to anything less than double the performance of what you had.  That would take roughly a Radeon HD 6870, which isn't that expensive, as AMD is trying to get rid of them.  You could get this if you like big rebates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Or this if you won't do rebates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102948

With the promo code, that's about $158 before rebates.  Performance is perhaps a little better a GeForce GTX 560.  Good luck finding a GTX 560 for those prices, though.

So if you really want an Nvidia card, what do they have to offer?  Further up the performance scale, performance per dollar goes way down.  That means that even Nvidia's disastrous Fermi architecture is able to be competitive on price, and so Nvidia is able to compete.  A GeForce GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 will roughly double the performance of a Radeon HD 6870, but those cards cost over $500--meaning, more than three times as much as the 6870.  If that's the sort of performance you need, then you pay what it costs.

The other problem with the GeForce GTX 680 is, well, click the link and you'll see:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600315498&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20600%20series

So what if you want something faster than a Radeon HD 6870 but don't want to pay $500?  The intermediate cards, at prices that are kind of all right values for the money, are roughly:

GeForce GTX 560 Ti:  $200

Radeon HD 7850:  $250

GeForce GTX 570:  $270

Radeon HD 7870:  $350

GeForce GTX 580:  $370

Radeon HD 7950:  $400 (you won't find one at this price, by the way)

If you want any of those cards, you'd better check your power supply and case to make sure they can handle them.  Or perhaps rather, say what they are so that I can check to see if they can handle the video card upgrade.  Fermi cards are really power hogs, and even the GTX 560 Ti will use a lot more power than the Radeon HD 7870, in spite of the lower performance.

So what does it take to run Guild Wars 2 on max settings?  That depends greatly on how high ArenaNet lets you turn settings up.  It also depends some on what frame rates you consider acceptable, as it takes a lot more graphical power to get a steady 60 frames per second than it takes for an average of 30 frames per second with a lot of hitching.

Originally posted by kileak

if you can wait until the nvidia 660's come out then the price should drop more on the 560's and 560 ti's. tho there are some nice rebates on them allready, but as the next gen gets out the prices will drop further.

So my advice wait as long as you can and look for a really good deal or the next price drop on the current gen cards. unless gw2 comes out before said time then just get the best you can afford at the time.

 

tigerdirect has some great rebates on the 560's right now

160$ for standard 560 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=555335&CatId=3669

can get a ti for around 200 tho the best ti's the 448 core one's are still around 250

That GTX 560 is seriously overpriced, even with the rebate.  The 448 shader GTX 560 Ti is a completely different card from the normal GTX 560 Ti.  Nvidia probably should have called it a GTX 565, but they didn't want to remind people of how bad the GeForce GTX 465 was.  Regardless, if you're paying enough to get a Radeon HD 7850, then there's no sense in grabbing a worse card for the same price.

We really don't know when the GK106 and GK107 cards will arrive.  I'd expect Nvidia to try to put the first ones into laptops, as Ivy Bridge is due in 13 days, and OEMs are going to refresh their lineups for that.  If you don't have video cards ready when they want them, then they're not going to refresh their lineup again a month later just because you're ready.  I'm guessing June on GK106 and GK107, but that's just a guess.

Unlike the disaster that was Fermi, Nvidia's new Kepler architecture is actually competitive with AMD's latest.  I don't expect GK106 and GK107 to drive prices down much if at all.  But once Nvidia can get the cards out in good volume and with good yields, they'll probably mean that you can buy an Nvidia card or an AMD card and get about as good of a deal either way, rather than having to pay $20 extra for an Nvidia logo.

But "good volume and good yields" likely doesn't mean launch day.  A lot of cards are overpriced at launch because the company doesn't have that many of them ready.  Once they're able to deliver a lot more cards, prices fall some.  Look at the Radeon HD 7770, for example.  You can buy one now, but you shouldn't unless reduced power consumption or new features are a huge deal to you., as the older 6850 is a better deal.  Soon the 6850s will disappear and the 7770s will fall in price to fill that market segment.

Originally posted by umie214

get a 570 for $300, and overclock it to 580 levels. done deal cuz thats wut i did =)

also, overclock your i7! i overclocked my 2.6ghz 720 to 3.55ghz, but with better cooling it can easily be oc'd to 4ghz. i7's are still very powerful.

If you have a reference GTX 570, then you'd best revert that overclock or you'll run a serious risk of killing the card.  It's not a heat problem.  The issue is that Nvidia went cheap on the power circuitry.  It's nothing more than adequate at stock speeds, and dangerously inadequate if you give the card a substantial overclock.  And it would take an enormous overclock to get GTX 580 performance out of it.

For a non-reference card, it's harder to tell.  If it's got a 6-pin and an 8-pin PCI-E power connector, then the board partner probably did put beefier power circuitry into it.  If it's just two 6-pin connectors, it won't take much of an overclock to push it outside the PCI Express specifications, and then you'd have to hope that your power supply and motherboard are rather overengineered.

I will probably be in the minority, but I think you should wait for the game to come out. You should be able to play GW2 with your PC and after the game comes out you will have better info on what you will need. 

The worst thing to do is upgrade now and when the game comes out not have the performance you desire.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Lucrecia

1920*1080

probably should have mentioned that I was looking at the GTX 550 Ti version (2GB edition)...which I *think* is more performance than the regular 560 or am I wrong? The 2GB Ti version of the 560 is well over the $200 while the regular 560 looks to be around $130 (the EVGA GTX 550 Ti 2GB is around $170)

Let's put it this way:  which would you expect to run games better:

A dual core Core i3-2120 together with 16 GB of system memory, or

A quad core Core i7-2700K together with 8 GB of system memory?

The answer is, if you only actually use about 3 GB of system memory, then it doesn't matter whether you have 8 GB or 16 GB available.  But the faster processor will help, so the latter option is better.  And for video cards, the extra "cores" would make a much bigger difference, as graphical computations trivially scale to thousands of shaders, while programs that run on a CPU often don't.

So how much video memory do you actually need?  Unless you're playing at a resolution above 1920x1200, 1 GB is probably enough.  If you are playing at a higher resolution, then you should seek out a card with at least 2 GB.

-----

So what does that have to do with video cards?  The GF116 GPU chip in a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is basically a GF114 chip from a GeForce GTX 560 Ti, except cut in half.  That's not really true on some things that don't affect gaming performance (e.g., they'll probably have the same video decoding hardware), but it's half the shaders, half the TMUs, half the polymorph engines, etc.

A 2 GB version of a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a completely stupid card.  If you genuinely need more than 1 GB of video memory for gaming purposes, then it's pretty unlikely that a GF116 GPU chip can keep up.  Then again, the 1 GB version of a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is also a stupid card.  The mismatched memory channels in a product that is heavily dependent on memory bandwidth (as all video cards are) makes it not at all clear whether the card performs any better than if it had 768 MB of video memory wired in and the other 256 MB were duct taped to the outside of the card and not electrically connected at all.

The 1 GB and 2 GB are there for marketing reasons.  Nvidia should have made it a 768 MB card, but then they feared that people who wrongly think that more memory is always better would shy away from the card.  But then, Nvidia isn't actually trying to sell the card to anyone who knows about hardware.  Pretty much continuously since the GTX 550 Ti launched, AMD has offered the Radeon HD 5770/6770 (two different numbers for the same card) that gives comparable performance for cheaper.  And can put the full 1 GB of video memory to good use, too, if you're worried about that.

More recently, AMD launched a Radeon HD 7750 that gives the same performance as those cards.  It also offers a much better feature set and much lower power consumption.  And look at the price:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Note that you don't have to mess with rebates to get that price, either.  The older Juniper-based cards seem to be on clearance now, too, as they're surely discontinued by AMD.  Some underclocked versions of the card have recently appeared, so you will lose a bit of performance.  But if you like rebates, they're sure cheap:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Note the promo code there:  $104 before rebate, $84 after rebate, free shipping, and you maybe lose 10% of the performance as compared to a stock 6770 or GTX 550 Ti.

So why buy an AMD card?  Because Nvidia doesn't have anything serious to offer below $200.  Well, unless you don't mind paying an extra $20 or so for an Nvidia logo on the card, without any real advantages.  If you're fine with paying more for the box to say Nvidia on the side, then it's your money, not mine.  But it's not something that people who shop on a price/performance basis would seriously consider.

Now, the trouble with the cards I've just mentioned is that, while they're faster than a GeForce GTS 250, they're not very much faster.  I'd generally recommend against upgrading a video card to anything less than double the performance of what you had.  That would take roughly a Radeon HD 6870, which isn't that expensive, as AMD is trying to get rid of them.  You could get this if you like big rebates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125396

Or this if you won't do rebates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102948

With the promo code, that's about $158 before rebates.  Performance is perhaps a little better a GeForce GTX 560.  Good luck finding a GTX 560 for those prices, though.

So if you really want an Nvidia card, what do they have to offer?  Further up the performance scale, performance per dollar goes way down.  That means that even Nvidia's disastrous Fermi architecture is able to be competitive on price, and so Nvidia is able to compete.  A GeForce GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 will roughly double the performance of a Radeon HD 6870, but those cards cost over $500--meaning, more than three times as much as the 6870.  If that's the sort of performance you need, then you pay what it costs.

The other problem with the GeForce GTX 680 is, well, click the link and you'll see:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600315498&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20600%20series

So what if you want something faster than a Radeon HD 6870 but don't want to pay $500?  The intermediate cards, at prices that are kind of all right values for the money, are roughly:

GeForce GTX 560 Ti:  $200

Radeon HD 7850:  $250

GeForce GTX 570:  $270

Radeon HD 7870:  $350

GeForce GTX 580:  $370

Radeon HD 7950:  $400 (you won't find one at this price, by the way)

If you want any of those cards, you'd better check your power supply and case to make sure they can handle them.  Or perhaps rather, say what they are so that I can check to see if they can handle the video card upgrade.  Fermi cards are really power hogs, and even the GTX 560 Ti will use a lot more power than the Radeon HD 7870, in spite of the lower performance.

So what does it take to run Guild Wars 2 on max settings?  That depends greatly on how high ArenaNet lets you turn settings up.  It also depends some on what frame rates you consider acceptable, as it takes a lot more graphical power to get a steady 60 frames per second than it takes for an average of 30 frames per second with a lot of hitching.

Just a small adjustment here: For the HD7850 she wouldn't need to change the power supply, as the HD7850 actually uses less power than the GTS250 (and the HD6870, gtx560, even gtx550ti, etc), especially while idle where the difference is enormous.

I still think that the best bang \ buck resides in the HD6870 for around 170$ (and probably getting some rebate in there after), and breaking budget the 7850 is the first best option as for bang\buck rules (+- same power as gtx570 \ between hd6950-hd6970, while highly overclockable and trouncing their power consumption meters).

If the NVidia logo should feel like a necessity, the gtx560ti should be the best option for around 200$. Being too expensive, the gtx560 will suffice, while weaker than the HD6870.

Anything less than 6790 (AMD) or gtx560 (NVidia) is a sort of waste of upgrade money IMHO nowadays.

Originally posted by srps

Just a small adjustment here: For the HD7850 she wouldn't need to change the power supply, as the HD7850 actually uses less power than the GTS250 (and the HD6870, gtx560, even gtx550ti, etc), especially while idle where the difference is enormous.

It would probably be hard to find a clean comparison of cards four generations apart.  From memory, I think Nvidia officially gave the GeForce GTS 250 a TDP of 150 W, but that was a huge overestimate.  The card used about the same power as a Radeon HD 4850 with an honest TDP of 110 W.

There's no harm in listing a TDP that is too high, of course.  It would be kind of like Nvidia claiming that their new GeForce GTX 680 is faster than a Radeon HD 7950, while not mentioning that it's typically also faster than a 7970.

What I don't like to see is going the other way around, as Nvidia did with Fermi cards.  The TDP there was basically wishful thinking on their part.  But at 55 nm, AMD and Nvidia were pretty competitive on performance per watt, so Nvidia didn't feel any great need to lie about power consumption.

You're right that newer cards will use less power at idle than a GeForce GTS 250.  That saves you money on your electricity bills, but doesn't affect how strong of a power supply you need.  If you have a power supply that is safe up to 250 W and unsafe above that, then a system that pulls 240 W at load and 100 W at idle is safe, while one that pulls 270 W at load and 50 W at idle is not.

Does a Radeon HD 7850 really pull less power under heavy loads than a GeForce GTS 250?  I'm skeptical.  My mental ballpark approximations chained together across generations are that a 7850 should give about 2 1/2 times the performance of a GTS 250, while offering only about double the performance per watt.  That would come to 25% more power consumption.  There is a fair bit of rounding there, so if it were actually 20%, I'd say, aha, my numbers are right.  But I'm skeptical that it's enough rounding errors all in the same direction to make it go below 0%.

Regardless, one should still check the power supply.  The original poster might well be running something that is unsafe with a GTS 250 and be lucky that nothing has fried yet.  Or it might be plenty of power to handle any single GPU card on the market, but it's still nice to know that rather than just buying something and hoping it works.

Originally posted by Lucrecia

So I have my old rig I got back in '10...haven't done much with it except slap in a bit more ram when Cosair sticks were on sale.

Here it is:

Windows 7 64 bit

Intel i5 760 @ 2.80GHz

8GB DDR3

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250

 

Suprisingly I'm able to play Skyrim at slightly above Ultra settings with an FPS of 25-60 (25 cities/60 interiors/30 wilderness)...but that was only due to some tweaking (using mods that increased performance and allowed the user to run at ultra with little performance loss)...

 

So, other than the fact I don't have a fancy i7 and half of what I could have in RAM, I am looking to upgrade my video card with the intent of running GW2 at max-ish. I know the really top end recently came out but I'm not looking to lay down $600 bucks for the newest GTX 6XX series. I do however have my eye on the moderatly priced EVGA GTX 550 2GB edition...I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or other advice on what my new video card should be. 

It has to be under $200...It has to have a good chance of running max (or close to) settings in GW2.  I all about nVidia so it may take some persuading for me to consider ATI.  I'm really looking for that bang for my buck that my current rig was back in 2010.  Thank you in advance. :D

Well to be frank, you really do not need more ram then what you have, since i5 and i7 sandy bridge only use dual channel, and that is more than enough.

As far as video card goes, since there is no real word on when SLI will be avail for GW2, you might as well go with Dual GPU card like GTX 560 Ti or the new one 670Ti, this will give you the power of sli but just one card and you should be good for another 2 years or even more.

Also you did not mention your PSU, but make sure its atleast 800watts or more.

Hope that helps

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by srps

Just a small adjustment here: For the HD7850 she wouldn't need to change the power supply, as the HD7850 actually uses less power than the GTS250 (and the HD6870, gtx560, even gtx550ti, etc), especially while idle where the difference is enormous.

It would probably be hard to find a clean comparison of cards four generations apart.  From memory, I think Nvidia officially gave the GeForce GTS 250 a TDP of 150 W, but that was a huge overestimate.  The card used about the same power as a Radeon HD 4850 with an honest TDP of 110 W.

There's no harm in listing a TDP that is too high, of course.  It would be kind of like Nvidia claiming that their new GeForce GTX 680 is faster than a Radeon HD 7950, while not mentioning that it's typically also faster than a 7970.

What I don't like to see is going the other way around, as Nvidia did with Fermi cards.  The TDP there was basically wishful thinking on their part.  But at 55 nm, AMD and Nvidia were pretty competitive on performance per watt, so Nvidia didn't feel any great need to lie about power consumption.

You're right that newer cards will use less power at idle than a GeForce GTS 250.  That saves you money on your electricity bills, but doesn't affect how strong of a power supply you need.  If you have a power supply that is safe up to 250 W and unsafe above that, then a system that pulls 240 W at load and 100 W at idle is safe, while one that pulls 270 W at load and 50 W at idle is not.

Does a Radeon HD 7850 really pull less power under heavy loads than a GeForce GTS 250?  I'm skeptical.  My mental ballpark approximations chained together across generations are that a 7850 should give about 2 1/2 times the performance of a GTS 250, while offering only about double the performance per watt.  That would come to 25% more power consumption.  There is a fair bit of rounding there, so if it were actually 20%, I'd say, aha, my numbers are right.  But I'm skeptical that it's enough rounding errors all in the same direction to make it go below 0%.

Regardless, one should still check the power supply.  The original poster might well be running something that is unsafe with a GTS 250 and be lucky that nothing has fried yet.  Or it might be plenty of power to handle any single GPU card on the market, but it's still nice to know that rather than just buying something and hoping it works.

The HD7850 has a 130W TDP, and in games uses less than 100 at peak typically ;). It uses about the same load power as the HD5770, while idle is much lower. It only has a single 6pin connector (like the GTS250 and HD5770), while the 7870 has 2x6pin (with a 175W tdp).

At any rate, I agree, one should always check the PSU, that's why I asked for it. It's not uncommon to see people with crappy PSUs running decent configs, and those tend to have those annoying BSOD and other failure problems more frequently.

I have a 700w PSU and I am now leaning between HD6870 and GTX 560 as they are both within the budget range and according to the chart fiontar posted, comes within Ultra capabilities (though on the lowend).  Unless I see a pricing trend decrease within the next 2 weeks this is what I'm siding on...though my husbnad is the one buying and he doesn't mind paying more for nVidia so it'll likely be the 560.  Thanks guys!! :D

2 years is old now? 

sigh.

Originally posted by Lucrecia

I have a 700w PSU and I am now leaning between HD6870 and GTX 560 as they are both within the budget range and according to the chart fiontar posted, comes within Ultra capabilities (though on the lowend).  Unless I see a pricing trend decrease within the next 2 weeks this is what I'm siding on...though my husbnad is the one buying and he doesn't mind paying more for nVidia so it'll likely be the 560.  Thanks guys!! :D

Just a reminder, you'll get worse performance on the gtx560 than the HD6870 (and power consumption, though that probably doesn't matter that much for you).

If that's ok with you, happy shopping and I hope you feel the upgrade justified when using it =)

Glad we could help.

Originally posted by srps

Just a reminder, you'll get worse performance on the gtx560 than the HD6870 (and power consumption, though that probably doesn't matter that much for you).

If that's ok with you, happy shopping and I hope you feel the upgrade justified when using it =)

Glad we could help.

Generally, yes. But in GW2 it can be the other way around, Nvidia performs better in some games, ATI in others.

I would personally wait until I heard how the cards performs in the beta before deciding, besides, the 660 should be on it's way and OP can actually play the game with his old card and get a new one when he knows which card that performs best in the game.

My advice is to wait a few weeks...

Originally posted by Lucrecia

I have a 700w PSU and I am now leaning between HD6870 and GTX 560 as they are both within the budget range and according to the chart fiontar posted, comes within Ultra capabilities (though on the lowend).  Unless I see a pricing trend decrease within the next 2 weeks this is what I'm siding on...though my husbnad is the one buying and he doesn't mind paying more for nVidia so it'll likely be the 560.  Thanks guys!! :D

The question isn't what sticker the marketing department decided to put on the side.  The question is what power supply you have.  You need to give the exact brand name and model for it to be meaningful information, not just the nominal wattage.  If you don't know, then open up the case and read the label.

Speaking of which, what case do you have?

If you're looking to get a card under $200, then do be sure to tell your husband that he can get something better for cheaper from AMD.  Not everyone shops on a price/performance basis, so if that's not your primarily concern, that's all right.  It's your money, not mine.  But it's at least worth mentioning.

i wouldnt buy a new gpu yet. Its way to early and there is not even a release date.

If you got a beta invite and it lags abit, doesnt really matter, since when it releases u can plugin a power gpu and ejoy it to the fullest. And maybe spare some money.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by srps

Just a reminder, you'll get worse performance on the gtx560 than the HD6870 (and power consumption, though that probably doesn't matter that much for you).

If that's ok with you, happy shopping and I hope you feel the upgrade justified when using it =)

Glad we could help.

Generally, yes. But in GW2 it can be the other way around, Nvidia performs better in some games, ATI in others.

I would personally wait until I heard how the cards performs in the beta before deciding, besides, the 660 should be on it's way and OP can actually play the game with his old card and get a new one when he knows which card that performs best in the game.

My advice is to wait a few weeks...

I don't think the gtx660 will come even near the 200$ price-point, and by then it's possible that the "old" card stocks have been depleted, as they're now priced lower to clear inventory (this is more on AMD side since they got a full range of new cards launched, and probably haven't been producing 68XX \ 69XX cards for a while now).

I wouldn't personally buy a more expensive card that generaly performs worse and consumes more power just to have a label on the box. Those games that perform better \ worse on different brands are rare, and seldomly the difference is noticeable in gameplay (read: very few games go from unplayable to playable, and again from sloppy to fluid).

It's not my money, so I just give the facts around the cards and my opinion. I'm not gonna buy the card for her so ;)

Originally posted by makii

i wouldnt buy a new gpu yet. Its way to early and there is not even a release date.

If you got a beta invite and it lags abit, doesnt really matter, since when it releases u can plugin a power gpu and ejoy it to the fullest. And maybe spare some money.

It's unlikely for prices to drop on that range of cards any soon, and unless the game launches November or later she might as well enjoy the new card ASAP.

I know that as an early HD6950 adopter, I paid around 190€ for my DCUII which is actually more expensive nowadays and have had a blast with it since I got it. The early 58XX adopters laughed hard at people that waited because the cards also raised in price, and nothing competed decently for the money for like an year at least.

It's reasonable to wait when a price-drop is coming soon, or when the current generation of cards blows. None of the conditions currently applies though.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Lucrecia

I have a 700w PSU and I am now leaning between HD6870 and GTX 560 as they are both within the budget range and according to the chart fiontar posted, comes within Ultra capabilities (though on the lowend).  Unless I see a pricing trend decrease within the next 2 weeks this is what I'm siding on...though my husbnad is the one buying and he doesn't mind paying more for nVidia so it'll likely be the 560.  Thanks guys!! :D

The question isn't what sticker the marketing department decided to put on the side.  The question is what power supply you have.  You need to give the exact brand name and model for it to be meaningful information, not just the nominal wattage.  If you don't know, then open up the case and read the label.

Speaking of which, what case do you have?

If you're looking to get a card under $200, then do be sure to tell your husband that he can get something better for cheaper from AMD.  Not everyone shops on a price/performance basis, so if that's not your primarily concern, that's all right.  It's your money, not mine.  But it's at least worth mentioning.

I'll reinforce Quizzical's post, there are enough crappy "700W" PSU's around. The most important stat is the amperage on the 12V rail(or rails).

If you can provide full brand \ model we'll probably be able to analyze that, but on the PSU there should be some sort of chart saying the total wattage \ amperage on each rail.

mis-double-post, delete please

Here is my build (I got it from Cyberpower PC 8/17/10)

CD: 24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive
CASE: Apevia X-Cruiser 2 Mid-Tower Case w/ Side-Panel Window & MultiMeter Display
CPU: Intel(R) Core™ i5-760 2.80 GHz 8M Intel Smart Cache LGA1156
FAN: Intel LGA1156 Certified CPU Fan & Heatsink
FLASHMEDIA: INTERNAL 12in1 Flash Media Reader/Writer
HDD: 500GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (500GB x 2 (1TB Capacity)
MEMORY: 8GB DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory Module (Corsair)
MOTHERBOARD: [CrossFireX/SLI] EVGA P55 TR Intel P55V Chipset DDR3 Socket 1156 mATX Mainboard w/ 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, USB2.0, SATA-II RAID, 2 Gen2 PCIe, & 2 PCIe X1
NETWORK: Onboard Gigabit LAN Network
OS: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 7 Home Premium (64-bit Edition)
POWERSUPPLY: 700 Watts - XtremeGear SLI/CrossFireX Ready Power Supply
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
USB: Built-in USB 2.0 Ports
VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB 16X PCI Express (EVGA Powered by NVIDIA )

You need a new power supply, whether you get a new video card or not.  That's exactly the sort of piece of junk that I had in mind when I said I wanted to see the exact brand name and model.

Also, Cyber Power PC can't do arithmetic.  38 A * 12 V = 456 W, not 480 W on the +12 V rails.  Furthermore, 200 W + 480 W + 10 W + 7.2 W = 697.2 W, so if you pull 700 W from it, no matter what combination of rails you use, you're running it out of spec.  Now, the specs on that power supply are mostly lies anyway, so even if they could do arithmetic, that wouldn't really help the matter.  But it's still amusing.

If you want something cheap that is more or less adequate for the system you have but wouldn't be able to handle most of the upgrades you might want, then this will do:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371034

This one is fairly nice, and very cheap for what you get:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151093

Modular, too.  A further step up that could handle any single GPU card that you might ever want would be this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139020

Or if you want something that you could reasonably call high end, then here's a fairly good value:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182073

Originally posted by adam_nox

2 years is old now? 

sigh.

the graphics card is closer to 4 years old and even then wasnt a high end card. more of a hybrid between a budget and mid range card at the time if i remember correctly.

the power supply should be fine for a single card setup i wouldnt try to sli it tho, or get a dual gpu card.

Originally posted by Lucrecia

Here is my build (I got it from Cyberpower PC 8/17/10)

CD: 24X Double Layer Dual Format DVD+-R/+-RW + CD-R/RW Drive
CASE: Apevia X-Cruiser 2 Mid-Tower Case w/ Side-Panel Window & MultiMeter Display
CPU: Intel(R) Core™ i5-760 2.80 GHz 8M Intel Smart Cache LGA1156
FAN: Intel LGA1156 Certified CPU Fan & Heatsink
FLASHMEDIA: INTERNAL 12in1 Flash Media Reader/Writer
HDD: 500GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 16MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (500GB x 2 (1TB Capacity)
MEMORY: 8GB DDR3/1600MHz Dual Channel Memory Module (Corsair)
MOTHERBOARD: [CrossFireX/SLI] EVGA P55 TR Intel P55V Chipset DDR3 Socket 1156 mATX Mainboard w/ 7.1 HD Audio, GbLAN, USB2.0, SATA-II RAID, 2 Gen2 PCIe, & 2 PCIe X1
NETWORK: Onboard Gigabit LAN Network
OS: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 7 Home Premium (64-bit Edition)
POWERSUPPLY: 700 Watts - XtremeGear SLI/CrossFireX Ready Power Supply
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
USB: Built-in USB 2.0 Ports
VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB 16X PCI Express (EVGA Powered by NVIDIA )

 

Hm, the PSU doesn't say for which temperature the rating was made, but that "700W" PSU is just as good as a Corsair GS500 (only on the wattage level though (480W on the 12V rail), because I'm sure the GS500 is more efficient and rated and tested for higher temps), so yea it's kinda crappy. It should handle your system without problems in any case (probably doesn't pull even 400W combined), but should you start to see weird random reboots or BSODs it's probably PSU fault.

I don't think you'll need to replace it right away, but consider it some time in the "near" future since PSUs lose gradually their power, and especially cheap PSUs after 2-3 years start showing aging signs.

Also, the PSU is the most important component in the computer, and the most underrated \ undervalued one, unfortunately.

The tower is decent enough for that system, not great but should do the job without problems especially if clean and with the 3 fans working nicely.