time
Storage? I am Storage!
Can't find any useful graphics cards threads from the last year, so here's a new one.
My take on the status as at July 2009 is that AMD/ATI has the low-end/mid-range range sewn up, but nVidia is still a force to be reckoned with in the high-end. The solitary exception to that would be nVidia's 9600GT, which manages to outperform the ATI equivalents in one game anyway, while not actually sucking enough power to roast a turkey or two.
My picks:
As a realistic alternative to onboard graphics, consider the ATI HD4650, 512MB version costs $50. Yes, I realize the 4350 is even cheaper and more likely to have passive cooling, but it has only a quarter of the stream processors and half the memory bandwidth. Still better than the best IGA, but totally shaded by the 4650. NEVER has such amazing graphics power been anywhere near so cheap. The only fly in the ointment is the rapid trend towards widescreen monitors, specifically 16:9 panels with 1920x1080 pixels. These require nearly twice the video memory bandwidth of 1280x1024 to keep up.
The answer of course is the HD4670, 512MB version costs about $75. 25% more GPU power and double the memory bandwidth thanks to DDR3. For my money, this the best value graphics card on the planet. It's also the most performance you can shoehorn into a standard PCI-e slot without a separate power connector, so in theory, you can upgrade anything with this card.
But for those who want to play any game, nothing short of the HD4850 (512MB = $115) will suffice. Two and a half times as many stream processors and double the memory bandwidth again. In online reviews, the only chink in the armour is the game "Crysis".
From here you can go onto 4870 or the formidable 4890, use crossfire, or consider nVidia GTX 260/275/285 or even the awesome GTX 295 - but they're increasingly not affordable and power consumption goes through the roof.
My take on the status as at July 2009 is that AMD/ATI has the low-end/mid-range range sewn up, but nVidia is still a force to be reckoned with in the high-end. The solitary exception to that would be nVidia's 9600GT, which manages to outperform the ATI equivalents in one game anyway, while not actually sucking enough power to roast a turkey or two.
My picks:
As a realistic alternative to onboard graphics, consider the ATI HD4650, 512MB version costs $50. Yes, I realize the 4350 is even cheaper and more likely to have passive cooling, but it has only a quarter of the stream processors and half the memory bandwidth. Still better than the best IGA, but totally shaded by the 4650. NEVER has such amazing graphics power been anywhere near so cheap. The only fly in the ointment is the rapid trend towards widescreen monitors, specifically 16:9 panels with 1920x1080 pixels. These require nearly twice the video memory bandwidth of 1280x1024 to keep up.
The answer of course is the HD4670, 512MB version costs about $75. 25% more GPU power and double the memory bandwidth thanks to DDR3. For my money, this the best value graphics card on the planet. It's also the most performance you can shoehorn into a standard PCI-e slot without a separate power connector, so in theory, you can upgrade anything with this card.
But for those who want to play any game, nothing short of the HD4850 (512MB = $115) will suffice. Two and a half times as many stream processors and double the memory bandwidth again. In online reviews, the only chink in the armour is the game "Crysis".
From here you can go onto 4870 or the formidable 4890, use crossfire, or consider nVidia GTX 260/275/285 or even the awesome GTX 295 - but they're increasingly not affordable and power consumption goes through the roof.
:alb:
