Help me help my dad choose a graphics card.

[Perfect Balance]

So my dad's graphics card went out on his computer, and he's looking to replace it with a budget of $100.


The computer is a Hp Media Center TV m7680n.

Motherboard: ASUS P5BW-LA


The card would have to be a PCI-E x16 card. I don't think the MB supports 2.0 Express, but I could be wrong.


Basically, what is the best bang for the buck for under $100? I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to graphics.

 

[hamstrings]

What is he using the computer for? A Radeon HD 3450 ($30 on Newegg) or Radeon HD 4350 ($6 more, twice the punch) would work great if he's not planning on 3D gaming.

 

[Perfect Balance]

We're trying to get the best thing available for under $100, not just something "good enough."


If it makes any difference, he will be doing mainly stuff involving making videos and stuff, no gaming whatsoever.

 

[hamstrings]

The two cards I've mentioned fit the bill perfectly. There's no point in getting "better" if he's not gaming since further increases in graphics performance won't make a lick of a difference for what he's doing. A simpler budget card also runs cooler and quieter. My Radeon HD 4670 sounds like a leaf blower.

The Radeon HD 4670 is just under $100. Personally, I'd take pocket the $60 in savings towards a new computer several years down the line.

PCIe x16 1.0 vs 2.0 isn't an issue as 2.0 cards are backwards compatible.

 

[Perfect Balance]

EDIT: Never mind.

EDIT #2: How does this look?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125265

 

[hamstrings]

1GB isn't going to help; it only drives up the cost of the card. 256 MB is sufficient for that card. Try these. The PowerColor or the Sapphire looks like a good candidate. Some of these cards have tall coolers. Make sure there is enough clearance before buying.

 

[Perfect Balance]

would work great if he's not planning on 3D gaming.

The two cards I've mentioned fit the bill perfectly. There's no point in getting "better" if he's not gaming since further increases in graphics performance won't make a lick of a difference for what he's doing.

1GB isn't going to help; it only drives up the cost of the card. 256 MB is sufficient for that card.

I don't care. It's under $100 and it's better, end of story.

 

[hamstrings]

Not sure why you bothered asking, since you made up your mind already. Whatever works for you. 👍

edit: $89.99 gets you a Radeon 4830. Needs a molex to PCIe cable though.

 

[Tornado]

I don't care. It's under $100 and it's better, end of story.

Actually, no, it probably isn't. That's not the way GPUs work, and that card is almost definitely slower than this model from the same company that costs (literally) half as much. Gigabyte isn't a spectacular company to buy GPUs from, either.
The one hamstrings linked to in the last post is a considerably better card as well. As is this (which costs $90 bucks and smokes everything slower than a 4830). That 9600 also does not need a molex adapter

 

[Perfect Balance]

Not sure why you bothered asking, since you made up your mind already. Whatever works for you. 👍

I haven't made up my mind at all, I just don't see why we should get a card that is worse if a better one is within the budget.

Actually, no, it probably isn't. That's not the way GPUs work, and that card is almost definitely slower than this model from the same company that costs (literally) half as much. Gigabyte isn't a spectacular company to buy GPUs from, either.

Why would it most definitely be slower? The only spec that the 512mb card exceeds in is the 200mhz higher clock speed. I guess that makes the difference, but overall isn't the other a better card?

EDIT: In the end I still don't know too much about graphics card, so if you have a suggestion, please give one. I'm looking for the best possible card for under $100. I'm not looking for something "good enough."

If one card costs $50 bucks and another one is just slightly better but costs $100, I want to know the one that is better.

Just take it as it is. We're willing to spend $100. We want the best we can possibly get within that budget. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

[hamstrings]

I haven't made up my mind at all, I just don't see why we should get a card that is worse if a better one is within the budget.

You said end of story, not "I'm still considering my options, but I think a 1GB card is better." How else are we supposed to interpret it?

Why would it most definitely be slower? The only spec that the 512mb card exceeds in is the 200mhz higher clock speed. I guess that makes the difference, but overall isn't the other a better card?

1 GB VRAM only increases price because the graphics processor doesn't push pixels fast enough to take advantage of the extra video RAM. It's a sales bullet point, and you are paying double for it.

If you are fine with the Radeon 4670 with the $30 mail-in-rebate, then that is the best bang for the buck under $100. Even if you don't cash in the MIR, you're still ahead. It's up to your dad in the end how he wants to spend his money though.

 

[Perfect Balance]

You said end of story, not "I'm still considering my options, but I think a 1GB card is better." How else are we supposed to interpret it?

I was referring to the times you kept mentioning "it's sufficient" and "There's no point in getting better."

I meant that if we can get something better within $100, then we will. (end of story on that specific subject)

1 GB VRAM only increases price because the graphics processor doesn't push pixels fast enough to take advantage of the extra video RAM. It's a sales bullet point, and you are paying double for it.

Someone told me more RAM would only really help if you've got a big monitor. If that's true, it should help considering my dad has got a big 19 inch monitor, not to mention he sometimes runs 2 monitors if needed.

If you are fine with the Radeon 4670 with the $30 mail-in-rebate, then that is the best bang for the buck under $100. Even if you don't cash in the MIR, you're still ahead. It's up to your dad in the end how he wants to spend his money though.

Is there any reason we wouldn't be fine with the Radeon 4670, or are you just referring to the money aspect?

Thanks for the help.👍

 

[Tornado]

Why would it most definitely be slower? The only spec that the 512mb card exceeds in is the 200mhz higher clock speed. I guess that makes the difference, but overall isn't the other a better card?

A major selling point on mid-to-low range cards is to put a big fancy number for the memory amount (in this case 1 GB) compared to what the the card was designed to use (4670 reference card uses 512 mb). Not only is there practically no performance benefit on midrange cards (they have more memory, but they don't have to power to use it. That card also has a very small memory bus, so even if it did have to power to use it it wouldn't be able to effectively), but 9 times out of 10 buying a mid-to-low range card with more memory nets you a slower card.
This is because companies often use cheaper, crappier memory in order to keep the costs down when it comes to mid-range cards, because they are designed to meet a price point rather than a performance margin. Because the memory is of lesser quality than the normal memory, it doesn't usually work as fast if the clocks were the same. Even worse (in the case of that card), usually the memory on the bigger card has to be underclocked in order to keep the memory from overheating, which means it is that much slower.

Someone told me more RAM would only really help if you've got a big monitor. If that's true, it should help considering my dad has got a big 19 inch monitor, not to mention he sometimes runs 2 monitors if needed.

Close. There are two numbers you need to pay attention to: Memory Size and Memory Interface size. If you want high resolution, both those numbers should be at least 256. If you have a 128 bit Memory Interface, pretty much any memory more than 256 will be wasted (which is why hamstrings mentioned 256 being good enough for that card, even though that is less then the reference design).

Is there any reason we wouldn't be fine with the Radeon 4670, or are you just referring to the money aspect?

If you want the best card you can get for under $100 full stop, you would be getting supremely ripped off if you got a 4670. You can get much better cards for under $100.
In (rough) order of performance, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131095this or this or this or this 4830 (I would get the Sapphire). Then this 9800GT. Then, a tier or two below, this or this 3870 (again, I would get the Sapphire). And finally (there are a half dozen more of these, though) this 9600GT. Its only if you don't want any of those that I would bother with any 4670.

 

[hamstrings]

There's also the additional power draw and heat the card puts out as you go up in performance, but since your dad's not going to tax the video card, he should be fine. Double-check with the power supply. Find the wattage and the amperage of the 12V rail.

You will need to remove one of the three PCI cards if you buy a video card with a tall cooler.

 

[GT3mich]

I always look here before I buy a GPU.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-radeon,2151-3.html
This one is well under $100 and has 5 stars.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127420
This one has HDMI for the same price.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131129
This card is $109 after MIR but it comes with COD 4 & 5. Both retail for $49.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150316
I bought one for my son last week. He wanted COD 5 and is selling COD4 to a friend. Its a sweet card for the price.

 

[nick09]

I have just read up on the computer's PSU and it's rated at 300Watts. I Assuming that its a ATX supply so I'd recommend this PSU here. I'm also liking this Graphics card here.

 

[Eric.]

I have just read up on the computer's PSU and it's rated at 300Watts. I Assuming that its a ATX supply so I'd recommend this PSU here. I'm also liking this Graphics card here.

 

[opendriver]

I have just read up on the computer's PSU and it's rated at 300Watts. I Assuming that its a ATX supply so I'd recommend this PSU here. I'm also liking this Graphics card here.

 

[nick09]

What? I'm just recommending what I think that will work and I just wanted to point out the wattage of the PSU.

 

[Sureboss]

I haven't made up my mind at all, I just don't see why we should get a card that is worse if a better one is within the budget.

Because the "better" card won't make any noticeable performance increase compared to the "worse" card. It'd be like having two cars, that both get to the pit lane limiter in the exact same time but one does 200mph whereas the other does 180mph. The uses of those cars to the speed limit is the same as those GFX cards to the uses that your Dad would use them for. Spending extra $'s to have a better card for the sake of it, when you'd never notice the difference is a waste of resources.