recomend a pci-e budget card please

[mewisemagic2]

i have a biostar tforce 6100-939 with integrated graphics and want a pcie 16x card too put in it can somebody steer me in the right direction for a budget card from newegg.:confused: i prefer nvidia but ati would be ok too . $50 to $100 range. i mostly watch dvds on this machine ,but play bf1942 and moh sometimes. thanks:):confused:

[ChinStrap]

there is a 7900gs in the classifieds for $100

[NoodleGTS]

Foxconn OCed 7900GS, $119.99 at newegg. Doesn't get much better than this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814186013

[Tweak486Dx2]

8800Gt 8600Gts

[White_Pawn]

8600gt/7900gs/x1950pro 256mb/2600xt

[Hazaro]

used 7900gs

[Neuromancer]

You can grab a 7900GT on ebay for under a hundred dollars :)

[mewisemagic2]

thanks everybody:)

[Alacritan]

Stay away from the 8400/8500/8600 cards. They're only marginally faster than the 7600 cards they were supposed to replace and considerably slower than the now heavily discounted 7900 and X1900 cards. And while they do support DX10, they're so underpowered that they're unusable for DX10 gaming.

[Freaky_Llama]

If all you plan on doing is BF1942 and DVD's, there is nothing wrong with an 8600GT/S.

You get newer tech, newer drivers, and similar performance of a 7900GS.
I have run BF2142 on a single 8600GT and never had studdering, or crappy FPS.

Newegg has an EVGA 8600GT for ~$100. Instead of getting used/old tech, buy something with a warranty that is, at least, currently supported.

Tom's Hardware found the 8600GT "Best Bang for the buck".
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shootout/page9.html

[Alacritan]

Where are you getting this information? You're completely WRONG. An 8600GT is NOT on par with a 7900GS. It has half the pixel fillrate and half the memory bandwidth. Even in shader heavy games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, where the 8600GT's unified shader architecture should give it an advantage, the 7900GS still gets 25-33% higher framerates. It doesn't matter if the 8600GT can play an old game like BF1942 without "crappy FPS" on your system with whatever settings you're running. It is an inferior card. All of the benchmarks and all of the numbers say that 8600GT sucks when it comes to bang for your buck compared to just about everything.

You really need to learn what you're writing about. Sure the technology is newer, but as the 8600GT is configured, it's only marginally more powerful than the 7600GT which it replaces and is considerably less powerful than cards like the 7900GS which cost the same.

And who gives a **** about newer drivers when the card is simply LESS POWERFUL. And the warranty is from the DATE PURCHASED, not when it was manufactured.

Also, Tom's Hardware is absolute garbage and has been for years. They are not an authority on anything. They're schills for hardware manufacturers so that they can keep getting review samples.

[Xenocide]

Where are you getting this information? You're completely WRONG. An 8600GT is NOT on par with a 7900GS. It has half the pixel fillrate and half the memory bandwidth. Even in shader heavy games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, where the 8600GT's unified shader architecture should give it an advantage, the 7900GS still gets 25-33% higher framerates. It doesn't matter if the 8600GT can play an old game like BF1942 without "crappy FPS" on your system with whatever settings you're running. It is an inferior card. All of the benchmarks and all of the numbers say that 8600GT sucks when it comes to bang for your buck compared to just about everything.

You really need to learn what you're writing about. Sure the technology is newer, but as the 8600GT is configured, it's only marginally more powerful than the 7600GT which it replaces and is considerably less powerful than cards like the 7900GS which cost the same.

And who gives a **** about newer drivers when the card is simply LESS POWERFUL. And the warranty is from the DATE PURCHASED, not when it was manufactured.

Also, Tom's Hardware is absolute garbage and has been for years. They are not an authority on anything. They're schills for hardware manufacturers so that they can keep getting review samples.

Thank you for typing my words for me :beer:

Saves me alot of time.

[mewisemagic2]

Foxconn OCed 7900GS, $119.99 at newegg. Doesn't get much better than this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814186013

probably going to get this card in this link,it will be my christmas present to myself :santa: will get it in a week or so hopefully the egg store will still have it. it's on sell now so i might have to go ahead and get it

[Freaky_Llama]

Alacritan, I sent you a PM.

If you wish to post it here, that is fine. I just would like to let you, and others know, that the perception you projected in your post was derogatory and tasteless, and could have been worded better.

The 7900GS is a great card. I don't regret owning one. I also do not regret buying an 8600GT, despite how others try to make a person feel.


Happy Halloween everyone.

[jason4207]

He may have worded it badly, but he has a point.

It looks like you have 8600's in SLI. You could probably sell those, or step one of them up to a 8800GT and sell the other and get better performance for $0 out-of-pocket. Just an idea.

[Freaky_Llama]

He may have worded it badly, but he has a point.

I agree with that he had a point, but, I've said what I needed to say in my PM to him. :) He seems to think I said that the 8600 was better, which I said it was similar. So, moving on. lol


It looks like you have 8600's in SLI. You could probably sell those, or step one of them up to a 8800GT and sell the other and get better performance for $0 out-of-pocket. Just an idea.

Not to threadjack, but because it may help the OP, so be it. I considered upping to the 8800GT and ditching SLI. It don't seem like a bad deal, until you talk to my wife, while she's holding my newborn, and mention going to 1 card for $100 more, with the intention of also getting a Phenom in Nov. Yes, special situation, which is what people sometimes forget around here. :) I don't expect others to care about that as no one assumes, which is fine. I just don't have that luxury right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the 8800GT's are ~$300? I spent $198 on both my 8600GT's. I'd have to pay out ~$100 if I understand EVGA's step-up program correctly. Otherwise, with the attitudes of some people towards the < 8800's, I've never get to sell one to try to recoup funds. :) I'm happy where I'm at with what I got (less the CPU) so I'll hang out on cloud 8600 until the next great thing after the 8 series.

Edit to below post: rebates. Originally they were $160, but after a sale and rebates, they were $99 each.

Thanks all, and good luck.

[jason4207]

8800GT's are $260 w/ step-up. You can find them cheaper if you buy them on your own...if you can find them. I don't think you can trade 2 cards for 1 either w/ step-up.

I was under the impression your cards were worth more. I was thinking you could sell the both of them for $220-$250. If you could get that much out of them it would be an even swap. I may have been mistaken on their value, though.

Sorry to the OP, but I think you've already decided on the 7900.

[Alacritan]

Alacritan, I sent you a PM.

If you wish to post it here, that is fine. I just would like to let you, and others know, that the perception you projected in your post was derogatory and tasteless, and could have been worded better.

The 7900GS is a great card. I don't regret owning one. I also do not regret buying an 8600GT, despite how others try to make a person feel.


Happy Halloween everyone.

I have a serious problem with people posting complete misinformation in an attempt to "help" people who are looking for advice. There are NO gaming benchmarks in which the 8600GT beats the 7900GS. It's that simple. It's not a subjective thing. You don't get to have an opinion, it's a fact. That's all there is to it. When it comes down to performance, and when you're comparing two cards that cost the same amount, that IS all that matters, you don't get to argue an opinion or your subjective impression. Numbers are all that matter and the numbers show that there is absolutely no reason to ever buy an 8600GT when you can buy a 7900GS for the same amount.

If you don't like being told that you're completely wrong, that's unfortunate, because you are. If you hadn't posted something that's completely wrong in a thread where the OP is asking for advice to help him decide which card to buy, it wouldn't matter so much, but when you go and give out wrong information to someone who doesn't know what's correct and what's misinformation, there is a problem. People who don't know simply accept the information that you give them and the information that you're giving out is incorrect. Stop doing it and no one will have to correct you.

[David]

Lets avoid any arguments, eh? :)

Apart from a few slightly emotive posts this thread is fine, lets just agree to disagree if there is still debate over the 7900GS/8600GT performance. Both sides of the case have been stated, the OP is free to make his mind up.

David

[ratbuddy]

I mostly agree with the 7900GS being better than the 8600GT, but I feel it is slightly mistaken to state that there would be NO reason to prefer the 8600GT. Two things come to mind: Firstly, and extremely minor, would be DX10 support. I know unless you are playing at 800x600 or 1024x768, the 8600GT isn't powerful enough to give playable rates with those effects, but my 8600GT gets ~45 FPS in Bioshock at 1024x768 DX9, I can't imagine it becoming unplayable if I installed Vista and switched to DX10. 7900GS can't do that. Second, and more important in my mind, the 7900GS draws something like 82 watts, compared with around 43 watts for the 8600GT (those figures from gpureview.com.) From the original poster's information, I'm gonna guess he doesn't have the best of power supplies. Sound like he might even have a fragile unit that was included with a case, one of those 250w sparklers.. I could be wrong, but I'd say all things considered, with the 8600GT costing around 10-15 bucks less brand new, it would be a better fit for a budget card. Especially if he mostly just watches DVD's with occassional older games thrown in.

My 2 cents, anyway..

[Alacritan]

Even at 800x600, Bioshock will likely be unplayable in DX10. Benchmarked in a system based on an Athlon X2 FX62 and 2GB of Corsair XMS DDR2 RAM, the 8600GT puts out about 10fps at 1280x1024. So at 800x600, don't expect to see a framerate above 20fps, even with a high end CPU and plenty of DDR2 RAM. On a system like the OP's, you simply cannot play DX10 games with an 8600GT at ANY resolution.

[ratbuddy]

I'm tempted to load up Vista just to check. I get ~25FPS in 1280x1024 DX9, ~45FPS in 1024x768 DX9. Haven't even tested 800x600, I would expect at LEAST 70FPS.. I know Vista is blamed for around 20% FPS drop, so Bioshock DX9 mode in Vista (if they haven't fixed the bug where it uses DX10 under Vista no matter what) I could expect perhaps 36FPS in 1024x768. You think it would drop down to below 20 with DX10, even at 800x600? That's a pretty huge loss especially considering the low resolution.. I might have to make a partition for Vista (I have a free upgrade disc around here somewhere) and see if you are right..

[Alacritan]

I direct you to these articles (note that the first one uses an 8600GT OC and a GTS in the second, so plain GT performance will be even worse)

Bioshock DX10 Performance (http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=315&page=1)
The State of DX10 (http://www.hothardware.com/articles/The_State_of_DirectX_10__Image_Quality__Performanc e/?page=4)

[Alacritan]

I'm tempted to load up Vista just to check. I get ~25FPS in 1280x1024 DX9, ~45FPS in 1024x768 DX9. Haven't even tested 800x600, I would expect at LEAST 70FPS.. I know Vista is blamed for around 20% FPS drop, so Bioshock DX9 mode in Vista (if they haven't fixed the bug where it uses DX10 under Vista no matter what) I could expect perhaps 36FPS in 1024x768. You think it would drop down to below 20 with DX10, even at 800x600? That's a pretty huge loss especially considering the low resolution.. I might have to make a partition for Vista (I have a free upgrade disc around here somewhere) and see if you are right..

Don't forget to underclock your CPU and remove some RAM to closer simulate the OP's system. A C2D at 2.8GHz beats the hell out of an FX62.

[ratbuddy]

So yeah. There's a difference of around 3 FPS running DX10 vs DX9, at least with a lower end card like the 8600GT, at least with the 8600GTS. They didn't include a DX9 bench of that 8600GT OC, but they also tested at 1280x1024. At 1024x768, the 8600GT would appear to get reasonable (~38-40) FPS in DX10. Depending on the rest of the system, of course.

Regarding the State of DX10 link, it seems to show that Nvidia cards have a very small performace hit when using DX10, compared to a very significant FPS drop with ATI cards.

I'll stand by my recommendation :-)

Me, I'm going for an 8800GT.. Can't wait!

[Alacritan]

Keep in mind that the only difference between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock is the water. It has none of the advanced DX10 effects that Crysis, Age of Conan, etc, use.

[Trypt]

Alacritan, while I appreciate that you're looking out for those of us who take advice from OCForums seriously, I'd like to ask you / point out something.

Yes, gaming benchmarks show that the 7900GS is superior to the 8600GT, but is that really all thats important? I am only posting because you got very upset, but could you please tell me if the 7900GS is also quieter? Is it cooler? Does it consume less power? Is it physically smaller?

The two are about the same price, but for someone who is buying a budget video card, the above things may in fact matter more then plain gaming FPS. Naturally, for an enthusiast like most of us, FPS is king.

Of course I have no idea of the answers to my above questions, it may be that the 7900GS is superior in every possible aspect, but I just wanted to show that you may have jumped the gun a bit (I am sure out of annoyance :-)). It may very well be that when it comes to comparing these two cards, opinions do not matter and subjectivity is not only irrelevant but also stupid, however, if the above questions are not all "YES", then advice for which is a better buy is indeed very subjective.

[DumpALump]

7900GS OC $85 shipping in classifieds. Definitely has to be one of the best budget PCI-E cards.

[ratbuddy]

Trypt, IIRC you can get an 8600GT with passive cooling - pretty quiet.

It uses about half the power of a 7900GS.

[jason4207]

Trypt - Nice sig!

5MeO-DMT is nice as well.

[Clockwork_Apple]

Another vote for 7900GS or X1950 Pro.

The 8600GTS isnt a bad card, just not worth the price tag.

[ratbuddy]

On newegg, the cheapest 7900GS is $120.

The cheapest (non open box) X1950PRO is $125.

The topic was asking for cards in the $50-$100 range. Newegg has an 8600GT 256MB GDDR2 card for $94 with a $15 rebate, total of $79, and an 8600GT 256MB GDDR3 for $105 with a $25 rebate, total of $80. I stand by my 8600GT suggestion. And for the extra dollar, why not go for the GDDR3 version?

[Alacritan]

Alacritan, while I appreciate that you're looking out for those of us who take advice from OCForums seriously, I'd like to ask you / point out something.

Yes, gaming benchmarks show that the 7900GS is superior to the 8600GT, but is that really all thats important? I am only posting because you got very upset, but could you please tell me if the 7900GS is also quieter? Is it cooler? Does it consume less power? Is it physically smaller?

The two are about the same price, but for someone who is buying a budget video card, the above things may in fact matter more then plain gaming FPS. Naturally, for an enthusiast like most of us, FPS is king.

Of course I have no idea of the answers to my above questions, it may be that the 7900GS is superior in every possible aspect, but I just wanted to show that you may have jumped the gun a bit (I am sure out of annoyance :-)). It may very well be that when it comes to comparing these two cards, opinions do not matter and subjectivity is not only irrelevant but also stupid, however, if the above questions are not all "YES", then advice for which is a better buy is indeed very subjective.

If you are going to be USING your video card, performance for your dollar is all that matters. Physical size is irrelevant, as all but the longest cards will fit in every case, Shuttles included. The only exception to this are half-height mATX cases in which case, no standard video card fits. And power consumption/temperature/noise are all related. If the card uses more power, it will generate more heat and will generally require louder cooling. However, if we're going to compare the cards being discussed, all of the cards mentioned thusfar in the thread are available passively cooled, even the 7950GT, so that's not even a point of contention.

It's becomimg obvious to me, however, that people like ratbuddy simply suggest whatever hardware they already own, and will defend that suggestion (and consequently, their own buying decision) regardless of it's inferior performance relative to other options and will continue to defend it even in the face of actual performance numbers, clinging to whatever malformed perceptions they choose to believe.

[Trypt]

It's becomimg obvious to me, however, that people like ratbuddy simply suggest whatever hardware they already own, and will defend that suggestion
Lol, I do notice that, and I don't get it. I am the exact opposite, whatever hardware I own, I usually find out right away that there was a better buy which I should have made and recommend that. I agree it can be annoying, its pretty obvious the person in question is trying to pat themselves on the back or justify the buy to themselves. But then again, if it works and makes them feel better..... lol..

Out of all my stuff in the sig, at the time of my purchase, I think the mobo/cpu and perhaps the PSU were the right choice. Oh, and the Raptor.. The rest, while well researched, had their equal or better value counterparts at the time.

[Alacritan]

You can't go wrong with a Raptor. Especially since it's the only 10K non-SCSI drive out there.

[David]

It's becomimg obvious to me, however, that people like ratbuddy simply suggest whatever hardware they already own, and will defend that suggestion (and consequently, their own buying decision) regardless of it's inferior performance relative to other options and will continue to defend it even in the face of actual performance numbers, clinging to whatever malformed perceptions they choose to believe.

OK, that's a little harsh and just a touch arrogant. If someone has a good experience with a piece of kit and they choose to recommend a piece of kit then they are free to do so. It's an open forum - the whole point being that a number of people can state their views and their opinions.

It's really not appropriate for such sweeping and condescending generalisations to be made. The OP can see everyones point of view in this thread and is then free to make his/her choice. No need to try and belittle those that disagree with you.

[Trypt]

David, you missed the point, Alac is not against opinions, he has been getting annoyed with those who offer not only an opinion on their hardware, but also recommend it solely due to their ownership, when its clear they have no experience with alternatives in the price range and in fact are recommending a piece of hardware that is clearly an inferior buy compared to alternatives. The only conclusion then that one can make seems to be that the person is not giving the opinion to help others, but to give their own hardware more "weight". Sort of like some AMD guys who just could not accept the superiority of the Core2 Intel, even when they never tested it, and kept on recommending AMD only to advance their own agenda, not to help the person making the decision (I will never go Intel, but I don't have any illusions either, lol).

[David]

David, you missed the point, Alac is not against opinions, he has been getting annoyed with those who offer not only an opinion on their hardware, but also recommend it solely due to their ownership, when its clear they have no experience with alternatives in the price range and in fact are recommending a piece of hardware that is clearly an inferior buy compared to alternatives.


This I can understand - few people have tested all sub-$100 graphics cards however a thread like this means that, say, 5 people with experience of different cards can post to provide their opinions. I have no problem with Alac pointing out that he feels the 7900GS is the better card for reasons X, Y and Z, however I wasn't happy with the condescending finger-pointing. At the end of the day the OP should take note of this thread and go and do a little further reading, check benchmarks etc.


The only conclusion then that one can make seems to be that the person is not giving the opinion to help others, but to give their own hardware more "weight". Sort of like some AMD guys who just could not accept the superiority of the Core2 Intel, even when they never tested it, and kept on recommending AMD only to advance their own agenda, not to help the person making the decision (I will never go Intel, but I don't have any illusions either, lol).

I can see his point here as well, but it's also possible they are recommending card X because they have one and are actually happy with it.

[ratbuddy]

Whoa, that's some venom there Alacritan. Relax, eh? I stand by my point, the topic asked for cards in the $50-100 range, the 7900GS and X1950PRO do not qualify. The 8600GT does.

Nuff said.

[mewisemagic2]

well, i did not not see the 8600 card on sell at newegg,but i got the foxconn 7900gs with $20 rebate :) got it ups yesterday. have not installed it yet but for what i'm doing on my pc it should be fine. besides my gaming rig is a water cooled 2400+mobile barton (11.5x218),epox8rda3+,1024 cosair ram and t1-4600 vga :attn: thanks for everyone's help