|
Which video card is better?
|
|
|
Jkyr12
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. January 2010 @ 21:43 |
Link to this message
|
I'm building a new PC, and I need to know which video card is better. This: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102865 , a 4000-series same-or-lower priced ATI card, or a same or lower priced Nvidia card? Don't bother looking through the 5000 series(already did), and I'm pretty sure that any 3000 cards would be way too low. I'm just wondering about the Radeon 4000's and Nvidia.
Im new here, spend most of my time in the PC Hardware forums, and am working on my first build.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Jkyr12
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. January 2010 @ 17:39 |
Link to this message
|
Im new here, spend most of my time in the PC Hardware forums, and am working on my first build.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. January 2010 @ 17:45
|
|
Xplorer4
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
24. January 2010 @ 21:38 |
Link to this message
|
The nvidia chips will benchmark slightly higher, but the real world difference isnt really noticeable. DX11 is good but to really take advantage of it you need Windows vista or Windows 7.
Both of these cards should have OpenGL 3.1. The main difference is the cooling system. The Sapphire card has a better cooling system. To me $10 more for a faster card with better cooling is easily worth it, and while really irrelevant, the Sapphire card looks much better.
OS: Kubuntu 12.10/Windows 8 -- CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K -- Motherboard: MSI P67A-G45 -- Memory: 2x4GB Corsair Dominator -- Graphics Card: Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X -- Monitor: Dell 2208WFP -- Mouse: Mionix NAOS 5000 -- PSU: Corsair 520HX -- Case: Thermaltake Mozart TX -- Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Black Ultra-120 eXtreme CPU Heatsink Rev C -- Hard Drives: 1x180 GB Intel 330 SSD/1xWD 1 TB Caviar Black/1xWD 2 TB Caviar Green/2xWD 3 TB Caviar Green
|
|
Jkyr12
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. January 2010 @ 22:08 |
Link to this message
|
I saw that thread where you used my link as an example, and it made go to the manufacturer page, and turns out the Saphire card has OGL 3.2....so I'm going with it. Also, it has XFire.
Im new here, spend most of my time in the PC Hardware forums, and am working on my first build.
|
|
Xplorer4
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2010 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
Well that may simply be something that needs to be updated on the Gigabyte site. Maybe not. May just be a matter of upgrading drivers. Not real sure but either way $10, imo, for a small performance boost, granted it may not even be noticeable in terms of real world performance, but couple that with a better cooling system and I think its a deal.
I have a 4890 w/ Vapor-X cooling. I did the research and while its nothing earth shattering, it does offer better cooling then the standard cooling. Heres some info on it and covers the exact card you got:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/...70_5750_vaporx/
For a quick summary, you can expect about 10% cooler temps, and 25+% more efficiency, but if you like reading reviews like this, its a good.
Enjoy your 5750. :)
Originally posted by Jkyr12:
I saw that thread where you used my link as an example, and it made go to the manufacturer page, and turns out the Saphire card has OGL 3.2....so I'm going with it. Also, it has XFire.
OS: Kubuntu 12.10/Windows 8 -- CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K -- Motherboard: MSI P67A-G45 -- Memory: 2x4GB Corsair Dominator -- Graphics Card: Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X -- Monitor: Dell 2208WFP -- Mouse: Mionix NAOS 5000 -- PSU: Corsair 520HX -- Case: Thermaltake Mozart TX -- Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Black Ultra-120 eXtreme CPU Heatsink Rev C -- Hard Drives: 1x180 GB Intel 330 SSD/1xWD 1 TB Caviar Black/1xWD 2 TB Caviar Green/2xWD 3 TB Caviar Green
|
|
Jkyr12
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. January 2010 @ 07:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually, the review said that the better cooling caused the performance boost to the core and memory.
Im new here, spend most of my time in the PC Hardware forums, and am working on my first build.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2010 @ 13:23 |
Link to this message
|
Here are the three comparable cards:
(buy the 512MB versions, not the 1GB versions. Unless you use a resolution so high that a 5750 isn't going to cut it, 512MB is plenty of video memory).
XFX HD5750: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...0-448-_-Product $140
Sapphire HD4850: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...2-824-_-Product $100
Palit GTS250: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...1-051-_-Product $113
of these cards, the HD4850 is the fastest, and the HD5750 is the slowest, but the performance gap is going to be 5% or less in the vast majority of cases.
HD4850 advantages: slightly higher performance, DirectX10.1
HD5750 advantages: DirectX11, Eyefinity, low power consumption
GTS250 advantages: PhysX, CUDA
Overall, I would place the HD4850 as the best value buy, but you won't get DirectX11. I'll leave it up to you if that matters or not.
|
|
gera229
Member
|
25. January 2010 @ 22:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's eyefinity?
|
|
Xplorer4
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
26. January 2010 @ 02:03 |
Link to this message
|
OS: Kubuntu 12.10/Windows 8 -- CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K -- Motherboard: MSI P67A-G45 -- Memory: 2x4GB Corsair Dominator -- Graphics Card: Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X -- Monitor: Dell 2208WFP -- Mouse: Mionix NAOS 5000 -- PSU: Corsair 520HX -- Case: Thermaltake Mozart TX -- Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Black Ultra-120 eXtreme CPU Heatsink Rev C -- Hard Drives: 1x180 GB Intel 330 SSD/1xWD 1 TB Caviar Black/1xWD 2 TB Caviar Green/2xWD 3 TB Caviar Green
|
|
Jkyr12
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. January 2010 @ 07:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Why do you say the 4850 is faster? It's core clock is only 625 and its memory clock is only 993.
Im new here, spend most of my time in the PC Hardware forums, and am working on my first build.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. January 2010 @ 10:16 |
Link to this message
|
Clock speed has absolutely nothing to do with how fast a graphics card is, that's not how they work. Granted, if you have the same graphics card and increase its clock speed it will get faster, but there is much more to a graphics card than its clock speed - why do you think there are so many?
Shader processors, memory bandwidth, texture fill rate, etc. etc.
Also, agreed. Gera, sometimes you really need to google things rather than ask about something you could find out about in 30 seconds.
|
