New Graphics card recommendation on par with GeForce 9800GT

[Retroborg]

Until now I was using an Albatron Geforce 9800GT 512MB card which I bought for ~100euros back in 2009.
http://www.mwave.com.au/productarchive.asp?sku=42050318

What was good about this card is that it had a 256bit memory bus / interface and pretty much every 3D game played nice and fast on high graphics settings @1280x1024 resolution (Aliens VS Predator 3, Rage, Command & Conquer 3 & 4, Duke Nukem Forever, Black Mesa Half Life Mod, HL2, etc...)

How ever it got toasted the other day, so I now I want to buy a new graphics card of at least equivalent performance and similar price range to play the upcoming Doom 3 BFG and some of the upcoming games. (Preferably nvidia as their drivers are better)

I checked the current nvidia cards, but noticed that all the cards of that price even though they have better & faster GPUs and more & better video RAM (DDR5 / 1GB/2GB), their memory bus / interface goes only up to 128bit or 192bit the most, which I imagine will bottleneck these cards.

Also I noticed that none of the current GFX cards feature a TV-Out output to connect my old CRT TV via Scart or RCA and I don't want to have to buy a new LCD/TFT TV.

My PC specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo @2.4GHZ
4GB Ram @800MHZ
Windows 7 32Bit
19" 4:3 TFT Eizo S1931 Monitor @60HZ

My motherboard Asus P5B-E:
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Int...specifications

Features 1 x PCIe x16 slot to connect a GFX card on.

So which card should I get to cover my above needs?

Thanks in advance.

[smashly]

GTX 650 would be faster but on par 9800gt.
GTX 650 chews a lot less watts, higher memory bandwidth, 2x ~ 4x memory (depending on the one you buy), same texel rate, higher pixel rate then 9800gt.
Theoretical comparison between 9800GT & GTX 650:
http://www.hwcompare.com/13588/gefor...force-gtx-650/
A quick search on Mwave for GTX 650:
http://www.mwave.com.au/search.asp?C...x%20650&page=1
PC Case Gear list for GTX 650 (I like this shop):
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...cPath=193_1435

Edit:
Actually I think the GT 640 would be closer to the 9800GT when you look at the performance.

Theoretical comparison between 9800GT & GT 640:
http://www.hwcompare.com/12942/gefor...e-gt-640-ddr3/
Mwave GT 640 search:
http://www.mwave.com.au/search.asp?C...40&cateID=4205
PC Case Gear GT 640:
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...cPath=193_1405

As for the old TV output, you can buy DVI to RCA adapter quite cheaply.
Or if your technically adept make it yourself.
Do a Google search for "DVI to RCA", good thing about this is you won't need to run separate Audio cable from PC to TV as DVI has sound out as well as video.

[Retroborg]

Also my motherboard Asus P5B-E:
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Int...specifications

Features 1 x PCIe x16 slot to connect a GFX card on.

[Mraz]

You got a really good detailed answer from smashly I dont know why did you ignore it...

[airbud7]

7770...>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102967

[smashly]

Originally Posted by airbud7

7770...>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102967

Nice recommendation, but going by ops words:

(Preferably nvidia as their drivers are better)

[thatguy91]

I wouldn't worry about the memory bus width being less than 256 bit, because you also have to consider the frequencies. Another thing about memory, you are really only limited to cards with 1GB, and you should realise that you will end up with less useable system RAM since you are on 32-bit Windows. Instead of having roughly 3.4GB useable, you will end up with around 2.9GB useable.

If you go to a 2GB card, I'm not quite sure what happens in terms of what RAM you lose, but if it's like the standard situation you will have 2GB of video RAM and only 1.9GB system RAM!

In terms of DVI to RCA output, it depends on the type of DVI the card has. In most likelihood, new cards won't be able to do it.

[Retroborg]

Originally Posted by smashly

GTX 650 would be faster but on par 9800gt.
GTX 650 chews a lot less watts, higher memory bandwidth, 2x ~ 4x memory (depending on the one you buy), same texel rate, higher pixel rate then 9800gt.
Theoretical comparison between 9800GT & GTX 650:
http://www.hwcompare.com/13588/gefor...force-gtx-650/
A quick search on Mwave for GTX 650:
http://www.mwave.com.au/search.asp?C...x%20650&page=1
PC Case Gear list for GTX 650 (I like this shop):
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...cPath=193_1435

Edit:
Actually I think the GT 640 would be closer to the 9800GT when you look at the performance.

Theoretical comparison between 9800GT & GT 640:
http://www.hwcompare.com/12942/gefor...e-gt-640-ddr3/
Mwave GT 640 search:
http://www.mwave.com.au/search.asp?C...40&cateID=4205
PC Case Gear GT 640:
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...cPath=193_1405

As for the old TV output, you can buy DVI to RCA adapter quite cheaply.
Or if your technically adept make it yourself.
Do a Google search for "DVI to RCA", good thing about this is you won't need to run separate Audio cable from PC to TV as DVI has sound out as well as video.

Wow! Thanks a lot!

So it seems there are 2 options in connecting my CRT TV to one of the newer HDMI GFX Cards:

http://dx.com/p/hdmi-to-composite-s-...r-80407?item=6

http://gzmscable.en.made-in-china.co...deo-Cable.html

Not sure which of the 2 options will give out the best picture quality on the CRT though?

I also just noticed this 9800 Vs 660 comparison:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html

[smashly]

For the DVI to RCA I think you can get different sorts..
For example:
Input DVI, Output RGB (Red x 1 RCA,Green x 1 RCA, Blue x 1 RCA)
Input DVI, Output RCA (Composite Video x 1 RCA , Left Audio x 1 RCA, Right Audio x 1 RCA)

If your using a TV with A/V input eg: 1xRCA for Composite Video, 2x RCA for left/right audio then something like:
http://www.coolice.com.au/catalog/pr...oducts_id=7287

Edit:
Wasn't sure if you were buying in Australia, I was mainly going by your first post that linked to an ozi web site.
But I gather that was just to display the card your wanting to replace...lol

[airbud7]

Originally Posted by Retroborg

I also just noticed this 9800 Vs 660 comparison:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html

If you can afford a GTX 660 then yes...

[smashly]

GTX 660 on a C2D 2.4Ghz Dual Core cpu is a waste of money and you will never get to use the cards full potential.
Even if you OC'd that CPU to 3.6Ghz you'd still never see the GTX 660 reach it's full potential.
Fine if you intended upgrading the CPU/Mobo/Mem in the near future but if not, stick with something in the budget to come close to suiting your hardware.
Even a 640/650 is a little overkill.
A GTX 660 is around 2x the price of a GT 640 and you won't even come close to 2x the performance on your current hardware.

You gotta look at that review of the 9800 vs 660 that it's using a Core i7 965 Extreme @ 3750 MHz and 6144 MB (3x 2048 MB) DDR3 Corsair @ 1500 MHz which is able to push both cards to their limits.

[thatguy91]

I agree, a higher end card would be CPU crippled, and you can't go pass the fact that he will be restricted to 1GB cards (maximum) only due to being 32-bit. With that in mind, even with a 1GB card he will still have access to 512MB less system RAM because of it than he does now.

[airbud7]

Get the gtx 660 and upgrade mobo/cpu/ram...Later...http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,15.html

[HamsterCrispy]

Originally Posted by Retroborg

I checked the current nvidia cards, but noticed that all the cards of that price even though they have better & faster GPUs and more & better video RAM (DDR5 / 1GB/2GB), their memory bus / interface goes only up to 128bit or 192bit the most, which I imagine will bottleneck these cards.

You shouldn't be worried about the 128bit or 192bit memory bus on the newer cards since they are all running on GDDR5 memory which is double that of GDDR3. The 9800GT has a GDDR3 memory running on a 256bit bus, which is similar to a GDDR5 card running on a 128bit bus. The newest generation of cards (GTX 660 for example) only has a 192bit bus but are using way faster memory which still makes it fast (6000 mhz+)

The GTX 660 is really what you should be looking at, your processor will bottleneck the card, but you will see "tremendous" performance increase nonetheless. You could always upgrade your CPU down the road

But if you are on a tight budget then I'd go with what smashly said above, get a GT 640 or GTX 650. Good replacement for a 9800GT is you want a card on par with a 9800GT.

[thatguy91]

I would agree with the GTX 660 statement, apart from the fact that he must NOT get a 2GB card, 32 bit OS remember! The GTX 650Ti is therefore your maximum choice, but honestly, there is a big gap between the GTX650Ti and GTX660, the Radeon HD7770 1GB would be your best bet.

I am not hiding the fact I prefer AMD cards over Nvidia, the recommendation of the HD7770 1GB is purely on performance and especially in this case, the face that it has a 1GB video RAM option.

DO NOT get a 2GB card with 32-bit OS, I cannot stress that enough.

EDIT: Just did a little looking around, you do have another option but it isn't out yet (not until 09 Oct). and that is the GTX 650Ti.

It is very important you look for the 650Ti version, NOT the 650, and one that has 1GB of RAM, NOT 2GB.

The 650Ti really is the best option on the Nvidia side of things you can go for. Don't worry about the 128-bit memory bus, it still has 50 percent higher bandwidth due to newer memory type and higher clock speed.

This is assuming you aren't going to upgrade the rest of the compute later, but if you do plan to do that, you are 'a little stuck', since going to anything better, which means 2GB of video RAM or more, will mean you will cripple your system memory so much you won't be able to play the games effectively anyway!

[Retroborg]

Well I will upgrade Windows 7 Ultimate to 64bit at the same time when I buy the new card, so do you think I should get a 2GB Video card instead?

So after searching through various cards, I'm considering of getting one of the following 2:

1. Gainward GTX 560 Ti 1 GB 256bit
GPU Clockspeed: 822 Mhz
Memory Clock: 2004 Mhz
Shader Clock = 1645MHz
Cuda Cores = 384
Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec) 52.5
Memory Bandwidth: 128.3 GB/s
http://www.getitnow.gr/prod/anabathm...prod1030258pp/
http://www.gainward.com/main/vgapro.php?id=455&lang=en
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desk...specifications

2. EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FPB, 1024MB GDDR5 192bit
Free Performance Boost 823MHz Core Clock
Memory Clock = 2004 MHz (4008 MHz)
Shader Clock = 1646 MHz
Cuda Cores = 336
http://www.plaisio.gr/Computers/Hard...60-1GB-FPB.htm

Which I see is basically an overclocked version of the GTX 460 v2 1GB GDDR5
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desk...specifications

(I'm closer to the Gainward 560ti 1GB as the price seems to be good compared to the card's specs & performance)

So what is your opinion?

[smashly]

I have 2 of the Gainward GTX 560ti in my 2700k rig.
Cheap in price, they perform well, but the cooler on them gets a bit noisy when under load.
The core on mine don't oc that well, but the memory oc's awesomely on both cards.
Both cards have been working fault free for over a year.

If your going to be sticking with your E6600 cpu for a while, then see if you can pick up a GTX 560 (non ti) for cheaper.

Basically running an E7500 @ 3.6Ghz or an E8400 @ 3.6Ghz and I could barely push a single GTX 560 (non ti) to it's limits in any game or benchmark.
(I also have 2 x MSI GTX 560 (Non ti) that oc better then my ti's)
So a GTX 560ti in your current rig you're not going to see anything like what your reading in reviews and paying for something that you won't be able to benefit from.

[Retroborg]

So if I stick with the E6600 CPU and get a GTX 560 (non ti) with 2GB VRAM, would I see any difference in performance as opposed to the 1GB version in Win 7 64-bit?

Like this one:
http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/N...specifications

Why is the E6600 CPU bottle-necking the GTX 560 ti cards by the way?

[smashly]

If you ever intend on playing games at resolutions greater then 1280x1024 and your not paying silly amounts of money for a 2GB version then yes it's a good idea.

Your original post was asking for a graphics card with the same performance as your 9800GT at a res of 1280x1024, a GTX 560 1GB card passes that by at least 3x times the performance if not more depending on the resolution your playing at.
The higher the res the better performance the GTX 560 is in comparison to the 9800GT

My 560's ti and non ti are all 1GB versions.
I game at 1920x1080 and they hold up well even at that resolution with minimal AA with med to high settings in just about all the games I play.

The reason I knew that a stock GTX 560 wasn't being pushed by E7500 or E8400 cpu was:
If I oc'd the GTX 560 then I saw no improvement in frame rates in any game and my scores in synthetic benches didn't change at all (eg: 3D Mark 11, 3DMark 06).
Yet when I put that same GTX 560 in my 3570k system when I oc'd the card I saw noticeable higher frame rates in games and in synthetic bench marks.

Same when running MSi Afterburner and watching in games what the gpu usage was like.
On the E7500 & E8400 system the GTX 560 never hit 99% usage at any point.
Yet in the 3570k gpu usage was at 99% quite often.

So if your running your E6600 @ 2.4Ghz 1280x1024 I cant see you ever pushing a GTX 560 1GB card to it's true performance.
2GB of video memory is good for games that use High Res textures (Skyrim with mods) or when running lots of AA.
But in the same sense with your current hardware and res i wouldn't pay $50+ more for a 2GB version card unless I intended on upgrading the cpu and monitor in the very near future.

[VultureX]

Originally Posted by thatguy91

I wouldn't worry about the memory bus width being less than 256 bit, because you also have to consider the frequencies. Another thing about memory, you are really only limited to cards with 1GB, and you should realise that you will end up with less useable system RAM since you are on 32-bit Windows. Instead of having roughly 3.4GB useable, you will end up with around 2.9GB useable.

If you go to a 2GB card, I'm not quite sure what happens in terms of what RAM you lose, but if it's like the standard situation you will have 2GB of video RAM and only 1.9GB system RAM!

That is not true. Only 512MB gets mapped as maximum to the OS. No reason to sacrifice on GPU memory.

[airbud7]

Originally Posted by smashly

So if your running your E6600 @ 2.4Ghz 1280x1024 I cant see you ever pushing a GTX 560 1GB card to it's true performance.

True Stuff^

[Vxheous]

My advice is to pick up a card in the $100-$150 (doesn't matter the company) if you really need to stick with your current rig. Otherwise, you're better off building a new system. Anything video card over that price range isn't worth putting into your computer because of the bottleneck that everyone else has spoken about. At this point, you're basically trying to put a bandaid on a femoral artery bleed, it's not going to help much. Save up your cash for a new system.

[HamsterCrispy]

Originally Posted by Retroborg

EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FPB, 1024MB GDDR5 192bit
Free Performance Boost 823MHz Core Clock
Memory Clock = 2004 MHz (4008 MHz)
Shader Clock = 1646 MHz
Cuda Cores = 336
http://www.plaisio.gr/Computers/Hard...60-1GB-FPB.htm

Which I see is basically an overclocked version of the GTX 460 v2 1GB GDDR5
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desk...specifications

Don't bother with the v2 GTX 460. It uses the same GPU GF116 as the GTX 550 Ti, which is why it is also running 1GB on 192-bit. It's basically a GTX 550 Ti with added CUDA cores. The GPU itself does not compare to the GF 104 on the GTX 460's.

[vejn]

What about heavy gaming on 22" monitor with high/ultra settings but on lower res like 1600*900. What GPU will suffice for that ? Is 2 GB overkill?

[HamsterCrispy]

Originally Posted by vejn

What about heavy gaming on 22" monitor with high/ultra settings but on lower res like 1600*900. What GPU will suffice for that ? Is 2 GB overkill?

At that resolution, yes 2 GB is overkill. 2 GB is even overkill for 1080p. Battlefield 3 is the only game that I've seen that uses more than 1GB for 1080p.

I game at 900 resolution at max settings and I have never seen memory usage hit 700mb on any game besides Battlefield 3. BF3 at ULTRA eats approximately 752 mb