Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DJB16
Gallente Phantom Squad Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:13:00 -
[1]
atm i have around ú50 to spend on one and have 2 options atm tho i want to stay with the geforce series pls and note i live in the UK so no USA stuff just UK ús and dilivery
on play.com i have seen a geforce 210 for ú35 and a geforce 220 for ú53 how to these rate with eve online in terms of frame rates with the new char creator and high settings compared to my current geforce 8400gs (which im gettin like 5fps in the new char creator and have to have all settings at minimum ingame to get a decent rate) please give specs like texture fill rates the current specs i have on my graphics are below
* Graphics Processor: NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS * Memory Installed: 512MB GDDR2 * Interface: PCI Express x16 * Memory Interface: 64-bit * Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec.): 6.4 * Fill Rate (billion pixels/sec.): 3.6 * Shader Clock (MHz): 900 MHz * Core Clock (MHz): 450 MHz * Memory Frequency (effective): 800 MHz
remember i only have around ú50 to spend on a new card and it must be a pci-e 16 compattable
no trolls saying spend more money or any of that crap coz i DONT have the money to spend on the latest stuff and any trolls ofc will just be reported as soon as i see them
thank you all for helping a fellow eve player
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:26:00 -
[2]
Moved from General Discussion.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us |
|
HeIIfire11
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:31:00 -
[3]
Edited by: HeIIfire11 on 22/01/2011 19:32:35 I own the gtx460 and all I can say its great.There isn't a game I cant max and it doesn't cost that much.I payed like $200.
If you buy cheap you buy twice.Save and get a better card.
My 2 isk.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:38:00 -
[4]
there's also the 5770 and the 5750 option ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Caleidascope
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:58:00 -
[5]
I think I am missing something. You need more fps for character creator? Isn't it just picture that does not change?
If I remember right the 210 and 220 are equivalent to 9400 and 9600 nVidia chips.
50 pounds is about 80 dollars. What you should be looking at is GT 430 (Fermi) like these cards: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600030348%204026%20600007321%20600083826&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GT%20430%20%28Fermi%29
|
TimMc
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:35:00 -
[6]
Edited by: TimMc on 22/01/2011 20:36:58
Originally by: Grimpak there's also the 5770 and the 5750 option
ATi drivers are horrible and I would advise anyone not to buy them on this basis.
That coming from 6 years of ATi card ownership. Now I am with a nVidia 270.
Edit:
Originally by: Caleidascope I think I am missing something. You need more fps for character creator? Isn't it just picture that does not change?
Its animated - you can drag in and out body parts and features with your mouse, and the character constantly moves around giving the appearance of being alive. Eye twitches, glaces in random directions, smirks etc.
|
DJB16
Gallente Phantom Squad Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: DJB16 on 22/01/2011 21:22:02 thanks dev for moving to right forum :)
Hellfire i dont care about being a year behind everyone else in the world i dont want the best stuff out there it costs way to much and will go down fast as new cards are brought out and if u re read my post ull see that i said in ú NOT $ i live in the damn UK NOT the states
grimpak u clearly cant read i said GeForce cards ONLY im NEVER goin back to ati even if nvidia went out of business i wouldnt
cal i check play.com and the cheapest 430 is still ú63 (also on wiki i see its not realy that much better than the card i have atm which is wierd ) iirc they were rebranded as the 200 series right?
tim i cant see the 270 on wiki stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_200_Series do u know the specs and how much it cost?
im goin through more of play.com and the wiki link i found bout an hour ago to find a comprimise but any insights would be usefull
again thanks for constructive help to tim and cal
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Grimpak on 22/01/2011 21:25:10
Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 22/01/2011 20:36:58
Originally by: Grimpak there's also the 5770 and the 5750 option
ATi drivers are horrible and I would advise anyone not to buy them on this basis.
That coming from 6 years of ATi card ownership. Now I am with a nVidia 270.
amazingly half of the people say that, and other half say the same about NV.
I myself have experience with both, and, believe it or not, I had more problems with NV drivers than ATI ones.
Originally by: DJB16 grimpak u clearly cant read i said GeForce cards ONLY im NEVER goin back to ati even if nvidia went out of business i wouldnt
yeah sorry ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Cutter Isaacson
Minmatar Hollow World Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:30:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cutter Isaacson on 23/01/2011 00:34:43 Howdy!!
gt 220
1gb GT 220
also found this gt 240
under ú50 GT 240
Something like these do ya?
Originally by: Johnny Dexter bombs everyone to Narnia
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:44:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Akita T on 23/01/2011 01:59:30
Sorted by raw processing power...
ModelGFLOPsWattageprice$$$ |GFLOP per WGFLOP per $$$
GeForce 8300 GS2240|0.55unknown GeForce 2053331|1.10unknown GeForce 8400 GS434030|1.081.43 GeForce 8500 GT4345|0.96unknown GeForce 9400 GT675040|1.341.68 GeForce G 210673135|2.211.92 Radeon HD 4350922035|4.602.63 Radeon HD 4550962540|3.842.40 Radeon HD 54501041935|5.472.97 GeForce 8600 GS11347|2.40unknown GeForce 8600 GT11347|2.40unknown GeForce 9500 GT1345050|2.692.69 GeForce 8600 GTS13975|1.85unknown GeForce GT 2201965852|3.383.77 GeForce 9600 GSO 5122349070|2.603.34 GeForce GT 230 v.123475|3.12unknown Radeon HD 635025631|8.26unknown GeForce GT 4302694965|5.494.14 GeForce 9600 GT GreenEd28859|4.88unknown GeForce 9600 GT31295|3.28unknown Radeon HD 55503523962|9.035.68 GeForce GT 230 v.235875|4.77unknown Radeon HD 46503844850|8.007.68 GeForce GT 2403866970|5.595.51 GeForce 8800 GS396105|3.77unknown GeForce 9600 GSO39684|4.71unknown GeForce 8800 GTS 112399150|2.66unknown GeForce 9800 GT GreenEd46275|6.16unknown Radeon HD 46704805965|8.147.38 GeForce 8800 GT504125|4.03unknown GeForce 9800 GT504125100|4.035.04 GeForce 8800 GTX518155|3.34unknown Radeon HD 55705203965|13.338.00 GeForce GTS 240554120|4.62unknown GeForce 8800 Ultra576171|3.37unknown GeForce GTS 450601106105|5.675.73 Radeon HD 56706206480|9.697.75 GeForce 8800 GTS(G92)624135|4.62unknown GeForce 9800 GTX648140|4.63unknown Radeon HD 667069663|11.05unknown GeForce 9800 GTX+70514190|5.007.83 GeForce GTS 250705145110|4.866.41 GeForce GTX 260715202|3.54unknown Radeon HD 48307369560|7.7512.27 GeForce GTX 460 SE749150160|4.994.68 GeForce GTX 260C216805182150|4.425.37 GeForce GTX 465855200200|4.284.28 Radeon HD 4730896110|8.15unknown Radeon HD 4860896130|6.89unknown GeForce GTX 460907150150|6.056.05 GeForce GTX 280933236|3.95unknown Radeon HD 477096080|12.00unknown Radeon HD 48501,000110110|9.099.09 Radeon HD 57501,00886110|11.729.16 Radeon HD 67501,00886|11.72unknown GeForce GTX 2751,011219|4.62unknown GeForce GTX 2851,063204|5.21unknown GeForce GTX 4701,089215240|5.064.54 GeForce 9800 GX21,152197|5.85unknown Radeon HD 48701,200150260|8.004.62 GeForce GTX 560 Ti1,260180|7.00unknown GeForce GTX 4801,345250400|5.383.36 Radeon HD 48901,360190|7.16unknown Radeon HD 57701,360108120|12.5911.33 Radeon HD 67701,360108|12.59unknown GeForce GTX 5701,405219350|6.424.02 Radeon HD 68501,488127175|11.728.50 GeForce GTX 5801,581244500|6.483.16 GeForce GTX 2951,789289|6.19unknown Radeon HD 58301,792175170|10.2410.54 Radeon HD 4850 X22,000250|8.00unknown Radeon HD 68702,016151220|13.359.16 Radeon HD 58502,088151200|13.8310.44 Radeon HD 69502,253200300|11.277.51 Radeon HD 4870X22,400286260|8.399.23 Radeon HD 69702,703250370|10.817.31 Radeon HD 58702,720188270|14.4710.07 Radeon HD 59704,640294600|15.787.73
Soo...
It kind of looks like a Radeon HD 4830 would be the way to go for you. Or if you insist on a NVIDIA, then a GeForce GT 430 or a GeForce GT 240. ___
Or if you prefer the XLS directly... http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1101/VideoCardComparison.zip
In case you find different prices, that is.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
|
TimMc
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:05:00 -
[11]
How do ATi manage to be doing so well on the Watt to GLop ratio?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:09:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Akita T on 23/01/2011 02:13:27
Originally by: TimMc How do ATi manage to be doing so well on the Watt to GFLOP ratio?
I bet NVIDIA is asking the same thing Disclaimer : I have a factory-overclocked 1 GB NVIDIA 460 GTX, and I'm quite content with it so far... but I'll wait until the summer heatwave before I make my final judgement.
P.S. Sources (not fully used): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units plus newegg for minimum prices.
Take data with the prerequisite grain of salt.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Alain Kinsella
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 03:03:00 -
[13]
Interesting. That table is a pretty good argument for dropping my 8800 GT for a Radeon 5770. Though my GT happens to have more mem than the standard reference board (a 1 Gb from Palit), so its kept up well.
Still, $120 for a ~20% drop in wattage and about 2.7x the raw power. Very nice. Good timing for me, since I'm researching the next round of upgrades. Thanks.
My experience with both vendors have been even; I ran on an original AGP Radeon (before they got numbered) for nearly four years - each driver update got it running smoother. At the moment the only big show-stopper would be possible reports of SL and/or Oblivion working better with nVidia (and some possible cases where I may actually *want* PhysX processing access).
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 12:08:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Akita T on 23/01/2011 12:10:05
Well, sadly, FPS is not quite directly nor linearly linked to raw//theoretical processing power. Also, the "fitting curve" of FPS-vs-GFLOPs also varies heavily from application to application and card from card (especially when talking ATI//AMD vs NVIDIA), and even for different models of the same-chip card from different manufacturers, even if the core is at stock reference settings, the actual gaming results can vary significantly... let alone when different manufacturers start overclocking (or, much more rarely, underclocking) the cards, then also the wattage can go bonkers. Still, GFLOP per second it's a "good enough" rough indicator for FPS potential most of the time. |
The Hag
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 16:18:00 -
[15]
Edited by: The Hag on 23/01/2011 16:29:36 That list only shows GFlops, not fps or gaming power. Tomshardware and Guru3D have a good chart showing the relative powers of cards. OP should look there and see what suits him best. If EVE is all you play you won't need a super powerful card, as even my 9800GTX+ is enough for low to mid range settings. If you want everything on high you will need a bit more power but for a single client even a card like the 4870 is extremely powerful. I get 250fps with a 4870 and over 300 with a 6870, with a 9800GTX+ I get over 50. The difference is that the 4870 and 6870 have their settings set higher than the 9800, which isn't odd as they're a lot more powerful.
DO NOT buy the 5830, it's an overpriced thing bridging the gap between the 4800's and the 5850, it's not worth the money. If you really want to get a more powerful card look at the 5750, 5770, 6850, GTS450 and GTX460. They differ in price and they also differ in performance.
Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 22/01/2011 20:36:58
Originally by: Grimpak there's also the 5770 and the 5750 option
ATi drivers are horrible and I would advise anyone not to buy them on this basis.
That coming from 6 years of ATi card ownership. Now I am with a nVidia 270.
Edit:
AMD's drivers are so bad they caused about a third of Vista crashes... no wait... that was nVidia. I switched from nVidia to AMD because of their horrible drivers, but you can stick to the idea that AMD's are worse than nVidia's, if it makes you feel better about your purchase.
Originally by: Akita T Still, GFLOP per second it's a "good enough" rough indicator for FPS potential most of the time.
A 480 is weak when it comes to GFlops but it crushes any AMD 4800 and even the 6800's. GFlop is not an indicator of power, regardless of how rough it is, as the GTX260 and 4870 are equal, while they're not equal in GFlops. The GTX580 is the fastest card right now but it puts out lower GFlops.
Originally by: Alain Kinsella Interesting. That table is a pretty good argument for dropping my 8800 GT for a Radeon 5770. Though my GT happens to have more mem than the standard reference board (a 1 Gb from Palit), so its kept up well.
Still, $120 for a ~20% drop in wattage and about 2.7x the raw power. Very nice. Good timing for me, since I'm researching the next round of upgrades. Thanks.
My experience with both vendors have been even; I ran on an original AGP Radeon (before they got numbered) for nearly four years - each driver update got it running smoother. At the moment the only big show-stopper would be possible reports of SL and/or Oblivion working better with nVidia (and some possible cases where I may actually *want* PhysX processing access).
Get an AMD card, if that fits your price range better, and use the 8800GT as a Physix card. There're several drivers out there that enable this, in fact you could just use the 257.15 drivers, which didn't have the Physix lock built in (nVidia forgot). |
Kurfin
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:14:00 -
[16]
For ú50 I'd seriously be thinking about going second hand. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 02:28:00 -
[17]
Originally by: The Hag A 480 is weak when it comes to GFlops but it crushes any AMD 4800 and even the 6800's. GFlop is not an indicator of power, regardless of how rough it is, as the GTX260 and 4870 are equal, while they're not equal in GFlops. The GTX580 is the fastest card right now but it puts out lower GFlops.
Yes, it might kind of suck at directly guessing which would be better FPS-wise with ATI vs NVIDIA. However, it's generally relatively good at guesstimating FPS improvement when comparing ATI vs ATI and NVIDIA vs NVIDIA.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 04:45:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Sturmwolke on 24/01/2011 04:52:30
You know, the issues with Radeon cards with the latest Incursion updates sort of points out to one thing doesnt it? Wonder if Radeon users will get a second strike when Incarna comes out.
... but I'm heavily biased towards Nvidia, so .....
Edit : Yeah, go for the GT240 (nice 40nm silicon) |
dan drorgar
Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:07:00 -
[19]
Best option with DirectX 11 support (recommended for future games...) - Sapphire HD5570:
* Chip clock: 650MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz * Chip: Redwood Pro (RV830) * Memory interface: 128-bit * Stream processors: 400 * Texture units: 20 * Manufacturing process: 40nm * Max. power consumption: 42.7W (Load), 9.69W (Idle) * DirectX: 11 * Shader model: 5 * fill rate 5.2 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 28.8 gb/s
Linkage
Best option with DirectX 10.1 support - MSI R4830-T2D512-OC (factory overclocked):
* Chip clock: 585MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz, Shader clock 575MHz * Chip: RV770LE * Memory interface: 256-bit * Stream processors: 640 * Texture units: 32 * Manufacturing process: 55nm * Max. power consumption: ~80W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 11.2 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 64GB/s
- can find only somewhat shady merchants with <= ú50 right now but it was available at that price recently.
Other option: Palit/XpertVision GeForce GT 240
* Chip clock: 555MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz, Shader clock 1340MHz * Chip: GT215 * Memory interface: 128-bit * Stream processors: 96 * Texture units: 32 * Manufacturing process: 40nm * Max. power consumption: 70W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 8.8 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 28.8-54.4 GB/s depending on configuration (900 MHz => 28.8 GB/s I suppose ...)
Linkage
The GT240 is 6-7 times as fast as the 8400GS according to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net, the 5570 roughly 5.5 times.
For slightly more than ú50 (yes I know, but it's just ú55.86 currently) you can get a HD4850 (also DirectX 10.1 though):
* Chip clock: 625MHz, Memory clock: 993MHz * Chip: RV770 Pro * Memory interface: 256-bit * Stream processors: 800 * Texture units: 40 * Manufacturing process: 55nm * Max. power consumption: 114W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 10b pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 63GB/s
Linkage
That's 8-9 times as fast as the 8400GS according to the benchmark site.
Personally, I'd go for the 5570 because it's just as fast as the GT 240 in most benchmarks and supports DirectX 11, but if EVE is most important to you, go for the 4850 really...
Theoretical comparison (based on specs): hwcompare.com
Regarding drivers: I've had Radeon cards for a long time with very few drivers issues, and now a 8800 GTX that I've had to use with a very old driver for a long time because newer ones were always crap - still using 181.20 now (2+ years old).
|
Joss56
Gallente Unleashed' Fury
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:30:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Joss56 on 24/01/2011 05:31:36
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 23/01/2011 08:19:40 Sorted by raw processing power...
Soo...
It kind of looks like a Radeon HD 4830 would be the way to go for you. Or if you insist on a NVIDIA, then a GeForce GT 240. ___
Or if you prefer the XLS directly... http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1101/VideoCardComparison.zip
In case you find different prices, that is.
Here's an ATi 4870x2 user, witch was some kind of top when she got out and cost me arount 480Ç at that time, it's posts like yours that made me decide buying that one and gess what: it's the last one for many years.
You better buy something with less terraflops/[stuff] that works fine than something with trillions of terraflops that you will never be abble to use properly with all the problems you'll have with. I'm about to put another 500Ç budget in a good GC or 2 with crossfire tech,but i will not put a cent on ATi anymore for sure.
If you have $50 then go for your money, but for sure you'll get something working better with nVidia.
________________________________________________
"You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
|
|
DJB16
Gallente Phantom Squad Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 17:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: dan drorgar Best option with DirectX 11 support (recommended for future games...) - Sapphire HD5570:
* Chip clock: 650MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz * Chip: Redwood Pro (RV830) * Memory interface: 128-bit * Stream processors: 400 * Texture units: 20 * Manufacturing process: 40nm * Max. power consumption: 42.7W (Load), 9.69W (Idle) * DirectX: 11 * Shader model: 5 * fill rate 5.2 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 28.8 gb/s
Linkage
Best option with DirectX 10.1 support - MSI R4830-T2D512-OC (factory overclocked):
* Chip clock: 585MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz, Shader clock 575MHz * Chip: RV770LE * Memory interface: 256-bit * Stream processors: 640 * Texture units: 32 * Manufacturing process: 55nm * Max. power consumption: ~80W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 11.2 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 64GB/s
- can find only somewhat shady merchants with <= ú50 right now but it was available at that price recently.
Other option: Palit/XpertVision GeForce GT 240
* Chip clock: 555MHz, Memory clock: 900MHz, Shader clock 1340MHz * Chip: GT215 * Memory interface: 128-bit * Stream processors: 96 * Texture units: 32 * Manufacturing process: 40nm * Max. power consumption: 70W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 8.8 billion pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 28.8-54.4 GB/s depending on configuration (900 MHz => 28.8 GB/s I suppose ...)
Linkage
The GT240 is 6-7 times as fast as the 8400GS according to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net, the 5570 roughly 5.5 times.
For slightly more than ú50 (yes I know, but it's just ú55.86 currently) you can get a HD4850 (also DirectX 10.1 though):
* Chip clock: 625MHz, Memory clock: 993MHz * Chip: RV770 Pro * Memory interface: 256-bit * Stream processors: 800 * Texture units: 40 * Manufacturing process: 55nm * Max. power consumption: 114W * DirectX: 10.1 * Shader model: 4.1 * fill rate: 10b pixels/s * memory bandwidth: 63GB/s
Linkage
That's 8-9 times as fast as the 8400GS according to the benchmark site.
Personally, I'd go for the 5570 because it's just as fast as the GT 240 in most benchmarks and supports DirectX 11, but if EVE is most important to you, go for the 4850 really...
Theoretical comparison (based on specs): hwcompare.com
Regarding drivers: I've had Radeon cards for a long time with very few drivers issues, and now a 8800 GTX that I've had to use with a very old driver for a long time because newer ones were always crap - still using 181.20 now (2+ years old).
now this is the sort of info i was after dan thanks alot on the videocardbenchmark site i had a look at the differance and must say i was looking at both the 240 the 250 and 450 now i think the 240 should be enough of an upgrade untill i get a new comp as the only thing i could upgrade after that would be the MoBo and that would require new ram cpu etc so i think it could be a good comprimse as i dont have pci-e 2.0 x16 just the pci-e x16 slot i am sticking to nvidia but thanks for the comparision with ATI cards in a more SPEC way also since im on win xp direct x 11 isnt important (not supported in xp anyway) so i will go for the 240 for now
thank u everyone else thats posted but most thanks goto dan drorgar
|
Reiisha
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 23:34:00 -
[22]
If you want proper gaming performance you're going to be spending at least $125 for a GPU.
As a rule of the thumb: If the last 3 numbers of the video card type are lower than 600 (or lower than 60 for 3-numbered types) it's crap for gaming. For example, the 8400 is crap for gaming since the last 3 numbers (400) are less than 600.
You're looking at cards like the Radeon 5750 or up, or the GTX 260/460 or up, if you want decent gaming performance, EVE or otherwise. Older cards like the GeForce 8800GT are passable, but for a marginally higher price you get much better cards.
OP: Bad news, 50 pounds is NOT enough for a decent graphics card.
"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
|
Corozan Aspinall
Party Time Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 05:43:00 -
[23]
I can't imagine a bright future for pc gaming if the gpu alone hoovers up 200+ watts of electricity.
Sod that.
|
Knoer
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 07:33:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Knoer on 25/01/2011 07:33:46
Originally by: Corozan Aspinall I can't imagine using anything if it hoovers up 200+ watts of electricity.
Sod that.
Fixed.
I endorse all Frontal Impact posts aslong as i retain the rear impact title...
I await your arrival with great anticipation, don't make me wait too long though. I don't want to |
ivar R'dhak
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 12:54:00 -
[25]
What PSU do you have OP? This alone may do the decision for you.
And yeah, having a ATI 4670 myself I can advise to definitely go for a. not below, preferably higher performance class b. go for NVidia.
I got the ATI because my old GForce was one of those "jet engines" and I just got sick of the ruckus, and because the 4670 is economic enough to not blow up my old(but high quality) 350W PSU. ______________ Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦ Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.` Mal-¦Aint we just.¦ |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |