Best Graphics card for £150 -180

[crackerbear]

Why not? People run their GTX470/480s at much higher clocks/volt increases/temps on day-to-day basis and they reassure everyone that their cards are going strong. I have yet to see a Radeon 5000 that failed from overclocking and we pushed them as high as 40-50% overclocks on core with 25% voltage increase (not me in particular but many others in these Forums). 15% increase in voltage and 30% overclock is nothing for these cards.

The same could be said of the massively overclocked GTX460 768MB and 1GB cards too.

I'm not disputing that people haven't run lengthy high overclocks, but I'm genuinely curious as whether or not there's any detrimental effects because of it. Aside from human error, running something at that kind of heat for long periods of time surely can't be good in the grand scheme of things.

I mean, maybe overclockers know that they'll upgrade every year or two anyway so it doesn't really matter how far they push their cards, but personally (and I guess I'm on the wrong forum for this) I'd want to maximise my purchase by having it last as long as it can.

What I mean by this is a 3 or possibly 4 year upgrade interval, so you'd use your components at pretty much at stock levels then after warranty has passed, overlock if need be (i.e. some new games are lagging a bit).

Anyway, these are just ramblings so ignore them if you like.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I tend not to overvolt cards that much and also keep the GPU as cool as possible. My X1900GT,HD3870 and HD4830 are all still working and I overclocked all of them. The X1900GT is now run at stock as I sold it to a mate who does not overclock and the HD3870 is now at stock since I damaged the PCB by dropping a heatsink on it.

 

[An Exception]

I'm not disputing that people haven't run lengthy high overclocks, but I'm genuinely curious as whether or not there's any detrimental effects because of it. Aside from human error, running something at that kind of heat for long periods of time surely can't be good in the grand scheme of things.

I mean, maybe overclockers know that they'll upgrade every year or two anyway so it doesn't really matter how far they push their cards, but personally (and I guess I'm on the wrong forum for this) I'd want to maximise my purchase by having it last as long as it can.

What I mean by this is a 3 or possibly 4 year upgrade interval, so you'd use your components at pretty much at stock levels then after warranty has passed, overlock if need be (i.e. some new games are lagging a bit).

Anyway, these are just ramblings so ignore them if you like.

(From an article I remember reading a year to two ago)
Actually GPU longevity is probably more affected by Die size and Temps.
the larger the die the more potential points of failure there is.
And the temperature places stress on the bumps of a GPU.
As the die size increases the RMA rate for failed GPU's increases exponentially, in a similar way to what happens with yields as you begin to increase the die size.

If I have remembered correctly, then by default Nvidia's GPU's stand a much greater chance of failure than AMD's equivalents.

Which could mean an overclocked 6870 will likely last longer than a stock 470 or even a 460...

 

[crackerbear]

(From an article I remember reading a year to two ago)
Actually GPU longevity is probably more affected by Die size and Temps.
the larger the die the more potential points of failure there is.
And the temperature places stress on the bumps of a GPU.
As the die size increases the RMA rate for failed GPU's increases exponentially, in a similar to what happens with yields as you begin to increase the die size.

If I have remembered correctly, then by default Nvidia's GPU's stand a much greater chance of failure than AMD's equivalents.

Which could mean an overclocked 6870 will likely last longer than a stock 470 or even a 460...

Very interesting, thanks for that. I'll take that into note next time I try overclocking, which is rare if you haven't guessed already

 

[Jay85]

Jesus the guy only wants a basic opinion on which to get, whats with the "this is faster, that is hotter, this overclocks more/less" malarky again. Give it a rest, you guys gave him a good answer in the first few posts.

 

[An Exception]

Managed to find an old chart that used to be on GPU cafe...

Edit:

Going from the chart, GT200 was roughly 3x more likely to fail than it's RV770 equivalents.
Taking into account the yields, temps, power consumption, 1 year Nvidia warranty, and 'reported' use of bad bump material, I guestimate that GF100 probably has a higher failure rate than GT200 did.

 

[An Exception]

for a £50 price difference it better be

Only £25 if you shop around...

 

[Ezyryder]

If I was buying in the next couple of weeks I would get the 6870. Why?

If you can wait until stock clears you will be able to get one for £170+ IMO.

They are new tech and drivers are less mature so more chance of performance increases. the 400 series have already had a couple of driver releases so I wouldn't expect such a jump.

Performance in between them is not that different in any case, 2 frames here 2 frames there. I would go for the cooler and more efficient option.

At the end of the day, if you are prepared to overclock the 470 you might as well get a 480! as you will end up paying at least £5-£10 by using it overclocked in leccy.

 

[gregbird101]

After reading every single comment .... yay.


6870 it is!

Thanks all!

 

[crackerbear]

After reading every single comment .... yay.


6870 it is!

Thanks all!

Good choice, it should do you proud

 

[Efour]

i have a sapphire 6870 and its about on par with a 5850 i had for a while, at least what i use it for.

pretty happy with it, very quiet very cool

enjoy.

 

[Helios1234]

my link says otherwise, care to back up what you type?

And kitguru lol, who are they lol, I don't regard them as a reputable site at all, their results are way off the more respectable sites results.

Well look here, they apparently have a 6850 clocked at 1000 core and it's slower than a stock 6870 in all the tests you referred to. Stick to the respected sites like anandtech.

What's wrong with my Vortez review?

The overclock was fully stable thanks to voltage tweaking on the ASUS card.

 

[bigjimmyauk]

my link says otherwise, care to back up what you type?

And kitguru lol, who are they lol, I don't regard them as a reputable site at all, their results are way off the more respectable sites results.



Well look here, they apparently have a 6850 clocked at 1000 core and it's slower than a stock 6870 in all the tests you referred to. Stick to the respected sites like anandtech.

and your point being

a overclocked 5850 at 5870 speeds does not beat a 5870 in fact you need about 1000 core on a 5850 to match a 5870 thats pretty common knowledge and you should know that.

so why should the 6000 series be any different