How can I justify £350 for a graphic card? Spec for £200 instead?

Freeman · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:12

I'm in the process of putting together a new PC. It's going well and currently it’s at about £700 (bar the GFX) for an i7, SSD setup. Very happy so far.

However I just can't bring myself to spend £350 on a graphic card (currently looking at the 7950). The problem is that it fits my spec perfectly in terms of noise, power, and power consumption.

Are there any cards out there that are roughly the same for gaming at 1920x1080, have the same idle/load noise (very important) and are generally the same temps? BUT, for about £200 instead? I'm will to take a bit of a hit to performance if it's saving me £150+

I did take a look at the 480 but I'm quite keen to get current gen.

Is it worth waiting, if so, what am I waiting for and when will they be released?

Any suggestions or recommendations would be massively useful.

Thanks!

ishoeyi · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:18

for £200 my money would be on a 6950

rare · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:23

Its not easy. I just stuck it on my Credit Card and played some games

Surveyor · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:27

For £200 instead of £350 you're going to take more than a bit of a hit:

HD 6950 v HD 7950

And that's before you consider how far the HD 7950 will overclock.

The HD 6950 will play most games pretty well at 1080p but in games such Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 it starts to struggle with all the eye candy turned on.

A HD 6950 would do as long as you're prepared to turn down the settings in some games.

kmax86 · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:29

again for the 6950. you could also wait for the 7800 series as im guessing they are close

feck199 · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:31

You will take a bigger hit to performance by saving £150 on a gfx card, rather than going z68/i2500k compared to i7!

Depending which cpu you went for, there is likely £100 difference in price!

cmndr_andi · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:32

If you are going for a gaming spec then you may as well save some money and get an i5 2500K CPU instead of a i7 - as in games they perform the same.

As for the GPU, for £200 you get a lot of GPU for your money with the HD 6950 2GB- though as Surveyor points out, if you play modern games at 1080p then the faster cards will give you a nicer experience (though they aren't as good value in terms of bang per buck).

If you have a pretty tight budget then a £200 card is a good option - and you can always sell it on in a years time and use that money and the £100 you saved (from not going for a £300 card) and buy a shiny new tech card in 2013/2014.

PCplod · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:35

You wont find any other card that matches the performance of the 7950 for less money (you will be able to get Dual cards but you can have issues and you also want low power consumption and heat/noise)

For a £200 card your looking at not too much over half the performance of the 7950 overclocked.

Spose its down to you... do you want the best you can afford with very good performance and also low power consumption and future proof, or do you want to spend less money and have less performance and the same power consumption, also probably slightly hotter and more noisy.

~>Dg<~ · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:36

bf3 ultra isnt worth the outlay and most people in mp actually dont play ultra as it adds crap to make it harder to see people.

7800s are just a 6950 and 6970 but use less power .

cmndr_andi · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:44

PCplod said:
For a £200 card your looking at not too much over half the performance of the 7950 overclocked.

Are you sure? if you look at this review playing BF3 at 1920x1200 (ultra quality, 4xMSAA) the stock 6950 provides 32.4 FPS, the stock 7950 provides 41.9FPS and the factory overclocked XFX BEDD 7950 provides 46.6FPS.

Therefore compared to the stock 7950 the 6950 is 77% as fast and compared to the overclocked XFX BEDD 7950 the 6950 is 70% as fast. Also, it is worth considering that the 6950 cards can be overclocked as well, and cards like that HIS one for £200 on sale at the moment is a factory overclocked model.

Also, with current prices the cheapest HD 7950s are ~£330 - so 65% more expensive than a HD 6950 2GB (ie. a 6950 is only 61% of the price of a 7950, so they offer better performance per £).

arc@css · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:45

See how the 7800's deliver when it comes to price and overclocking v heat / power.

PCplod · 4 Mar 2012 at 23:59

cmndr_andi said:
Are you sure? if you look at this review playing BF3 at 1920x1200 (ultra quality, 4xMSAA) the stock 6950 provides 32.4 FPS, the stock 7950 provides 41.9FPS and the factory overclocked XFX BEDD 7950 provides 46.6FPS.

Therefore compared to the stock 7950 the 6950 is 77% as fast and compared to the overclocked XFX BEDD 7950 the 6950 is 70% as fast. Also, it is worth considering that the 6950 cards can be overclocked as well, and cards like that HIS one for £200 on sale at the moment is a factory overclocked model.

Also, with current prices the cheapest HD 7950s are ~£330 - so 65% more expensive than a HD 6950 2GB (ie. a 6950 is only 61% of the price of a 7950, so they offer better performance per £).

6950's dont overclock that much, but 7950's over clock to near or @ 7970 levels. Also that comparison is about right for what I said considering also that the 7950 isnt overclcoked to any potential of what it could be with ease.

Like I said

PCplod said:
For a £200 card (6950) your looking at not too much over half the performance of the 7950 overclocked.

Which is about right, the 6950 OC'd is less than 3 qauters of the performance of a 7950 OC'd and not too much over half the performance.

Also consider drivers arent that great for the 7950/70's on BF3 at the moment, they will only get better for that game (and all games) but in other games the 7950/70 are showing more performance relative to the 6950/70 than BF3

cmndr_andi · 5 Mar 2012 at 00:08

That's a pretty elastic definition of "not too much over half" (70%) since going from 50% performance to 70% is a performance change of 40% (ie. "not too much under half"), but whatever.

The main point I was making is that the lower cost of the 6950 is proportionally greater than the drop in performance compared to the HD 7950 - therefore it is better value.

Obviously, if you have £330 available to spend on a graphics card then sure the HD 7950 is the best option. But if you are on a budget and don't want to spend that much on a card (like the OP's position) then a £200 card like the 6950 is a good option (as it plays modern games well at 1080p) and will give more performance per £ than a high-end card like a HD 7950.

Freeman · 5 Mar 2012 at 00:09

Thanks for the replies guys. Considering I need this PC to last me a good 4 years I think the 7950 may be a good option.

Thanks again.

Rusty0611 · 5 Mar 2012 at 00:11

If you're willing to go from Ultra settings to High settings (using BF3 as an example) the 6950 will do you fine.

As other guys said you could consider going to i5 2500k if you're primarily gaming and get a 7950 with the extra cash. i7 offers no benefits over i5 for gaming.

PCplod · 5 Mar 2012 at 00:31

cmndr_andi said:
That's a pretty elastic definition of "not too much over half" (70%) since going from 50% performance to 70% is a performance change of 40% (ie. "not too much under half"), but whatever.

The main point I was making is that the lower cost of the 6950 is proportionally greater than the drop in performance compared to the HD 7950 - therefore it is better value.

Obviously, if you have £330 available to spend on a graphics card then sure the HD 7950 is the best option. But if you are on a budget and don't want to spend that much on a card (like the OP's position) then a £200 card like the 6950 is a good option (as it plays modern games well at 1080p) and will give more performance per £ than a high-end card like a HD 7950.

Well yeh it is what it is... not too much under half not too much over half.. couldnt think of a better way to describe it... Maybe just 'between half and 3/4's' lol

I think the price/performance is about the same for the 7950 and 6950, since if both overclocked the 7950 performs around 35% better, and the 6950 is £200, the 7950 just £130 more thats about the same £/performance if you take into account the power draw heat and quietness and more Vram

Kurisu Makise · 5 Mar 2012 at 04:06

dont know what people are talking about here, im running a sapphire dual fan edition 6950, plays every game maxed out no problem (including crysis 2 and bf3) no bad frame drops on bf3 at all, super smooth

and on top of that it never goes above 52c and its queiter than my xfx power supply even at fulll load. people just want 100+fps on all games these days.

lomez · 5 Mar 2012 at 04:38

the thing is people are missing out on the 480 which is gonna go on pre order for 185£ and that performs past a 6950 out of the box thats if you dont mind the noise and it has 15gb of vram and at 1920x1080 that should be a non issue. Also they clock really well but like I say lot of discussion around the heat/noise outputs of these cards.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=309

BaNksY IV · 5 Mar 2012 at 04:40

Samsara said:
dont know what people are talking about here, im running a sapphire dual fan edition 6950, plays every game maxed out no problem (including crysis 2 and bf3) no bad frame drops on bf3 at all, super smooth and on top of that it never goes above 52c and its queiter than my xfx power supply even at fulll load. people just want 100+fps on all games these days.

Without sounding rude i think peoples perception of what is smooth and whats not must vary wildly. I simply could not settle for a single 6950 so went crossfire to get the performance i want.

A single 6950 on ultra settings is not a pleasent expirience it sits around 30fps and fluctuates and is in no way smooth to play, it will play in all high settings at pretty much a solid 60fps no msaa.

If you want a single card solution that will last and you want it now then the 7950 is you only logical option.

Lomez i think you are missing the OP's main requirements of low noise and power consumption

PCplod · 5 Mar 2012 at 05:26

Samsara said:
dont know what people are talking about here, im running a sapphire dual fan edition 6950, plays every game maxed out no problem (including crysis 2 and bf3) no bad frame drops on bf3 at all, super smooth and on top of that it never goes above 52c and its queiter than my xfx power supply even at fulll load. people just want 100+fps on all games these days.

You say that but unless you have a 6950 or 6970 that is some sort 1 off god card (which there isnt) If you play BF3 maxed out online it will dip to the 30's/40's all the time on demanding maps........

I dont get it when people say that "I can play BF3 maxed out 60 fps on my 560ti" for example.
No you cant lol, you may be able to play SP or less demanding parts of the maps or looking at the sky or a wall on max settings and smooth, but as soon as you go on a half demanding map where its all open performance will crash like a sea horse.

I judge on how a game plays by the min fps and however low it goes in the demnading situations you are often in thats how good it performs, and the 6970/6950 dont cut it for BF3 on ultra even with all AA off atall, they struggle on high. The 7970 only just maxes BF3 out with AA, and even then on some maps it can often dip below.