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.
I've gotten it down to two on the Radeon side. Is OpenGL 3.1 more important than 10 more MHz? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...mList=N82E16814125302,N82E16814102865&bop=And And on the Nvidia side, none of the ones in my price range(130-150) have DirectX 11. Is that important? They all have higher core clocks though.
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.
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.
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/sapphire_hd5870_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.
Actually, the review said that the better cooling caused the performance boost to the core and memory.
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.aspx?Item=N82E16814150448&cm_re=hd_5750-_-14-150-448-_-Product $140 Sapphire HD4850: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102824&cm_re=hd_4850-_-14-102-824-_-Product $100 Palit GTS250: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261051&cm_re=gts_250-_-14-261-051-_-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.
Theres a great thing called google http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/TECHNOLOGIES/EYEFINITY/WHATISEYEFINITY/Pages/what-is-eyefinity.aspx
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.
