Best $150 video card

H

havokator

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
197
I am looking for the best video card I can get on a $150 budget. What would you recommend? Ati or Nvidia doesn't matter. Can I get a card for $150 that can play most of the latest games?
 
For $150 you can get pretty damn close to a AMD 6870 (+30 bucks) which will be the best performance deal near that price range. Otherwise you can pick up a 6850 or GTX 460 1gb at that price range, and they are similar enough in performance that you should choose based on features.
 
6850. As for the performance, depends on the resolution you use. Up to 1680x1050 the 6850 does fairly well.
 
For ~$150 you can find the 6850 and 460 1GB. The two are so similar in every way that you can choose based on brand preference. The 6850 lets you connect more displays and uses slightly less power, while the 460 1GB supports PhysX and generally runs slightly cooler and quieter. Both are very tame in terms of thermals, the 460 is just a little bit more so.

I just checked Newegg for 6850 and 460 prices, they're not very good right now. They been lower, keeping an eye out will net you one for ~$150. You can also look up the for sale section here and buy a Gigabyte, ASUS, or MSI, they all have three year warranties from the date of manufacture that do not require the original owner to be used.
 
Im thinking about going with the Gigabyte 6850. Its already got a stock overclock and the heatsink/fan looks pretty good. Any idea how loud this thing is?

GIGABYTE Ultra Durable VGA Series GV-R685OC-1GD Radeon HD 6850 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125353

Hopefully I can find a good deal on it somewhere for around $150


Also, whats the difference between the 6-series and 5-series Radeon cards? It seems like a lot of the 5-series cards are even more expensive than the 6-series, but the 6-series are the newer cards right?

How does this 5770 for $139 compare to the 6850 I listed above?
GIGABYTE GV-R577SO-1GD Radeon HD 5770 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125327
 
Last edited:
With the way prices are now, I think the GTX 460 768mb is probably the best you can get w/o an MiR.
 
The 5770 is much slower than the 6850, in all honesty, I'm not sure why the 5770 still costs so much. They should be down in the $80-100 range to justify their performance.

The 5850 is slightly faster than the 6850, and the 5870 is slightly better than the 6870. However, the 68xx series have much better tessellation than the 58xx series, and have much better crossfire scaling. And they run a lot cooler, and use less power.

I would go with a 6870, I've seen XFX 6870's go down to $180 AR. Otherwise, you can try this 6850 deal.
 
Like the fellas in here i would recommend 6850 for the budget and price.
wink.gif
 
samuelmorris said:
6850. As for the performance, depends on the resolution you use. Up to 1680x1050 the 6850 does fairly well.
Click to expand...

Huh? 1080p is fine for the 6850/460, easily. Obviously better performance at 1680x1050 but other then Metro those cards can max games at 1080p.
 
+1 for the GTX460. I have the 768MB version, but the 1GB it's price is down to the range with MIR. But I don't usually calculate the MIR into my budget. :)
 
The GB dual fan model is reasonably quiet. I had driver problems with mine though (I think they were driver problems - it crashed anytime a game got graphicly intensive).
 
I would also go 6850 for the $150 range. The Gigabyte 6850 is pretty sweet. I have heard that the NON-OC is the way to go. It has normal volt regs so you can use afterburner etc. to bump volts vs the OC version that uses nonstandard regs. It's usually $10 cheaper also. I can't figure out why Giga did that with the 6850s, it makes little sense.
 
flexcore said:
I would also go 6850 for the $150 range. The Gigabyte 6850 is pretty sweet. I have heard that the NON-OC is the way to go. It has normal volt regs so you can use afterburner etc. to bump volts vs the OC version that uses nonstandard regs. It's usually $10 cheaper also. I can't figure out why Giga did that with the 6850s, it makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Really, thats interesting. So go with the non-overclocked version. I would think the overclocked version would have a better heatsink/fan and be a better overclocker in general because they sell it stock with a moderate overclock to begin with.
 
OP please list ALL your specs and resolution when asking for video card advice. a 6850 might not even be appropriate for you.
 
cannondale06 said:
OP please list ALL your specs and resolution when asking for video card advice. a 6850 might not even be appropriate for you.
Click to expand...

Also give us an idea of what games, as some run better on one hardware than the other.

Personally, I'm quite happy with my 5850, as it does everything that I need it to do.
 
I am building a new system. So far I have gotten or am planning to get the following:

i7 2600k
Asus P8P67 rev3
Corsair XMS3 DDR3-1600-C7 2x2GB
Crucial C300 64GB SSD
Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 800w PSU
Cooler Master Hyper 212+
Corsair Obsidian 650D
Samsung 2494LW 23.6'' LCD 1920x1080

What do you guys think? Any recommendations? Is this a decent system for the price?

Really the only thing I haven't decided on is the video card. I don't need something super top of the line. I just want a decent card for around $150. Also, I plan to overclock this system as much as I can.
 
Last edited:
Pick up a 5850 off the forum. The 5850 is massively underclocked, most will gain ~20% more performance, and I've seen XFX 5850s with lifetime warranties for $160 shipped. If you bargain with 'em you may do better.
 
I would personally get the i5 2500k, and put that extra money towards a better video card. Unless you need the hyper-threading capabilities of the i7.
 
Tsumi said:
I would personally get the i5 2500k, and put that extra money towards a better video card. Unless you need the hyper-threading capabilities of the i7.
Click to expand...

Why get the i5? The only thing I really want to get top of the line is the processsor. The video card doesn't matter as much to me. Plus I plan to overclock the processor, and I heard the i7 2600k is the best overclocker.
 
havokator said:
Why get the i5? The only thing I really want to get top of the line is the processsor. The video card doesn't matter as much to me. Plus I plan to overclock the processor, and I heard the i7 2600k is the best overclocker.
Click to expand...
the 2500k and 2600k usually oc just the same.
 
havokator said:
Why get the i5? The only thing I really want to get top of the line is the processsor. The video card doesn't matter as much to me. Plus I plan to overclock the processor, and I heard the i7 2600k is the best overclocker.
Click to expand...

What are you doing that requires the absolute best processor? The i7 is basically the i5, except it has hyperthreading.
 
Tsumi said:
What are you doing that requires the absolute best processor? The i7 is basically the i5, except it has hyperthreading.
Click to expand...

Its not that I necessarily need the absolute best processor, but I plan to use this computer for a long time, and the i7 2600k is only $279. Its not like I'm spending $1000 on a 990x. I would rather have a high end processor than video card.
 
If you have your mind set on the 2600k, by all means get it and don't let guys talk you down. There are threads on here with people that have both showing and explaining just how and why a 2600k is better in everywhere even for those that are just gaming.

For all around summed up performance a 2500k provides performance similar to a Nehalem i7. The 2600k on the other hand walks away from it. Hyperthreading makes a big difference, it's not something to be knocked. Especially coming from guys that go out of their way to overclock their CPU's and video cards to get an extra 20-50% performance, why knock hyperthreading when having it is yet an additional 20%+ performance boost. Makes no sense, it's just guys ranting on stuff with no logical reason other than the sake of wanting something to rant on.
 
havokator said:
Its not that I necessarily need the absolute best processor, but I plan to use this computer for a long time, and the i7 2600k is only $279. Its not like I'm spending $1000 on a 990x. I would rather have a high end processor than video card.
Click to expand...

IMO I think you would see better longevity with a higher-end graphics card than CPU, if you're just planning on gaming. If you do a lot of movie editing, photoshop, etc, then I would completely support getting the 2600k. This is due to the fact that almost all games are much more GPU bound than CPU bound, so getting a much better GPU now would delay the upgrade much longer. Then again, if you're the type to swap out the GPU every year or so, then by all means, get the 2600k.

rive22 said:
If you have your mind set on the 2600k, by all means get it and don't let guys talk you down. There are threads on here with people that have both showing and explaining just how and why a 2600k is better in everywhere even for those that are just gaming.

For all around summed up performance a 2500k provides performance similar to a Nehalem i7. The 2600k on the other hand walks away from it. Hyperthreading makes a big difference, it's not something to be knocked. Especially coming from guys that go out of their way to overclock their CPU's and video cards to get an extra 20-50% performance, why knock hyperthreading when having it is yet an additional 20%+ performance boost. Makes no sense, it's just guys ranting on stuff with no logical reason other than the sake of wanting something to rant on.
Click to expand...

Is a 20% increase in performance for a few programs worth a 50% increase in cost? For some people, it might be, especially those who do video editing and the like. For most gamers, they would see more of a benefit in getting a better graphics card. It's not really about performance, but performance for the dollar with what you plan to be doing with the computer. In OP's case, if he uses his computer mostly for gaming with rare to no video editing and the like, his money would be better spent on the graphics card, not the CPU.
 
Tsumi said:
Is a 20% increase in performance for a few programs worth a 50% increase in cost? For some people, it might be, especially those who do video editing and the like. For most gamers, they would see more of a benefit in getting a better graphics card. It's not really about performance, but performance for the dollar with what you plan to be doing with the computer. In OP's case, if he uses his computer mostly for gaming with rare to no video editing and the like, his money would be better spent on the graphics card, not the CPU.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about cost/performance ratios. The OP stated he was already planning on buying the 2600k.

And as I've already stated, even if you are just gaming, the improvements having the hyperthreads are already stated in this forum, go find them. I'm not arguing a lost cause.

Bottom line, whatever it is that is being done on the computer, having the hyperthreads will keep everything running smooth as silk while the 4 main cores are being taxed by limited programs.
 
rive22 said:
We aren't talking about cost/performance ratios. The OP stated he was already planning on buying the 2600k.

And as I've already stated, even if you are just gaming, the improvements having the hyperthreads are already stated in this forum, go find them. I'm not arguing a lost cause.

Bottom line, whatever it is that is being done on the computer, having the hyperthreads will keep everything running smooth as silk while the 4 main cores are being taxed by limited programs.
Click to expand...

If you read my earlier post, my point was that his money was better spent on a graphics card in my opinion. The point was that instead of a core i7 2600k and a $150 card, he could get a core i5 and a $250 card. I have a 6 core processor (1090T)... I rarely ever exceed two core usage. The only times I find that I exceed 2 cores is GTA IV, folding, and stress tests. If he had unlimited money... then of course, get the 2600k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top