TheTechLounge - Recent Reviews: Hardware: Video Cards

ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:45:37 -0500

Better adaptive anti-aliasing, better video playback, better performance, and priced in reach for anyone who wants one--seriously, for less than four hundred dollars, given how cheap everything else is now, anyone can afford it--the HD 5870 is the card to get for gaming performance, performance/ watt, low noise... there�s a whole host of good reasons.

Sapphire Radeon HD 4650 512MB

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:16:29 -0500

I was a little noncommittal in recommending the 4670 and I suspect that I�m pretty much in the same boat with regards to the 4650. On the one hand, these are inexpensive cards with impressive performance for the price, but on the other hand, for very little extra, much more capable cards can be had. But let�s say, for example, you had sixty bucks and only wanted to play WoW or the Orange Box. Will this card do it?

Sapphire Radeon HD 4550 512MB

Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:30:46 -0500

Sometimes a video card needs to be just that. A card for video. Many high-end workstation motherboards don�t have integrated video, but what good is a computer without a display? The Intel i7 is just the perfect example. A lot of people have the need for quad cores of number-crunching power, but they�re not gamers and, appropriately, have no desire to own a beautiful set of GTX 50 millions. (But you�ll get there, we�ll see to that.)

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB OC

Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:10:00 -0500

Alright. Time for a refresh, it's almost spring, and that's the season for growing video cards. The HD 4890 is, for all intensive porpoises, a retooled HD 4870, which, in my humble opinion, is overdue. Not that the 4870 was by any means a bad card, and it certainly got its deserved amount of press, but it had its failings and, when prices were even, I'd generally recommend a GTX 260. AMD doesn't like losing on the price front, that's for damn sure. But it never hurts to have a great high-end card, either. Look, this card still isn't a match for the ridongulous GTX 285 or the limited 295, but it's an outstanding improvement over the HD 4870. Enough to upgrade?

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 285 1GB AMP

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:32:13 -0500

In the midst of all the rebranding and fine-tuning, NVIDIA managed to make again, the most powerful single-GPU video card. Well, they also made the most powerful dual-GPU video card but that�s not what I�m reviewing, is it. I�m reviewing the GTX 285, the die-shrunk, power-boosted bastard of the GTX 280. It�s really, really powerful. There has to be some kind of flaw, right? In some ways, it�s overpriced, but is that even fair? It�s maybe a bit expensive, but only compared to other video cards--for less than $400, I�m sure everyone at NVIDIA thinks they�re just giving these away. Which is sad for them, great for everyone else. This is an exemplary performer on its own, and costs $200 less than the GTX 280 back when it came out. Did I mention how frustratingly powerful it is?

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 295 1792MB

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:20:35 -0500

The GTX 295 is, like ATI's HD 4870 X2, two cards in one. It has two GPUs, connected by an onboard PCI-Express bridge, in SLI fashion. The GPUs are modified GTX 260s, architecturally identical, clocked at the same frequencies, although slightly-cut improved memory bandwidth (the GPUs of the 295 have 589-bit memory interfaces unlike the 260-216s with 448-bit interfaces). So there are two questions I have about this card: is it worth the price hike over two GTX 260s, and who is this card tailored for?

Diamond Radeon HD 4870 1GB

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:15 -0600

Normally, adding more video memory is a mistake. It's a ploy by the manufacturer to make their card look special, it's a way to make a card sound more capable than it is, and it's a way to tack on a significant sticker price without adding any component costs. Most often with these cards, the larger frame buffer is actually a downgrade. It's cheap, old memory, and much, much slower. The practical upshot is that these inflated cards are no better than their counterparts, and sometimes a little worse.

Sapphire Radeon HD 4830 512MB

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:27:03 -0600

I don't think there's a "stock" 4830. Sapphire usually runs that route with the non-Toxic or their other variants, but I'm pretty sure that it's up to the board partner to build a better 4830; they're all different. Each has its own heatsink and board layout. Sapphire's is, at least, true to the namesake, and mega-blue.

VisionTek Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB Redux

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:17:11 -0600

Only after being bested by it could I ever hope to wield it's� Oh screw it, it's just a video card. I mean, it's the best video card and all, and definitely not for everybody. Actually, as you'll see, it's not really intended for mainstream gaming. You need a damn big display to really see this card make frames. If you're looking to spend serious dollars for the best gaming experience, you're set. If you want a video card that will no doubt last years, here you go. But if you're reading this on anything less than a 24-inch display, an HD 4870 X2 is probably overkill.

ZOTAC GeForce 9500 GT AMP! 512MB

Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:12:22 -0600

On paper and in tests, the 9500 GT is half a 9600 GT--there's a lot missing in that last 100. It's got half the shaders (32) half the ROPs (8) and half the bandwidth (128-bit). Adding insult to injury, everything is clocked lower; GPU, memory, even the shaders are slower. It's more like two-fifths a 9600.

Video Card Price/Performance Guide (Jan 09)

Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:01:05 -0600

So, you've lined up your ducks, asked only for Newegg gift certificates, Fallout 3, and set aside a week of sick leave. It's time to buy that new video card. I took ten mainstream and high-end video cards, averaged their performance results, and divided those by their entry-level prices. (I've also got stats for performance to watt ratios.) If you're looking for the best-possible deal, I hope you find this� enlightening.

PALIT Radeon HD 4870 512MB Sonic Dual Video Card

Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:30:55 -0600

Having already taken a crowbar to prices like a spree-killing Yellow Man, the 4870's refresh seems overdue. The card, stonkin' as it is, has an annoying stock heatsink and a lot of untapped overclocking potential. There's a short list of non-stock, factory-overclocked 4870s that need reviewing. First on my list is Palit's Radeon HD 4870 Sonic Dual. With its long heatsink and large fans, not to mention namesake, the thing promises quiet, and at the flick of a switch, overclocking. Not everything stood up to scrutiny. At least it's still inexpensive.

ZOTAC GeForce 9800 GT 512MB AMP Video Card

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:23:22 -0600

One of the greatest things about fabrication processes is that they can be shrunk. Assuming that your architecture is forward-thinking enough, and it navigates issues with power plane-mapping and transistor leakage and all that, you can take your design, make it smaller, run it faster, and use less power. ATI has reaped great successes going from 65nm to 55nm, and NVIDIA is going the same way with their G92 parts. This process will take their 8800 GT, an excellent performer at the time of its release, rename it 9800 GT, and reap away. I mean, that would be the way to do it if you wanted to make any sense whatsoever. Because this is a regular ol' 65nm part. This naming debacle, as frustrating as it is, belies some real amazing progress. And I'm not talking about the addition of HybridSLI to the 8800GT, and certainly not triple-GPU SLI (because you can't do it with this excellent card, and if I knew who's brilliant idea that was, I'd tell you now) or any of the other subtle advantages 98 has over 88. The progress is this: when the 8800 GT was released, it cost about three hundred dollars. One year later, games aren't more demanding, but it can be had for close to a Benjamin. But Zotac doesn't stop there, they take a well-binned example of G92 prowess, overclock it, and give you a copy of XIII Century: Death or Glory for your trouble! Did I mention it only costs $120?

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 512MB TOXIC Video Card

Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:55:07 -0600

I think it's worth everyone's wait for Toxic. As far as brandings go, anyway. But Sapphire puts so much effort into general improvements over the stock designs--which they have no small hand in--that I have to wonder if they hold back just to make certain that their Toxic will be that much better. Maybe I'm giving too much away for an intro. Let's get back to boring stuff, like how HD 4000 changed every possible standard for pricing, and slammed into NVIDIA's market share so hard that they knocked stock out of 'em. People walking past their offices in California were picking it up on the streets as souvenirs, "I was there when HD 4000 was released!" HD 4870, the flagship, wasn't a hundred percent, though. It uses a lot of power, and makes a lot of noise. I don't expect the efficiency to change, but I, and silence enthusiasts everywhere, have been rubbing their hands in wait for Sapphire to throw in their characteristic blue into the equation. I wish I were saying that the wait was over, but I can't find these for sale anywhere. But when they're released, no doubt with an analogous price bump, that they will have been worth the wait.

Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB Video Card

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:17:17 -0500

I have always had problems endorsing the sub-hundred dollar video card. Usually, for an amount less than the video game you intend to play, you can get a card that can actually play said game, unless you really don't care about turning the detail setting up--which, as far as I'm concerned, is the way the developers intended it. They come with lots of RAM and no hardware to drive it, inadequate, bottom-dollar cooling, and disappointment. But I'm about to tell you that the HD 4670 isn't a complete waste. I know, weird, right? Now, it's just one of many options, which I'll get to here in a minute. But for the first time since ever, eighty bucks'll let you play the Orange Box, Unreal Tournament 3, and yes, Crysis. Well, Crysis, admittedly, not on High. But everything else maxed out, with anti-aliasing, and at your display's native resolution.