Is a new budget graphics card worthwhile?

[horlock]

My situation is that I don't play games, I occasionally do some photo editing, I browse the web fairly extensively and my computer is pretty out of date, but still reasonable (i7 with about 10GB of ram). I run dual screens, and have third screen alongside which is not connected to my main pc (but could be)

My current graphics card is an Nvidia GeForce GTS 240.

I'm considering updating it, but with an absolute budget one. Everyone goes on about expensive graphics cards and these are readily reviewed, but I struggle to find out how some thing like

XFX AMD HD 5450 Silent Graphics Card - 1GB https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1gb-...ub-hdmi-dvi-lp or
EVGA GeForce G 210 Graphics Card - 1GB https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1gb-...i-dvi-i-dl-d-s

Would compare with what I have.

Is there any point whatsoever? should I wait until mine dies? Does a budget graphics card do anything other than allow me to view 3d images and have fast refresh rates that I don't need? My graphics card has always been my minimum score for my areo experience - if that means anything at all.

[mjzero]

Honestly, in your situation, I'm not sure there is much point getting a new one.

As you don't play any games and virtually only browse the web and other light productivity tasks, I'm not sure you even need a graphics card.

I'm assuming you have at least an i7 2nd Gen (Sandy Bridge) processor, which has Intel's Integrated HD Graphics 3000 and can run 2 screens at 60 with light productivity (and even AAA games at 50-60fps on... low, but that doesn't matter)

I still run this laptop from Acer that I've had for 4+ years now as my daily driver, which has a measly i3-2350M, with 4GB of DDR3-1333 with the aforementioned iGPU with the lowest aero score in the system, and it's still running fantastically well, despite how much abuse it has received over the past years.

While at home, I have it running a second display at 1080p through VGA, although there is also an HDMI out. (In fact, while at a LAN party a few months ago, I managed to squeeze 4K out of the HDMI onto a TV and play some films, while temping <55C believe it or not). I can browse the web perfectly, render YouTube clips at 1440p60 in the 1080p panel without stuttering, play AAA games on low at 50-60fps and many indies on medium-high at 60 (again, i3), use programs such as Blender to create 3D models for CS, use CAD software for designs (but not large ones for obvious reasons), and even once edited and rendered a 15 min video in Premier for CS class on here (although rendering it was hell for the laptop, sorry bud.)


The main part anyway is that if your motherboard has at least 2 video outs, I'm not sure you'll need that 240 in there, saving you the cost from power and the noise from the fan, but if not, honestly, just keep it, clean it from time to time, and at the time when the heavens call for your computer, shed some money, and get a new system. It's treated you well.



For anyone interested in the value of older cards, check out Intel's

Playable Games List for Intel® HD Graphics 3000/2000

(sorry I'm not allowed to post actual hyperlinks yet... )
The list of games there is pretty extensive, granted it is from early 201xs, but hey, I got used to 'low' graphics in modern AAA games over the years, and honestly, it doesn't look that bad, you could even compare it to 'high' in indies, and it's obviously better than pixel art, although you lose that warm feeling being able to run a game on 'ultra', even though it is just... pixels.

[DanceswithUnix]

If it works, I would leave it.

At some point you might want a new qhd or 4K screen, in which case you will probably want DisplayPort and that means something like a £100 RX460.
If you find yourself using software like Blender, you might find the graphics card can make it a lot faster.

But by the sounds of things, as long as windows move smoothly around your screen you probably have something good enough.

[satrow]

My baseline test for graphics is by enabling the Kernel activity trace in Task Manager and then dragging a window around the screen, if it 'feels laggy' for me, it also shows a raised kernel activity and probably looks like movement is stuttering - ~5% might not be an issue, ~8% and above is.

Your i7 might have a better GPU component than the cards you're considering, the minimum 'upgrade' over a recent i7 GPU is probably a GT 730 DDR3, 128-bit (GDDR5 is better still), though a GT 740 GDDR5 (can draw more than 65W, might need a 6-pin GPU connector from the PSU) would give extra headroom and should be a noticeable improvement.

[cptwhite_uk]

Hi horlock.

This website gives you an apples top apples comparison of any two graphics cards using a custom benchmark using user submitted scores. Probably worth checking out:

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare...60/m8940vs3641

I've compared your GTS240 to the mentioned RX 460 in the above link (approx 4 times as fast)

[EndlessWaves]

My current graphics card is an Nvidia GeForce GTS 240.

I'm considering updating it, but with an absolute budget one. Everyone goes on about expensive graphics cards and these are readily reviewed, but I struggle to find out how some thing like

XFX AMD HD 5450 Silent Graphics Card - 1GB https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1gb-...ub-hdmi-dvi-lp or
EVGA GeForce G 210 Graphics Card - 1GB https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1gb-...i-dvi-i-dl-d-s

Would compare with what I have.

Well, they're not an update. The 210 is contemporary with the 240 but a lower end card, as you can see from the model numbers. So it's something the same age and slower which makes it neither an update nor an upgrade.

The 5450 was the competitor to the G 210 so much the same applies.

Both cards are still produced because they're very low power HDMI/DVI capable chips that can be used as secondary cards to drive additional monitors. They're substantially slower than current integrated graphics.

AMD and nVidia are no longer producing new low end (<£80-100) chips but there are newer low end GPUs than those two available. Namely GK208 and Oland from 2013. The former used in the GT 710-740 and the latter used in the R7 240 and R7 250.

They add a couple of minor features like 4k H.264 decoding and a 720 offers similar power to the latest integrated graphics (The R7 240 is equivalent to the GT 730).

They may have been worth it if you were using 2009-2010 era integrated graphics but compared with a GT 240 they're unlikely to be enough faster (if at all) to make a difference.

In a couple of years when all the high resolution technologies are cheaper we may see a new low end chip to add 4k, HEVC etc. to older machines but don't hold your breath for it.

[Millennium]

horlock, if those are your only realistic options, stick to what you have. It's not at all bad for 2d.

[horlock]

Wow thanks folks, a lot to read through, and suggestions seem to be that it is unnecessary. To clarify the i7 is old. Lynfield 860. Onboard graphics isn't an option as it only has one output. I'm sort of wanting to upgrade, mainly because the computer goes back almost 10 years now and i feel that it shouldn't still be serving its purpose. Its had repeated ssds replaced in the meantime (as some have failed and others been just too small) but the current setup is working a treat.

So I want to sort of future proof it - if such a thing exists but looking for the best place to spend money (as little as necessary). The computer has run pretty much constantly since 2009, it is never switched off, occasionally into standby but that rarely and mostly it does everything I want it to. Runs office software, keeps track of my finances, allows me to watch movies, and stay online. Currently run windows 10 with office 365, photoshop cs6 and a bunch of free software.

Perhaps the best is to just wait until it dies and start again - it just seems to be almost bulletproof.

It was originally a dell, I've replaced the case, increased the ram, installed an ssd, I replaced the PSU but the computer itself just keeps going tickety boo - same motherboard and processor though.

[cptwhite_uk]

If it's on permanently the only reason you might want to consider upgrading it power draw. Power consumption during idle is much lower on newer systems, so an upfront cost might saving you some ££ on electricity bills. But truth be told it's unlikely to save more than cost of the system in a reasonable time frame (say 7-8 years of use).

[horlock]

Thank you.