Thread: What graphics cards should I get?

you can't upgrade graphics on conventional laptops

integrated graphics means it's part of the motherboard, rather than a pluggable card

there's a few specialist laptops that use pluggable cards, but you won't see them on normal run-of-the-mill machines for a while

So that means I would have to get a new motherboard...

Ok thanks

new laptop in reality
as laptop motherboards are all custom designed

Got it, thanks.

If it's that difficult I'll probably be better off upgrading my desktops card. What should I buy for that?

Same details apply.

what can your motherboard take?
PCI / AGP / PCI-E ?

I don't know.

How do I find out?

is it a pre-built system?
if so, post the make and model

Well, why do you need to upgrade?
Do you game? If so, how recent of games are you playing? Do you have trouble running them?
If not, are you running XP? Vista? Linux? BSD? OSX? If Vista, can you run Aero? Do you want to run Aero?

On the whole of it, unless you're a gamer, or want extra eye candy (Aero, Compiz, etc) and can't get it with what you've got, there's no point in upgrading.

Another note, if you're upgrading from integrated graphics in a desktop to a graphics card, especially a mid or upper range card from any era, (7800, 8800 series Nvidia cards, for example), you're going to need a new PSU. Most out-of-the-box systems aren't designed to be easily upgraded in terms of graphics. For example, my Compaq Presario had integrated graphics. I thought about upgrading it for a long time, and ultimately didn't, because it only had a 200-watt PSU that would collapse under the load of even a small increase in power needs. That and I only had PCI slots, no PCI-e or even AGP.

Sorry took so long, didn't have access to this computer for a while.

It's a dell, E510.... it's about 2 years old.

Edit: Not modified in any way

Originally Posted by Tsen

Well, why do you need to upgrade?
Do you game? If so, how recent of games are you playing? Do you have trouble running them?
If not, are you running XP? Vista? Linux? BSD? OSX? If Vista, can you run Aero? Do you want to run Aero?

On the whole of it, unless you're a gamer, or want extra eye candy (Aero, Compiz, etc) and can't get it with what you've got, there's no point in upgrading.

Another note, if you're upgrading from integrated graphics in a desktop to a graphics card, especially a mid or upper range card from any era, (7800, 8800 series Nvidia cards, for example), you're going to need a new PSU. Most out-of-the-box systems aren't designed to be easily upgraded in terms of graphics. For example, my Compaq Presario had integrated graphics. I thought about upgrading it for a long time, and ultimately didn't, because it only had a 200-watt PSU that would collapse under the load of even a small increase in power needs. That and I only had PCI slots, no PCI-e or even AGP.

This machine I'm planning to upgrade runs XP.

I guess I would consider myself a gamer, in that I like to play games, and the latest ones.

Mainly I want a graphics card that can handle Bioshock and Half-Life 2: Orange Box, as I got those for the holidays. I know nothing about about graphics cards but I'm pretty knowledgeable about most other computer things.

Edit: This is a desktop and not intergrated. Originally I was planning to upgrade my laptop but Ynot told me that to do that I would need a new laptop which I can't afford.

If it's a Dell Dimension E510 and not modified in any way, then you are currently using integrated graphics
(open it up and check, just to be sure)

blurb here: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/del...-31555136.html

Specs here: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/del...html?tag=specs

you have one PCI-E x16 slot, so you can upgrade to pretty much any card out there

you have a uni-core processor

so if you're planning to upgrade to vista, you may be disappointed by the performance

the choice of card is up to you, but I think your processor is going to end up being the bottleneck

You currently have 512mb ram
you might also want to think about bunging in a lot more

some cards:

High end
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4BG0

Mid range
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4R4D

Budget
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4KPG

The 8800 GTX isn't the high-end card anymore, it's just throwing money away. The new 8800 GT 512 has better performance in most cases, and just shy of the GTX in the rest, and costs about 1/4th the cash. And in a couple of weeks [EDIT: Oops, already out.] 8800 GTS 512's will hit the shelves, which would be the best GFX solution out there for a while.
But if you go for a GTS or GTX, check your PSU. Seriously, you're going to need at least a 500W to handle a GTS, and a 6-700 for a GTX.

And if you're planning on running Bioshock, you're going to want 2GB of RAM, and a single core processor is usually no good, but you could get by on it if you need.

My graphics recommendations are:
High-end: 8800 GTS 512 (NOT the 320 or 640. The naming convention is confusing, but the 512 is a totally different GPU)
Mid-range: 8800 GT 512
Budget: 8800 GT 256

The 8800 GTS 512 is about $350, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130312
The 8800 GT 512 is about $250, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127311
As for the 8800 GT 256, it hasn't hit shelves yet, but it's aiming at $200.
You could get a cheaper GPU, but it won't handle Bioshock.

......and here i was fapping at the interesting title.

Originally Posted by Grod

I have a 945GM Express Chipset family graphics card and I'm looking to upgrade it, because I've heard it's shit. It says its integrated, but I don't know what that means and I don't even know if you can upgrade on a laptop(what I'm looking to upgrade on).

My question is what new card should I get?

I play a lot of games and I'm looking for this to be able to run Bioshock at least on medium.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Note I know nothing about graphics cards.

You should stand up and step outside.


Its like. High-bit.

Originally Posted by Ynot

If it's a Dell Dimension E510 and not modified in any way, then you are currently using integrated graphics
(open it up and check, just to be sure)

blurb here: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/del...-31555136.html

Specs here: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/del...html?tag=specs

you have one PCI-E x16 slot, so you can upgrade to pretty much any card out there

you have a uni-core processor

so if you're planning to upgrade to vista, you may be disappointed by the performance

the choice of card is up to you, but I think your processor is going to end up being the bottleneck

You currently have 512mb ram
you might also want to think about bunging in a lot more

some cards:

High end
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4BG0

Mid range
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4R4D

Budget
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=4KPG

I'm not going to upgrade to Vista on this.

It's definetley not only 512 RAM. It says a gig....

The box says 510 but the system properties says DM051

Do I really need to upgrade to dual core?

I have 2.66 GHz... which I think should be adequate

Originally Posted by Grod

I'm not going to upgrade to Vista on this.

I won't make any cheap shots on this

but please stop pressuring other people toward vista
it's not nice

Originally Posted by Grod

Do I really need to upgrade to dual core?

I have 2.66 GHz... which I think should be adequate

clock speeds are pretty useless for comparison now
it's a rev counter, and comparison only works in the same gear
We've moved up a gear

no you don't need dual core,
but your current processor will end up being the system bottleneck

Originally Posted by Ynot

I won't make any cheap shots on this

but please stop pressuring other people toward vista
it's not nice

Lol. Right.

I would do it if I could. But it's technically not my computer, and I'd rather spend money on a new graphics card then on a new OS.

Originally Posted by Ynot

clock speeds are pretty useless for comparison now
it's a rev counter, and comparison only works in the same gear
We've moved up a gear

no you don't need dual core,
but your current processor will end up being the system bottleneck

Can you elaborate on that a little.

But what about the Ram?
I said it's not 512 but a gig really.

What do you personally think I should put in with the specs?

Okay. 2.0 ghz dual core is (arguably) better than a 3.0 Ghz single-core. A single processor is easily locked up, and all of your processes are forced to run on the same core, so it isn't hard to fill the whole 2.6 Ghz with only a few tasks. Dual core is immensely better because it's much, much harder to lock up your computer. I had a 3.0 Ghz single-core, and stepped up to a 2.4 Ghz Quad core. TOTALLY different. Multiple cores changes everything.
Trust me, you want a dual core. And they're so cheap now, there's really no excuse. Especially AMD, though Intel's got some good budget options. (BTW, remember that you can't use an AMD processor in an Intel socket, and before you buy a processor, be sure it's the same socket as your motherboard. I think yours is a 478, which limits your options severely.

Long story short, if you really want to play games like Bioshock and want to spend as little as possible, get an XBox 360. It'll cost you less.

To play Bioshock, you'll NEED 2 GB of RAM, you'll NEED a relatively recent video card, and you'll want a dual-core processor.
The RAM is the easy part. $50 buys you 2GB of fast RAM.
The video card means you need a new PSU. Count on a minimum of $280-300 for this.
The processor would mean a new motherboard, one with a 775 or AM2 socket, and would run you $150-$400 depending on how fast you went.
Seriously, getting an entry-level system up to gaming level would cost you more than just buying a console and a few games.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Okay. 2.0 ghz dual core is (arguably) better than a 3.0 Ghz single-core. A single processor is easily locked up, and all of your processes are forced to run on the same core, so it isn't hard to fill the whole 2.6 Ghz with only a few tasks. Dual core is immensely better because it's much, much harder to lock up your computer. I had a 3.0 Ghz single-core, and stepped up to a 2.4 Ghz Quad core. TOTALLY different. Multiple cores changes everything.
Trust me, you want a dual core. And they're so cheap now, there's really no excuse. Especially AMD, though Intel's got some good budget options. (BTW, remember that you can't use an AMD processor in an Intel socket, and before you buy a processor, be sure it's the same socket as your motherboard. I think yours is a 478, which limits your options severely.

Long story short, if you really want to play games like Bioshock and want to spend as little as possible, get an XBox 360. It'll cost you less.

To play Bioshock, you'll NEED 2 GB of RAM, you'll NEED a relatively recent video card, and you'll want a dual-core processor.
The RAM is the easy part. $50 buys you 2GB of fast RAM.
The video card means you need a new PSU. Count on a minimum of $280-300 for this.
The processor would mean a new motherboard, one with a 775 or AM2 socket, and would run you $150-$400 depending on how fast you went.
Seriously, getting an entry-level system up to gaming level would cost you more than just buying a console and a few games.

I should upgrade the cores, but I don't know how far I want to go on a computer that's not technically mine.

Can't get a 360, I just got a Wii so to ask for one would be a bit greedy + I won't make enough to buy it myself by the end of break.

With my paycheck I could only plan to spend 150 max so looks like with all of that I won't be playing Bioshock this year.

Well thanks anyways.

On a side note, I see you're into parkour as well, cool.

You can always go the ghetto-gamer route and go to Walmart at 2:00 AM and play their demo consoles.
You might have to fight their overnight stocking crew though. Careful, those guys can be vicious, especially the fat ones...

Originally Posted by Tsen

You can always go the ghetto-gamer route and go to Walmart at 2:00 AM and play their demo consoles.
You might have to fight their overnight stocking crew though. Careful, those guys can be vicious, especially the fat ones...