Best graphics card below $60

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by BigFatTaco22 (50 posts) -

Im building a budget gaming pc and am not sure which gpu would be the best for around $60 or under. I know it is super basic.

#2 Posted by wis3boi (31292 posts) -

nothing worth gaming on

#3 Posted by ZombieAkane (273 posts) -

one does not simply use $60 and gaming PC in the same sentence.

I recommend a Radeon 5670 DDR5 edition though, still a PoS but the best you can get for that price.

Honestly though, start a webchat and sell your underage body to gay married couples for an extra $50 and then we can talk.

#4 Posted by BigFatTaco22 (50 posts) -

one does not simply use $60 and gaming PC in the same sentence.

I recommend a Radeon 5670 DDR5 edition though, still a PoS but the best you can get for that price.

Honestly though, start a webchat and sell your underage body to gay married couples for an extra $50 and then we can talk.

ZombieAkane

Okay that was a little weird. I know it's barely anything but my mate wont spend anymore then $450 on his pc all up and its not ment to be amazing.

#5 Posted by BattleSpectre (5982 posts) -

The box the GTX 580 comes in is more expensive lol, what are you going to get for $60?

#6 Posted by yachtboy (1612 posts) -
Better to lose cpu power than gpu power.... in honesty once the hard drive is fragmented and you get a virus or two most dual and quad cpus are the same for general stuff. Sure we don't like to admit it.... but it is the truth. Of course in a game things change, but that is where the gpu becomes the biggest limiting factor.
#7 Posted by BigFatTaco22 (50 posts) -

what about this ati radeon hd 6670. Its a little more but is it okay for basic gaming not bf3, the witcher 2 ect.

#8 Posted by BigFatTaco22 (50 posts) -

Better to lose cpu power than gpu power.... in honesty once the hard drive is fragmented and you get a virus or two most dual and quad cpus are the same for general stuff. Sure we don't like to admit it.... but it is the truth. Of course in a game things change, but that is where the gpu becomes the biggest limiting factor.yachtboy

so im better off with a dual cpu and a decent gpu over a quad cpu and cheap gpu?

#9 Posted by BattleSpectre (5982 posts) -

Hey why dont you go on youtube and type in the video card you're interested in. It will show people playing various games with it and will give you a slight idea on how good it is.

#10 Posted by yachtboy (1612 posts) -
In my opinion yes, assuming he isn't going to be a massive multi-tasker or has plans to upgrade his video card soon. Although if you go this route make sure you get a motherboard that could support an upgraded quad core later down the road. I would look at the project as a two step process: Either replace the cpu later or the gpu, but focus on what is important to him now and put money into hardware the supports that early on.
#11 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
The 6670 is fine for gaming. My dad's computer has an XFX 6670 in it, and it plays Starcraft 2 at 1680x1050 w/ 2xAA just fine in heavy action, even when using ultra texture quality. And your friend can always upgrade to a better card when he gets more money, but I guess the same can be said about the CPU if you decide to get him an i3 to save money...
#12 Posted by BigFatTaco22 (50 posts) -

Hey why dont you go on youtube and type in the video card you're interested in. It will show people playing various games with it and will give you a slight idea on how good it is.

BattleSpectre

Yeah i've just been doing that.

#13 Posted by ZombieAkane (273 posts) -

Yeah if you can afford the 6670 go for it. (DDR5 version though otherwise it's worse than a 5670)

#14 Posted by lucky_star (2307 posts) -

[QUOTE="yachtboy"]Better to lose cpu power than gpu power.... in honesty once the hard drive is fragmented and you get a virus or two most dual and quad cpus are the same for general stuff. Sure we don't like to admit it.... but it is the truth. Of course in a game things change, but that is where the gpu becomes the biggest limiting factor.BigFatTaco22

so im better off with a dual cpu and a decent gpu over a quad cpu and cheap gpu?

What is basic gaming?

#15 Posted by Blistrax (1071 posts) -
Tom's Hardware runs a "Best Card for the Money" article about once a month ( http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-2.html ). The latest shows the best card under $100 as the HD 6670 DDR3 at about $70, saying, "Good 1680x1050 performance in most games". And, yes, put the money into your GPU for gaming at lower levels. For some of the newer games, the CPU becomes a factor once your graphics card is adequate, but you've got a ways to go before that.
#16 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (677 posts) -

You might wanna consider an FM1 setup, 3850 or 3870K in particular, and dual 1866MHz memory. That would get you roughly the same graphics performance as a 50$ discrete gfx card, exept you wouldn't need to buy one. But in the long run a Pentium dual core and 6570 or better would probably be a better choice.

#17 Posted by ossama224 (138 posts) -

Get the 4850/4870 i have the 4850 and it is very underrated, i run most games on high/ultra.

#18 Posted by RyviusARC (4508 posts) -
If you don't mind buying used you could probably get something good.
#19 Posted by gslack (2 posts) -

nothing worth gaming on

wis3boi

A consumer..LOL

High-end Graphics cards are designed to get people to pay ridiculous money to play a game with just a few extra bells and whistles than the mid-range cards, and the mid-range do the same thing but only compared to the low-end cards. People never fail to amaze me. They will buy a card for 500 bucks or more to play a game that for the most part won't benefit from the technology anyway. Skyrim wasn't written for what a graphics card might be able to do in the future, it was written on what a card currently in production could do at the time of its release. They plan on some small future tech sure, but nothing major, simply because they risk the game being unstable later on. ANd lets not forget the game was written to run on a Xbox 360, all the PC extras are additions.

Personally, I think paying hundreds of dollars more so I can see a few more shadows in a game is a waste. Spend that money on a new PC, or better yet spend it on parts and build your own. A good processor, good memory, and hard drive, do a lot more for a games overall performance than a Graphics card. A nephew of mine spent around 7 thousand on a gaming rig about 3 years ago. It was awesome had two x2 cards and all the top end gas. Now he has a $7000 rig that he cannot sell because first, no one wants to buy 3 year old tech no matter how "next gen" it was 3 years ago, its old tech now, and second, because most people don't want a huge gawdy appliance to play a simple game on.

Whether you pay for a mid-range card or a High end one, In three years you have an old machine. I say buy the best card you can get at a set price point, and be content. Best buy has a good deal on a gt 440 2 gig, under $50 and will run Skyrim at medium settings which is about what an Xbox 360 would run it. Its mainstream level two years ago and shockingly its still considered mainstream now considering the card is now rebranded the gt 630. Same card only more efficient and a little less expensive to make. Buy that, it will play most games well and you won't feel ripped off later.

#20 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4125 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

nothing worth gaming on

gslack

A consumer..LOL

High-end Graphics cards are designed to get people to pay ridiculous money to play a game with just a few extra bells and whistles than the mid-range cards, and the mid-range do the same thing but only compared to the low-end cards. People never fail to amaze me. They will buy a card for 500 bucks or more to play a game that for the most part won't benefit from the technology anyway. Skyrim wasn't written for what a graphics card might be able to do in the future, it was written on what a card currently in production could do at the time of its release. They plan on some small future tech sure, but nothing major, simply because they risk the game being unstable later on. ANd lets not forget the game was written to run on a Xbox 360, all the PC extras are additions.

Personally, I think paying hundreds of dollars more so I can see a few more shadows in a game is a waste. Spend that money on a new PC, or better yet spend it on parts and build your own. A good processor, good memory, and hard drive, do a lot more for a games overall performance than a Graphics card. A nephew of mine spent around 7 thousand on a gaming rig about 3 years ago. It was awesome had two x2 cards and all the top end gas. Now he has a $7000 rig that he cannot sell because first, no one wants to buy 3 year old tech no matter how "next gen" it was 3 years ago, its old tech now, and second, because most people don't want a huge gawdy appliance to play a simple game on.

Whether you pay for a mid-range card or a High end one, In three years you have an old machine. I say buy the best card you can get at a set price point, and be content. Best buy has a good deal on a gt 440 2 gig, under $50 and will run Skyrim at medium settings which is about what an Xbox 360 would run it. Its mainstream level two years ago and shockingly its still considered mainstream now considering the card is now rebranded the gt 630. Same card only more efficient and a little less expensive to make. Buy that, it will play most games well and you won't feel ripped off later.

lol. It's been a while since I've seen a post that's so full of sh*t. CPU, ram, and HDD help performance in games more than the GPU? Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, they're important, but for gaming, the most important piece of hardware is the GPU. Also, anyone who spends $7000 on a rig is a complete idiot. Don't blame the hardware, blame the person's intelligence. That is unless you're lying about that, which you probably are seeing as you seem to know nopthing about PC gaming.

#22 Posted by ionusX (25715 posts) -

TC go to ebay and try bidding on an hd 4850 or 9800gtx+ then you will have something halfway decent.

alternatively dont get one at all and go fm2 and pickup an amd a10-5800k for $125 then hybrid cfx with an hd 6450

#23 Posted by kraken2109 (13030 posts) -

For that money you may as well go second hand

#24 Posted by MonsieurX (30007 posts) -
This was created in february,don't poster recommending cards :lol:
#26 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6041 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

nothing worth gaming on

gslack

A consumer..LOL

High-end Graphics cards are designed to get people to pay ridiculous money to play a game with just a few extra bells and whistles than the mid-range cards, and the mid-range do the same thing but only compared to the low-end cards. People never fail to amaze me. They will buy a card for 500 bucks or more to play a game that for the most part won't benefit from the technology anyway. Skyrim wasn't written for what a graphics card might be able to do in the future, it was written on what a card currently in production could do at the time of its release. They plan on some small future tech sure, but nothing major, simply because they risk the game being unstable later on. ANd lets not forget the game was written to run on a Xbox 360, all the PC extras are additions.

Personally, I think paying hundreds of dollars more so I can see a few more shadows in a game is a waste. Spend that money on a new PC, or better yet spend it on parts and build your own. A good processor, good memory, and hard drive, do a lot more for a games overall performance than a Graphics card. A nephew of mine spent around 7 thousand on a gaming rig about 3 years ago. It was awesome had two x2 cards and all the top end gas. Now he has a $7000 rig that he cannot sell because first, no one wants to buy 3 year old tech no matter how "next gen" it was 3 years ago, its old tech now, and second, because most people don't want a huge gawdy appliance to play a simple game on.

Whether you pay for a mid-range card or a High end one, In three years you have an old machine. I say buy the best card you can get at a set price point, and be content. Best buy has a good deal on a gt 440 2 gig, under $50 and will run Skyrim at medium settings which is about what an Xbox 360 would run it. Its mainstream level two years ago and shockingly its still considered mainstream now considering the card is now rebranded the gt 630. Same card only more efficient and a little less expensive to make. Buy that, it will play most games well and you won't feel ripped off later.

wow bro....you just bumped a 7 month old thread and wrote 3 paragraphs....i commend you

#27 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -

For that money you may as well go second hand

kraken2109
I would get a 6670 over a second hand card personally. I put a 5670 in my dad's PC, and it'll play any game out there just fine...
#28 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -

nothing worth gaming on

wis3boi
Indeed. I had a 5450 in a media PC, which cost $49, and it couldn't run PAC Man! Lol
#29 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
I think one of the best , cheap GPUs is the Asus 6670. Now it isn't under $60, but it's very close to that price point. Not to mention you really don't have to upgrade your power supply, since it doesn't require a pci connector from the power supply, and it requires very little power. I was running a good portion of my games on medium settings. I could actually run Velvet Assassin on high, but that was the rare occassion. The rest had to be on medium. Great card for the $$$ though.
#30 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

For that money you may as well go second hand

superclocked
I would get a 6670 over a second hand card personally. I put a 5670 in my dad's PC, and it'll play any game out there just fine...

I wish I would read your post first before I posted. I could've just quoted you. Lol
#31 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

nothing worth gaming on

gslack

A consumer..LOL

High-end Graphics cards are designed to get people to pay ridiculous money to play a game with just a few extra bells and whistles than the mid-range cards, and the mid-range do the same thing but only compared to the low-end cards. People never fail to amaze me. They will buy a card for 500 bucks or more to play a game that for the most part won't benefit from the technology anyway. Skyrim wasn't written for what a graphics card might be able to do in the future, it was written on what a card currently in production could do at the time of its release. They plan on some small future tech sure, but nothing major, simply because they risk the game being unstable later on. ANd lets not forget the game was written to run on a Xbox 360, all the PC extras are additions.

Personally, I think paying hundreds of dollars more so I can see a few more shadows in a game is a waste. Spend that money on a new PC, or better yet spend it on parts and build your own. A good processor, good memory, and hard drive, do a lot more for a games overall performance than a Graphics card. A nephew of mine spent around 7 thousand on a gaming rig about 3 years ago. It was awesome had two x2 cards and all the top end gas. Now he has a $7000 rig that he cannot sell because first, no one wants to buy 3 year old tech no matter how "next gen" it was 3 years ago, its old tech now, and second, because most people don't want a huge gawdy appliance to play a simple game on.

Whether you pay for a mid-range card or a High end one, In three years you have an old machine. I say buy the best card you can get at a set price point, and be content. Best buy has a good deal on a gt 440 2 gig, under $50 and will run Skyrim at medium settings which is about what an Xbox 360 would run it. Its mainstream level two years ago and shockingly its still considered mainstream now considering the card is now rebranded the gt 630. Same card only more efficient and a little less expensive to make. Buy that, it will play most games well and you won't feel ripped off later.

Gamespot needs to stop letting new accounts bump dead threads. I don't know what these idiots are thinking.

#32 Posted by wis3boi (31292 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

nothing worth gaming on

godzillavskong

Indeed. I had a 5450 in a media PC, which cost $49, and it couldn't run PAC Man! Lol

this thread is almost a year old.....good job

#33 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4125 posts) -

Gamespot needs to come up with a feature that locks threads after a certain amount of time of being inactive.