Getting a new graphics card

[Solmyr]

So I'm looking to replace my NVidia GeForce 8800 GT with something newer, preferably faster and with more memory to handle newer games. Any recommendations? I don't need it to be super-powerful, just good enough that replacing the old one is justified. And I generally prefer NVidia to ATI.

[viper37]

I have a GTX 260 for sale.
Oldie but goodie.   Twice as fast as the 8800GT, at least.


New cards: GTX 550 or 560 would be good for your need.  Prices are between 100$ and 150$.
Middle of the range cards, decent enough for gaming, but really not the top ones to play 1920x1080 on 6 screens.

[Solmyr]

I play 1920x1200 on one screen. Never really got the whole idea of multiple screens. How does it work?

And yeah, I've been looking at GTX 550 or 560 myself, those seem like suitable for what I need.

[Barrister]

Newer ATIs (last year or two) seem very nice.  If you want the absolutely most powerful card get the NVidia, but their latest generation run very very hot.

I went from an 8800GT to an ATI 5770 and the difference in noise (fan speed) is absolutely astonishing, while getting much better graphics.

[Norgy]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2964.html

The latest chart from Tom's Hardware.

AMD Radeons generally use less power and run cooler. If I were in the market for a good card now, I'd buy a Radeon HD 6970 Lightning from MSI. It offers a tangible increase from the reference card without becoming silly expensive.

Mid-range cards would be GTX 560 ti (very good cards) or Radeon HD 6950, 6870s etc.

[viper37]

I play 1920x1200 on one screen. Never really got the whole idea of multiple screens. How does it work?

Like a mosaic.
One part of the image in each screen.  You need 3 very good cards for 6 monitors.  Playing at low res on multiple screen vs high-res on one screen, I prefer the later

And yeah, I've been looking at GTX 550 or 560 myself, those seem like suitable for what I need.

the GTS series is way too low for any kind of serious gaming.  You'd need to lower the graphics of your games to the absolute minimum.
Above that, you're paying for extra power your probably don't need, unless you do the multiple screen thingie, again.

[viper37]

Newer ATIs (last year or two) seem very nice.  If you want the absolutely most powerful card get the NVidia, but their latest generation run very very hot.

I went from an 8800GT to an ATI 5770 and the difference in noise (fan speed) is absolutely astonishing, while getting much better graphics.

the first generation 8800GT had problems, and they were of an earlier generation from the 5770, IIRC.

Yeah, I'm pretty much sold to AMD's card now, but I wouldn't say they always outperform Nvidia.  Depends on the games, depends on your motherboard chipset & all that kind of things.
I have an AMD board, going with the AMD card was a no brainer.  Someone with a SLI Motherboard should go Nvidia, though.

And Solmyr is partial to Nvidia, so I assume it's the best choice for him.

[Norgy]

The first version of the Fermi chips, the GTX 480 and GTX 470 were according to those unfortunate enough to own them loud as airplanes, ran hotter than hell and guzzled electricity like a Norwegian guzzles booze on holiday.

AMD have a significant lead in efficiency, and have gotten better at making decent drivers for the 6xxx cards. nVidia have a faster single-GPU, but are hotter, less power efficient and sometimes louder.

I've had the pleasure to try both. nVidia is not hassle free, but less hassling than AMD when it comes to drivers. On the other hand, AMD Catalyst Centre is released more often. My GTX 580 is too much for 1920x1080, really, and still runs a tad hotter than the HD 5870.

The GTX 460 is a good card, and while it is being replaced, you can pick it up for a very decent price these days.

I will wager it doesn't really matter which one you choose, and I'd pay more attention to which manufacturer you choose than which chip.

Good: EVGA, Asus, Sapphire (in my experience), MSI (in my experience), Gainward and XFX. Asus and MSI make both AMD and nVidia-based cards. Most of them also offer utilities that will help you adjust fan speeds and overclock. Fan speeds and fan profiles are very useful, I've found.

But wouldn't it really come down to at what point the CPU creates a bottleneck and whether the motherboard lanes are x8 or x16 PCIe as to what card would make most sense?

[katmai]

guzzled electricity like a Norwegian guzzles booze on holiday.

Like you are an authority on such subjects

[Solmyr]

I play 1920x1200 on one screen. Never really got the whole idea of multiple screens. How does it work?

Like a mosaic.
One part of the image in each screen.  You need 3 very good cards for 6 monitors.  Playing at low res on multiple screen vs high-res on one screen, I prefer the later

So what's the point of splitting one image onto multiple screens, when playing, say, EU3 or the like? And how does mouse/keyboard work with this?

Anyway, my motherboard is Asustek P5QL PRO, with an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, so I assume an AMD is not an automatic choice for me. I don't have anything against it as such, just that I've mostly used NVidia so far so I'm more used to it. I'm looking for something that would let me play more graphics-intensive games without being outrageously expensive.

[Norgy]

AMD 6870/6950 or GTX 560ti.
The 6950 may be an overkill.

Asus has a nice version of the 6870, the DirectCU II.

[viper37]

So what's the point of splitting one image onto multiple screens, when playing, say, EU3 or the like? And how does mouse/keyboard work with this?

It's like a stretched windows across multiple monitors.
Usually, people going for so many screens will opt for 3D with glasses.
But without 3D, you bascially get a bigger perspective of your battlefield.  It's worthless for EU3, could be useful for Crysis 2 or Starcraft 2.

[Solmyr]

Okay. I don't play those kinds of games.