nVidia GT 220 or 9500 GT?

[Fhadso]

I'm building a computer and I don't know which one to get. I plan to use it for playing newer games such as SWTFU, Call of Duty, and other uhm...this generation games.

The system I plan on using it with is as follows:
Motherboard: ASRock M3A770DE
Memory: 4GB DDR3
Processor: AMD Phenom II X2 550 @ 3.31 GHz


GT 220: Newegg.com - Galaxy 22TGE8HX2IUN GeForce GT 220 1GB 128-bit DDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

9500GT: Newegg.com - EVGA 01G-P3-N958-LR GeForce 9500 GT 1GB 128-bit DDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

I'm looking for a semi-cheap card but at the same time I don't want to sacrifice performance. If you guys recommend something different, feel free to do so lol. I would also like to stay with nVidia, I've always had bad luck with ATI...

 

[not so gray matter]

Neither. The memory interface on those cards is low (128-bit). That's why they're so cheap. You'll get much better performance out of a card with a higher memory interface (256-bit+). The ram isn't as important, you can get away with a 512MB card, but if you really want the 1GB it's only $15 more.

I.E. EVGA GeForce 9800 GT - 512MB 256-bit DDR3 PCIe x16 2.0 $75 after mail in rebate

If you really want the 1GB of ram, go with this card:

EVGA GeForce 9800 GT - 1GB 256-bit DDR3 PCIe x16 2.0 $90 after mail in rebate

Memory interface is much more important than the amount of ram. You'll notice much more difference between the two. ATI increases theirs mostly with GDDR5 ram topping out at 256-bit and NVIDIA stuck with GDDR3 which tops out at about 448-bit so far. According to some sources, GDDR5 is twice as fast but you also have to take into account the memory interface itself with an equivalent ATI card to the 9800 GT only running at 128-bit. The same is with the higher end cards, the high 5 series are 256-bit and the GTX 2 series is 448-bit.

 

[Fhadso]

I see, is there a significant difference?

 

[not so gray matter]

Between the 512MB and 1GB? I'd say not a huge difference, but there will be a difference. If you're worried about it, spend the extra $15.

 

[Fhadso]

I'm not, I'm just wanting to be able to play modern games on max settings without a performance lag. I currently have a GeForce Go 7600 which sucks majorly, especially when playing not-so-much modern games such as Half-Life 2.

 

[thefabe]

IMO If your looking to play modern games on max settings without performance lag your going to have to get a much better card. You could probably get by with high settings but not max. My 9800 gt played most games well on high but not max. Their are still some games I can't use max settings on with a GTX 260 superclocked. Fabe

 

[Joshatdot]

The TouchSmart PC IQ770 has PCI-E 1.0 (HP doesn't say is 2.0/2.1 so I assume its 1.0) and it has a MXM Connector, this will limit what GFX upgrade you can get. Also you have to consider the PSU, if will be powerfull enuff for a better GFX card.

 

[Seven Eleven]

I'm not, I'm just wanting to be able to play modern games on max settings without a performance lag. I currently have a GeForce Go 7600 which sucks majorly, especially when playing not-so-much modern games such as Half-Life 2.

those two are low-end cards. so don't dream about max settings. you need at least 260 or HD 5770. and 1GB of memory is much better than 512MB. for example i play GTAIV with everything maxed out and it uses over 700MB of my 1GB card.

 

[not so gray matter]

I'm not, I'm just wanting to be able to play modern games on max settings without a performance lag. I currently have a GeForce Go 7600 which sucks majorly, especially when playing not-so-much modern games such as Half-Life 2.

those two are low-end cards. so don't dream about max settings. you need at least 260 or HD 5770. and 1GB of memory is much better than 512MB. for example i play GTAIV with everything maxed out and it uses over 700MB of my 1GB card.

Memory matters but the memory interface is twice as important, you're much better off with a card that has less memory but a higher memory interface. Though, if you can get both as in the GTX 260 (448-bit, 896MB) then you're going to be doing better.

You should really check what your computer can power and support as mentioned. To use a modern card you'll need a PCIe x16 2.0 slot and if you want to use a GTX 260 you'll need atleast a 550 watt PSU maybe more.

 

[Seven Eleven]

Memory matters but the memory interface is twice as important, you're much better off with a card that has less memory but a higher memory interface. Though, if you can get both as in the GTX 260 (448-bit, 896MB) then you're going to be doing better.

agreed. for example: 6200 with 64bit 1GB is a joke.

 

[Zathras]

You don't say what resolution you will be using... if it's something fairly low like me (1280x1024) you could probably get by with a card like the Nvidia-based GTS 250, or the ATI 4850. You should be able to find those cards for about $120 online for the 1 GB version.

But if it's a higher resolution like 1600+ then as others already suggested you'll need something like a Nvidia 260 GTX or ATI 5770, which I think tend to be in the $180-200 range.

 

[Fhadso]

The TouchSmart PC IQ770 has PCI-E 1.0 (HP doesn't say is 2.0/2.1 so I assume its 1.0) and it has a MXM Connector, this will limit what GFX upgrade you can get. Also you have to consider the PSU, if will be powerfull enuff for a better GFX card.

I'm not getting a graphics card for this piece of crap. I'm building a new computer. Everyone is saying that they're low-end cards, but even with this crappy 7600 Go, I can play Half-Life 2 at almost max settings with 30FPS, and Halo 2 at medium settings at 30 FPS. I've looked these cards up on YouTube and they can both play modern games at max settings with great framerates, even with Fraps. I'm not looking for PS3/360 power, just enough for common PC games.

 

[acurasd]

if its between those two cards. I have them both and I have the 9500 in the computer now and i see a big difference with this card than the 200.

When I put the 9500 card in... I usually play Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 and the difference was very big. I had no skipping. The movies were smoother. I was able to handle more zombies and actions on the screen than i did with the 200 card. That is just my opinion. Even though they both are 1 gig cards. The 9500 Series is alot better in my opinion.

 

[Seven Eleven]

I'm not getting a graphics card for this piece of crap. I'm building a new computer. Everyone is saying that they're low-end cards, but even with this crappy 7600 Go, I can play Half-Life 2 at almost max settings with 30FPS, and Halo 2 at medium settings at 30 FPS. I've looked these cards up on YouTube and they can both play modern games at max settings with great framerates, even with Fraps. I'm not looking for PS3/360 power, just enough for common PC games.

check out this chart. 220 is few steps closer to the top.

and those two games are old. very old. if you want to play only old games then i guess those cards are ok.

 

[A Guy]

MSI N240GT-MD1G/D5 GeForce GT 240 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

Original Price: $109.99
You Save: $20.00
$89.99
($74.99 after $15.00 Mail-In Rebate )
Free Shipping*

Newegg.com - MSI N240GT-MD1G/D5 GeForce GT 240 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

Comes w/ free Nvidia Street Fighter IV & Power Director 8 HE. Doesn't require an extra power connector.

A Guy

 

[nekkidtruth]

I'm not getting a graphics card for this piece of crap. I'm building a new computer. Everyone is saying that they're low-end cards, but even with this crappy 7600 Go, I can play Half-Life 2 at almost max settings with 30FPS, and Halo 2 at medium settings at 30 FPS. I've looked these cards up on YouTube and they can both play modern games at max settings with great framerates, even with Fraps. I'm not looking for PS3/360 power, just enough for common PC games.

You may very well get some use out of either of these cards, but neither of them are good for gaming. You can watch all the YouTube video's you want, it doesn't change the fact that these are lower end cards. Neither of which I'd recommend to anyone who was planning to game whether it was an old or new game.

Anything below a x600 in the 7x00, 8x00 or 9x00 series are considered very low end and are horrible for gaming of any kind. As for the 200 series cards, I wouldn't recommend anything lower than a 250. The 240 is really pushing it. A 220 is at the bottom of that series. I get that it may bother you to hear it, but the fact remains these are low end cards. It's not just about the quality either, it's about getting the best bang for your buck. The lower end cards don't really give you that. The mid-range cards are where you will get the best bang for your buck. Truly worth the money.

 

[solarmystic]

With the current stagnation of performance requirements in today's games i reckon you won't go wrong with a 9500GT.. just be prepared to play at a reasonable resolution if you want to max out the other settings with minimal AA/0 AA.. We have current generation consoles to thank for this predicament, but as a result being a PC gamer no longer means having to upgrade that graphics card every year to enjoy the latest. Heck, owners of 8800 class cards most probably had the best lifetime for their cards ever.. made in 2006 and still capable of running the latest games with decent settings without performance issues... With only 2 -3 odd games requiring DX11.. DX10 cards are still a good buy...

 

[WDAexodus]

If you are running more than 1600x1200 and want to run AA 1 GB will benefit you. Anything less than that is overkill. Like others said the memory interface is far more important. If you plan on playing anything other then BC2 or Crysis you should look at getting a GTS 250/ATI 4850/4870. A single GTS 250 tends to struggle with meduim to high settings on BC2. They are the sweet spot for price/performance. They will play pretty much everything at high settings at 1600x1200 provided you don't use high AA settings. I just bought a GTS 250 for 99 bucks after rebate and free shipping.