Graphics card suggestions please

Now it may not be relevant to your situation with your old Intel board, but a few years ago I had an incompatibility issue with several older boards and a more modern graphics card. I was forced to make some hardware adjustments (i.e. putting the graphics card in a second machine instead, which didn't exhibit the problem).

I had a Supermicro C2SBX board, which had two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots. I was trying to install an HD5770 card, which purports to be PCIe 2.1. Well, when the HD5770 was installed the machine would not boot. Instead I got the 1-long, 3-short "beep code" error, which indicates a graphics issue. I simply could not use that card in that machine.

However I could install the same HD5770 card in an ASUS P5Q3 board machine, which also has two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots. And yet for some reason, the HD5770 was usable without a problem in the P5Q3 but not in the C2SBX. I had to stick with an older HD4850 card in the C2SBX machine.

Eventually the C2SBX board died and I upgraded that machine with a new ASUS P8Z77-V Pro board, putting the HD5770 in it. I shuffled hardware and put the HD4850 into the old P5Q3 machine. So far everything works fine.

Well I later decided to upgrade the HD5770 to an HD5870, and tried to move the HD5770 over to the P5Q3 machine (where it had once worked just fine) to replace the HD4850. It didn't work properly. Yes, it still booted, but its onscreen performance was very odd with lots of "flickering" of images. I tried assorted Catalyst driver versions thinking they might be responsible, but nothing helped. I finally had to go back to the old reliable (and WONDERFUL performance) HD4850 card in the P5Q3 machine, in order to get video back to normal.

So, although in theory it might be possible to use newer graphics cards in older PCIe 2.0 boards, I'd be at least a little conservative in my optimism before actually trying it out. YMMV.

On the other hand, I've never had any performance or compatibility problem at all using older somewhat slower low-power cards (e.g. HD5450, HD5570, HD6450, HD7750) in both older and newer machines.

Again, YMMV.

My recommendation was based on OP's comment:

"I do not do gaming except for possibly flight (flying) programs."

Yes, the PCI Ex rev 3.0 is capable of passing almost double the bandwidth: PCI Express 3.0, 2.0 and 1.1 Interface Differences Explained. However, the impact on gaming is pretty much negligible: Impact of PCI-E Speed on Gaming Performance - Puget Custom Computers.

R7 260X and 650 Ti are almost equivalent in performance: AMD Radeon R7 260X 2 GB Review | techPowerUp. You may go with any of them or with one which costs lesser. Though, ATi video cards are cheaper, however they lack nVidia's physx technology making them lose in games like Battlefield etc that require physx GPU for displaying physics effects in games.

GTX 660 is a very powerful video card and available at a bargain price nowadays. My recommendation would be to go with it without upgrading motherboard (If you are considering to upgrade mobo for PCI Ex rev 3.0 only).

Thanks guys, most helpful information.
MUCH APPRECIATED

My brother has a Sapphire 3GB 280X and is running solid 60fps on bf4 at ultra.

DAMN- The cost of those would almost buy a REAL airplane

Devlin1888 said:

cramble2005 said:

My recommendation was based on OP's comment:

"I do not do gaming except for possibly flight (flying) programs."

Yes, the PCI Ex rev 3.0 is capable of passing almost double the bandwidth: PCI Express 3.0, 2.0 and 1.1 Interface Differences Explained. However, the impact on gaming is pretty much negligible: Impact of PCI-E Speed on Gaming Performance - Puget Custom Computers.

R7 260X and 650 Ti are almost equivalent in performance: AMD Radeon R7 260X 2 GB Review | techPowerUp. You may go with any of them or with one which costs lesser. Though, ATi video cards are cheaper, however they lack nVidia's physx technology making them lose in games like Battlefield etc that require physx GPU for displaying physics effects in games.

GTX 660 is a very powerful video card and available at a bargain price nowadays. My recommendation would be to go with it without upgrading motherboard (If you are considering to upgrade mobo for PCI Ex rev 3.0 only).

My brother has a Sapphire 3GB 280X and is running solid 60fps on bf4 at ultra.

My point was nVidia would display more effects in games demanding physx. Running games is one thing and displaying realistic effects is another. R9 280X is 500$ card and is outperformed by GTX 780 within same price range: 4K Gaming Showdown - AMD R9 290X & R9 280X Vs Nvidia GTX Titan & GTX 780.

Selecting a video card depends upon a lot of factors like type of games being played. Depending upon game optimizations, ATI card might perform better in some. For example Dirt showdown: 4K Gaming Showdown - AMD R9 290X & R9 280X Vs Nvidia GTX Titan & GTX 780 - Page 7 of 12.

Summary of current gen cards is that if you are on budget AMD ATI is most bang for buck as Entry level video cards of ATI performs better than nVidia in same price range. However, High end video cards are dominated by nVidia in price/performance ratio.

idahjo said:

I have an Intel computer with the system specs now listed in my Profile. This board is a couple of years old and has an earlier expansion slot for PCI e 2.0x16 (no 3.0). I do not do gaming except for possibly flight (flying) programs. The current graphics card does not have an HDMI plug and this is my preference for hooking to my HDTV. I will mainly be using this computer for entertainment; watching Bly-rays and HDTV.

I thought he was NOT concerned about gaming. He wants an HDMI connection for use of his HDTV to watch entertainment, which is really the reason this thread started I believe.

Why is this discussion centered on very expensive high-performance video cards whose only possible value could be for a serious gamer? Plus, he's sticking with his older motherboard.

My own recommendation would be for a "modest" mid-level low-power card (which uses little electricity and also generates no noise if a fanless card is chosen, else low noise, and very low heat).