[Scourge of Ages]

So with yesterday's release of WiH 3, I've finally realized that my video card is showing its age. That and MWO, and Planetside 2 choking on the high graphics settings too.

Anyway, I'd like to upgrade, but budget is a bit tight. Does anybody have suggestions for a card for less than $150 US? I could also go a bit above if it's really worth it.
Whatever I get should naturally be more powerful, and ideally also be more heat/noise/energy efficient, and be compatible with whatever the latest plausible DirectX is. Or, I could grab a second card identical to my current one and SLI them, but I don't personally think the heat, noise, and power consumption would be worth it.

My current specs:
Intel Core 2 Quad, 2.33GHz (roughly)
NVIDIA GeForce 9800GTX (I'm pretty sure)
Nothing is overclocked, but heat and noise are already issues with this setup. Not at the same time, but if I turn off any fans the heat gets a bit higher than I'd like.

[The E]

For that kind of money, you'd be able to get something like a Radeon 7770, which will blow your current card out of the water.

SLI-ing a chip that old makes no sense (even if it would be cheaper, assuming you can still find that card).

[Mikes]

I had a 580GTX and a 7970 running in my rigs last year. Either card works well.

The real question, imho, is what brand, size and cooling solution to pick.
I've been not that impressed with Gigabytes Windforce (too loud in idle, ok under load) and less than pleased with Sapphires Vapor-X (quiet in idle... but outright obnoxious under load + VRMs scary hot).

Propably going to try out Asus and their DirectCUII cooler when I buy my next card.

[Nuke]

the only ones who use sli are the ones who want that extra 5% performance and are willing to spend hundreds on it. you know, performance enthusiasts. its not really a viable upgrade option since it really doesn't upgrade much, it just makes what you have slightly faster. find the best current generation card you can afford.

[LHN91]

I'm running a Gigabyte Nvidia 650, and even at that it outruns both my old 4870 and the 9800 I had before that. The only two considerations I had was that it was non-reference and allowed two dvi and one VGA in triple screen with no adapters, and it was cheap. Basically, if you want easy triple screen and slightly better driver support, go with a 650 or a 650ti in that price range. If you want to go AMD, a 7770 is also a solid card.

[Scourge of Ages]

the only ones who use sli are the ones who want that extra 5% performance and are willing to spend hundreds on it.

Huh. I would have, logically, assumed that SLIing two cards together would nearly double performance. That's a no I guess?

In other news, I found this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-3.html

Should have just looked there first...

UPDATE: Annnnd GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB

[LHN91]

the only ones who use sli are the ones who want that extra 5% performance and are willing to spend hundreds on it.

Huh. I would have, logically, assumed that SLIing two cards together would nearly double performance. That's a no I guess?

In other news, I found this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-3.html

Should have just looked there first...

UPDATE: Annnnd GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB

SLIing can bring anything from a moderate decrease in framerate to a near-doubling, depending on the game, system, and phase of the moon.

I'm by no means anti-AMD, in fact given the option I almost always go AMD in my builds, unless someone is looking specifically for Intel or single-thread performance above all else.

That said, I really think the 650ti was the best choice here. For that price range it is more or less the perfect combo of performance, features, and support. And they use far less power than most older cards to boot.

[KyadCK]

the only ones who use sli are the ones who want that extra 5% performance and are willing to spend hundreds on it. you know, performance enthusiasts. its not really a viable upgrade option since it really doesn't upgrade much, it just makes what you have slightly faster. find the best current generation card you can afford.

Try that extra 95-98% for the 2nd card with a Crossfire/SLI profile. 2-card SLI/X-fire is extremely efficient. In fact, it's almost as efficient as core-scaling on my CPU where the cores are on the same die. it's 3-4 card solutions that start dropping off.

This entire post is the most uninformed one I've seen from you about technology ever nuke, wtf.

the only ones who use sli are the ones who want that extra 5% performance and are willing to spend hundreds on it.

Huh. I would have, logically, assumed that SLIing two cards together would nearly double performance. That's a no I guess?

In other news, I found this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-3.html

Should have just looked there first...

UPDATE: Annnnd GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB

It does almost double your performance. But your card is also very outdated, and lacking in modern features. Plus, you know, a mid-range vid card today would probably out-pace 9800SLI anyway.

Anyway, 650ti is the best you're going to get for $150 short of a really really good deal on a 660/7870.

[newman]

Before this turns into a 5 page argument about the benefits - or lack thereof - of SLI/crossfire, let me just point out that everyone here (quite correctly) agrees that going SLI with two old cards doesn't make sense in this particular case, so talking about percentages of performance gained is irrelevant. Yes, two cards can almost double performance in laboratory conditions, but in real life you'll still run into a lot of software that either won't know how to utilize them properly or at all, leading to diminishing results (as in these situations a single newer card would work a lot better than two old ones). Nuke's argument should be taken for the end point he was trying to make - SLI makes sense for the high end, enthusiast builds, not someone who wants a good mid-range solution that'll work great for a while and won't break the bank. And won't require a new PSU to boot. At the end of the day, the performance / $ ratio is best with a single good mid-range modern card.

[Nuke]

i do kinda tend to exaggerate things. i only really care about actual performance data when im looking to buy something. if there is one thing you must realize about me is that i am incredibly lazy. there was a time i gave a **** but that time has come and gone.

the point remains however. sli is for when the best single card option is just not enough. like when you want to build an overpriced, wankey, god-like gaming rig and is not a viable long term upgrade option (realistically i stopped building my machines with any upgradeability when i discovered it was just cheaper to build a new rig every 2 years).

e:
added word wankey

[KyadCK]

Before this turns into a 5 page argument about the benefits - or lack thereof - of SLI/crossfire, let me just point out that everyone here (quite correctly) agrees that going SLI with two old cards doesn't make sense in this particular case, so talking about percentages of performance gained is irrelevant. Yes, two cards can almost double performance in laboratory conditions, but in real life you'll still run into a lot of software that either won't know how to utilize them properly or at all, leading to diminishing results (as in these situations a single newer card would work a lot better than two old ones). Nuke's argument should be taken for the end point he was trying to make - SLI makes sense for the high end, enthusiast builds, not someone who wants a good mid-range solution that'll work great for a while and won't break the bank. And won't require a new PSU to boot. At the end of the day, the performance / $ ratio is best with a single good mid-range modern card.

All those people who bought a 6870 2 years ago, then bought one today because it was a better option then getting a 7870 or waiting for 8k would like a talk with you. There are scenarios where X-Fire/SLI is a better alternative then a new card.

i do kinda tend to exaggerate things. i only really care about actual performance data when im looking to buy something. if there is one thing you must realize about me is that i am incredibly lazy. there was a time i gave a **** but that time has come and gone.

the point remains however. sli is for when the best single card option is just not enough. like when you want to build an overpriced, wankey, god-like gaming rig and is not a viable long term upgrade option (realistically i stopped building my machines with any upgradeability when i discovered it was just cheaper to build a new rig every 2 years).

e:
added word wankey

Except it's no longer cheaper to build a whole new computer every 2 years. 4-5 year old 1st-gen i7s and Phenom IIs are still great CPUs today, and adding a 2nd video card after 2 years is much much cheaper then buying a current-gen card, CPU, and MB.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

I would say NVidia, because the people with graphic glitches in the FSO support forum always seem to be running ATI. I haven't done an actual survey, it's just the impression I have.

[The E]

All those people who bought a 6870 2 years ago, then bought one today because it was a better option then getting a 7870 or waiting for 8k would like a talk with you. There are scenarios where X-Fire/SLI is a better alternative then a new card.

Noone is disputing that there are scenarios where going the dual-gpu route will work magnificently. In that case, the benefits are clear; the Radeon 6k series is still current enough to be compatible with the latest OpenGL and DirectX revisions. Buying a second one will be a good upgrade.

But in the case of the original post, where the GPU is several revisions behind what is considered the cutting edge, the theoretical performance boost is irrelevant given that you can't use some of the new features.

[Scourge of Ages]

I just realized that I don't think my power supply even has a second 6-pin power plug, making the SLI thing pointless even if it was remotely a good idea.

But thinking back now, I do remember building this system with an eye toward upgrading later when I could. The quad core CPU and motherboard were both top-spec at the time, and even now are still pretty decent. I only bought 2GB of RAM at first, because DDR3 was new and expensive. I purposefully got a mid-field video card due to cost, and had always planned to either upgrade mine or my brother's, and SLI the two 9800s in the other.

But I have a 650 Ti on the way, and I have other plans for my old one now...

[KyadCK]

All those people who bought a 6870 2 years ago, then bought one today because it was a better option then getting a 7870 or waiting for 8k would like a talk with you. There are scenarios where X-Fire/SLI is a better alternative then a new card.

Noone is disputing that there are scenarios where going the dual-gpu route will work magnificently. In that case, the benefits are clear; the Radeon 6k series is still current enough to be compatible with the latest OpenGL and DirectX revisions. Buying a second one will be a good upgrade.

But in the case of the original post, where the GPU is several revisions behind what is considered the cutting edge, the theoretical performance boost is irrelevant given that you can't use some of the new features.

Actually, they are disputing that. That's the only reason this is continuing since I had already said his 9800 is too old for SLI to help more then a new card.

[newman]

Actually, they are disputing that.

If that was meant for me in part, then no, I was not disputing that. As for the rest, E's argument is concise and stands.

That's the only reason this is continuing since I had already said his 9800 is too old for SLI to help more then a new card.

Which makes further argument rather pointless in the context of this thread, don't you think? Which was my whole point - original question was answered, the rest has no purpose other than proving oneself right and others wrong. I have no interest in that kind of debate, so..