HD6950 1GB vs. GT740 1GB?

[cbn]

I totally get you but in that case what 2015 AAA games is it possible to purchase for $5?

Maybe next year we will see some AAA games from 2015 on super sale.

(I bought TitanFall for $4.99 in Nov. 2014, Battlefield 4 for $4.99 and Crysis 3 for $5.99 both in December 2014)

Also, just this month we had 2 trustworthy forum members sell their GTX760/670 cards for very good prices, barely above $60 GT740. Since we are all a large community here, it shouldn't be too hard to find a $65 used and well-maintained card on this forum which will be much better than a $50-60 HD6950/GT740.

I think used cards can be a really good deal.

Just wish more high end cards shipped with reference coolers (or custom coolers with easy to find replacement fans). This to enhance our ability to repair them should they break.

 

[cbn]

In that case, future driver support for GT740 is irrelevant since by the time it's possible to buy GTA V, FO4, TW3, Dying Light, AC Syndicate, Far Cry 4, Batman AK, SW:BF for $5, chances are GTX950/R9 380 or that level of performance will drop to $50-60. If someone can only afford a $50-60 card, they shouldn't really be thinking of buying it to play The Division, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Far Cry Primal, Dishonored 2, Doom, Rise of the Tomb Raider.

That is true, but the person buying the Gt 740 today is most likely going to play games from 2014 or earlier (or maybe some free games like War Face, War Thunder, Team Fortress 2, etc)

P.S. Regarding the GT 740 I think the best use for this card would be low profile. Then it could be used in something like the SFF HP Elite 8200 with Core i5 Sandy Bridge for the budget/casual gamer (re: these machines are going pretty cheap now).

With that mentioned, I would be happy to see the situation with low profile video cards massively improve.

If only we could get a consumer version of this 50W Firepro card--> http://www.anandtech.com/show/9827/amd-announces-firepro-w4300

50W
768sp @ 930 Mhz
128 bit GDDR5 (6 Gbps)
4GB VRAM (2GB VRAM would be fine for a consumer version).

^^^^ This spec is about 2x GT 740.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Imo, that's not a good upgrade, unless you want it for HTPC.

It is for a htpc, but why is that a bad upgrade? My 7970ghz was a leap better than the 7850, I figure a 950 cuts the middle.

But, you could sell the 7850 to the OP right now for $60, and buy a $120 MSI 950 (white version) on Newegg. That way your cheap 950 "upgrade" wish comes true and OP gets a better card than either of his options Holiday spirit.

I like the sentiment, but I wouldn't sell anyone this particular card it is trash. It will freeze or lock up at stock frequencies on certain games that all my other GPUs played fine. I should have RMAed it when I could. Now the ARCTIC Accelero on it is worth more than it is.

 

[cbn]

6950 1GB is not a 6970 2GB and these are with old drivers/game version, updated results are much worse for the 6970
http://pclab.pl/art66374-5.html

also check some newer games and the 6970 2GB is useless
http://pclab.pl/art67250-4.html
half a 7770...

Way to cherry pick one game and ignore many other games. Considering both cards in the OP are 1GB cards, we can see at least where the maximum level of raw GPU horsepower lands an HD6950 level card. HD6970 today is just 9% behind GTX580 and is on par with a GTX750Ti.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-08/...#abschnitt_tests_in_1920__1080_und_2560__1440

That means in the types of games an HD6950 and GT740 can actually be used (i.e., pre 2H 2015 games), HD6950 will win in almost all titles, especially older games. It won't be close either.

Making the argument that HD6950 is useless for newer games ignores the fact that GT740 is just as useless. At least 6950 is much faster for older games and in this case costs less.

Even in the new updated TW3 results HD6970 wins by a margin of 30% to 50%.

And while the HD6950 is slower, the margin should still be fairly large.

So lowering resolution to make game playable will happen much easier with the HD6950 compared to the GT740.

P.S. Regarding the Just Cause 3 results, it would have been interesting to see how GT740 would have done?

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe that is the 128 bit DDR3 version of the GT 730:

https://www.asus.com/Graphics-Cards/GT7302GD3/

Which has 96 Fermi Cuda cores.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-730/specifications

That is pretty slow.

A better card is the $52.99 AR shipped PNY GT730 which has 384 Kepler cores (GK208) and 5 Gbps GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133542

Yes, the Kepler GDDR5 GT730 is much faster. It's a shame NV gives 3 very different cards the same name.

 

[boozzer]

Yes, the Kepler GDDR5 GT730 is much faster. It's a shame NV gives 3 very different cards the same name.

what better way to earn money from zombie buyers.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Some people buy their games on super sale several years after they release. So these people never play full price. Essentially their current game play schedule is what someone else would call their back log.

Black Friday sales,all i will say.$40 for a 3 year old copy of Borderlands 2 is steep but $8 this year for it including Tiny Tina DLC i am very happy.Tiny Tina commentary alone is worth the price of admission. POP goes the bandit!

Unreal engine 3 games run on potatoes,can run them on just about anything if you don't mind dropping resolution or just a few settings.Got those games as old as Bioshock to as new that Borderlands 2 that give excellent to respectable performance on dual cores as well.

 

[cbn]

Yes, the Kepler GDDR5 GT730 is much faster. It's a shame NV gives 3 very different cards the same name.

It's a decent card and should be faster than the iGPU on the A10-7850K.

P.S. Another thing to consider when discussing low end dGPUs and the APUs that compete with them is that the APU's CPU throttles when the iGPU is in use. So in a CPU intensive game like GTA V it is even possible for an Athlon x 4 860K with the very weak R7 240 to beat both the A10-7850K (with DDR4 2400 RAM) and the A8-7670K (with DDR3 2133 RAM) despite the latter two having stronger GPUs:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37893106&postcount=73

But remember 860K doesn't throttle and 7870K does.

So at low resolution as we have seen with GTA V even a Athlon x 4 860K with a very humble R7 240 will edge out a A10-7850K with dual channel DDR3 2400:

I would assume the situation with A10-7870K is not much different.

P.S. I am glad to hear the A10-7870K uses solder. Is the same true for the A10-7850K (and Athlon x 4 860k)?

Here are the Anandtech GTA V results to add to those above:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9217/the-amd-a8-7650k-apu-review-also-new-testing-methodology/7

In this case a A8-7650K with R7 240 is about 10 FPS faster than the A8-7650K using its iGPU.

Keep in mind the A8-7650K has around 10% more GPU core than a R7 240 (ie, 384sp @ 720 Mhz vs. 320sp @ 780 Mhz turbo). Memory used for the APU was dual channel DDR3 2133 Cas 9.

My guess is that other CPU intensive games @ low resolution would show a similar trend (ie, substituting a dGPU that is actually weaker than the iGPU shows positive FPS gain. This primarily due to the lack of CPU throttling more than offsetting the decrease in graphics).

Therefore, because of this CPU throttling a use case (although a very small one) actually still exists for the R7 240 outside of use in older systems. And with more powerful cards like the GT 730 GDDR5 this only increases (since it has a better performance to price ratio than R7 240).

 

[Leyawiin]

SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7770 1GB for $59,99

GCN DX-12 compatible, same price as the GT 740 but faster.

edit: hmm refurbished

Well, if I were that budget constrained I would either get refurbished or used vs. a really weak or unsupported new card. That one's not bad for $60.

 

[skipsneeky2]

As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't buy either card because of TCO (total cost of ownership):

HD6950 = $50 -> Resell in 2 years for $25 => TCO = $25 over 2 years
GT740 = $60 -> Resell in 2 years for $30 => TCO = $30 over 2 years
R9 2 70 = $90 ->Resell in 2 years for $45 => TCO = $45 over 2 years

Resell value rarely bothers me,i end up gifting cards and other pc parts to family members in need.My little cousin is sitting with a Dell tower with a Q6600 and a DDR2 9500gt and the GT 740 would be perfect at home if not nearly overkill for the few games he plays.The low wattage certainly works with his 300w psu.

The GT 740 is going to sit in my wifes rig a short while,when i upgrade my 660 which will end up in my wifes rig then the GT 740 will be mailed off to my cousin.:thumbsup:

 

[Jerenny]

I totally get you but in that case what 2015 AAA games is it possible to purchase for $5? In that case, future driver support for GT740 is irrelevant since by the time it's possible to buy GTA V, FO4, TW3, Dying Light, AC Syndicate, Far Cry 4, Batman AK, SW:BF for $5, chances are GTX950/R9 380 or that level of performance will drop to $50-60. If someone can only afford a $50-60 card, they shouldn't really be thinking of buying it to play The Division, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Far Cry Primal, Dishonored 2, Doom, Rise of the Tomb Raider. Also, just this month we had 2 trustworthy forum members sell their GTX760/670 cards for very good prices, barely above $60 GT740. Since we are all a large community here, it shouldn't be too hard to find a $65 used and well-maintained card on this forum which will be much better than a $50-60 HD6950/GT740.

There are plenty of other "retailers" you can buy from, Like G2A, they constantly have games like MKX for like...~$10, and that's definitely a 2015 AAA title.

 

[Blue_Max]

I voted for the GT 740, but I'd have gone with a low-profile version so I could stick it in something small.

Performance isn't *all* that bad... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQUoBcW5vAw though I'd have saved a few more pennies for something faster.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I voted for the GT 740, but I'd have gone with a low-profile version so I could stick it in something small.

Performance isn't *all* that bad... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQUoBcW5vAw though I'd have saved a few more pennies for something faster.

The GTA V video is pretty interesting,i forgot what my old 1gb gtx650/GT 740 GDDR5 did fps wise outside of the benchmark back early last year.Now when i get my new Gt 740 i could compare numbers with my i5 2500 and the G1820 rig which obviously gets lower fps and needs a 30fps cap to keep it smooth.

 

[cbn]

Offer now includes a $10 gift card, effectively making the deal $39.99 AR free shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131682

EDIT: $10 gift card can only be used for purchases at Newegg.

 

[RussianSensation]

Resell value rarely bothers me,i end up gifting cards and other pc parts to family members in need.My little cousin is sitting with a Dell tower with a Q6600 and a DDR2 9500gt and the GT 740 would be perfect at home if not nearly overkill for the few games he plays.The low wattage certainly works with his 300w psu.

Ya but the thread isn't about what you would do. It's like me stating that Intel's HD4000 integrated is good enough for me over a $50 GT740. The thread is about which $50 dGPU makes sense. GT740 is slow in newer games, and way slower than HD6950 in older games. In the grand scheme, neither of these cards makes sense. At some point PC gamers have to start thinking outside the box -- that is to say that certain GPUs cost more $ long-term since the end user is constantly upgrading to junk (VirtualLarry style PC parts buying). This isn't even good for the environment either as just more PCB junk to end up in landfills.

In this case, buying $50 under-powered/EOL driver support dGPUs is a sure way to keep throwing $50 into the toilet every 1-2 years. IMO, it's better to spend $100-120 on a good budget card OR go used and have something that is at least at XB1/PS4's level of performance. That's the whole point of TCO (total cost of ownership) calculation. $50 for a GT740 is $ wasted imo, same for HD6950. Someone on a ridiculously strict budget should have the research ability to find countless better GPUs. Newegg had GTX750 for $50 US before that card was discontinued.

This style of 'bad' GPU upgrade strategy isn't just common in the low-end either. We see the same flawed upgrading strategy with people buying $200 R9 380/960, and then later they'll get yet another $180-200 GPU that barely beats an R9 290/970/390 while the TCO is more than buying the faster GPU right off the bat and enjoying its performance for 3-4 years.

There are plenty of other "retailers" you can buy from, Like G2A, they constantly have games like MKX for like...~$10, and that's definitely a 2015 AAA title.

If someone is willing to buy older games and wait for $5-7 PC game deals. there is no reason they cannot spend time in the used GPU market finding a solid used card or alternatively keep looking for deals such as $50 GTX750 Newegg had last summer. On this very forum, I've personally seen GPUs such as GTX760/670 sell for $65-70. Let's assume someone wants to keep this budget GPU for 2 years, even if that gamer buys just 10 games at $5-10, that's already $50-100 in software. If someone can only afford a $50 GPU but not an $70-80 GPU after saving up for months, what are the chances they can afford to spend $50-100 in software?

Again, it seems people who keep buying PC parts on a budget have a real adversity to using TCO to help them with their decisions. This reminds me of people who buy a $1000 car only to find out it later needs $2000-3000 of repairs since it's falling apart.

The primary reason for $50 GPUs isn't for games -- it's for people who just want something to drive 2 monitors, or connect to their living room TV (HTPC) or their existing GPU died and they just need something to have a working 2D /3D output. I hate to say it but if someone can only afford a $50 gaming GPU in North America, they should probably re-assess their life and focus on that instead.

 

[Charlie98]

Next year it will be possible to buy a sub-$100 GTX950...

I'll be second in line, behind Poofy... For the HTPC, of course.

I think used cards can be a really good deal.

For a budget rig, used can be a better deal than new. I have a GTX560Ti that is worth basically what they are asking for that GT740 that would pretty much stomp it... even with the gimped 1.25GB memory. Of course, you might have to upgrade the PSU for long-term reliability, negating some of that 'bargain.'

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

the nvidia card wouldn't have legacy drivers...

Yeah, merely legacy performance.....

A dedicated card that gets smoked by integrated graphics is a bridge too far.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

In this case, buying $50 under-powered/EOL driver support dGPUs is a sure way to keep throwing $50 into the toilet every 1-2 years. IMO, it's better to spend $100-120 on a good budget card OR go used and have something that is at least at XB1/PS4's level of performance. That's the whole point of TCO (total cost of ownership) calculation. $50 for a GT740 is $ wasted imo, same for HD6950. Someone on a ridiculously strict budget should have the research ability to find countless better GPUs. Newegg had GTX750 for $50 US before that card was discontinued.

The thing to keep in mind is the EOL driver support is only a factor under Windows. I still can easily run a 3DFX Voodoo3 under the latest version of Ubuntu (which I do -- I have recently built a Pentium II desktop that triple boots DOS / Windows XP / Ubuntu for vintage PC gaming. Brand New AGP Voodoo3 cards go for about 15 bucks on eBay -- and the ability to play my massive library of classic 3DFX glide games.... It was a no brainer.

Same for the HD6950. It is awesome for my cheap SteamOS build. It will likely run perfectly under the Debian-based SteamOS for probably 10 years. Another excellent use for the HD6950 is GPU acceleration for video editing..... It's quite strong for certain niches. Older games play very well at 1440p on it. Do I run modern games on mine? Not really. My R9 380 handles the new stuff.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

OUCH! And I had already ordered two of those MSI GT740 1GB GDDR5 cardsb from Newegg, thinking that they were competitive with the R7 250X cards I got that were roughly the same price.

My friend also got burned by the GT 740. Performance is just really terrible for a dedicated card for gaming. It is indeed a nice little card for streaming movies and general use.

 

[cbn]

The thing to keep in mind is the EOL driver support is only a factor under Windows. I still can easily run a 3DFX Voodoo3 under the latest version of Ubuntu (which I do -- I have recently built a Pentium II desktop that triple boots DOS / Windows XP / Ubuntu for vintage PC gaming. Brand New AGP Voodoo3 cards go for about 15 bucks on eBay -- and the ability to play my massive library of classic 3DFX glide games.... It was a no brainer.

Same for the HD6950. It is awesome for my cheap SteamOS build. It will likely run perfectly under the Debian-based SteamOS for probably 10 years.

Here were some SteamOS benchmarks with the HD6950 and some other cards (including the GTX 650...which is the same as GT740):

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37890926&postcount=11

Some Linux results (using SteamOS) comparing HD 6950 to other cards:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=1

In Bioshock Infinite, HD 6950 runs about the same as GTX 650:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=2

In CS:GO, HD6950 is in between GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti (and within 15% of R9 290):

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=3

In Dirt Showndown, HD 6950 is 45% faster than GTX 750 Ti:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=4

In Metro 2033, HD 6950 is 10% faster than GTX 650:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=5

In Metro Last Light, HD 6950 is 24% faster than GTX 650:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steamos-22-gpus&num=6

Obviously AMD Linux drivers need help, but I don't think the results are so terrible considering this is the lowest cost usage (and worst case scenario) for this card.

So assuming the person has the right PSU and a case with enough ventilation HD6950 is the better choice. (And probably works best with Source games going by the results seen with CS:GO)

With that mentioned, I do wonder how this card would work if Valve released a new game? (Maybe Half Life 3...or some other title?)

 

[cbn]

If someone is willing to buy older games and wait for $5-7 PC game deals. there is no reason they cannot spend time in the used GPU market finding a solid used card or alternatively keep looking for deals such as $50 GTX750 Newegg had last summer. On this very forum, I've personally seen GPUs such as GTX760/670 sell for $65-70. Let's assume someone wants to keep this budget GPU for 2 years, even if that gamer buys just 10 games at $5-10, that's already $50-100 in software. If someone can only afford a $50 GPU but not an $70-80 GPU after saving up for months, what are the chances they can afford to spend $50-100 in software?

1.) I think the type of gamer who buys low end dGPU wouldn't buy so many games per year...even at $5 to $10 each. That would be more of a serious gamer who is investing in a lot more seat time. (Otherwise they wouldn't be buying ~10 titles per year)

(EDIT: Re-reading your post, it looks like you mean 10 games spread over 2 years.)

P.S. I think a true low end budget gamer is the sort of person who buys maybe one to three games per year (of their favorite franchises) at $5 to $10 each and plays these occasionally in his or her spare time. For this person, I think a smaller budget can make sense (depending on what they are starting off with....and also what kind of deal they are getting on the card. Also, if their computer is one of the smaller Pre-built SFF PCs that also makes a difference as anything above a GT 730 GDDR5 can be difficult to find in single slot low profile)

2.) Regarding used GPUs, I am not against that but It would be great to see more of them in the future with standardized repairable coolers. For example, some new R9 Nano SKUs with the current standardized cooler using different levels of binned harvested Fiji GPUs would just be awesome.

P.S. Regarding the GTX 750 for $50 that was essentially a one time deal. Just like the $90 R9 270 was.

Recurring deals would be the R7 250X for $59.99 AR free shipping that cycled back and forth between $79.99 AR free shipping on for more than a year.

With that mentioned, I do like those super one time deals as much as anyone else, and will be looking for a recurrence of that when the next wave of cards come in. (Or whenever Nvidia decides to clear out the GTX 750 Ti).

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Here were some SteamOS benchmarks with the HD6950 and some other cards (including the GTX 650...which is the same as GT740):

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37890926&postcount=11



So assuming the person has the right PSU and a case with enough ventilation HD6950 is the better choice. (And probably works best with Source games going by the results seen with CS:GO)

With that mentioned, I do wonder how this card would work if Valve released a new game? (Maybe Half Life 3...or some other title?)

I have been extremely happy with my $49 video card purchase. As these benches show, the HD6950 generally manages 55 - 70 fps set to 1080p on many of the popular games running SteamOS.The card still manages about 40 - 50 fps @ 1440p with Medium settings in everything I've tested.
And for those that love Counter Strike -- the HD 6950 is indeed good for about 95 fps @ 1080p.

The bottom line -- if you want to build a cheap Steam Machine. You won't find anything better for $49 new (at least right now). From personal experience, Saint's Row 4 and Grid Autosport both are also good for about 55 fps @ 1080p with high settings. SteamOS is finally getting some AAA games, if a bit dated.

This is pretty sweet benchmark, too.... Apparently Dirt Showdown loves the HD6950 -- the 6950 runs nearly as fast as the much more expensive GTX 760 (which currently sells for roughly triple the price of the HD6950 on Newegg):

Also keep in mind, the GT 740 mentioned in this poll would likely perform like the very similar GTX 650.
I know I'd rather be running the game at 55 fps than 22.

 

[cbn]

Also keep in mind, the GT 740 mentioned in this poll would likely perform like the very similar GTX 650.

Yes....It is the same card (GK107 with GDDR5).... but with a slightly lower Core clock (993 Mhz vs. 1058 Mhz)

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-740/specifications

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-650/specifications

 

[Zodiark1593]

I have been extremely happy with my $49 video card purchase. As these benches show, the HD6950 generally manages 55 - 70 fps set to 1080p on many of the popular games running SteamOS.The card still manages about 40 - 50 fps @ 1440p with Medium settings in everything I've tested.
And for those that love Counter Strike -- the HD 6950 is indeed good for about 95 fps @ 1080p.

The bottom line -- if you want to build a cheap Steam Machine. You won't find anything better for $49 new (at least right now). From personal experience, Saint's Row 4 and Grid Autosport both are also good for about 55 fps @ 1080p with high settings. SteamOS is finally getting some AAA games, if a bit dated.

This is pretty sweet benchmark, too.... Apparently Dirt Showdown loves the HD6950 -- the 6950 runs nearly as fast as the much more expensive GTX 760 (which currently sells for roughly triple the price of the HD6950 on Newegg):

Also keep in mind, the GT 740 mentioned in this poll would likely perform like the very similar GTX 650.
I know I'd rather be running the game at 55 fps than 22.

The lack of driver attention is a concern though, and quite notable looking at how widely the performance of the card varies greatly depending on the game, sometimes keeping pace with a 760 and other times falling behind the 740. What this means is even if the 6950 has plenty of raw compute to keep pace with mid-end cards, lack of optimized drivers, and potential weaknesses in the architecture prevents it from stretching it's legs fully.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The lack of driver attention is a concern though, and quite notable looking at how widely the performance of the card varies greatly depending on the game, sometimes keeping pace with a 760 and other times falling behing the 74p. What this means is even if the 6950 has plenty of raw compute to keep pace with mid-end cards, lack of optimized drivers, and potential weaknesses in the architecture prevents it from stretching it's legs fully.

You can probably say the same about every card that wears the Radeon name. Nvidia has always had an amazing driver team -- ATi (and later AMD) generally threw more powerful hardware into the price class because of their somewhat uneven drivers.

I will say this -- Radeon drivers have gotten better over the past decade. 10 years ago, some games wouldn't even start and others had nasty graphical glitches when running ATi graphics cards. Those type of problems seem to be gone now -- uneven performance seems to be the only thing that still seems to haunt Radeons IMO.