Top 10 best graphics cards in the world today

TechRadar writes: Today, AMD's Radeon cards are market leading. And even though the prices aren't quite as attractive as last time around, the ATI Radeon HD 5970 currently holds the title of fastest graphics card in the world.

What's more, ATI has already released a whole range of DirectX 11 compatible cards, while Nvidia is still to release even one.

The result of all this is that the current top 10 is a lot more competitive than ever before.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
jamiemid103309d ago

If only money was no object...

toaster3309d ago

But I'd take an nVidia over an ATI any day.

zagibu3309d ago

You'd have problems even if money was no factor. Currently, it's impossible to get one of the high-end ATI cards due to low quantities shipped.

HammockGames3309d ago

Personally, I've always had great luck with nVidia cards over the years (usually EVGA). Never tried a ATI Card before but I've been tempted to whenever I upgrade.

Seems like most PC gamers are pretty polarized on this one (ATI vs. nVidia) and tend to stick to one brand or the other.

As long as a card gives great performance and doesn't give me driver headaches, I'd be willing to use either brand.

Perjoss3309d ago

you just have to be smart about it, obviously if you go for the fastest on the market you are going to get wallet-raped, but usually you can find a card half the price and not that much slower. Early adopting is VERY expensive when it comes to PC hardware. And dont even get me started on pre built systems like alienware.

Ocelot5253309d ago

i would get a nvidia card for physX, otherwise you can't enable every graphic option in some games

jadenkorri3308d ago

I had a Nvidia card and had nothing but problems, switched to ATI, will never go back again

SaiyanFury3308d ago

I'm happy with my GTX 285. I got it a few months ago and I rarely experience any framerate drops. nVIDIA all the way for me.

Shotgun_Roamer3308d ago

hey look, ten graphics cards i:

1: don't own
2: can't afford
3: would never get the most out off
4: really want

mal_tez923308d ago

I'd rate it higher than a 4870, but only just.

3308d ago
toaster3308d ago

I guess the problem with most of these cards is that if you don't have a monster rig it will bottleneck a whole lot. Most of these cards, or maybe even all of them, require a higher end PC than most people can afford. So if you're planning on buying the flagship Radeon then be prepared to drop around $1500 or more to upgrade everything else.

Also if you're only running one monitor then the HD5970 is waaay way overkill.

zagibu3308d ago (Edited 3308d ago )

@teraclusterx: You really have no idea about hardware, do you? Mass storage speeds is irrelevant in most games, as they only load data at the beginning of the level. In some games, it's necessary to have a half-decent harddisk, because they stream in data during the game, so that there are no obvious level loads (e.g. Oblivion), but come on, I have a standard consumer disk and never had problems with Oblivion.
Of course, IF everyone had SSD-raids, the devs could do new and amazing things unheard of yet, but for current games, standard disks work well.

@toaster: 1500$? Really? I paid 400$ for a 4core 3.2GHz CPU and 4GB of RAM, and this system will not "bottleneck" any GPUs for the next 2 years.

SaiyanFury3308d ago

@ My disagrees...

I meant that I prefer nVIDIA cards myself. If you find something better to your own tastes then so much the better. I only meant to convey that my experiences with them have always been extremely positive.

On another note, games made by Bethesda like Oblivion and Fallout 3 didn't like my previous Core 2 Duo E6850. In many places, the graphics would get extremely choppy and there'd be a tonne of slowdown. With my new Core 2 Quad E6700, there's very little slowdown. Interesting how a new proc can change things so drastically.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3308d ago
sak5003309d ago (Edited 3309d ago )

I have the number 5 fastest card 4870x2 2GB but Asus tri cooler edition, of course that is much better. Dont know but dont feel like playing anything on the 19"monitor compared to 50" 1080p plasma with xb360. Maybe BF3 will get me back on the pc gaming or when i buy a 24" monitor for the pc.

EpsilonTeam3309d ago

I feel you man same here. Although i own a very powerful pc (3 sli 275gtx) i just cant leave the comfort of my couch and the big picture my 60inch kuro pioneer offers me.

LightofDarkness3309d ago

Why not simply hook your gaming PCs up to those displays? I know for a fact that those cards have HDMI capability (I have my XFX GTX 260 Black Edition hooked up to my Panasonic 42" Plasma). Seems a waste pouring all that power into a tiny 19" monitor, hit that s**t up to 1080p on your gaming setup and it's all at your fingertips!

toaster3309d ago

"Why not simply hook your gaming PCs up to those displays?"

Resolution. PC monitors have a higher resolution than any TV can output. Most PC monitors have post-HD resolutions (ie greater than 1080i/p.)It looks horrible.

zagibu3309d ago

PCs don't have fixed output resolutions, they can feed the monitor exactly the same resolution it needs.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3309d ago
3309d ago Replies(2)
sikbeta3309d ago

DAMN!!! that picture make my GeForce 9600GT feel like a tiny baby...

Show all comments (61)
The story is too old to be commented.