Upgrading a graphics card could make a real difference to your system, but knowing if you need a new GPU and how much to spend can be tricky
If any part of your system costs more than the processor, it's a safe bet that it's the graphics card. That makes choosing a the right GPU a particularly important (and expensive) part of any upgrade plan. Should you go straight for a new card, though, or will an older one deliver better value? if you're putting together a new system, how bad does your graphics card have to be before replacing it makes more sense than keeping it? We'll answer those questions, and more, as we try to find out how you get the best value out of a new graphics card purchase - and whether you need to make one at all.
Is An Integrated GPU Enough?
Most modern processors have an on-board GPU, so the question of whether you transplant your graphics card into a new computer, buy a new graphics card or simply let your new on-board GPU take the strain relies heavily on how good your previous graphics card was and what you're planning to use it for.
'It depends' is something of a cop-out answer to this question, though. The simple truth is that, in many cases, the answer is 'yes'. On-board GPUs are more than powerful enough to run HD video and keep desktop performance in order, and it's only when it comes to the kind of 3D visuals most games require that they start to struggle. If you're building a gaming system, you'll need a separate graphics card. If you're not, then an on-board GPU will be enough.
It's worth noting, however, that the older your Intel CPU is, the worse its GPU is in rather sharp terms. An Intel HD Graphics 2000-series chip (as found on Sandy Bridge) is about a third as fast as an Intel HD Graphics 4000-series chip. Even the 3000-series graphics are only half as fast as a 4000-series GPU. If you're trying to future-proof a system, don't rely on older integrated GPUs to protect you from the upwardly creeping demands of your system for long.
However, if you can't afford a separate GPU, then there is at least one ray of hope: AMD's Kaveri chips have ramped up their on-board graphics performance significantly. Since AMD's CPUs can't compete with Intel's on single-threaded performance, AMD has tried to make them more attractive by putting better-quality GPUs on them. The latest APUs incorporate Radeon R7 GPUs which are frankly superb compared to even Intel's HD Graphics 4600 GPU. If your plan is to get the best gaming performance without buying a separate graphics card, then a Kaveri APU is a better choice than Intel's ostensibly better chips - even though in absolute terms, integrated graphics are always well behind the pack.
Should You Re-Use An Old Card?
If integrated graphics won't meet your needs, you may have the option to transplant an old graphics card into your new system, but whether or not it's worth doing is an important question to answer. If the card is getting on a bit (i.e. it's more than couple of generations old) then in all probability, the on-board GPU will perform just as well (if not a little better) for any task that isn't related to gaming, and it's probably not worth salvaging your old graphics card.
Luckily, if your card is only a year or two old then it probably is going to be an improvement on your integrated GPU. Even the best Intel Haswell and Kaveri chips offer graphics integrated performance which is worse than discrete cards from several years ago. If you have a Nvidia GT 630 or AMD HD 7000-series card (both of which came out in the early half of 2012) then they'll outperform the on-board GPU of even the most high-end processors on the market. We can even put a number on it, because you can buy cards like this for £30-£40 new, and they cost even less second hand.
However, if your current graphics card turns out to be worse than your on-board GPU, there's no question that you should dump it. In all but a small number of cases, having two different GPUs in your system offers no tangible benefits. The main exception is the way certain AMD and Radeon chip combinations can run an integrated and an on-board GPU in SLI with one another, but it's quite unlikely you'll have the right setup (though do check -you need exactly the same GPU on your card and chip).
In most cases, the system simply uses one GPU or the other. By running both in a single system, all you're doing is wasting power. That's no idle threat either. GPUs are often among the most power-hungry components of a system, so it will actually cost you money in a small, though real, way to run a graphics card you're not using.
If you decide that your old card is worth using instead of a GPU, the good news is that there aren't a lot of things to worry about. You'll save a fair amount of money and all you have to do when transplanting it from system to system is make sure it remains well-ventilated in its new home, and that it sits in the correct PCI slot. If you have a can of compressed air around, it couldn't hurt to blow out some of the dust out of the fan and/or heatsink either. A clean graphics card deals with heat better and can therefore run quicker and quieter. A few seconds of attention should mean that once it's moved over, your old graphics card can run like new.
Buying A New Card
If you have to buy a new card, this is where things get tricky. You have two options: buy a current-gen card and pay the premium you get on all of the newest hardware or buy an older one and sacrifice long-term compatibility. The idea is to find the 'sweet spot' for your graphics card - the point where you're getting as much performance for your money as possible without also buying into a false economy and missing out. Short-term savings for long-term disappointment isn't a smart way to upgrade your system, but knowing the difference between that and genuine economy can be difficult.
The good news is that, rather than focusing on specific models and lines, you can use price as a cut-off point. At present, the best graphics cards can be picked up just under £300. Above that you begin to pay a premium on performance, and that's worth avoiding because it means you can improve your system more by spending the same money elsewhere. Stay below this amount and you can guarantee that you're getting the best performance your money can buy.
For Nvidia cards, the best in this price range is the GeForce GTX 970, which performs better than all 500-series cards, and the GTX 680/780 and worse. The only cards that come close to matching it have been discontinued at retail, so even if you can find some on sale they'll probably be expensive older stock that hasn't sold through, so don't buy one unless you're sure you're getting a particularly good deal on the price.
While the AMD equivalent at this price bracket is the R9 290X, the better value card is actually the R9 290, which is some £70 cheaper and hovers around £220-£230. The two cards have surprisingly similar performance given the difference in price. What's more, if you overclock the 290 you can achieve results as good as the 290X without spending much money, so it's definitely the better value card. Both the R9 290 and the R9 290X are faster than all previous-generation AMD cards with the sole exception of the HD 7990, though the HD 6990 and HD 7970 are both almost as good.
It's ultimately the R9 290 which wins the battle of high-end cards, though, at least where value is concerned. It might not be quite as powerful as the GeForce GTX 970 and R9 290X, but where those cards are no more than 10% faster even on their best day, they both cost around 25% more, making them slightly worse value. If you want to buy the best high-end card, the R9 290 is the one - just make sure it's a significant upgrade over your existing card before you spend the money.
By applying the same logic that helped us identify the best GPU upgrade, we can also figure out the least amount of money you should think of spending on a cheap one. Specifically, in that case, we reckon the cut-off point for low-end cards is found just under £100. Spend any less than this and you're paying largely for the manufacture of a low-end card, rather than the extra performance it offers. A £90 card is generally more than twice as good as a £45 card, for example.
If such a budget purchase is your preferred path, then you can find a couple of good cards around this price point that are definitely worth considering. First on our list would be the Radeon R7 260X, which starts at about £90 and performs about as well as 2013's Radeon HD 7790. Slightly better, in fact.
Rest assured, what you will get out of that is well above the level of any integrated GPU, so if you have no card it's going to provide a substantial leap in the quality of visuals your system can provide when gaming - though if you have a card that's already in the same league as the HD 7790 (such as the HD 5850, HD 6870, HD 6990M or any better card) then an R7 260X isn't going to be worth the money.
Along similar lines, the best entry-level Nvidia card is the GTX 750, which also has the advantage of being about about £10 cheaper than AMD's entry, but with the downside of having a much higher TDP; so you could end up paying that discount back in electricity use over time. Basuically, this boils down ot the fact that the card uses less efficient architecture (it needs more than double the power, at 115 watts) so your system will run hotter and also put more strain on the PSU. Compared to older Nvidia cards, the GTX 750 runs about as well as a GTX 560 or 650 Ti, so buying a new card if you have those (or anything better) would be an unnecessary upgrade.
Ultimately, though, buying the right graphics card is as much an art as a science. We highly recommend you are careful not to get too swept up in small differences and minor price variations between similar models. Certainly sections of the online community will rail against specific models and manufacturers with convincing passion but, ultimately, if the card is doing what you want, it's good enough for you. Don't let anyone try and tell you different.