ok please anyone help. I want to spen at the MOST $60.00

I like NVIDIA but if there is somthing better for my buck I am open to it. Please anyone with an idea thank you.

I dont want to spend a ton of money and i am not looking for anything crazy. My computer as of right now does play ALL of the exspansion packs I just want things to look nicer and less lagg.

I want to try and NOT have to buy a new power supply, it is now 300watts

The link to my computer is not working because i am a new member but the model is HP Pavilion p6210y Desktop PC
  i typed it with out the http
h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01859864&dlc=en&product=4006020#N506

I have looked at 3 graphics cards and they are


EVGA GeForce GT 610
e-GeForce 6200 AGP
e-GeForce 8400 GS
h! it didnt show sorry!
the link dosent want to show. its a HP Pavilion p6210y Desktop PC Product Specifications

• Operating speed: Up to 2.6 GHz
  
  Number of cores: 4
  Socket: AM3
  
  Bus speed: 4000 MHz HT3
  
  Memory
• Amount: 6 GB
  
  Speed: PC2-6400 MB/sec
  
  
  Video graphics
  
  *Integrated video is not available if a graphics card is installed.
  Integrated graphics using nVidia GeForce 9100.
  Supports concurrent use of dual displays connected to onboard DVI and VGA connectors.
  Also supports PCI Express x16 graphics cards as independent graphics adapters.*
  
  Hard drive
  
  Figure 4: Hard drive
  
  
  • Size: 640 GB
    
    
  • Interface: SATA
    
    
  • Transfer rating: 3.0 Gb/sec
    
    
  • Rotational Speed: 7200 RPM
  
  
  
  Thank you!

I edited my first post

What resolution are you looking to play in?
 
This GT 620 should be good to go, for Sims it doesn't require much. This is a 1GB card and it's only $47.99 after a $5.00 rebate and it has free shipping.
 
http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16814130791
 
Edit: P.S. This belongs in General Hardware and you're lucky it comes with a PCI-E x16 Slot. My very first computer, Was an HP as well pre-built those that were very crappy, For like $800 lmao. When I began trying to expand, I found out it didn't have room for expansion and that led me to begin purchasing parts on there own rather than buying pre-built.

ninacessna

im not sure im not very good at this lol im guessing you mean 64 bit and when i play the game i think the screen size is like 1600 x ???

 
1600x900, Then that card will be more than enough!
 
Edit: the 2GB version of that card is only $3.00 more ;o
 
http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16814130820

The Radeon HD 6670 is definitely the way to go and a 300w power supply is plenty.  New cards start at $60 before rebates and I've found nothing that comes close from NVIDIA.
 
Best Graphics Cards For The Money: February 2013 Best PCIe Card: $100 And Under. 


http://www.anandtech.com/...adeon-hd-6570/15 

 Our Crysis power data surprised us some, and we’re still trying to get to the whys. Both the 6670 and 6570 ended up being sub-200W (total load power consumption); this is notable because the 5670 draws 214W in the same test and has a slightly lower TDP than the 6670. In spite of what the specs say, for whatever reason the 6670 is clearly well ahead of the 5670 in both power consumption and performance when it comes to Crysis....
In any case the load power consumption looks very good. The 6670 edges out even the much slower GT 430, 

Testbed:
CPU: Intel Core i7-920 @ 3.33GHz
Motherboard: Asus Rampage II Extreme (X58) 
Hard Disk: OCZ Summit (120GB)
Memory: Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 three x 2GB (7-7-7-20) 
 
 
http://www.geeks3d.com/20...d-6670-review/6/ 

At idle, the total power consumption of the testbed is 92W and the GPU temperature of the HD 6670 is 32°C. When FurMark is running (1920×1080 fullscreen, burn-in test), the total power consumption reaches 194W
 
The Radeon HD 6670 is the refresh of previous Radeon HD 5670. The HD 6670 is small card that does not require high end PSU (no power connector) and then can find its place in entry level systems. 

Testbed:
- CPU: Core i7 960 @ 3.2GHz
- RAM: 4GB DDR3 Corsair Dominator
- Motherboard: GIGABYTE X58-A UD5 
 
 
Those are worst case scenarios and the testbeds' CPUs are overclocked and power hungry monsters.  You're never going to see 200W and if you do it's not going to be very long.
 
http://www.techpowerup.co...ws/AMD/HD_6670/20.html

For this test we measure power consumption of only the graphics card, via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 with 6.5 digits is used for all measurements. Again, the values here reflect card only power consumption measured at DC VGA card inputs, not the whole system.
 
For this test we measure power consumption of only the graphics card, via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 with 6.5 digits is used for all measurements. Again, the values here reflect card only power consumption measured at DC VGA card inputs, not the whole system.

We chose 3DMark03 Nature as a standard test representing typical 3D usage because it offers: - very high power draw - high repeatability - is a standard benchmark that is supported by all cards - drivers are actively tested and optimized for it - supports all multi-GPU configurations - easy to obtain - fairly compact in size - test runs a constant duration and renders a non-static scene with variable complexity just like any normal game.

The four result values are as following:

• Idle: Windows 7 Aero sitting at the desktop (1280x1024 32-bit) all windows closed, drivers installed. Card left to warm up in idle until power draw is stable.
• Average: 3DMark03 Nature at 1280x1024, 6xAA, 16xAF. This results in the highest power consumption. Average of all readings (12 per second) while the test was rendering (no title screen).
• Peak: 3DMark03 Nature at 1280x1024, 6xAA, 16xAF. Highest single reading during the test.
• Maximum: Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in a very high non-game power consumption that can typically be reached only with stress testing applications. Card left running stress test until power draw converged to a stable value.
• Blu-ray Playback: Power DVD 9 Ultra is used at a resolution of 1920x1200 to play back the Batman: The Dark Knight disc with GPU acceleration turned on. Playback starts around timecode 1:19 which has the highest data rates on the BD with up to 40 Mb/s. Playback left running until power draw converged to a stable value

 
10W Idle
42W Average
50W Peak
58W Maximum
27W Blue-ray

 

The 620 and 610 specs and performance numbers are horrible. They weren't good when they're were released and they haven't gotten better with time. If you must go with NVIDIA your best bet is to look for cheap new/used GT 440/430 like the one in my HTPC. I paid $57 for it on Amazon back in March. A DDR3 630 is exactly the same hardware with a slightly higher frequency. Neither will compete with an Radeon 6670. Power consumption is not an issue with any of the cards mentioned.

http://www.anandtech.com/...620-gt-630-into-retail

The GT 610, GT 620, and GT 630 are all based on Fermi GPUs, and in fact 2 of them are straight-up rebadges of existing GeForce 400 and 500 series cards. Worse, they’re not even consistent with their OEM counterparts – the OEM GT 620 and GT 630 are based off of different chips and specs entirely.

 

At the bottom of the 600 series retail stack is the GeForce GT 610, which is a rebadge of the GT 520. This means it’s either a GF119 GPU or cut-down GF108 GPU featuring a meager 48 CUDA Cores and a 64bit memory bus, albeit with a low 29W TDP as a result. This is truly a rock bottom card meant to be a cheap as possible upgrade for older computers, as even an Ivy Bridge HD4000 iGPU should be able to handily surpass it.

http://www.engadget.com/2...-and-gt-630-no-kepler/

There are no price tags as yet, but according to AnandTech the 'new' GeForce GT 610 is a repackaged GT 520 with 48 CUDA cores and an ever-so-polite 29-watt power draw. The GT 620 is a GT 530 with a 49-watt TDP and twice as many CUDA cores as the 610 -- although a meager 64-bit memory bus will put a cap on any performance gains. Finally, the GT 630 is a 65-watt GT 440 in all but name, with a 128-bit memory bus width allowing its 96 CUDA cores to be fully exploited. This latter card shouldn't be confused with the OEM version of the GT 630, which does actually pack Kepler. Bewildering, right?