Asus R7 250 1gb gddr5 128bit £39.95 at PC World - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
374Expired

Asus R7 250 1gb gddr5 128bit £39.95 at PC World

tigershuffle Avatar
2y, 1m agoFound 2 years, 1 month ago
Reduced to a reasonable price for those on a budget.

Was £99.99

Instore and to collect at PC World

•Clock speed: 1000 MHz
•Memory type: DDR5
•Memory bus: 128-bit
•HDMI & DVI
More From PC World:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
tigershuffle Avatar
2y, 1m agoFound 2 years, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(39) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
great find op, nice price,heat added :)
3 Likes #2
Can't believe they were trying to sell these at £99 :p
Still a reasonable (£20ish) saving though.
#3
Here's that massive 101 on gfx cards dudedude wrote here last month. Wonder what this was really worth?
#4
Ive got R7 260x....... was actually on there looking to see if they had any cheap 24" hdmi monitors :)
2 Likes #5
Thanks - just bought this as an upgrade from a Radion 5450
#6
is this a full height card? looks good but have a slim case.
#7
any better than Intel HD3000 graphic card?
probably better, but is it worth upgrading?
banned#8
griggiel
is this a full height card? looks good but have a slim case.


Yep it's full height.
banned#9
novak100
any better than Intel HD3000 graphic card?
probably better, but is it worth upgrading?


A lot better but only worth it if your gaming our using editing software that can use a gpu
#10
can this output to 3 displays?
#11
You can get a 260 for less than £100. Regular price for this is nearer 50.
#12
umirza85
can this output to 3 displays?

Only two outputs so unlikely.
#13
Ego-X
You can get a 260 for less than £100. Regular price for this is nearer 50.

You can get a R9 270 for not far off that, which will slaughter this and then its next five generations of ancestors.

Slow card, too slow for gaming.
#14
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
#15
great for AMD Dual Graphics ..
good find!
#16
Would this do for GTA V when it comes out ?
#17
goldmercury
Would this do for GTA V when it comes out ?

No chance. Too slow and not enough VRAM.
#18
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???
banned 1 Like #19
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.
#20
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.

No hdmi 1.3 or newer?
1 Like #21
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago

But this will blow most previous generation games out of the water right?

The sort of games you will get for £2 to £10 in Steam sales?

I used to play Skyrim at 1080p on a card which was a lot less powerful than this, and for some people that's all they want - not a current gen console beater but a previous gen console beater.
banned#22
adam_
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.

No hdmi 1.3 or newer?

HDMI 1.3 (or, for that matter, 1.4 and 2.0) isn't in and of itself a guarantee of support for dual-link data rates. It isn't a requirement for devices to support the full resolution capability of the protocol. You'll often find one side or the other limited to 1920x1080 even though the protocol allows for higher resolutions.

In my case, neither the onboard graphics nor the monitor support full resolution via HDMI. (And if you look you'll find that on the Intel side, outside of hacks, right up until Haswell the only way to get full resolution for WQHD displays is to use DisplayPort, which my computer's onboard graphics do not have.)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/2560x1440-or-2560x1600-via-HDMI.92840.0.html

In my case, the motherboard does single link DVI, HDMI 1.3 and VGA, but maximum resolution is limited in the IGP itself to 1920x1080 via any of the outputs. The display does dual-link DVI, HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort and VGA, but only dual-link DVI and DisplayPort support full 2560x1440; HDMI at the side of the monitor is limited to 1920x1080.




Edited By: Scarpage on Dec 05, 2014 19:56
#23
Scarpage
adam_
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.

No hdmi 1.3 or newer?

HDMI 1.3 (or, for that matter, 1.4 and 2.0) isn't in and of itself a guarantee of support for dual-link data rates. It isn't a requirement for devices to support the full resolution capability of the protocol. You'll often find one side or the other limited to 1920x1080 even though the protocol allows for higher resolutions.

In my case, neither the onboard graphics nor the monitor support full resolution via HDMI. (And if you look you'll find that on the Intel side, outside of hacks, right up until Haswell the only way to get full resolution for WQHD displays is to use DisplayPort, which my computer's onboard graphics do not have.)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/2560x1440-or-2560x1600-via-HDMI.92840.0.html

In my case, the motherboard does single link DVI, HDMI 1.3 and VGA, but maximum resolution is limited in the IGP itself to 1920x1080 via any of the outputs. The display does dual-link DVI, HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort and VGA, but only dual-link DVI and DisplayPort support full 2560x1440; HDMI at the side of the monitor is limited to 1920x1080.




I assumed all hdmi 1.3 and newer were capable of 2k. Seems silly.
banned#24
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.


You don't need to spend this much though just for dual link dvi. Just pick up an nvidia 610 for half the price.
banned#25
goldmercury
Would this do for GTA V when it comes out ?


It will technically run it but low to medium settings more likely. I'd look at getting an AMD 270x or 280. Or if you have a low end psu, an nvidia 750ti
banned#26
adam_
Scarpage
adam_
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.

No hdmi 1.3 or newer?

HDMI 1.3 (or, for that matter, 1.4 and 2.0) isn't in and of itself a guarantee of support for dual-link data rates. It isn't a requirement for devices to support the full resolution capability of the protocol. You'll often find one side or the other limited to 1920x1080 even though the protocol allows for higher resolutions.

In my case, neither the onboard graphics nor the monitor support full resolution via HDMI. (And if you look you'll find that on the Intel side, outside of hacks, right up until Haswell the only way to get full resolution for WQHD displays is to use DisplayPort, which my computer's onboard graphics do not have.)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/2560x1440-or-2560x1600-via-HDMI.92840.0.html

In my case, the motherboard does single link DVI, HDMI 1.3 and VGA, but maximum resolution is limited in the IGP itself to 1920x1080 via any of the outputs. The display does dual-link DVI, HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort and VGA, but only dual-link DVI and DisplayPort support full 2560x1440; HDMI at the side of the monitor is limited to 1920x1080.




I assumed all hdmi 1.3 and newer were capable of 2k. Seems silly.

I agree, but companies always find ways to cut corners, sadly. My desktop might be excused for it -- 4K TVs weren't a thing in 2008 when the chipset was made so it might have made sense to cut corners and limit HDMI to 1920x1080 (though I'm less forgiving of the single-link DVI limitation) -- but my monitor really ought to be able to support full resolution using its HDMI 1.4 input. Alas, it is not so.
banned#27
xela333
Scarpage
adam_
Can't really see a reason that anyone would buy this card???

In my case, because I don't give a flip about 3D gaming and am more interested in the dual-link DVI output to drive a 2560x1440 monitor, which my PC's onboard graphics can't do.

You don't need to spend this much though just for dual link dvi. Just pick up an nvidia 610 for half the price.

Yes, though £20 isn't much to spend for a vastly more capable GPU that might be put to other uses (e.g. PhotoShop plugins that can use the GPU, video encoding, crypto stuff).

A GeForce 610 is a rebadged 520, so from the Fermi generation (two old now) -- 2011 era featureset. At least the R7 250 is a reasonably recent generation (GCN 1.0) -- 2012 era tech (which unfortunately for AMD is still current for them).

Edited By: Scarpage on Dec 05, 2014 20:53
#28
amazon price matched
#29
dudedude
Ego-X
You can get a 260 for less than £100. Regular price for this is nearer 50.

You can get a R9 270 for not far off that, which will slaughter this and then its next five generations of ancestors.

Slow card, too slow for gaming.
You probably mean successors/descendants? ancestors would be preceding/'parent' cards...
#30
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
It's not really a negative. If you buy a current release game for £40 would anyone be dumb enough to expect the best from it with a £40 video card? This card is clearly for some one who requires less from their card and £40 is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card.
#31
jdbigguy
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
It's not really a negative. If you buy a current release game for £40 would anyone be dumb enough to expect the best from it with a £40 video card? This card is clearly for some one who requires less from their card and £40 is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card.

Depends WHAT you require, you can get A graphics card for £18, the question is who does this suit, the market for a £20 graphics card is clear - you need a discrete card, but you don't want to play games.

This product, however is confused. The R7 260 OC at £66 is twice as fast, and less than twice the price.

Bear in mind also, an A6-7400k CPU has integrated R5 graphics and CPU, and costs the same as this, so at £40 this is really not a great deal.
1 Like #32
dudedude
jdbigguy
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
It's not really a negative. If you buy a current release game for £40 would anyone be dumb enough to expect the best from it with a £40 video card? This card is clearly for some one who requires less from their card and £40 is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card.

Depends WHAT you require, you can get A graphics card for £18, the question is who does this suit, the market for a £20 graphics card is clear - you need a discrete card, but you don't want to play games.
This product, however is confused. The R7 260 OC at £66 is twice as fast, and less than twice the price.
Bear in mind also, an A6-7400k CPU has integrated R5 graphics and CPU, and costs the same as this, so at £40 this is really not a great deal.
I see this a lot on HUKD. People compare different products to the deal posted.
If you only want to spend £40 a higher spec. card for more money has nothing to do with this deal. A different CPU may well require a different motherboard, other upgrades and a greater technical knowledge, so it also is not relevant to this deal. If you can find a card with a similar spec. for less money then that would be relevant and a fair comparison. Until then as I said this "is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card"
It's good to let people know there are more powerful options out there for not to much more money, but they are different deals and could be posted as such, if appropriate.
#33
jdbigguy
dudedude
jdbigguy
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
It's not really a negative. If you buy a current release game for £40 would anyone be dumb enough to expect the best from it with a £40 video card? This card is clearly for some one who requires less from their card and £40 is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card.

Depends WHAT you require, you can get A graphics card for £18, the question is who does this suit, the market for a £20 graphics card is clear - you need a discrete card, but you don't want to play games.
This product, however is confused. The R7 260 OC at £66 is twice as fast, and less than twice the price.
Bear in mind also, an A6-7400k CPU has integrated R5 graphics and CPU, and costs the same as this, so at £40 this is really not a great deal.
I see this a lot on HUKD. People compare different products to the deal posted.
If you only want to spend £40 a higher spec. card for more money has nothing to do with this deal.
It's good to let people know there are more powerful options out there for not to much more money

Exactly, it's good to let people know. So what's the problem?

For less money you can get a card with the same performance/capabilities during general productivity use, and for £25 more you can get a card with twice the gaming performance.

Most people don't understand computer component price/performance and might take the misleading OP to mean that this card is worth £100.
#34
MBeeching
goldmercury
Would this do for GTA V when it comes out ?

No chance. Too slow and not enough VRAM.

I would of thought it would be reasonable. Doesn't GTA V support mantle as does this card so it should get a fairly significant performance improvement plus they are quite over-clockable cards. Whatever you'll be able to play GTA V with good frame rates what is debatable is at what detail level. It will likely be significantly improved over ps3/360 though. Also AMD dual graphics compatible I believe so combined with A10 you end up with gflops performance perhaps close to ps4 level with significantly more cpu power and memory for a very budget priced pc possibly below the cost of ps4.
#35
dudedude
jdbigguy
dudedude
jdbigguy
westy125
Not to put a negative on it but if your looking to play games then forget this, the latest ones require very fast gpu's, this would have been great 5 years ago
It's not really a negative. If you buy a current release game for £40 would anyone be dumb enough to expect the best from it with a £40 video card? This card is clearly for some one who requires less from their card and £40 is a good price for anyone wanting this kind of card.

Depends WHAT you require, you can get A graphics card for £18, the question is who does this suit, the market for a £20 graphics card is clear - you need a discrete card, but you don't want to play games.
This product, however is confused. The R7 260 OC at £66 is twice as fast, and less than twice the price.
Bear in mind also, an A6-7400k CPU has integrated R5 graphics and CPU, and costs the same as this, so at £40 this is really not a great deal.
I see this a lot on HUKD. People compare different products to the deal posted.
If you only want to spend £40 a higher spec. card for more money has nothing to do with this deal.
It's good to let people know there are more powerful options out there for not to much more money

Exactly, it's good to let people know. So what's the problem?
For less money you can get a card with the same performance/capabilities during general productivity use.
Most people don't understand computer component price/performance and might take the misleading OP to mean that this card is worth £100.
The main problem is in the way you presented you argument. You didn't say that the cheaper cards were as powerful as the OP card or which cards you were referring to or where you can get them at that price.
If they are capable of upgrading then I expect most people would check the current price of this deal and it's performance with other sites before buying it and that you underestimate them.
#36
Ego-X
umirza85
can this output to 3 displays?
Only two outputs so unlikely.

It has 3 outputs....
#37
umirza85
Ego-X
umirza85
can this output to 3 displays?
Only two outputs so unlikely.

It has 3 outputs....

The spec following the link says two where are you getting your info?
1 Like #38
OK unlike most here I actually have a R7 250 based card which I paid £60 for some time ago and there are some things I'd like to clarify. OK it's not the latest or indeed greatest card but I can play World Of Tanks and Firefall easily at 1920 X 1080 I get 60 fps in Wot not so sure in Firefall but no issues. If you want to play the latest games at the highest settings then you should look to pay more but for casual gaming this is fine. If you play at a lower resolution like 1600 X 900 or 1366 X 768 (?) then it will be better. However one important point to note is this card will run on basically any PC due to its lower power requirement. Most gaming cards require a special 6 pin connector and 500W plus PSU. If you have an older machine this is a great upgrade and will be powered off the PCIe slot only.
#39
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=1308&game=Grand%20Theft%20Auto%20V

Can run GTA 5 if you meet the requirements (though not as smooth as a currrent Gen console)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!