GTX 660 or upgrade for Is there a better graphics card than the ASUS GTX 660 for 1920 x1200

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Imacflier

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2014
456
7
18,865
I am doing a build for primarily gaming.

CPU: I5 4690k
MB: Gigabyte Z97X-UD5H
Ram: 16 GB Adata DDR3 2400
GPU: ASUS GTX660 DirectCU II OC or ???
HDD: 3x500 GB Seagate Sata III
SSD: 240 GB Kingston and
512 GB Crucial
Case: Coolermaster HF XB
Cooler: Seiden 120XL
PSU: Corsair CX 750w
Optical Drive: Generic
OS: Win 7 Ultimate 64bit and
WinXP Pro 64bit and
WinXP Pro 32bit (migrated from current rig.
Monitor: HannsG HH281

Given that the HannsG has a native resolution of 1920 x 1200, is there any GP which will give me better performance than I already have available with the GTX 660?
 
Solution
O


What you heard was probably some variation on the concept that if you're using a display that refreshes at 60 Hz, it cannot update fast enough to show you greater than 60 frames in a second. So basically, anytime your system is struggling to maintain 60 FPS, there would be some benefit to a faster video...
Sort by date Sort by votes
I

Imacflier

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2014
456
7
18,865
Hmmmm....I seem to have been operating under a misapprehension (aka have my head up my ass.....again!)

I thought I had read that there is a point where increasing the GP power for single monitor use and a given resolution and refresh rate does not result in better performance.....and thought that more GP power than a GTX 660 would be wasted at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. I take it that I am (once again) wrong about that?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jeffredo

jeffredo

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2008
1,943
0
20,460
Nostall and Rolli59's recommendations seem to make the most sense for 1920x1200 @ 60hz. As far as a power supply goes, the CX 750 you have is totally fine for any of them. Replacing it as long as its functioning correctly would be a waste of money.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360


What you heard was probably some variation on the concept that if you're using a display that refreshes at 60 Hz, it cannot update fast enough to show you greater than 60 frames in a second. So basically, anytime your system is struggling to maintain 60 FPS, there would be some benefit to a faster video card. Higher graphic detail which might drag you under 60 FPS is included in that. If you want to game at greater than 60 FPS, you'll need a 120 or 144 Hz monitor.

The GTX 760, GTX 770, R9 280, or R9 280X would all be faster than the GTX 660 (while still appropriate for 1080p gaming) because they would allow you to maintain 60 FPS at greater detail settings in more intensive titles. However, if I had a 660 right now I'd probably just hang out and see what happens after the GTX 800's are released. At the least, I'd expect it to shake up pricing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
I

Imacflier

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2014
456
7
18,865
oxide,

Missed your post before my last post....you have just stated clearly (and I am sure more accurately) what I was trying to state....thank you!!

And that is what I shall do....and defer my decision until I have tried the 660!

In fact, thank all of you for putting up with an old farts silly questions and misunderstandings.....What I learned 50+ years ago in electronics and engineering school about this stuff is both obsolete and getting just a bit hazy!

I am sure I will be back with more silly questions fairly quickly since I begin assembly tomorrow.

Very warm regards to all,
Larry

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

GRUxTSAR

Reputable
Aug 8, 2014
1,479
0
5,660


I meant that the only time anybody would be wasting GPU power wold be if they're getting >122fps. The human eye cannot see more than 122fps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360


The number of frames per second the human eye "can perceive" varies wildly depending upon whom you ask. Common answers are 24, 30, 60, 90, and now the most arbitrary one I've heard yet, 122 FPS. Do you have anything to back this up with?

The only time I'm aware of that this was ever even indirectly measured was an experiment conducted by the US Air Force where an image was flashed in front of a pilot's eye for 1/220th of a second (equal to one frame at 220 FPS) as a way to test reaction time and was conclusively shown to be perceived. So its at least that much. Honestly the maximum, if there is one, probably varies as much as human biology does.

That's not to mention the fact that what you "can see" is almost beside the point when you're playing an interactive game. Even if you couldn't see the difference, you can certainly feel latency differences in video game feedback as framerates increase.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom