Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

World of warcraft - 260 or 4870

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 9, 2008 10:10:23 AM

Hello, I'm going to buy a new monitor (24"). Currently I have 3870 and I don't think it would be enough for 1920x1200 so I'd like to buy another gfx card. I looked over the internetz and found no relevant information, what is better - gtx260 or radeon 4870?

My machine is: C2D E6600, 3.5GB ram, raid 0 2x160gb, radeon 3870, mainboard p5q.

Ps - I play only WoW, so I dont need it for any other games :) 
December 9, 2008 10:32:12 AM

The 3870 should be up to WoW even at that high res - I can max out everything on WoW with a 1950 pro and still get 60fps (thats on 1650x1080)
December 9, 2008 10:47:21 AM

even in shattrat or dalaran?
Related resources
December 9, 2008 11:21:18 AM

qery said:
Hello, I'm going to buy a new monitor (24"). Currently I have 3870 and I don't think it would be enough for 1920x1200 so I'd like to buy another gfx card. I looked over the internetz and found no relevant information, what is better - gtx260 or radeon 4870?

My machine is: C2D E6600, 3.5GB ram, raid 0 2x160gb, radeon 3870, mainboard p5q.

Ps - I play only WoW, so I dont need it for any other games :) 

Most high end GPU's are overkill for WOW. Wow is a single threaded game but you can run multiply instances. With your dual core I suggest no more than 3 instances of the game. A quad core you could do more. You could multi box upto 6 players at a time with a quad and 8GB of ram on vista 64bit premium.

WOW is without question a RAM hog but you would need vista 64bit for more ram.

Either GPU is overkill but if you must spend your money on one get the one with most memory. The 4850 1GB or the 4850X2 2GB may be a better choice.
December 9, 2008 11:30:35 AM

4850 512gb maxed out 1600 x 1200

Really really dont go higher just for the sake of a few minutes of smoother fps when doing your banking or whatever in a capital city. I get some lag in Dalaran but theres a lot going on there and its to be expected. Every raid encounter has been as fluid as i need it to be as a raid leader.
December 9, 2008 12:33:39 PM

4870 running with ALL on max 1680x1050 smooth never notice any slowdowns, should have power for a 24" screen easily
December 9, 2008 1:16:08 PM

a 8800gt could run 1680x1050 at max (with a second display playing hd movies at full resolution on a x2 4400+). Hell, even an x800 pro could do 1680x1050 at high resolution at 50-60fps in raids.

If you really want to spend some money for a wow videocard, go for a 4850 512mb. Anything above that is going to be wasted.
December 9, 2008 1:26:02 PM

I have a system with a crappy Pentium 820D and a 8800GTS 320MB which can run fairly decently at 1920x1080 on a 46 LCD. It looks great, but does slow down in certain areas. During normal running around questing etc, it runs just fine, getting into populated and high detail areas it can slow down a bit.
But the cards you are talking about at the resolution you want will be just fine. I haven't hooked up my main rig (in sig) to this TV yet, but I'm sure it will handle the 1920x1080 perfectly fine even with everything maxed out.
December 9, 2008 2:34:50 PM

I'd vote for the 4870 (as I have one), yeah its overpowered but you can never have too much power. ROAR!
December 9, 2008 2:43:23 PM

Heya,

Even the most high end graphics setups will lag occasionally in WoW in big cities. It has nothing to do with rendering. That's showing the speed of various things not already cached that had to be pulled from the HDD into cache/memory. Ie, our slow HDD technology that hasn't advanced hardly at all in the past decade compared to how our GPU tech has simply exploded.

That said, I would recommend the GTX260 if you are going to buy something expensive. More memory, good price, powerful GPU. Option to SLI later.

Cheers,
December 9, 2008 5:04:30 PM

Ya wow is not a very demanding game. the only reason u might want to update your card is if you do alot of 25 man raids, but even then i think a cheaper card like a 9800 gtx would do the job. i dont know if its true but i thought i heard that the lich king would have 40 man raids. im prolly mistaken but then, ya a gtx 260 would be much better int he long run. considering taht u can only run two ati and the gtx 260 has the potential of tri sli. Also if ur getting the 4870 x2 ur gonna want a pretty beefy psu.
December 10, 2008 10:07:04 AM

There wont be 40mans again, and lol @ SLI for WoW >.<
December 10, 2008 12:10:09 PM

I have a gtx 260 and run with everything maxed smoothly, in cities and raids.
December 10, 2008 7:20:42 PM

lol yes @ thebabymaker, let's get quad SSD, tri 280gtx and dual i7 965 for WoW :p 

If you only play WoW and are budget conscious, 4850 is your best bet.
December 10, 2008 7:43:26 PM

I'd recommend a 7800 for WoW, but yeah, the 4550 is the budget option if you want a newer card than that.
December 10, 2008 9:49:19 PM

The 3870 should be more than enough to run WoW at Max settings on a high res
December 11, 2008 1:12:21 AM

I use a 24" widescreen trinitron CRT with a 512mb 3850 and wow runs just fine. But I think an equal size flat screen is more demanding on the GPU than CRT if I'm not mistaken.
December 11, 2008 8:04:48 AM

Can't imagine why that would be the case? Why is rendering at a given resolution harder for a flatscreen?

Has that oven on your desk has cooked your brain?
December 11, 2008 1:46:34 PM

I've been thinking about a GTX260+, but not to run WoW better.

I play WoW at 1900x1200 w/max settings on a Dell 24" (2408).

My rig is as follows:

Q6600 @ 3.0
ABIT IP35 PRO
8800GTS (G92) 512MB
Raptor X HDD (150GB)

And, I occasionally get a slight (and I mean slight) slowdown in Dalaran and Shatt. But, I don't think it has to do with my graphics card.

With the WoTLK, the spell effects seem to play a larger role in the slight stuttering vs anything else. Before the xpac, I never noticed an issue (except with the zombie invasion in Shatt).
December 11, 2008 2:05:52 PM

llama_man said:
Can't imagine why that would be the case? Why is rendering at a given resolution harder for a flatscreen?

Has that oven on your desk has cooked your brain?


CRT resolution is not quite as tied to screen size as flatscreen, a 24" flat screen will almost certainly be 1920x1200 if his 24" widescreen crt only runs at 1440x900 then it would be less demanding than the 24" flatscreen! Generally decent CRT's are able to run a higher resolution for a diagnol size than their Flatscreen bretheren, but there are low rez crt's out there.
December 12, 2008 7:01:27 AM

Aah, so what you're actually saying is that higher resolutions tax GPUs more. Well duh. [/joking]

A CRT can run any resolution up to it's maximum - that's the beauty of them (still running a CRT myself).
!