Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

47" LCD - Which video card? 1920 x 1080

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • LCD
  • Graphics Cards
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
May 24, 2007 11:24:43 PM

Yes, another one of these questions.. which videocard to I get? Please read on because this is not the typical question. I have a 47" 1920 x 1080 LCD that I use as a general computer monitor and for gaming. I want to be able to play games well and I want AutoCAD to speed up on the 3D rendering.

Note: I understand there are workstation cards that are meant for CAD, but I want to be able to do gaming as well, plus I dont want to pay $1500 for a card.

So my question is, can I get away with a 8800GTS or do I need a 8800GTX?

Also, will I notice a substantial difference in AutoCAD2006 doing 3D rendering by getting a high end card?

Thanks for any information - this site has been EXCELLENT

More about : lcd video card 1920 1080

a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2007 11:52:08 PM

If you go with the gts get the 640mb version.
If not get the gtx.

Not sure about the 2900xt as it seems to be only 512mb of memory. :?
May 25, 2007 4:48:25 AM

hmm alright cool anyone else?
Related resources
May 25, 2007 5:40:55 AM

I wouldn't go less than a 8800GTX. You might find verticle sync to help with tearing and smoothness at times on a large screen LCD. Even a GTX will be challanged @1920x1080 on some newer games with the highest graphics settings.
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2007 5:44:04 AM

(begins drooling over the thought of a monitor nearly 2.5x larger than mine)
May 25, 2007 6:15:01 AM

i have read that the 2900XT is much better at workstation stuff than both the 8800gts and 8800gtx, infact the 2900XT is actually faster at alot of workstation stuff than the quadros
May 25, 2007 6:44:10 AM

really? i'm by no means an expert on video cards but I read recently that ATI is not nearly as good as nvidia for workstation stuff. That's not only talking about the quatros. Could you shoot me a link to the info? I'm not discrediting what your saying, i just want to know more about it incase that's the card for me.

My "workstation" at work sucks bad.. 2.8 ghz pentium 4 w/ onboard video. When I change views in a huge 3d drawing it can literally take 20-30 seconds to render and show it again.. would the better videocard make a gigantic difference in that aspect?
May 25, 2007 6:48:47 AM

Go with the 8800GTX and go for it in SLI.One 8800GTX will work for now,but for the size of the monitor and the resolution you want to run it at,I highly recommend running two 8800GTX's in SLI.Just buy one now and another a couple months down the road.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.7 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
May 25, 2007 7:04:55 AM

I really cant afford 2 of them, even if its down the road I wont be able to justify spending that much $$. Plus i've heard better cards are to come out for dx-10 when more games are available. What's everyone think?
May 25, 2007 7:12:14 AM

looks like you will have to comprimise, get the best card you can afford. The GTX should handle all but the real high end games.
May 25, 2007 7:18:28 AM

Atleast get a mobo with SLI support. The price of the 8800gtx should be alot lower in '08. By then the 8900 series of cards will be out, so the 8800gtx should only be a couple hundred, if that.
May 25, 2007 7:34:16 AM

Well that is the curse of a high resolution LCD; if you want to run native resolution you need a monster card.

GTS320 is not usually recommended above 1600x1050, so as sirheck says GTS640 is probably better. At that point you're basically on the same bang/buck as the GTX.

Having said that, I still can't justify upgrading from my 7900GS yet, and I try to run 1920x1200 as much as possible. Running non-native resolutions doesn't look all that bad to me, but YMMV especially with a higher dot pitch.
May 25, 2007 7:38:54 AM

1920x1080, although higher than your average desktop resolution is not THAT high that you need to SLI 8800GTX cards [ I'm sure those who own 8800GTX SLI rigs will find some way to prove that it was absolutely necessary for them to sell a kidney so they can get that extra 5 fps ;)  ].

I have a 30" HP LCD that runs 2560x1600 natively and I ran a 8800GTS 320MB card for a while without any problems. I did pick up slight strain on games like STALKER when I tried to push it to the highest res and highest settings, but when I played the game at lower resolutions ( 1920x1080 ) and slightly lower settings, it played just fine. I did get myself a GTX eventually so that I can play the game at highest resolution and highest settings.

The only Game/App that I have seen so far that looks like it is putting the 8800GTX "on the spot" is ArMa on max resolution and max settings, and I believe Oblivion will also cause a single 8800GTX to sweat a little at maxed out settings. But note: maxed out settings - if you slightly turn the details dial down, you will have an equally enjoyable experience without having to take a second mortgage for a card that is going to be replaced by something arguable 3x faster (yet cost the same) in less than 6 months from now...

For 99% of your "everyday" applications, an 8800GTS will be more than enough on your 47", even 7900 and 7950 cards should do the trick 95% of the time, but with the 8800GTS cards relatively cheap, I would always recommend a DX10 card over a DX9 card if you are buying new.
May 25, 2007 8:05:56 AM

Yes, u NEED a GTX.

PC apps like cad and vid rendering arent USUALLY time critical. If it takes 10minutes or 20 to render a sequence... who cares really.

However games ARE. The difference between 22 and 28 FPS is MASSIVE, according to our visual perceptions.

19x10 is about 1.45x as many pixels as 12x10.

Im running 14x10, and with my GTS (arriving monday) im only expecting to get 30fps MIN on most modern games, any higher rez and id be dropping into the low 20 = criminal.

On the flip side... with a fast cpu the 8800's SEEM to sli almost PERFIK!
In many benches u get so close to twice the fps it aint funny. So.... if u DID get a gts (640 of course) and u werent happy, u could get another and not lose out too much.

IMHO

;) 
May 25, 2007 10:07:40 AM

to a certain extent it depends on your budget;

for that resolution an 8800 GTS or 2900XT would run everything out already, for DX10 games you'll be wanting a GTX though

G92 (9800's) are currently slated for a christmas launch, and since most of the DX10 games currently looking to be worth getting are coming out around November...

if you're looking to make a single purchase now which will last a year, then go for the GTX as it will future proof your choice to a certain extent, but if your budget allows it may be worth getting a GTS320 now (as it will easily play all DX9 games), and then upgrade to a 9800 at christmas, when the DX10 games actually start coming out (because lets face it, the DX10 games coming out before Crysis are just poorly done ports of the DX9 version).

SLI will just be a waste of money IMO
May 25, 2007 11:53:15 AM

the bigest bang for the buck is sli with 2 8800GTS 640MB , not GTX, 2 GTX perform better than 2 GTS but they also cost a fortune.
May 25, 2007 12:37:04 PM

there is also the step up progarm but don't know how good or bad it is I've never used it but may be someone here has that can tell you how good or bad it is. looks like a good deal but haven't tried it.
May 25, 2007 12:53:46 PM

wow lots of replies, thanks guys. I guess for now I'm leaning towards the 8800 gts 640, but I'd appreciate more opinions.
May 25, 2007 1:00:44 PM

guess my input wasn't even looked at, meh, happens..
May 25, 2007 1:04:52 PM

Quote:
Atleast get a mobo with SLI support. The price of the 8800gtx should be alot lower in '08. By then the 8900 series of cards will be out, so the 8800gtx should only be a couple hundred, if that.
It never worked out like that in the past so why would it now? Once Nvidia hits a die shrink, they'll stop production of their 90nm GPUs; when the 7900s came out, 7800 prices did not go down and the cards simply stopped being carried.
May 25, 2007 1:13:26 PM

Oh... Sucks. PC history is one of my weak points ATM. I have the specs and release dates of most Macs released in the past 20 years virtually memorized by now, but for things like this, I have to go on what usually happens in the market. Either the old cards continue to sell at a lower price point, or when the new stuff comes out the old stuff gets marked down so the product can be moved. I guess that's not how Nvidia does things.
May 25, 2007 1:31:16 PM

Im running my new 7600GT at 1600x1200 on my dell lcd.

It plays FEAR very well at native res and with medium settings.

You dont need a GTX, or god forbid SLI'd GTXs to play at 1920x1080. The thing is, that you may have trouble getting games to run at that native res.

If you want to play games at that res I would recommend a good 7900GS (Zipzoomfly has a crazy-OC'd one for $135). If you want to spend more and thus get more, get an X1950XT, and if you want the best get a 640mb 8800GTS.

There really isnt any need for SLI'd GTX's unless you are swimming in cash or running at 2560x1600
May 25, 2007 5:38:55 PM

GTX is the way forward, check the VGA charts on the mainpage, only the GTX can handle obliviion at that res (just about), the 9800 is out at xmas which will solve all your problems.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3543/

im bored lol

erm....yeah GTX, or a 2900XT but the GTX is more powerful,

are you gaming or workstationing?

quadro i think are good for workstations, but im a gamer not a workstationer, someone sed that hte 2900 is better than the quadros, any one got linkage?
May 25, 2007 5:40:17 PM

awwww rammedstien i read your link :) 
May 25, 2007 5:43:07 PM

Quote:
GTX is the way forward, check the VGA charts on the mainpage, only the GTX can handle obliviion at that res (just about), the 9800 is out at xmas which will solve all your problems.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3543/

im bored lol

erm....yeah GTX, or a 2900XT but the GTX is more powerful,

are you gaming or workstationing?

quadro i think are good for workstations, but im a gamer not a workstationer, someone sed that hte 2900 is better than the quadros, any one got linkage?


I was talking about FEAR and BF2, not Oblivion and Crysis

sorry
May 25, 2007 5:48:59 PM

Ahhhh

well BF2 will run fine at that with a GTS (640 for large res's)
and so will 2142

(prey is worth playing btw)

FEAR I would think would play with a GTS, have a look on the web. prey plays at 50 with a GTS at 1920
May 25, 2007 7:04:33 PM

For the 2900xt's performance in SPECviewPerf 9.0.3 look at this link.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...

It looks like the 1950 is the way to go LOL

The rest of the review is also interesting to look at as it shows a lot of the cards strengths and weaknesses and compares it to other cards you are interested in. They used the 8.37 drivers wich i believe aren't the latest though, so it may not be completely accurate.
!