Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Card for 24" (1920x1200)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 21, 2008 9:26:36 AM

Hey hey, :hello: 

I'm moving up in the world so i think its time for an upgrade, as you do :) 

I'm gonna purchase a 24" Screen, with a P45 motherboard.

Which card would you all recommend if i were to run max settings with 4xAA and AF

[] The gtx 280 --> from the review on TH it has the best average fps on 24"

[] gtx 260 --> I can get it v.cheap from a friend

[] 4870 --> the Overclocked zerotherm cooler.

Regards,

Alex

PS: Or a 28" as i am also in the market for one of those :p 

More about : card 1920x1200

August 21, 2008 9:43:22 AM

Milos-stancene said:
4870 X2


Haha yea if only i had the money ^^ :ouch: 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 9:49:16 AM

From only the choices you have listed, the GTX 280 is the most powerful card.
The 4870 is also an excellent choice as it performs better than the GTX 260 and nearly as good as the GTX 280.

Does your Mb have support for CrossFire?
If so, consider a pair of 4850's in Cf.
For the price ($325.98 after MIR's) you will have performance that equals or exceeds the GTX 280.

If you want the absolute best single card option, go for a 4870x2.
It will perform, on average, about 40% faster than the GTX 280.
August 21, 2008 9:56:43 AM

The gtx280 is indeed the most powerful card there! The 4870x2 is a tad out of my price range atm. I know that will be the best bet, but i will be rather sad parting with nearly £400

For the 4850's CF, the p45 board that i have is 2x PCIe 2.0 8x not 16x. If that has a major performance hindrance...

Additionally i can get the gtx280 for the same price as 4850 CF.

Regards.
August 21, 2008 10:20:18 AM

the GTX 280 will do the job fine.
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 10:34:32 AM

alex_oneill2006 said:
For the 4850's CF, the p45 board that i have is 2x PCIe 2.0 8x not 16x. If that has a major performance hindrance...

Additionally i can get the gtx280 for the same price as 4850 CF.


For the first part, in many games you will see no difference between 8x PCIe 2.0 Cf and 16x PCIe 2.0 Cf up to 1920x1200.
You can take a good look at performance scaling with PCIe bandwidth at the review Here.

If Cf 4850's cost the same as a single GTX 280 in your area and it came down to a choice between them, you should get the GTX 280. How much cheaper is the GTX 260 you can get compared to your other options? It is not a bad choice but it will be outperformed bye the other options. If the price is right though....
August 21, 2008 10:59:55 AM

Thanks for that reply ^, you are very knowledgeable b :) 

The cheapest gtx 280 i can find is the same price as the cheapest 4850 CF i can find. Which is great news :) 

So if i were to choose i would go for GTX 280 :) 

The 260 is ALOT cheaper than the above options, and its cheaper quiet cheaper than the 4870 in my area.

But for a 28" screen with AA and AF, i somehow dont think the 260 would be able to handle itself !?

Regards
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 11:57:47 AM

You could give the 9800GX2 a shot.
August 21, 2008 12:26:21 PM

gamerk316 said:
You could give the 9800GX2 a shot.


yup the 9800GX2 would do great on a 24" at 1920x1200. Consider that its roughly equivalent to my two older 8800GTX's in SLI and they can easily push Crysis 35fps (average) all settings to high on 37" Westinghouse @ 1920x1080 Vsync on 60Hz, and thats no exaggeration. That is with a Q6600 at 3.4Ghz.
August 21, 2008 2:19:28 PM

play with 8x aa so that you really dont see any jaggies and in doing so get hd48x0 and forget nvidia. For 4x aa and lower, gtx 280 is actually faster than hd 4870. with 8x aa, not any more, in most games anyway.
August 21, 2008 2:45:51 PM

I researched the 9800GX2 some reviews said it gets real hot, like cook your feet hot.
August 21, 2008 3:07:37 PM

Hehe yea i can imagine so with those g92 running!

In cod4 you cant really get 8x AA, but isnt the GTX 280 a superior GPU to the 4870 !?
August 21, 2008 8:04:09 PM

yes 280 is superior to 4870.it only gets beaten when 2x48x0 work together.
August 21, 2008 8:21:21 PM

if you're just looking for the best performance then simply grab the GTX280
even though it's the most expensive of the bunch it is the highest performing card
August 21, 2008 8:30:49 PM

no the most expensive card is 4870X2 at the moment. GTX280 or Nvidia rather has lost momentum at the GPU market.
August 21, 2008 9:18:14 PM

Do you guys think that it will be viable at the moment to even upgrade.

Im running a 19" and would love a 28".

Should i get the gtx 280. I generally do not upgrade too often, not until i can sell my current computer and do it as a free upgrade :p  hehe.

Or should i stick with my current system, and save the monies, and maybe look at something in the future ?

Regards,
August 21, 2008 9:37:47 PM

well, if you upgrade now or later, you'll alway's hate yourself when 6 months later what cost you top dollar just a while back is now chump change. but you have to pay to play

if you want to upgrade and have the money now, just go for it. prices are as good as ever now that ati actually some good cards out.
you'll enjoy yourself now and it'll all be worth it imo :) 
August 21, 2008 9:41:40 PM

Yea that is a very true thing!

Would be awesome to upgrade my system... although it is not a very bad system, and im happy, with it.

I generally say that if it ain't broken, dont fix it :p 

Ill sell a few things, see if i can muster up the cash from things i dont need ! :p 
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 10:08:33 PM

I have a preference for single cards, so I would say the GTX280 is the way to go, but the best thing to do is to look at a few different sites with a few different benchies.

One that speaks somewhat to your question specifically is this one;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/sapphire...

There's alot of tests there, and you can see things see-saw back and forth between solutions, where even a single HD4870 is a good choice at that resolution for some games.

August 22, 2008 8:22:02 AM

if a "last longer" upgrade to go now is HD4870X2 but if you are gaming under HD res GTX280 will give a better result and save unneccessary heat and power on the HD4870X2.
August 22, 2008 10:35:32 AM

^ Yea and money :p  the extra £100 would be a bit much for e :) 

Do you reckon that the few extra fps is worth the £60 !?

What i mean is:
From the link that TGGA gave us, looking at all the comparisons between the games that i do play.

[] Crysis
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/sapphire...

GTX 280 is only 1 fps more at 1920x1200

[] COD4
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/sapphire...

The 4870 destroys the gtx 280

[] WoC
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/sapphire...

The 4870 gets 1 more fps...

So despite the GTX 280 being a more powerful processor, the 4870 beats it in the games that i play.

Or do you think that the minimum fps also counts ?

Regards,
August 22, 2008 10:52:59 AM

i think you should be clear the GTX280 is much faster then 4870. and its because the driver that they used in that review is not the new 177.xx forceware which brings improvement to the nvidia card. and its clear that in that system the CPU is the bottle neck.the 4870 is only comparable to the GTX260.

no matter what the average is the minimum fps is more important because that when the game stutters and then return to normal again.you dont want that do you?
August 22, 2008 10:58:33 AM

Yea thats very true, i do agree with you.

But at 1920x1200 on a 28" do you think gaming is even viable, cos the fps you get on games with max settings aren't so great.

Do you think i should stick with my 19" and 9800gtx :p 
August 22, 2008 11:03:20 AM

the GTX280 will handle fine on full HD res.but i would get the 4870X2 for more "future proof" as game get more demanding. read some reviews at 1920 the 4870X2 is better.

your 9800GTX can handle games at max setting aa+af at 1650.apart from crysis obviously.

stay for now and wait just a little until the GTX280 refresh comes out which is at mid Sept if it didnt change. and decide then.

but the options on the market now they are all great on the upper end.the mid range is sort of flat.
August 22, 2008 11:16:17 AM

So you wouldn't recommend upgrading at this time unless i were to go for the x2...

Do you think the 280 refresh would be that much of a performance jump, and wouldnt it be high priced like the current 280 ?

Regards
August 22, 2008 11:21:51 AM

unless you are going to get a new monitor with very high resolution. or you currently game at some sluggish fps.dont bother upgrading now.

about the 280 refresh its said to have higher clock speed and GDDR5 vram compare to GDDR3 now which should allow better high resolution gaming. because what nvidia is planning is to use the GTX280+(or whatever its called) to take the crown back from ATI's HD4870X2 so you should see it somewhere down that line. but its very unlikely the single GPU will outperform a Dual GPU card.

about the price, well Nvidia cant afford to sell it at skyhigh prices since competition is very tough now.

your call!!!
August 22, 2008 11:28:49 AM

I see, so the 280+ will be a monster of a card :p  hehe

I would still consider the x2 to be future proofing. I dont think any card soon will be taking the crown from that thing.

I would love to upgrade from my 19" screen, but that would obviously mean new graphics card, and possibly new psu.

Ill go down to my bank and see how much i have... today was payday weeeeeee.

Then ill see where i can go from there :) 

If i were to go for the 28" with my 9800gtx, that would mean horrible fps in any game i play. unless i turn it right down!?
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2008 3:41:10 PM

alex_oneill2006 said:


Or do you think that the minimum fps also counts ?



I think min FPS does matter a fair deal, as long as it's not just a single anomalie.

I think it also depends on the games you play, Crysis and COD4, definitely min FPS matters, WoC I think personally it would matter less and they are very close.
Looking at Crysis the avg is good for the HD4850 in Xfire, but the min fps would concern me greatly, especially since it's a very low number and it's a drop from a single HD4850.
Something like the result in Company of Heroes would make me say, sure the GTX280 wins the avg, but the HD4870 isn't that far behind for an average never dips below 22 fps, while it dips to 9 fps, which to me would be more noticeable than the avg different of 43 to 67 despit that seeming to be a big diff in favour of the GTX280. Similar situation for Oblivion in the outdoor scene, the GTX280 has the avg advantage, but the HD4870 has the min fps advantage where I would care about it more (since it's a threshold dip a a noticeable one), the indoor scenes the min fps favours the GTX280, and for me an Oblivion player, I notice the frame drops more than the times it's @ 120fps boosting the average above 70fps. Command and Conquer's difference I think wouldn't matter much. Sure if it's you primary game, maybe you'd care but it's 2 fps in pretty much a semi-static game.
Looking at Call of Juarez, you see the HD4870 have the avg, but the GTX280 has the min fps performance I haven't played it so I don't know the impact. It's thos subtelties that are sometimes missed.

Overall my general rule is FPS = min fps focus, RTS & MMORPG a greater focus on the avg, usually because the mins fps are well above 15 fps which is enough for me for those games, and then flight fims I just want a high but consistent avg since I know they're usually system bound more than GPU alone.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2008 4:39:06 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i think you should be clear the GTX280 is much faster then 4870.


That's a pretty ignorant statement, it seems pretty clear to anyone looking at it objectively what while the GTX is faster in many situations, that's not always the case, and sometimes it's significantly slower, like in Lonely Planet, which before you give an excuse, was always seen as an nV-centric game favouring them, so it's not always 'much faster', but it often can be.

Quote:
and its because the driver that they used in that review is not the new 177.xx forceware which brings improvement to the nvidia card.


Actually they use the 177.44 forceware drivers which are more recent than the ones nV is offering on their website (177.41), yet the Catalysts in the review are the 8.7 and not the latest 8.8 that ATi offers on their website, so the driver issue cuts both ways and isn't an excuse because both offer improvement.

Quote:
no matter what the average is the minimum fps is more important because that when the game stutters and then return to normal again.you dont want that do you?


That's not always the case, it depends on the game and the overall picture. If one card has a min of 8 fps but and average of 12, while the other card has a minimum of 7 but an average of 35, then the min fps would not be the focus, because it would be clear that while the one card is pretty consitent in framerate, that framerate sucks, whereas the one with a noticably higher average would have you usual above the other, and drop you near the same level for the lows.

It depends on balancing the overall picture and not focusing on just one item, some games prefer one or the other where a momentary drop of frames would not be as severe as another, like in an RTS and such vs an FPS.

Quote:
about the 280 refresh its said to have higher clock speed and GDDR5 vram compare to GDDR3 now which should allow better high resolution gaming. because what nvidia is planning is to use the GTX280+(or whatever its called) to take the crown back from ATI's HD4870X2 so you should see it somewhere down that line. but its very unlikely the single GPU will outperform a Dual GPU card.


The thing is, the GTX280 is not memory bandwidth limited so that will do very little if nothing for it's performance even at higher resolution. The GTX280 refresh is more importantly focus on the clock speeds, because where it is lacking is in the shader power, and if they can give that large core a much higher shader clock than it currently has (core clock doesn't need as big a boost to perform), then it would be interesting, but the gulf is pretty big in the shader department and they need to be getting well above 1.5Ghz with the refresh to be anywhere near competitive, anything less will simply choke-out increases in the TMU, ROP and Bandwidth.
August 22, 2008 10:52:12 PM

Wow, thanks for that reply, lots of info there :) 

So the moral of the story is that if i want to game at decent frame rate and with AA, get my self a 4870 x2 :p 

Hehe i guess i have plenty of saving up to do, and i dont think there will be a refresh version of that coming !?

Regards
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2008 11:36:39 PM

There won't be an HD4KX2 refresh for a while, other than maybe faster memory and a different version of the silicon (succesive spins can sometimes yield minor OC potential), but even then I doubt that they would bother until pressed for such little return.

The thing is, there are still games where the HD4Kx2 will still struggle, but it's a little more limited.

Anywhoo, good luck, and if you have the time, be sure to check other places and benchies from other resources, just so you get an overall picture on different systems and tests.

Main thing to consider when loking at them though is the Crysis settings, most are benching on High settings (which is DX9) not Very High (which enables DX10 effects). It's amazing the difference that maes in tests.

Anywhoo, overall I think all 3 options would be good uses of your money as none are bad choices, the HD4870, GTX280 and HD4870X2 are all great cards and priced to be competitive for your dollar.
!