Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a GeForce GTX 260 896MB too much card for 1366 x 768 resoulution?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 10, 2008 2:23:26 PM

Hello,
I'm building a new PC for Fallout 3 (leaning toward Nvidia for video card purchase - but I am open to suggestions)

My monitor will be a 32" LCD @ 1366 x 768 maximum resolution

I want to enable all the eye candy ( Antialiasing, view distance, HDR, etc...)

I'm considering the GeForce GTX 260 896MB, but my monitor only has a MAXIMUM resolution of 1366 x 768 Is this card a waste of money? Too much power for that resolution?

BTW, here is:

Fallout 3 Recommended System Requirements:


* Intel Core 2 Duo processor
* 2 GB System RAM
* Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA 8800 series, ATI 3800 series)
_______________

thanks,
- client_9
October 10, 2008 2:39:21 PM

Yes, consider a 4850 instead...
October 10, 2008 3:05:19 PM

4580 or 9800GTX+ would be otimal for you I think.
Related resources
October 10, 2008 3:10:35 PM

Thanks for the tip, I've never tried the ATI cards.

I played Oblivion w/ a 6800GS meh.

Maybe I should have titled this thread ....

"Fallout 3: ATI vs. Nvidia"

Anyone else have an opinion?


October 10, 2008 3:18:52 PM

If you want to use AA, then you're better off with current generation ATI cards.
October 10, 2008 3:58:58 PM

client_9 said:
Hello,
I'm building a new PC for Fallout 3 (leaning toward Nvidia for video card purchase - but I am open to suggestions)

My monitor will be a 32" LCD @ 1366 x 768 maximum resolution

I want to enable all the eye candy ( Antialiasing, view distance, HDR, etc...)

I'm considering the GeForce GTX 260 896MB, but my monitor only has a MAXIMUM resolution of 1366 x 768 Is this card a waste of money? Too much power for that resolution?

BTW, here is:

Fallout 3 Recommended System Requirements:


* Intel Core 2 Duo processor
* 2 GB System RAM
* Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA 8800 series, ATI 3800 series)
_______________

thanks,
- client_9


yo dude i have the EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 at the same resolution, im guessing your using a HDTV much like my self except mine is only 26". a GTX 260 at that res totally rules ass in any game you put on it. im playing crysis on very high settings and getting 40+ fps, and never dropping below 35 fps. so its up to you im here to let you know i have the setup your thinking and its worth it, grid runs like a dream never dropping below 50 fps at ultra quality with CSAA16x or whatever the type of AA is called. its weird how a big HDTV's have low resolutions isnt it? but i have that setup and im not disappointed at all. im sure you'll destroy fallout 3 with GTX 260. i recommend looking at the Core 216 version if your budget will allow it
a c 91 U Graphics card
October 10, 2008 4:11:24 PM

Basically agree with the poster above. Even a standard 260 would be more beneficial than the 4850. I have a 4870 and a 260...... 260 wins.
October 10, 2008 4:15:15 PM

In my opinions, the resolution is too low to use EVEN the Radeon 4850.

Heck, even the Radeon 3870 or and GeForce 8800GT will still be good enough for that resolution.

I suggest buying the Radeon 3870 or the GeForce 8800GT and use spare change for a faster Core2Duo.
October 10, 2008 4:27:01 PM

Hello there.

I Have a 32" sony bravia with the same resolution and I alredy have a 8800GTX and when I activate 8X or even 4X
supersampling in some games the FPS drops to 40 or 30 In crysis to 20, so I want to buy a GTX260 216ShaderCores
to play games at full filter without drop my fps. Also I going to buy the Sony 32xbr6 1080p
so I will be playing at 1920*1080 and I buy nvidia because a dont like the brands that fabricate ati's.
The only one is visiontek that has lifetime warranty and they dont have the 1gb version,

and I love EVGA is a very good brand

Sorry for me english Im from Venezuela
October 10, 2008 4:27:20 PM

Get the 260, why buy a 3870, then have to buy another card in 6 months when a new game comes out?
October 10, 2008 4:31:44 PM

stridervm said:
...

I suggest buying the Radeon 3870 or the GeForce 8800GT and use spare change for a faster Core2Duo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So would a Radeon 3870 or the GeForce 8800GT still allow me to run all graphic settings maxed , I wonder.

Maybe I'll wait till Fallout 3 is released, then read the forums.

Thanks everyone for the input.



October 10, 2008 4:58:37 PM

HD4850 FTW
October 10, 2008 5:09:07 PM

client_9 said:
Thanks for the tip, I've never tried the ATI cards.

I played Oblivion w/ a 6800GS meh.

Maybe I should have titled this thread ....

"Fallout 3: ATI vs. Nvidia"

Anyone else have an opinion?


Bethesda develops and optimizes their games on nVidia GPU's which is one of the main reasons I went for the GX280.
October 10, 2008 5:17:27 PM

Ascadia said:
Bethesda develops and optimizes their games on nVidia GPU's which is one of the main reasons I went for the GX280.


I did see the Nvidia logo on the official Fallout 3 website. hmmm....
October 10, 2008 5:35:06 PM

HD4850 in your resolution is the best bang for the buck
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2008 7:40:36 PM

i would suggest the old gtx260. it will run great at that resolution.
if u dont want all the eye candy 4850 9800gtx will do.
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2008 8:31:54 PM

Up to 16x10 the 4870 wins, beyond that, youd need the 1gig 4870. The 216 costs the same as a 1gig 4870 and they trade blows. AA will help alot at that screeb size, so Id recommend a ATI card, as they do AA with less stress and better fps
October 10, 2008 9:33:17 PM

Or wait for the 280 GTX+ :)  :p 

naw the 4870 or the 260 GTX wouldn't be overkill at all at those resolutions, just look at Crysis and Stalker, they kill cards @ 1280x1024.....so I don't kno why people haven't learned from this. Far Cry 2 is hitting shelves on the 22 or 23 I beleive and that games looks like Crysis demanding. I find myself struggling Crysis with TRI 280 @ 1280x1024 in heavy ares.

Plus people with smaller res have a higher chance of maintaining playable frames more than ppl with higher res screens.:p 

the 4870 or the 260 GTx would do you perfect, I mean you could go less and have around the same results, but it won't be true come a couple of months :) 
October 10, 2008 10:01:46 PM

I think that resolution is low enough that the CPU will play an important role as well. You won't need a lot of graphics card memory but a screen that size will require anti-aliasing. I think a 4850 or 9800gtx+ will be more than enough for your needs. If you want overkill go for the 260gtx or Ati 4870 but if you are saving money then 4850 or 9800gtx+.
Also if you go nVidia, I would go for an nVidia board because even though I think they are crap you could always go sli and why limit yourself down the road. Thats why I prefer ati atm but its your money buy what makes you happy.
October 10, 2008 10:07:37 PM

Spend the extra few dollars and get the better card if you have comparable hardware.
October 10, 2008 10:26:27 PM

I recommend if you have the money, and its not breaking the bank get either 260 (either version) or the 4870, but if you can really afford it get the 280, why not, it will "destroy" it as someone mention'd above.
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2008 10:45:26 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Up to 16x10 the 4870 wins, beyond that, youd need the 1gig 4870. The 216 costs the same as a 1gig 4870 and they trade blows. AA will help alot at that screeb size, so Id recommend a ATI card, as they do AA with less stress and better fps


there not exactly the same price. the "old" gtx260 is for around 200$ now. slightly cheaper.
=]
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2008 11:05:43 PM

Not the 216
October 10, 2008 11:43:42 PM

invisik said:
there not exactly the same price. the "old" gtx260 is for around 200$ now. slightly cheaper.
=]


and where exactly can you find a gtx260 for $200? i'd like to know. the lowest price i was able to find anywhere online in north america was $240 after a mail-in-rebate.
October 10, 2008 11:48:22 PM

Ive got to agree with L1qu1d, even though the 4870 and the 260 are overkill for that res as more demanding games come out you'll be glad you made the investment


must be bazar-o world me and L1qu1d actually agreeing on something
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2008 12:11:10 AM

Greg86 said:
and where exactly can you find a gtx260 for $200? i'd like to know. the lowest price i was able to find anywhere online in north america was $240 after a mail-in-rebate.

never heard of newegg?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
pny also had it for 200$ the other day.
i believe there were promo codes as well making them cheaper then 200$.
October 11, 2008 1:47:44 AM

This is why monitors are way better than LCDs.

At that resolution, you may as well just get a 8800GT and call it a day. Wont take much to run games at that low resolution. Get a monitor instead, theres an awesome $450 1920x1200 28" hanns G I would get in a heartbeat if I didnt already have a 30"
October 11, 2008 2:39:44 AM

The thing is some people just want to have max detail without having to pay for at least an HD 4870 X2 (And regardless of what some people say, running games at 30fps at 1920x1200 is NOT a satisfactory experience, so a single GPU card is out of the question).

Also, if you sit a few feet away from the screen the difference in picture quality isn't really noticeable, and you get the added benefit of having a big screen that doubles up as a TV.

While I support the OP on his decision to use his TV (Mainly because I am planning to do the same as soon as I get some funds), I disagree on getting a Geforce card at the moment above the 8800GT/9800GT/GT 140/Whachamacallit range, since ATI currently offers better performance and value on their cards, especially if you're planning to use high AA and AF.
October 11, 2008 3:05:41 AM

rangers said:
Ive got to agree with L1qu1d, even though the 4870 and the 260 are overkill for that res as more demanding games come out you'll be glad you made the investment


must be bazar-o world me and L1qu1d actually agreeing on something


Well when things make just so much sense :) :p 
Ppl tend to forget that games evolve faster than video cards :non:  I mean look at how Crysis screwed us the first time it came out. I had 2 300$ 8800 GTS 320s ....5 seconds of Crysis crushed my dreams :fou: 


:bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce: 
November 27, 2008 12:17:37 PM

I'm in a somewhat similar situation, I have a 32" LCD HDTV with a native resolution of 1366x768. I going to be getting a high end gaming PC and I want to use it for a monitor. I'm pretty sure you can just stick with the native resolution and be happy with solid 720p. I will at least, and UltimaSlayerVII.... when you say,

"This is why monitors are way better than LCDs" .... um do you realize that LCD is Liquid Crystal Display. Which is a only a type of display, tv monitor, they both have LCD and you probably use an LCD. I think you mean monitors are way better that TVs. But's that's all dependent on your setting and use of it.
!