GTX 295 OC v.s. 4870X2 OC

who has the best price performance ratio? i need to pick one because i intend to replace my msi 3870X2 OC in a couple of few days...

1280x1024 resolution

core 2 quad Q6600 stock clocked
asus maximus extreme
raptor 150 GB
seagate 500 GB
corsair HX620W
antec 900
lite-on DVD burner
trancend 1GB x 4 DDR3 1333

If you don't plan on changing monitor to a 24" 1920x1200, you should get a hd4850 1 Gb.

@1280x1024 the 4850 won't even be max out for 99% of the games on the market and mostly future games too...

4870 1 gig is alot better choice, the 4850 X2 just doesn't perform as it should, your better off grabbing 2 4850s.

I would suggest the 4870 1 gig for sure @ that resoluion. Alot of ppl might think even that is overkill, but play Crysis and Clear Sky, and you'll see it really isn't

i have another question can a GTX 295 OC run on a XFX nforce 610i?

It will but again it is overkill for your resolution. If you are going nvidia stick with a gtx 260 or gtx 250.

Hahaha I really loled at that

^^ +1

Well its kinda ironic, because look at your post.

You said overkill and bottleneck should be banned.

Thats basically the overkill statement, no facts not nothing.

If you would've said "overkill and bottleneck are being thrown around instead of stating the power decrease"

SO technically you fall under the same path, you didn't back up your facts, just like overkill and bottleneck don't say more than u see.

If you read, some people say, well that card is going to bottleneck your system, why don't you upgrade yoru CPU, or choose a weaker card to get better results for your money. Yes there are users that say it will bottleneck the system and not give information, but personally I think that the words overkill + a suggestion like the post above your, can save alot of time and get straight to the point, which is mainly what forums are about, getting your facts quick and accurate

I just think your statement before was both ironic and kinda pointless. Nothing to do with the OP's question, and it wasn't constructive.

But thats My opinion.

P.S

regarding your 295 GTX + 1.8 = 30%, well we can't estimate that, I mean it can be less or it can be more, your asking us to go into specific detail, which we (most of us) can't because we don't own the hardware, and in many cases we haven't tested the hardware to give you detailed answers like that so we don't know the percent...but we do know its lowered so we use the word bottlenecked. Doesn't matter if its 40% or 10%, the money is still lost.

Have a look at the GTX 285 SSC as well. I've heard from many legit article publishers that 3 of those in Tri-SLI runs a bit faster than 2 GTX 295s in quad-sli and is around $200 cheaper.

And I'm sick of people whining about it. If you don't like it, make a reasoned statement to counter the argument people are putting forward, don't b1tch about the use of the term bottleneck and overkill, especially when they're used correctly, like in this case. They have a place and are very focused words, even if their application is often nowhere near as focused.

There are MANY bottlenecks in a system, and likely a bottleneck of some kind in ALL systems, unless everything is running @ 100% efficiency and workload. Whether or not it matters or makes itself known is another story, a GTX 295 OC might be bottlenecking on a lower power system, however if the settings are so low that the person is getting 120fps instead of 180, it doesn't matter that the GTX 295 isn't maxing performance, but it then speaks to the idea of overkill, where someone paid for performance they don't need/use or where they could've spent that moeny elsewhere effectively.

In the case of the OP, both of the options he's looking at appear to be overkill at that resolution, and it will be bottlenecked in most cases, not just by CPU [which is less of an immediate concern], but by Xfire/SLi driver overhead, where at lower resolutions single cards outperform the multi-VPU solutions because they don't have that added workload that shows little, no, or even negative performance impact on the multi-GPU solutions, which shine in the areas where that overhead is the least of their worries and high AA with high Rez have more of an impact. But even then, the effectiveness of AA, especially on a low dot pitch, poorer colour, older monitor provides diminishing returns, where the AA is limited by the monitor's ability to show the smoothing/blending effectively.

So for this question where it's price/performance ratios, those factors are a major concern, because the performance/benefit at that resolution is greatly affected, so it's utility in a Price/Performance equation is greatly 'bottlenecked' and it's going to be 'overkill' in most situations where it's using far less than it's potential, which would be much better used for something like F@H than gaming at 1280x1024. For single card solutions it makes sense for longer term investments, but for multi-vpu solutions, it's tougher to justify over-reaching now on a system where they can't be used, versus saving the difference and then re-investing later with newer, more efficient/effective or cheaper options.

As much as the term is overused, this backlash against even the idea of bottlenecking is equally over-used and is suddenly in fashion for those trying to come off as knowledgable or prigishly '1337' without actually providing any reasoning to back that up, other than whining about the term itself.

you wrote so much without really saying anything...

^^ WORD