Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX295 @1680x1050 + future

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Intel i7
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 7:30:28 PM

Hi all.

I buying a complete new system in the next moth or so and am planning on buying an i7 OC and GTX295. However I only game @ 1680x1050. Lots of people say this spec is over kill for my resolution. However that maybe so for now but what about in 2 years time when specs have gone through the roof and the minimum spec will probably be something like a 4830 or something, surely my 295 will keep playng games at my res for the forseeable.

(I have a wod of cash to spend NOW, not buy something like a 4870 now and upgrade when DX11 comes out. You know what the women are like......... you know what I mean, get my drift)?

I can't wait for DX 11 as i'm still using a P4 for god sake!! I've had enough and need something that will kick ass.

Anyone care to comment to help me out?

More about : gtx295 1680x1050 future

April 3, 2009 7:55:52 PM

an 295 is a serious overkill, you will have the same problem 8800 ultra/7950GX2 buyers have nowadays - they bought the best card in the market back then and spent all that money on technology that's gone old so now even though they lack some features (especially the 7950 w/o DX10) they are stuck because they don't want to pay to replace a card that cost them so much.
get urself a decent card like a 4870/90 or if you feel like it a 275 (just wait for the prices to cool down a bit) and then when DX11 is mature enough buy a card from that generation.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 3, 2009 7:59:34 PM

z999 said:
an 295 is a serious overkill, you will have the same problem 8800 ultra/7950GX2 buyers have nowadays - they bought the best card in the market back then and spent all that money on technology that's gone old so now even though they lack some features (especially the 7950 w/o DX10) they are stuck because they don't want to pay to replace a card that cost them so much.
get urself a decent card like a 4870/90 or if you feel like it a 275 (just wait for the prices to cool down a bit) and then when DX11 is mature enough buy a card from that generation.


I totally disagree.
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 8:12:16 PM

Many X58 boards support both SLI and XFire I think (Gigabytes boards do at least) so you can get a decent card now and add one later if you really need it. The new 4890 and GTX275 both give good performance for ~250$.
April 3, 2009 8:13:22 PM

The GTX295 is NOT overkill for this resolution if you play games like crysis, STALKER Clear Sky, Cryostasis, farcry2, empire total war. But it is overkill for games like cod, left 4 dead.

Some benchmarks with GTX295 & i7:

Crisis benchmark 1920x1200 veryhigh DX10 = 40fps
Crisis benchmark 1680x1050 veryhigh DX10 = 48fps

STALKER Clear Sky benchmark 1920x1200 max Setting DX10 = 25fps
STALKER Clear Sky benchmark 1680x1050 max Setting DX10 = 30fps
.....

a c 123 U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 8:36:26 PM

Dude if you have the money you get the biggest, baddest card you can cram in your case......... overkill.... BS !
a c 107 U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 8:41:17 PM

Yeah it seems like overkill for many games now, but since you want to keep it for a few years it's a good choice. It will be a while before Direct X 11 games come out, but I think that even DX10 cards will benefit from DX11 due to the threading of frames and game logic. I say you buy this now. Since your CPU will hold it back you can spend your next wad of cash on a CPU/Motherboard upgrade and not have to worry that your Video card is weak. If you end up with an SLI board by the time you upgrade then you may get lucky and be able to pick up another GTX295 on the cheap from ebay. Even if you don't the 295 should be fine until you upgrade again.

Personally though for $500 I'd look into doing an affordable platform upgrade. Even at stock speed my Athlon 5000+ CPU seemed miles ahead of my overclocked Athlon 3000 or the P4 3.06.
April 3, 2009 9:10:03 PM

you would be better of going with the 4890 it would still be overkill but will only get better when DX11 comes out
April 3, 2009 9:12:15 PM

It is definitely overkill.
April 3, 2009 9:23:00 PM

z999 said:
an 295 is a serious overkill, you will have the same problem 8800 ultra/7950GX2 buyers have nowadays - they bought the best card in the market back then and spent all that money on technology that's gone old so now even though they lack some features (especially the 7950 w/o DX10) they are stuck because they don't want to pay to replace a card that cost them so much.
get urself a decent card like a 4870/90 or if you feel like it a 275 (just wait for the prices to cool down a bit) and then when DX11 is mature enough buy a card from that generation.


Totally wrong! I bought two 8800GTX's over two years ago and If I had them they would still be kicking butt to most mainstream GPU's. The old 8800GTX and Ultras are still around in the form of the 9800's and GTX250's, same chip just shrunk and slightly tuned. Anyone with a couple of 8800's can still hold their head up high with those old cards.

With your advise those folks would have had to buy new cards 2 or 3 times already just to keep up. It all comes out about the same.

BTW I have two 295+'s now and not looking back.
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 9:30:27 PM

michaelmk86 said:
The GTX295 is NOT overkill for this resolution if you play games like crysis, STALKER Clear Sky, Cryostasis, farcry2, empire total war. But it is overkill for games like cod, left 4 dead.

Some benchmarks with GTX295 & i7:

Crisis benchmark 1920x1200 veryhigh DX10 = 40fps
Crisis benchmark 1680x1050 veryhigh DX10 = 48fps

STALKER Clear Sky benchmark 1920x1200 max Setting DX10 = 25fps
STALKER Clear Sky benchmark 1680x1050 max Setting DX10 = 30fps
.....


The problem with those are, they are all still pretty much playing like a dog.
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 9:44:36 PM

Thanks for those responses. I think you have already told me what I already knew.

Anyway I'm going 295, but how can an OC i7 hold back a 295???? mmm, a bit of BS there don't you think?
April 3, 2009 9:52:14 PM

I bought the GTX 295, but most MMORPG's (my games of choice) don't support multiple gpu's, and most MMORPG's don't utilize dual SLI. If I could do it again, i'd down grade and same some cash for when the games can utilize the full potential of the card.

I'm happy with it, but I have to disable multiple GPU for any MMORPG (WoW, EQ2, Darkfall) So really im not even utilizing half the card.
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 10:09:46 PM

^ Mainly cuz most MMORPGs have graphics that would get more than enough with even at the low end of the medium tiered GPUs. (ie. You can get great fps with relatively crappy GPUs such as the 9400GT, 8600GT, 8400GT, etc)
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 10:16:28 PM

i say if you are willing to get it, go for it, that card will last a while in the long run
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2009 10:47:42 PM



z999 said:
an 295 is a serious overkill, you will have the same problem 8800 ultra/7950GX2 buyers have nowadays - they bought the best card in the market back then and spent all that money on technology that's gone old so now even though they lack some features (especially the 7950 w/o DX10) they are stuck because they don't want to pay to replace a card that cost them so much.
get urself a decent card like a 4870/90 or if you feel like it a 275 (just wait for the prices to cool down a bit) and then when DX11 is mature enough buy a card from that generation.



I agree .
A card that powerful for a 22 inch LCD is a waste of power

Heres what Tomshardware says in the latest best graphics cards for the money article

"With exponentially increasing prices over $340 offering smaller and smaller performance boosts, we have a hard time recommending anything more expensive than two Radeon HD 4870 512 MB cards in CrossFire. While the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and the GeForce GTX 295 perform impressively in multiple-card configurations, there’s just not enough of a gain compared to two Radeon HD 4870 512 MB cards, unless you play at resolutions beyond 1920x1200."
April 3, 2009 10:48:53 PM

lol... wow some of the answers here blow my friggin mind.

that card is NOT overkill if you play games on that resolution with serious graphics enhancements such as AA and AS filtering.

take this into consideration: would you rather want to run crysis on my video card or the one hes planning on buying with that same resolution? exactly.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 12:54:35 AM

werxen said:
lol... wow some of the answers here blow my friggin mind.

that card is NOT overkill if you play games on that resolution with serious graphics enhancements such as AA and AS filtering.

take this into consideration: would you rather want to run crysis on my video card or the one hes planning on buying with that same resolution? exactly.



LOL ... wow some of you have very easy minds to blow
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 1:02:12 AM

Truth be told, I'd save money and buy a 285gtx for 1680x1050 instead of a 295gtx. Or I'd save a lot more money and be happy with a 4870 512/1gb or maybe a 260 216.

Both the 4870x2 and gtx295 are for 1900x1200 minimum. At 19x12 I'd take the 4850x2 on pure cost, and at the highest resolution you can take either one of the other two dual gpu's.
April 4, 2009 1:36:00 AM

Kkkk1 said:
Hi all.

I buying a complete new system in the next moth or so and am planning on buying an i7 OC and GTX295. However I only game @ 1680x1050. Lots of people say this spec is over kill for my resolution. However that maybe so for now but what about in 2 years time when specs have gone through the roof and the minimum spec will probably be something like a 4830 or something, surely my 295 will keep playng games at my res for the forseeable.

(I have a wod of cash to spend NOW, not buy something like a 4870 now and upgrade when DX11 comes out. You know what the women are like......... you know what I mean, get my drift)?

I can't wait for DX 11 as i'm still using a P4 for god sake!! I've had enough and need something that will kick ass.

Anyone care to comment to help me out?


Duh, take that "wod" of cash and buy a decent 1920 x 1200 monitor or better yet a 30" incher. Never could understand why people will spend fortunes on video cards and upgrades and use a crappy 19 or 22 inch monitor.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 1:43:02 AM

Homeboy2 said:
Duh, take that "wod" of cash and buy a decent 1920 x 1200 monitor or better yet a 30" incher. Never could understand why people will spend fortunes on video cards and upgrades and use a crappy 19 or 22 inch monitor.


Well i agree, sort of. 19" is just no good these days, however 22" is just fine for the vast majority.

People who buy the top graphics card and save money by using the same old monitor really do need to reprioritise however. I think that is the main reason why others are saying a 295gtx at 1680x1050 is overkill.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 2:06:29 AM

^ 19'' is no good!?!?! HEY man, I got a 17' running Crysis on ultra-high (gfx mod) at 1280x1024, and I have no complaints since I'm getting like 30-40 fps average.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 2:39:59 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
^ 19'' is no good!?!?! HEY man, I got a 17' running Crysis on ultra-high (gfx mod) at 1280x1024, and I have no complaints since I'm getting like 30-40 fps average.


I was playing 19" for the past 4-5 years and it was fine. I was happy enough with it until my best friend bought a 22".

After seeing that, I bought two 22" monitors for both my pc's and truly, it's the best hardware decision I ever made. It's not just the resolution btw - if you have been using an older 19" for a few years then the actual quality of the 22" is incredible. Faster ms, more vibrant colours and brighter screens are even more important than viewing area.

If I hadn't seen my friends I'd still be happy with the 19" ofc. :D 
April 4, 2009 3:43:16 AM

I'd consider something in SLI or crossfire instead... the dual cards tend to lack support after a certain period of time (thinking GX2) and with crossfire 4890's or SLI 275's you can't really go wrong.
April 4, 2009 3:50:51 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
^ 19'' is no good!?!?! HEY man, I got a 17' running Crysis on ultra-high (gfx mod) at 1280x1024, and I have no complaints since I'm getting like 30-40 fps average.


Hey, why don't you get a 15" running at 800x600? you could prolly get 60 fps with that!
April 4, 2009 4:04:48 AM

My two cents:
I run a Q9450 at 3.0 and GTX 295.
I run 2 24" monitors, but with my drivers they run either independently at 1920x1200 each, or one of them at that res. Previous drivers allowed me to run games at 3840x1200 which was bada$$.

Anywho, at 1920x1200 I run one monitor for gaming on my GTX 295 and it is absolutely phenominal. Never overkill when you use the best with the best.

Go for it. As Rocky Balboa says!

Cheers.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 5:33:08 AM

Homeboy2 said:
Hey, why don't you get a 15" running at 800x600? you could prolly get 60 fps with that!


naw, because 1280x1024 is actually the gaming standard - or what the majority of people with LCD monitors use.

800x600 is like 10 year old CRT monitors
April 4, 2009 6:22:53 AM

Go for the Nvidia 285 or if you can find the Nvidia 280 for that resolution.

I run mine at the same res as yours and I moved from p4 3.0 ghz ht.

and trust me it's fast :) 

No need for the 295 for now, save the money and get it later, hell get the BFG there is a tradeback program where you can send in your card and pay the diffrence later on and get a newer card cheaper.

Best of luck
April 4, 2009 7:37:48 AM

I would buy a GTX275 or 285 and then spend my next wad of cash buying another 1 or 2 for sli in the future, (whenever you get another opportunity) ATM the 295 will absolutely max out anything you throw at it, and in that perspective it is not overkill. And looking forward it will last you a very long time (realtive) like the 8800GTX if you bought one 3 years ago it still is the equivalent of a 4850 today.
April 4, 2009 11:34:03 AM

kkkk1 go for the GTX295 with out second thought it is better to have more fps in 1680x1050 instead of 1920x1200 and less fps.

1920x1200 is 30% bigger than the 1680x1050 so if the 1680x1050 is overkill then the 1920x1200 is also overkill.

a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 7:22:45 PM

It's very interesting reading. Although someone said about ditching my "crappy 22" monitor and get 24 or 30". mmm my Samsung 22" is fantastic and love it to bits, it's certainly not crappy. I'm sat right in front of it and just don't want a bigger screen. Thanks for all the responses. 295 it is...
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 7:54:59 PM

^ ='(

crappy 22' monitor?
I have a 17' monitor...I feel so unloved.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 10:01:33 PM

In computers, like pretty much everything in life, when you taste the best, going back to the "good" is tough. I'm sure if I was to try a 30" LCD with dual 285 or 295, I would find pretty much everything else "crappy" :p .
a c 123 U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 10:19:53 PM

Zenthar said:
In computers, like pretty much everything in life, when you taste the best, going back to the "good" is tough. I'm sure if I was to try a 30" LCD with dual 285 or 295, I would find pretty much everything else "crappy" :p .



Well, it's the truth isn't it ? Probably one of the reasons I got hammered when I said the 4870/512 wasn't as good as people said.................. You try the better products and you can see the difference you truthfully know the difference. Hard for some people to swallow.

Anybody want to buy a 22" monitor. It seems too short at the top. I want to move up to a 24' at least.......... Notice how playing Farcry2 that it seems to be one of the few games that actually screams for a huge monitor ?
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2009 11:37:13 PM

But it is a sacrifice many of us have to make. I myself keep using a 1680x1050 22" monitor because going over that would require a 400-500$ GPU instead of a 300$ one. I could spend more, but I would probably to have to cut-back on my two weeks a year of ~35-50 megapixel jungle/beach :p .
April 5, 2009 2:24:48 AM

For right now it is overkill but your right that in the future it may not be. So your just future proofing yourself.
April 5, 2009 6:00:47 AM

mamw93 said:
For right now it is overkill but your right that in the future it may not be. So your just future proofing yourself.


Again for the thousandth time, there is NO such thing as "future proof" maybe you mean "future resistant"? Go ahead and buy a card thats "good enough" for a decent price and in the future you will be able to buy another medium price card that will blow away anything you can buy right now.
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2009 6:10:42 AM

It's more cost effective and just as good if you buy the medium high end cards every 2 years instead of buying the high-high end and trying to future proof.
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2009 6:43:04 AM


the future is dx11. im betting a 100$ dx11 card will wipe the floor with the gtx295, especially if it'll run dx11 apps. the same way a 7950gx2 is unwanted compared to a 4670/9600.

so the future + gtx295 is wishful thinking.

if you measure "future" in tech terms, that'll be equivalent to 6-8 months.
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2009 12:55:30 PM

wh3resmycar said:
the future is dx11. im betting a 100$ dx11 card will wipe the floor with the gtx295
The same thing was said about DX10, but it took at least a year for it to become a reality.
wh3resmycar said:
the same way a 7950gx2 is unwanted compared to a 4670/9600.
Right now, true, but we are nearly 3 years after the GX2 release. But overall you are right, after 2-3 years, no matter what you bought (CPU, GPU, ...) it's worth crap. Today's 3000$ PC will be tomorrow's 500$ Dell computer...

It would be a great exercise to actually see how much, over time, it can cost to keep a build at least low/high/mid range. Maybe is is worth paying little extra in the beginning, maybe not. Right now a 4670 will beat a 7950GX2, but if someone had bought a 100$ card back then, how many times would he have to upgrade to keep-up with games? A year ago I paid 330$CAD for my OCed 8800GTS (G92) and now I'm looking at another 300$ upgrade (something like 4890 or GTX275); how does a 600$ card one year ago compares to GTX275?
!