Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will a gts 250 1024mb sparkle be able to playfuture pc games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2009 12:00:55 PM

will a intel's q9550 with a gts 250 1024mb sparkle.

i know the requirments has not been released yet nor the game has released any info, but i was planning to buy a new pc with those parts.

im not here to ask for which parts i just want to know will a q9550 with a gts 250 1024mb can play crysis 2 which is said to have better graphics then the first, in which the first one max out the cpu and graphics card in that time.
June 13, 2009 12:10:13 PM

I purchased a GTS250 1 gb about a month ago and it has taken almost all games (WOW COD4,COD5, Fear 2). The one it has had issues with is cryostasis. I would imagine it might play crysis OK but I can't say for crysis 2. If your looking for a future proof card you will need to spend a bit more money.
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 12:19:28 PM

There is no such thing as future proof, if such a thing existed then the future proof cards from two years ago would have been able to run Crysis and the like at triple figure frame rates quite easily.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 1:22:15 PM

^ agreed.
But if you want to upgrade now and not for some time i would recommend a powerful card such as a gtx295/4870x2. gtx250 wont hold up much for newer games.
Just curious do you have a sli or cf board?
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 3:00:10 PM

^

1. its GTS not GTX
2. the GTS 250 1 GB will not hold up for newer games?? This statement clearly shows you know nothing about video cards and you simply talk out of your azz making idiot statements. Name a single game today or that is coming out where this card can not run a game on high settings with a 20 inch monitor? Including Crysis?? Do this whole forum and leave so you can rid us of your noob statements!
June 13, 2009 4:20:16 PM

The GTS 250 is just an overclocked 9800gtx, and i have a 9800gtx overclocked higher than the GTS 250 clock rates. I can play Fallout 3, and supreme commander with high enough frame rates that i can't notice it at max settings at 1400x900. But farcry2, at 1400x900, i can only get about 30fps at maxed settings (with anti-aliasing 8x). I personally would go with something better, maybe a 4890 or a 275, or a 285 depending on how much you're willing to spend.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 5:30:54 PM

i play farcry 2 at 1400x900 res on high settings and my FPS stays between 50-70FPS.
I have an Athlon x2 6000 & 9800GT

try turning the AA to 2
June 13, 2009 5:40:11 PM

Yea but then everything looks like ass... XD. besides, its still playable at 30-40 fps i get lol. But anyways, if hes looking at larger resolutions and newer games, it won't last for too long. I'm probably gonna upgrade later this year, so i wouldn't get it if i were him.

Have you seen this article OP?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-pric...
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 5:53:30 PM

XD_dued said:
The GTS 250 is just an overclocked 9800gtx, and i have a 9800gtx overclocked higher than the GTS 250 clock rates. I can play Fallout 3, and supreme commander with high enough frame rates that i can't notice it at max settings at 1400x900. But farcry2, at 1400x900, i can only get about 30fps at maxed settings (with anti-aliasing 8x). I personally would go with something better, maybe a 4890 or a 275, or a 285 depending on how much you're willing to spend.


Not exactly. The GTS250 is just an overclocked 9800GTX+, which is just an overclocked 9800GTX.
The difference between a GTS250 and a 9800GTX+ is small, and the difference between a 9800GTX+ and 9800GTX is small. However, if you add that up, the difference between a GTS250 and a 9800GTX is noticeable.

The GTS250 is on a smaller die, uses less power, has a higher clock, OCs easier, gives off less heat, and is generally better than the 9800GTX. Benchmarks show ~5% improvement over the 9800GTX+, and up to 10% improvement over the 9800GTX.
a c 177 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 5:56:18 PM

@ b22max60w: Yes, but at lower resoloutions (below 16x10) and without AA if you want good framerates.
For a new build I would suggest a bit more graphics horsepower, though.
June 13, 2009 6:59:12 PM

You will not be able to play Crysis 2, Crysis, or Crysis: Warhead with higher settings and resolution at any good frame-rates. You'll have to use tweaks, lower resolution, and suffer stutters in framerate as well as experience drops below 20 fps during intense firefight scene. I have a 4870 1GB and 3.2Ghz Phenom II X3 720 and I have trouble playing the game at max settings and 1680x1050 resolution. The GTS 250 is an already outdated card, but if you are looking for a 'future-proof' card that doesn't cost through the roof, get a 4870 1GB or GTX 260 216.
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 7:07:56 PM

simplyderp said:
You will not be able to play Crysis 2, Crysis, or Crysis: Warhead with higher settings and resolution at any good frame-rates. You'll have to use tweaks, lower resolution, and suffer stutters in framerate as well as experience drops below 20 fps during intense firefight scene. I have a 4870 1GB and 3.2Ghz Phenom II X3 720 and I have trouble playing the game at max settings and 1680x1050 resolution. The GTS 250 is an already outdated card, but if you are looking for a 'future-proof' card that doesn't cost through the roof, get a 4870 1GB or GTX 260 216.

:pfff:  You have trouble playing an old game and yet recommend your card as being 'future proof'.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 8:08:55 PM

1. mousemonkey; what happened to the glasses??

2. Simply; Crysis 2 will be playable on a Xbox360, so you are telling me the Xbox 360 is more powerful then a 4870 1GB? Go look at other console ports to the PC, FEAR2, Farcry2, Fallout 3, Bioshock. Which ones can you not play on high settings at 1680 x 1050 res???
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 8:10:49 PM

ct1615 said:
1. mousemonkey; what happened to the glasses??

I came over all patriotic. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 8:37:54 PM

When you say future, if you mean for the next 12 months, then yes, the GTS 250 can handle all new games on medium to high settings for 22 inch monitors and smaller.

2 years from now, the GTS 250 might be like using an 8600 GT to play Crysis. You can do it but on low settings and that's not a fun gaming experience.

For $40 more, get a GTX 260.
June 13, 2009 8:43:49 PM

If the 9800gtx+ is an overclocked 9800gtx, and a GTS 250 is an overclocked 9800gtx+, wouldn't by the transitive property, the GTS 250 be an overclocked 9800gtx? XD
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 8:46:27 PM

Yes but a smaller process, 55nm from 65nm.
June 13, 2009 9:15:53 PM

1.5-2 years before you'll really need to upgrade, if you're at 1920x1200 it'll be 1 year.

However, in 6 months at the same price point you'll probably find twice the graphics power because we're nearing a tok in the tic tok chip production cycle. That is to say in a few months the radeon 58xx series is coming out.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2009 10:29:51 PM

ct1615 said:
^

1. its GTS not GTX
2. the GTS 250 1 GB will not hold up for newer games?? This statement clearly shows you know nothing about video cards and you simply talk out of your azz making idiot statements. Name a single game today or that is coming out where this card can not run a game on high settings with a 20 inch monitor? Including Crysis?? Do this whole forum and leave so you can rid us of your noob statements!



Well idiot not all of us have a 20in monitor. People playing at 19x12 or higher with a single gts250 would start to see the card struggle. Crysis for example you probably could play high settings (or any other current games) but doubt you would get 40fps avg that's without any aa in crysis. His trying to decide on a card that is "future proof" since games are getting intense i would imagine a gtx250 wouldnt keep up (For ex his asking about crysis 2). Sure you could lower the settings but who wouldnt want the extra eye-candy. So stop idiotically attacking people moron!
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 12:05:25 AM

invisik said:
Well idiot not all of us have a 20in monitor. People playing at 19x12 or higher with a single gts250 would start to see the card struggle. Crysis for example you probably could play high settings (or any other current games) but doubt you would get 40fps avg that's without any aa in crysis. His trying to decide on a card that is "future proof" since games are getting intense i would imagine a gtx250 wouldnt keep up (For ex his asking about crysis 2). Sure you could lower the settings but who wouldnt want the extra eye-candy. So stop idiotically attacking people moron!


I don't understand your post, you start it off by talking to yourself with your very second word typed. The rest of the post only proves that you are a video card noob trying to start a troll fight. You now admit you can play games with a GTS 250 1GB on high settings (proving me correct and you the board imbecile) by stating "you probably could play high settings" where before you stated the card "would not hold up". You also fail (as usual) to state what games coming out soon are graphic intense for today's cards?

As stated before, when an intellectual superior states that you should leave the board, do so or you will be embarrassed by me for the third time.

This is me waving "bye bye" to you as you crawl back into your mother's basement like a good little boy. :hello: 
June 14, 2009 12:18:52 AM

Alright, ct1615, you need to back off on the aggressive posts. First of all, it sounds really corny when you attempt to call people "noobs" and still maintain a tone of seriousness, let alone the fact that it doesn't sound like you're all that educated yourself.

ct1615 said:
Do this whole forum and leave so you can rid us of your noob statements!


You mean "do this whole forum a favor," right? Also, don't end your insults in exclamations, it makes you sound obscenely foreign.


Second of all:

ct1615 said:
1. mousemonkey; what happened to the glasses??

2. Simply; Crysis 2 will be playable on a Xbox360, so you are telling me the Xbox 360 is more powerful then a 4870 1GB? Go look at other console ports to the PC, FEAR2, Farcry2, Fallout 3, Bioshock. Which ones can you not play on high settings at 1680 x 1050 res???


Do you really think the console ports of games are being played at the same settings as their PC counterparts? As far as I know, xbox 360 plays games at 720p, far below the resolutions we're talking about here, i.e. 1680x1050 and higher.

I expect greater attentiveness and an increased perception of reality in your forthcoming posts.

Good luck,
sseyler
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 12:32:23 AM

ct1615 said:
I don't understand your post, you start it off by talking to yourself with your very second word typed. The rest of the post only proves that you are a video card noob trying to start a troll fight. You now admit you can play games with a GTS 250 1GB on high settings (proving me correct and you the board imbecile) by stating "you probably could play high settings" where before you stated the card "would not hold up". You also fail (as usual) to state what games coming out soon are graphic intense for today's cards?

As stated before, when an intellectual superior states that you should leave the board, do so or you will be embarrassed by me for the third time.

This is me waving "bye bye" to you as you crawl back into your mother's basement like a good little boy. :hello: 



You idiot he wants a future proof card! The gts250 is going to run current games decently but with newer games coming out at high resolution its going to struggle. Its as simple as that. If you cant understand that then just shut the hell up.

For you idiot check out the benches: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gts-250,217...
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 1:02:49 AM

invisik said:
You idiot he wants a future proof card! The gts250 is going to run current games decently but with newer games coming out at high resolution its going to struggle. Its as simple as that. If you cant understand that then just shut the hell up.

For you idiot check out the benches: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gts-250,217...


with each post, you just further prove you are the biggest imbecile on the forum...since you fail to answer my single question of what current game can the card not run on high settings? I know you feel embarrassed by your lack of intelligence, I'm sure you are used to it though.

I have displayed your lack of intelligence in four straight posts, care to make it five and continue down the path of me beating you like rug? :D 


a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 1:18:34 AM

sseyler said:


Do you really think the console ports of games are being played at the same settings as their PC counterparts? As far as I know, xbox 360 plays games at 720p, far below the resolutions we're talking about here, i.e. 1680x1050 and higher.

I expect greater attentiveness and an increased perception of reality in your forthcoming posts.

Good luck,
sseyler


I agree 100%. All I am stating is at 1680 x 1050, or even higher for some games, the GTS 250 1GB can run the games at high settings. While invisik states "it will not hold up for newer games" including Crysis 2 (a Xbox360 port).

I have asked him to state one single "newer game" the card will not hold up to...he fails at it.

Granted two-three years from now the card may have issues with games but then, to quote the patriotic mousemonkey

"There is no such thing as future proof, if such a thing existed then the future proof cards from two years ago would have been able to run Crysis and the like at triple figure frame rates quite easily"
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 1:18:46 AM

double post
June 14, 2009 1:21:54 AM

Why not just advise the op to get a DX11 card when they are out instead and save a bunch of posts. gts 250, even with its 1gb will not do you any good with the dx11 titles, it being a dx10 card.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 2:44:02 AM

ct1615 said:
with each post, you just further prove you are the biggest imbecile on the forum...since you fail to answer my single question of what current game can the card not run on high settings? I know you feel embarrassed by your lack of intelligence, I'm sure you are used to it though.

I have displayed your lack of intelligence in four straight posts, care to make it five and continue down the path of me beating you like rug? :D 



Idiot look at the benches i sent you. Do you not notice in crysis that card struggles? Are you blind? The card will further struggle with newer games being released. As new games come out they usually need more power to run, your the real imbecile if you cant understand some simple logic.
June 14, 2009 2:53:52 AM

I use a Gigabyte GTS 250, 1 GB and it hasn't found anything so far yet that it can't handle. Crysis on HIGH (not very high) at 1600 x 1200 looks great and plays smoothly and I'm only using a Core2 Duo E8400 at 3600 MHz.
June 14, 2009 2:54:03 AM

I use a Gigabyte GTS 250, 1 GB and it hasn't found anything so far yet that it can't handle. Crysis on HIGH (not very high) at 1600 x 1200 looks great and plays smoothly and I'm only using a Core2 Duo E8400 at 3600 MHz.
June 14, 2009 2:54:13 AM

I use a Gigabyte GTS 250, 1 GB and it hasn't found anything so far yet that it can't handle. Crysis on HIGH (not very high) at 1600 x 1200 looks great and plays smoothly and I'm only using a Core2 Duo E8400 at 3600 MHz.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 2:57:01 AM

invisik said:
Idiot look at the benches i sent you. Do you not notice in crysis that card struggles? Are you blind? The card will further struggle with newer games being released. As new games come out they usually need more power to run, your the real imbecile.


why do you keep posting to yourself??? You link bench to Crysis in Ultra High settings...now go and quote me where I state the card can run Crysis in ultra high or "gamer" settings in Crysis or Warhead? Few cards can.

If you where not a complete imbecile you would see I have stated the card can run Crysis on "high" settings. I can get 35FPS in Crysis with a 9800GT on high settings. Is a GTS250 1GB a higher level card then the 9800GT 512mb? Would it then give you better FPS? Do you know the difference between Ultra and high settings?? Or are you that simply mentally challenged?

I have now embarrassed you and proved your lack of knowledge in five straight posts...the Washington Generals have a better shot of winning this match.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 2:58:13 AM

Its a fairly solid card i agree, but the point im making is at high resolution (19x12) with aa/af enabled the card struggles. The op wants a "future proof card" which there is none but the gtx250 i know for a fact wont hold up at high resolution with the eye-candy. Sure you could lower the settings but i would want to enjoy a game with high settings and a little aa.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 2:58:18 AM

Its a fairly solid card i agree, but the point im making is at high resolution (19x12) with aa/af enabled the card struggles. The op wants a "future proof card" which there is none but the gtx250 i know for a fact wont hold up at high resolution with the eye-candy. Sure you could lower the settings but i would want to enjoy a game with high settings and a little aa.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 2:59:40 AM

Caffeinecarl said:
I use a Gigabyte GTS 250, 1 GB and it hasn't found anything so far yet that it can't handle. Crysis on HIGH (not very high) at 1600 x 1200 looks great and plays smoothly and I'm only using a Core2 Duo E8400 at 3600 MHz.


Thank you Carl, some people (no names) think your card "would not hold up" under the stress of such new games.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 3:03:19 AM

Yes at a low resolution it can hold up im talking about running it at a high resolution with aa/af. If the card struggles at high resolution with aa/af with current games future games will only have a negative affect.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 3:07:50 AM

invisik said:
Its a fairly solid card i agree, but the point im making is at high resolution (19x12) with aa/af enabled the card struggles. The op wants a "future proof card" which there is none but the gtx250 i know for a fact wont hold up at high resolution with the eye-candy. Sure you could lower the settings but i would want to enjoy a game with high settings and a little aa.



"But if you want to upgrade now and not for some time i would recommend a powerful card such as a gtx295/4870x2. gtx250 wont hold up much for newer games.
Just curious do you have a sli or cf board? "

Quoted verbatim or I am wrong??? Am I lying? Or is that not what you posted? "the card would not hold up to newer games". Not, the card won't hold up to newer games with 4-8AA, on ultra high setting with a 24 inch monitor?

a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 3:14:06 AM

Yes that's just a general idea. Assuming the op isnt upgrading for some time a gtx295/4870x2 will let him play up to 19x12 with some aa/af. A single gts250 might not be enough at 16x12 with aa on. If you havent noticed the card struggles at high res with aa/af.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 3:33:19 AM

invisik said:
Yes that's just a general idea. Assuming the op isnt upgrading for some time a gtx295/4870x2 will let him play up to 19x12 with some aa/af. A single gts250 might not be enough at 16x12 with aa on. If you havent noticed the card struggles at high res with aa/af.



A single gts250 might not be enough at 16x12 with aa on. If you havent noticed the card struggles at high res with aa/af.

Other then crysis and grand theft auto IV(where every card under $200 struggles) name me one game game I can't set to 2-4AA and wont be able to play on high (not ultra high, very high, or gamer) with a 20 inch monitor? Name one game coming out next year?

I have yet to play a single game other then crysis and warhead where I had to turn off AA on high settings. Every one of the following games I played on high settings with AA on.

Fallout 3
FEAR 2
Far Cry 2
Mass Effect
Bioshock
Age of Conan
Warhammer Online

Edit: PLayed on high with no AA
Crysis
Crysis Warhead
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 3:45:21 AM

Well at 16x12 the gts250 really doesnt struggle but enabling 8-16 aa the card starts to. Im sure op wants to buy a card where he can play with max settings not just mid-high. With dx11 on the horizon i wouldnt be surprised to seeing games challenge mid range cards currently out now.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 7:24:28 AM

To me, the GTS 250 is closer to an entry level gaming card than to a mid range card like the GTX 260 (I have both). How much future proofing can you get with an entry level card?

On the flip side, when DX11 finally comes out, gamers aren't gonna rush Newegg and scoop up DX11 cards just to have the latest and greatest. Most will wait months maybe even a year.

When DX10 first came out, it wasn't like a grand opening, there was no huge reception with gamers going "Wow, look at all the new titles that uses DX10!" Even now, gamers aren't saying, "Man, my games suck on DX9!" They're not smashing their piggy banks for the slight visual difference.

I imagine it'll be the same for DX11 and new games will trickle out instead of a mass influx.

If Microsoft doesn't want to repeat another lukewarm reception for a new technology that supposedly make games better, then they should do all they can to have dozens of DX11 games available at launch. They should also have lots of DX11 game images of sunsets and filtered sunlight through a forest canopy (lol) that's gonna convince gamers it's much, much more beautiful to play in a DX11 world than yesterday's shabby rundown DX10 environment.

The point is - you can game with the GTS 250 for the next 2 years if you're willing to miss out on more lush hi-rez DX11 worlds but then again since we're only talking about the lowly GTS 250, it's not exactly a topic for performance enthusiasts so DX11 doesn't matter much here.

I'm just wondering if the pro gamers with their quad GTX 295s rigs come on these type of posts and then laugh.
June 14, 2009 9:19:37 AM

I love when people say stuph like, "Name me one whatever where this happens, except these things x, y, and z, don't name those because I know I'm wrong saying not one whatever exists. "

Just sayin'
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 12:40:47 PM

It's like you guys are debating about a Ford Escort racing at the track, will it hit 75 or 81 mph on the straightway or will it lean 2 or 4 degrees on the tight turns?

IMO, for $20 more get a GTX 260.

Here's one for $144 after rebate:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
BFG Tech BFGEGTX260896OCE GeForce GTX 260 896MB






a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 1:07:08 PM

^LOL
I agree gtx260 would be a solid choice also check out the 4870 same price range and supports dx10.1 which should give it an edge when dx11 arrives. But if you plan not to upgrade for a few years and want to play games at high resolution with aa/af i would recommend a gtx295/4870x2. I didnt want to upgrade for a good 2-3years so i bought 2 gtx260 sli and have a 3rd pcie for tri sli if the power is needed. =]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 14, 2009 7:23:03 PM

I have seen ct1615 in a couple threads now, causing troubles with his nonsense’s.
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 9:43:27 PM

successful_troll said:
I have seen ct1615 in a couple threads now, causing troubles with his nonsense’s.


how's my nonsense taste??
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 10:35:18 PM

Idiot there are 2 games right there you stated plus newer intense games will add to the list.
We all concur your an idiot. =]

"Other then crysis and grand theft auto IV(where every card under $200 struggles) name me one game game I can't set to 2-4AA and wont be able to play on high (not ultra high, very high, or gamer) with a 20 inch monitor? Name one game coming out next year?"
a c 235 U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 10:44:48 PM

invisik, you are the village idiot. I have totally spanked you in the debate...I thought you went away to go cry in your mother's basement. Now I see you came back and try to debate the top dog again? Well prepare to be spanked again!

"A single gts250 might not be enough at 16x12 with aa on. If you havent noticed the card struggles at high res with aa/af. "
- invisik

"Well at 16x12 the gts250 really doesnt struggle"
-invisik

Which one of us is the liar? Which one has constantly back tracked from statement to statement? All the intelligent people have concurred, you carry the flag of forum imbecile! I salute your mental deficiencies.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2009 10:54:34 PM

As i mentioned at 16x12 the card doesnt struggle but when you enable aa/af it does struggle at that resolution.
You yourself mentioned the card struggles with crysis/gtaIV
Plus op is building a "future proof" system so getting a gts250 would be a bad move.
June 15, 2009 1:09:10 AM

b22max60w said:
will a intel's q9550 with a gts 250 1024mb sparkle.

i know the requirments has not been released yet nor the game has released any info, but i was planning to buy a new pc with those parts.

im not here to ask for which parts i just want to know will a q9550 with a gts 250 1024mb can play crysis 2 which is said to have better graphics then the first, in which the first one max out the cpu and graphics card in that time.



Q9950 with a GTS 250, can it play Crysis 2 = on a 22" or lower, the answer is yes.

But my question is why don't you save up money to buy a GTX 295?

Are you planning to just buy this card until you save up money?
!