Very High -- Crysis 1280x1024

A 4850 would do it fairly easily. Perhaps not with full AA, but definitely all settings on very high.

Heres a review of 4850 doing Crysis at your resolution - think you would need more than that.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1 [...] ndex9.html

If you can't find your exact resolution in a review, you might find a 16XX x XXX that handles close to the same number of pixels as your res.

Vista for me, but i dont think my budget can reach out and pick up a 260. maybe if daddy steps in..... ahh teenage years...

Go for GTS 250 or the 9800GTX+
Both are same...

At 12 x 10 using the benchmark with very high settings 4xAA i get 25avg fps single gpu, and 40fps average crossfire.

As opposed to 19 x 12 where i get 16fps average single and 30fps average crossfire.

Always quite alot of these threads so for some reason always useful to have test data handy.

Of course at least in the early stages of the game, it is perfectly playable at 19x12.

Isnt he going to need a past cpu as well playing at such a low resolution?

well if it matters, i have an Athlon 64 X2 4800+. its not toooo slow i guess, it could be better, but the BIOS locked overclocking so i'm stuck with it. And yeah i'm thinking the GTS250 might be better cuz i remember seeing nvidia does better with Crysis.

I thought at low resolution the pc needs more cpu power.

i think the CPU usage stays pretty much the same at all resolutions, gets a little higher at a higher resolution tho. i'm not %100 sure tho

By running at a lower resolution, your GPU doesn't work as hard correct? If so, its able to push a lot more pixels, providing you with more FPS. This puts a strain on the CPU to keep up. If the CPU is to slow, then its not going to be any faster. You'll still be able to play, its just that the bottleneck has moved to the CPU instead of the GPU. Max is right.

at lower resolutions, a higher cpu clock speed is needed or your video card will be bottlenecked.

JUST fyi, they had a qx9770 at 4.0ghz, and the gtx 280 they were testing was still bottlenecked at 1280x1024.

how do you know if its bottlenecked? if you seem to stop seeing gains as you lower your resolution, your cpu is bottlenecking your gpu

Your cpu is limiting the FPS, not bottlenecking anything.

How you can visualise a bottleneck in relation to what you said I don't know, they must make bottles differently where you come from.

If the game still flows easily, there can be no restriction, correct.

Semantics maybe, but if you are going to use an analogy to help people visualise what you are saying, then make sure it makes sense.

Oh we are on this old chestnut again are we
I'm not going to go into it all again strangestranger has certain views on it which are technically valid as far as i can see, and we have talked this over more than enough.
However i agree with what invisik, 4745454b and eklipz330 posted.
Its not that the CPU would try and run faster to keep up, (well an i7 would if turbo mode was on).
Its got a set speed and when the GPU is capable of drawing and rendering the frames faster than this then the "Restriction" in the machine as far as FPS goes is the CPU.
Its not that its even a bad thing per say, as long as you have a playable frame rate when you hit this restriction then the extra speed the GPU has found at the lower resolution can be translated into higher Quality settings.

Mactronix

True statement, we don't know how DX11 cards will perform. If you can, buy the cheapest solution until you can get a glimpse of the new era coming this autumn.

Monitor size___usage
19’ __________no use, is only suitable for the garbage.
22’ __________for office use, nothing more.
26’ __________you can play some games.
30’ __________perfect for games.

Edit:
These are facts.

Tom's still tests at 1280x1024 in articles such as SBM's. In Crysis (not Warhead), the GTX 260 and HD 4870 are not up to the task of DX10 (all) very high.

OC'ed GTX 260 isn't enough:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 310-9.html

HD4870 is a no go, HD 4870 X2 is capable given enough CPU:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 304-7.html

Of course, not everyone agrees on exactly what is playable performance. Most of the game may be fine if settings get dumbed down in the worst areas.

if you do programming a big monitor is essential so you can see more code per page.
You are just making up excuses so go buy a decent monitor and stop being so cheap.

Ever since swapping to a 32" LCD the games have become amazing.

I do not agree with that.
I have a samsung T260 (26 inch) and I can say that it is small for gaming.

I'm 15 and don't have a job, i'm not cheap at all. The whole programming thing isn't an excuse either, i stay really close to my monitor so big monitors kill my eyes. And seeing a lot more code isn't at all essential. Seriously, it doesn't matter. Why would you need to?

I used to code back when I was in college. I hated having to do it at the school. 17" CRTs, and only one of them. At home I was using a 21" and 17" CRT. This was great, as I could have many windows open at the same time, thus increasing the speed of my programing. (imaging having to look up a bit of coding online, and not having to minimize or maximize every time you wanted to see it. I could look at the example code and my own at the same time, side by side.) For coding, you don't need a fast GPU, just a lot of desktop real estate. Gaming however chokes if you try to push to many pixels. Having a single good monitor is what you want to use. A good sized monitor with a fast response time and good specs will look a lot better then a larger monitor with poor specs.

So you want to turn on the details, but you don't need HDR, AA/AF, etc? What you want will depend on the game engine. Some games look fine with no AA, while others you'll need at least 2X. I always try to turn on 2AA, even if I have to lower textures or turn shadows down. Again, if you can get the best GPU you can, you'll have the best shot at making your video games look the best. Coding is nothing, so don't worry to much about that. (other then getting a second monitor...)

Precisely cute cuddly troll.

Personally I would go with the 250 but just make sure you get the 1GB version. I can get around 60-75 FPS with everything on Enthusiast and 4x88 playing Crysis Warhead in Sli. With just a single 250 I only get 35-45 frames average.

but i think a 4870 is a better choice cuz even if crysis loves nvidia, the 4870 performs better in other games