Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will the GTX 295 work fully with the P5Q-Pro?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 18, 2009 6:55:36 AM

I curently have 2 ATI Radeon 4870 512MB in crossfire and I would like to know if the Geforce GTX 295 would show up as 2 GPUs sence it is a dual GPU card but my big question is would SLI work for the one card or would I have to get the ATI Radeon 4870 X2? With my current cards Crysis studers on high settings I think due to the 512MB of ram.

Asus P5Q-PRO Intel P45 motherboard

More about : gtx 295 work fully p5q pro

July 18, 2009 8:17:34 AM

Just wait for the new ati cards. There is no point to upgrade from 4870 512MB CF to 4870 X2 or GTX 295 the performance different will not be big.
July 18, 2009 10:02:59 AM

When do you think they will come out with new cards? I want to get a card before the next Crysis.
Related resources
July 18, 2009 4:53:35 PM

the new cards should hit the market between Q3/09-Q1/10.

The cards should be faster, one of the reason is the cards should have more SP...
July 18, 2009 9:28:30 PM

cool. so it should hit just before Crysis 2?
a b U Graphics card
July 18, 2009 9:58:46 PM

I hear crysis 2 is going to be a port from console so its not going to require much too run it and the graphics will be on par or less from crysis 1
a b U Graphics card
July 18, 2009 11:43:41 PM

Crysis 2 will use the CryEngine 3 and therefor will require a hi-end card just like Crysis and Warhead. There will be an x-box360 and PS3 version....Wait for the new cards to come out and you will be fine....
July 19, 2009 2:24:22 AM

1. yes, it will work
2. do not waste money...even GTX295 can`t push Crysis over 40-42 fps on highest settings, even when it`s paired with oced i7. You are really not gonna get any superb performance boost...just wait
a b U Graphics card
July 19, 2009 2:33:47 AM

sefit said:
1. yes, it will work
2. do not waste money...even GTX295 can`t push Crysis over 40-42 fps on highest settings, even when it`s paired with oced i7. You are really not gonna get any superb performance boost...just wait


Umm.... that will big fat Negative son.....

I have the i7 920@ 3.5Ghz and use an EVGA 275 (trust me its overclocked) and I can get 42-50 FPS easy with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA playing Crysis Warhead....yea every now n then you will see your frames go up n down but as far as the 295 quote, you are wrong.....very wrong.....

With a dual GTS 250's and and a 550 overclocked to 3.5Ghz I can get 27-38 average FPS on the same game with the same settings....



July 19, 2009 5:59:20 AM

OvrClkr said:
Umm.... that will big fat Negative son.....

I have the i7 920@ 3.5Ghz and use an EVGA 275 (trust me its overclocked) and I can get 42-50 FPS easy with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA playing Crysis Warhead....yea every now n then you will see your frames go up n down but as far as the 295 quote, you are wrong.....very wrong.....

With a dual GTS 250's and and a 550 overclocked to 3.5Ghz I can get 27-38 average FPS on the same game with the same settings....


how is your 550 on overclocking? Can you get to 4GHz? So then my next question is. What is the ATI's Model numbers. Is there any rumers out about them? Like months before the next CPU hits the market you start to hear about them. Any site have any early reviews?
July 19, 2009 6:11:47 PM

blackpanther26 said:
When do you think they will come out with new cards? I want to get a card before the next Crysis.


1. The new Crysis will be released on PS3 and Xbox360... so it is a safe bet to say it will not be the beast we saw with Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

2. A 295 is a waste of money.

3. The new DX11 ATI cards are coming before Christmas.
July 19, 2009 6:12:45 PM

^1+ yes!! same questions

I love my new 720 x3 (OCs like a charm) but had my eye on the 550 before.
July 19, 2009 6:22:17 PM

OvrClkr said:
Umm.... that will big fat Negative son.....

I have the i7 920@ 3.5Ghz and use an EVGA 275 (trust me its overclocked) and I can get 42-50 FPS easy with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA playing Crysis Warhead....yea every now n then you will see your frames go up n down but as far as the 295 quote, you are wrong.....very wrong.....

With a dual GTS 250's and and a 550 overclocked to 3.5Ghz I can get 27-38 average FPS on the same game with the same settings....


In 1920X1200?

Ohhhh... that's right, no..... funny to see that 2 GTX295 are outperformed by 2 GTX260.



By the way, Warhead is easier to run.
July 19, 2009 11:20:00 PM

so do you think ATI can catch up with Nvidia next round of Graphics or will they still be close?
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 2:32:16 AM

redgarl said:
In 1920X1200?

Ohhhh... that's right, no..... funny to see that 2 GTX295 are outperformed by 2 GTX260.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/N/D/212089/original/sbm-may09-comp_01.png

By the way, Warhead is easier to run.


If you look closely at the chart it clearly states NO AA...... meaning no eye-candy whatsoever.....

So that means its not having everything on "HIGH"....


July 20, 2009 9:19:05 AM

OvrClkr said:
I have the i7 920@ 3.5Ghz and use an EVGA 275 (trust me its overclocked) and I can get 42-50 FPS easy with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA playing Crysis Warhead....

Are you serious or you just trolling?
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 2:20:34 PM

michaelmk86 said:
Are you serious or you just trolling?


Im serious, like i said there will be times when the FPS goes down a tad depending on how much action is going on at the time, but the average FPS is between 42-50 frames.....with 4xAA, if I change it to 16xAA then yea the frames will be lower but I don't max out the AA in Warhead due to no need at this time....


July 20, 2009 2:50:40 PM

OvrClkr said:
Im serious, like i said there will be times when the FPS goes down a tad depending on how much action is going on at the time, but the average FPS is between 42-50 frames.....with 4xAA, if I change it to 16xAA then yea the frames will be lower but I don't max out the AA in Warhead due to no need at this time....


This benchmark is with a system with Intel Core i7 965 and drivers 185.65.
1920x1200 veryhigh noAA the GTX275 get 19fps NOT 42-50.
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 3:18:11 PM

Um... i dont run 1920x1200 res....

At the moment its running @ 1680x1050..

And Btw I dont know where you got those numbers cause I can get higher FPS with my dual 250's running on 4xAA with everything else maxed out. And thats on my midrange AMD system.

You have to take in consideration that those are the lowest FPS that you would get, not average. For example if I look up at the sky I can get up to 100FPS, once you move the mouse towards the battlefield the frames go down, so those are not real-world numbers and I DOUBT those numbers are accurate using a 965....

If you want proof, go to youtube and look for MAXISHINE Warhead video, you will see 45+ frames with a single GTX285 running on an overclocked 920 @ 3.6ghz. The video will show you different frames for different setups....Ex: Enthusiast no AA, Enthusiast 2xAA, Enthusiast 4xAA, etc....
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 4:50:17 PM

I am not going to argue with you, you keep on posting wrong specs, I give you my specs (settings) and you come up with FSAA 4x and AF 16x, of course at those settings the frames will be lower.....

Anyways I guess you didnt see the Maxishine video's where its clearer than water, but like i said i will not waste time proving this to you, once I get home from work I will make a video with fraps and send it to you if you still want proof.....
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 5:16:49 PM

On a side note.... Normally when you want real-world benchmark scores(FPS, 3dmark06, vantage, etc) you have to test it yourself in real-time, meaning you cannot go by what someone posts on a website due to the fact that they are not using the exact same hardware as you. They might have the same video card, CPU but as far as the settings go (CPU overclock, GPU overclock, res, xAA, AF, etc) they are not the same. If I were to have those same exact settings and hardware then yes those numbers would be right, this is obvious... But it is hard to go by what a chart provides when you have a different setup....

July 20, 2009 5:18:28 PM

OvrClkr said:
I am not going to argue with you, you keep on posting wrong specs, I give you my specs (settings) and you come up with FSAA 4x and AF 16x, of course at those settings the frames will be lower.....

I am not posting wrong specs I gave you benchmark with 1680x1050 Enthusiast 4xAA 16xAF(the AF do not have any performance impact)
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 5:39:06 PM

Ok so if you are absolutely positive about what frames can be achieved with my setup, then explain this to me :

My daughter has a LOW-MID range pc that I built for her about 3 months ago that consists of a 7750 Kuma @ 3.0Ghz <--low end , 4Gb of G.Skill 800 @ 902Mhz, a single GTS 250 and its running on a 650TX. Running a res of 1680x1050 (Warhead)
she can get 19 frames with everything on Enthusiast and 4x AA. Now with this said, your numbers make no sense if we compare my numbers to your chart, meaning if you have a 965 and a 275 you will only get a 10 frame increase?

That makes no sense at all due to my daughters pc is very low end compared to the 965 setup that should blow it away in a heartbeat. Like I said you cannot go by what a chart says unless you have ALL the same settings and hardware...everyone knows this....IMO you have to benchmark your own pc and come up with your own numbers before you post a thread like this....Since you have a 295 you should know this....

a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 5:46:23 PM

If you already have a PC that can run Crysis, you won't need to upgrade to run Crysis 2.

It'll be less GPU intensive (graphics won't be as good since they're porting it to consoles) so people who weren't able to play Crysis 1 might be able to play Crysis 2 with their rig.
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 5:51:33 PM



We will have to wait n see, cause NFSU is on all 3 (xbox360, PS3 and PC) and in order to be play the game at respectable frames with the same eye candy as the consoles you need a high-end system, just like GTA4.
July 20, 2009 6:47:19 PM

OvrClkr said:
Ok so if you are absolutely positive about what frames can be achieved with my setup, then explain this to me :

My daughter has a LOW-MID range pc that I built for her about 3 months ago that consists of a 7750 Kuma @ 3.0Ghz <--low end , 4Gb of G.Skill 800 @ 902Mhz, a single GTS 250 and its running on a 650TX. Running a res of 1680x1050 (Warhead)
she can get 19 frames with everything on Enthusiast and 4x AA. Now with this said, your numbers make no sense if we compare my numbers to your chart, meaning if you have a 965 and a 275 you will only get a 10 frame increase?

That makes no sense at all due to my daughters pc is very low end compared to the 965 setup that should blow it away in a heartbeat. Like I said you cannot go by what a chart says unless you have ALL the same settings and hardware...everyone knows this....IMO you have to benchmark your own pc and come up with your own numbers before you post a thread like this....Since you have a 295 you should know this....

All the benchmark disagrees with you, and you keep saying lies about the fps.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3501&p=4
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,687883/Test-Geforce-G...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/evga-gf-...
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 6:58:07 PM

Whatever, I will not waste my time reading websites that clearly state different resolution settings and setups cause you won't lose.... Like I said I will record a video using fraps when I get home after work and give ya some schooling...maybe then you will see why you can't compare real-time benchmarking to charts that are posted on the web.

I apologize for sidetracking this thread, was not my intention.......
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 9:11:56 PM

OvrClkr said:
We will have to wait n see, cause NFSU is on all 3 (xbox360, PS3 and PC) and in order to be play the game at respectable frames with the same eye candy as the consoles you need a high-end system, just like GTA4.


GTA4 was a horrible port from the consoles, so it doesn't run efficiently on computers at all.

Comparing games such as Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Fallout3, etc - the PC version looks much better than the 360 and ps3 versions when you have it on maxed out gfx.
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 9:14:14 PM

I agree, all im saying is that we will have to wait n see if the game will indeed have inferior gfx compared to Crysis and Warhead.
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 9:17:58 PM

I don't think Crytek is going to skimp on the gfx as far as lowering the bandwith needed to achieve the physics that is incorperated in the first 2 titles. IMO the gfx will be more or less the same, if not they will lose credibility due to such high standards on the CryEngine 3.
July 22, 2009 7:47:15 PM

OvrClkr said:
Like I said I will record a video using fraps when I get home after work and give ya some schooling...

Where is the video? :kaola: 
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2009 7:52:17 PM

I have 2 videos at home on my pc, one with my dual 250's and the other with the 275. Once I get home i will PM you and send you both.
!