Gtx 295 vs other GPUs in SLI

2x GTX 275 is best or wait for DX 11

if I were you I would wait a couple more months on the GPU because when Windows 7 comes out DX 11 cards will be out

When the first gpu for dx11 is released will it be better than the gtx 295? Or at least in the top part of the benchmarks in the current graphics cards. Wow dx11, is that meant to fix the errors in dx10, or does it allow for even more amazing graphics to be seen. Does that mean the gtx 295 won't be able to use dx11, If i were to install a windows 7 operating system on my computer with those specs? So will they be bringing out a PCI Express 3.0 or something with these new cards for dx11?

But it would probably be better to go for a plain GTX 295 since it doesn't consume as much power as 2 gtx 275s and is very slightly cheaper. Do you think a 800 watt real power psu is alright? i mean for extreme gaming since it just allows me to have what i have configured for my computer. 773 watts which is being consumed

2 GTX275s will destroy a GTX295. (GTX295 has the specs on 2 GTX275s but performs around two GTX260s)

2 GTX275s will cost about $440...still cheaper than a GTX285 I believe.

only thing is this is a P45 motherboard

Who?

I was referring to the topic creator, who has an i7. All i7 mobos have SLi and Xfire.

opps. my bad.

1x 5870 DX11 GPU = 4870 X2 ( or thereabouts)

2x 5870 DX11 GPU's = I'd guess slightly better than a trio of GTX 285's.

Oh and there won't be any NVidia DX11 offering until the earliest of Q2 2010, but it looks more like they will come in Q3 2010.

So you're definately sure that 2 gtx 275s are better than one gtx 295. How much better? Do you know where i can find a table of results of the benchmarks of graphics cards put into dual sli?

But then getting one gtx 295 would be cheaper than getting 2 gtx 275s because i would have to have a 1KW PSU, whereas with the computer i have configured in pcspecialist.co.uk i only need a 800 watt psu

When do you people rekon a game will come out that has graphics that could fool you completely for looking real? I mean a game which has like 512mb of graphics minimum which is even better than Crysis. Is that what dx11 is for? For the even newer generation of games but for quite sometime before it takes effect though?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-sli,229...

Nobody has asked one teeny question.... What is the planned monitor resolution?

I am going to get a 22 inch LG monitor for my computer. It will play on the 1650 resolution. But maybe to achieve better performance i will run FPS games on a lower resolution would 1440 x 900 or 1280 x 800 be appropriate. For RTS games like command and conquer 3 i would play them on the 1650 resolution. I am planning to play Crysis on 2 AA and 4 FSAA on the highest settings, with a reasonable but not high resolution.

Meh, the GTX 275 would eat anything (really, it would swallow command and conquer 3 and ask for more) at that resolution EXCEPT Crysis with AA and FSAA enabled. It might barely manage playability I think...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-275,226...
Looks like it might be playable. Maybe not.

But two of them sound overkill for anything less than 1080p + AA/AF, so I'm thinking 2x 275 is a complete waste for the OP...

A GTX295 is basically 2x260's on the same card.

Therefore 2x275 will be better, also if you wanna move 1x295 into a tri or quad sli, have a look around at some other forums and see how nvidia's drivers handle that many gpus.

@ Nashsafc: I'd hold off on the build, the new DX11 cards are supposed to be faster and use less power but if you choose to go ahead: Dual GTX295s will be wasted at 16x10, at that resolution either a single GTX275 or HD4890 would be a better option, you can then CF/SLI later if needed.

Drop the CoolIT, it will not be a good choice for an i7, opt for a good air cooler instead.

So i hould go for a ASUS Triton 81 instead which is 49 pounds. This is the only other option that pcspecialist has to offer, unless i go for the standard cooler. But i want a little overclocking head room so i want a third party cooler. Does the A.L.C not offer a tiny bit of improvement since it doesn't cost that much more.

Is the GTX 295 basicly dual SLI itself, or when you install it on the computer the pc just thinks it's one graphics card. Such as i heard in games there is an SLI option you can tick to get extra performance in games

Do you rekon i should stick with a 22 inch monitor is that about the mainstream product now adays? Afterall i don't have much room on my desk for it and graphics cards benefit from playing on smaller resolutions, plus the quality on the monitor looks better since lower resolutions would look better.

@ Nashsafc:
1: There's not much to choose between them, they perform much the same but both are quite noisy, particularly under full load, which is why I suggested an alternative.
Neither will be hard to replace but I'd opt for the Asus, you should be able to find quieter, more efficient fans for it.

2: Yes, the card is 'SLI on a stick': Two cards in one package. Just plug it in and if a game can use SLI it will use both cores on the card, if not the game will use one, no need to worry about SLI settings other than the rendering mode.

3: Get the larger size monitor; 22" 16x10 is good for gaming and the cards you are considering (and I have suggested) will drive it easily enough, especially if you go for the GTX295!

i used to have a pavilion slimline computer, and a 19 inch monitor. I used to run the resolution on 1440 x 900. Can i ran this resolution on a 22inch monitor, both the monitors are widescreens? If not, do you rekon 1280 x 800 or 1024 will still look good on a 22inch monitor? Is Liquid cooling not quieter? Since it has one less fan, it has the 120mm case fan on the side but not the fan cooling the CPU. I know they consume a bit more power, are they not woreally rth the buy then, so i can't get higher overclocks? So it is the more expensive ones that have a clear perfromance increase over the air cooling?

If you're willing to waste 500 dollars on a 295, buy a single 285 or 275

1680x1050 is not that insane of a res. Any of the lower class cards, even a 260 (with a few exceptions) will play games @ max @ native.

No need to go with a lower res, no need to waste money on the gpu.

Have a nice day.

I live in England lol, the card is avialable for like 370 pounds i think or less but i don't really know. I'm customising the computer on pcspecialist.co.uk. Does anyone play Crysis here? Tell me, what's it like playing it on say 30 FPS is it not like some other games such as Far Cry 1 which I only find it comfortable playing them at 60 Frame rates a second and above. Maybe could it be because i was using a wireless mouse, even though the sensor is very close to the mouse and keyboard that i find a little bit of lag in games? Yes i used to have a ATI 4550 with my old computer lol so when i get this system there will be a massive difference.

My rig (with its now dead HD4870) could play Crysis at 1920x1200, all high, DX9!
The rig you will be building it streets ahead of mine!
Whichever monitor you get or use, try to stick to its native (maximum) resolution, and I strongly advise you to get at least a 22" 16x10 monitor, the monster PC you are configuing (especially if you use the GTX295) will destroy any game at that resolution 

Neither of the coolers offered are really the best for overclocking and both will be noisy because they have fairly small fans. But, the ASUS does use a fairly common fan size, so you should be able to find quieter, more efficient fans for it without too many problems.

DX9 only lets you put the settings on high, if you are running Windows XP this is the case. Windows Vista has dx10 which allows you to run Crysis on the highest settings, (Very High). I heard that on directx9, Crysis won't even have an option for you to put it on very high settings. FPS must be a different case with Crysis, do people who get say 30 FPS in Crysis find the game to actually run quite smoothly? With most of my FPS's i've wanted to get a FPS of 60 before i can feel it is playable.

Also, i'm only wanting to really overclock the i7 920 to 3.2ghz, with that speed will i not have to increase the voltages of anything? Will it be fairly stable, and if i can change them very slightly to get that little bit more stability how much could i increase it to. But i would also like to see if i can increase it to 4ghz sometime, just as a test and maybe back down to 3.2ghz

Crysis was smooth enough for me, but 60 FPS@ DX10, all Very High? Only with the GTX 295 or GTX275/HD4890 in SLI/CF.

Be careful overclocking, you can damage the system, but 3.2 can be reached easily.
For more information, why not visit our helpful and freindly Overclocking Forum today?!

Does high settings still look smashing good to you, compared to games that require 128mb of graphics minimum put onto extra high settings? Maybe when i actually get the pc which will be soon, i can test Crysis out which i already have and mess around with the graphics details. I can also overclock the gtx 295, and i know what to, which will be a perfectly stable overclock. But does anyone know, does the gtx 295 run really hot anyway? And could i not really overclock it by say 100mhz since it would be running very hot to start of with. Anyone with this card, please tell me their temparatures of the card that they usually get, and maybe some people who have oc their gtx 295 could tell me about the temparatures they get to.

I don’t like when I see the word `destroy` when the performance difference is only 10%.      

lol, what have you got successful troll? The reason why i'm getting the gtx 295 is because i've bought crysis. The ammount of FPS that i want to play games at is 60, Crysis is a different issue, maybe lower framerates still seem smooth on Crysis, i heard that crysis has motion blur. So even with low framerates, the game doesn't look like a picture slideshow being played. I could really go with something cheaper and go for 2 9800 gts in SLI. But i might as well buy the gtx 295 because i'm buying the computer of pcspecialist monthly. Spending up to 1500 on the computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ect and lots of other stuff inside the computer as well with software.

Just a reminder that those cards that you mention cannot do 60 FPS@ DX10, all Very High

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,212...

You mean the gtx 295 in sli, and the others too. I configured the pc with 2 4890s and i could run it with a 800 watt PSU. But i couldn't configure 2 gtx 260s with a 800 watt psu. How good is the 4890 in SLI i wonder. What would it be equivilant to. Or just one of them on their own

Nice link to scalability of GPU's. A bit out of date, but should give the general feeling.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=1

A pair of 4890s in crossfire is in the same rough category as a pair of GTX 280s in SLI - they'll lose to the 285s, but they'll beat the 275s most of the time. It's a pretty good setup.

A pair of GTX495 will destroy everything especially with DX14!!!!!

In a few months/years, that post will make sense.

Your saying getting 2 normal ATI 4890s is better than having one gtx 295. So 2 4890s would also be better than two gtx 260s? Are you absolutely sure, does anyone have any results of a 4890 in cross fire x compared to a normal gtx 295 on its own.