Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

NVidia GeForce GTX260 1792MB DDR3

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 4, 2010 5:28:33 AM

Hellow guys im going to buy a new pc and i have 2 options:

1.- nVidia GeForce GTX260 1792MB, 6GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz-2X2GB/2x1GB, Intel Core i5-750 processor(8MB Cache, 2.66GHz)


2.- i7 with a nVidia GeForce GTS240 1024MB GDDR3 and 4gb ram


what whould be the best for gaming ????


Ty for your help !!

Best solution

a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 5:32:27 AM

There is no GTS 240 but whether you meant the GT 240 or GTS 250 it doesn't matter because the GTX 260/i5 system is a better than either in terms of gaming performance.
Share
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 5:36:17 AM

Just remembered there actually is a GTS 240. It's only OEM so I forgot about it. The card is a rebranded 9800GT. The answer still remains the same though.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 4, 2010 5:39:43 AM

jyjjy said:
Just remembered there actually is a GTS 240. It's only OEM so I forgot about it. The card is a rebranded 9800GT. The answer still remains the same though.



Ty for ur help jyjjy is there a lot of diference between i7 and i5 ? just for playing ??????
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 5:47:58 AM

Not that much. I would be more concerned with graphics card rather than the CPU if gaming is your forte.

+1 on the i5/GTX 260 combo

Quote:
1.- nVidia GeForce GTX260 1792MB


Why that variant? I think the 896mb version would suffice. IMO, larger than that would be a waste. Unless you got a 5970.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 5:49:14 AM

masterjaw said:
Not that much. I would be more concerned with graphics card rather than the CPU if gaming is your forte.

+1 on the i5/GTX 260 combo




I see ty masterjaw !
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 5:54:08 AM

I would suggest looking for the 896mb version of GTX 260. Unless you're planning on gaming with high resolution on max settings (especially max aa/af), more than 1gb or vram would be a waste. Still if you want better performance, might as well go for cards higher than GTX 260 than go with a higher vram variant of the same product.
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 5:57:14 AM

lexrg said:
Hellow guys im going to buy a new pc and i have 2 options:

1.- nVidia GeForce GTX260 1792MB, 6GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz-2X2GB/2x1GB, Intel Core i5-750 processor(8MB Cache, 2.66GHz)


2.- i7 with a nVidia GeForce GTS240 1024MB GDDR3 and 4gb ram


what whould be the best for gaming ????


Ty for your help !!

Hello and welcome to the forums :) 
The first option will give you the best gaming experience because it has more RAM and better graphics.
The difference between i5 and i7 isn't much in gaming,here is a good article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410....
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 6:05:09 AM

masterjaw said:
I would suggest looking for the 896mb version of GTX 260. Unless you're planning on gaming with high resolution on max settings (especially max aa/af), more than 1gb or vram would be a waste. Still if you want better performance, might as well go for cards higher than GTX 260 than go with a higher vram variant of the same product.

From the sound of it that card is what comes with the computer
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:05:52 AM

Yep, as the others mentioned 1.7GB is a waste of money. The 896mb version will suffice.

But also consider a 4870 1GB, which performs the same but costs $30 to $40 less. Or the 4890 which performs about 25% better and costs the same.

Or get a 5770 (equal to a 5870) and costs about $160, but supports DX11 and eyefinity.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 6:15:40 AM

Q9550@3.0/8gigDDR2-800/GTX260/896-1792/1680x1050 res............ Don't let anybody tell you that the card with 1792 memory is not needed or not necessary. I have that card and a couple of 896 cards. Taking Crysis for example........ With the 1792 you can play with no spit and sputter with 8AA@ 1680x1050 even in the snow scenes....and you CANNOT with the 896.......... even with AA turned off. These guys DON'T know what they are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Crysis isn't the only game that takes advantage of more than 1gig of memory. Sorry guys.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 6:20:42 AM

Ty man thats a very interesting point
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 6:21:27 AM

and ty all for ur help im gonna read that article right noth maziar ty very mucho !
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:28:48 AM

Sure do. Those games could take advantage of the extra mems. So your suggesting that a GTX 260 1792mb is better than a GTX275/285/295 or a 5850/5870 who only got 1gb of vram?

A faster graphics card is always better than a lower card with higher mems.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:46:12 AM

swifty_morgan said:
Q9550@3.0/8gigDDR2-800/GTX260/896-1792/1680x1050 res............ Don't let anybody tell you that the card with 1792 memory is not needed or not necessary. I have that card and a couple of 896 cards. Taking Crysis for example........ With the 1792 you can play with no spit and sputter with 8AA@ 1680x1050 even in the snow scenes....and you CANNOT with the 896.......... even with AA turned off. These guys DON'T know what they are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Crysis isn't the only game that takes advantage of more than 1gig of memory. Sorry guys.


lol, very high?

I played Crysis w/o sputter @ 1680x1050 with those resolutions with two 9800GTXs in SLi...which means 512mb per card.


1.7 gigs of RAM is totally wasted on a single GTX260. That's why the GTX295 (which performs equal to two GTX260s) have 2x896mb of VRAM total.


A 5850 is better than a GTX285, meaning it is about 60% better than a GTX260.
A 5870 is equal to a GTX295, meaning it is is roughly twice as powerful as a GTX260.

Both of those cards only have 1GB. Now the 5870 should definitely have a 2GB version in the near future, but the fact that ATI
released both of them with 1GB shows that cards currently don't really need more than 1GB.

Extremely powerful single GPU cards such as the 5850 or the 5870 are the only ones able to actually use more than 1GB of VRAM effectively.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 6:52:11 AM

I think that what swifty_morgan is trying to tell me is that 1 GTX 260 1792mb is better than 2 GTX 260 896
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:56:08 AM

Here is a chart for Crysis, Very High @ 1680x1050 w/ no AA.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-char...

2x 8800 GT SLI w/ 1024 MB - 24.90 fps
2x 8800 GT SLI w/ 512 MB - 24.10 fps

2x 4870 CF w/ 512 MB - 21.80 fps
1x 4870 X2 w/ 2x1024 MB - 22.30 fps


As you can see, even going from 512mb to 1GB for two 8800GT's in SLi showed almost no fps improvement. Going from 512mb to 1GB for two 4870s crossfired also showed basically no improvement.


Here is a chart for the same resolution and settings but with AAx4 and AFx8.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-char...

The results are the same...barely any improvement with VRAM increase.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 6:56:35 AM

thanks man for the info !
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 6:57:35 AM

i have 1 more question, is there a way to help the graphics using the ram memory ?
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 6:57:36 AM

masterjaw said:
Sure do. Those games could take advantage of the extra mems. So your suggesting that a GTX 260 1792mb is better than a GTX275/285/295 or a 5850/5870 who only got 1gb of vram?

A faster graphics card is always better than a lower card with higher mems.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I have 2 GTX260-896 clocked at 640/2300. I have an MSI Lightning running at 650/2200. The Lightning plays the games better and with higher settings because the extra memory comes into play here........some games are not effected.

Would I buy a 275/285 over the 260.... yes I would, but not a lower memory card anymore.

Would I buy a 295..... no I wouldn't. I sli'ed my to 896 cards. I'll take the Lightning over them any day. 896+896 does not equal 1792........ And when you hit rough spots it's better to have a card that will keep the minimum frame rates highest especially at high res and at high settings.

I have a 5850 and I have played Crysis on it. It runs without a hitch but I have not played in the snowy parts of the map yet. It also, for some reason, takes a *** here and there in FarCry2...... don't have that one figured out yet. I also don't start that machine much because it's running Vista and I hate Vista. So It might take me a while to get back to Crysis and FC2 to do some more "self" benching.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:59:18 AM

lexrg said:
I think that what swifty_morgan is trying to tell me is that 1 GTX 260 1792mb is better than 2 GTX 260 896


No. He is trying to say that a GTX260 1792 will offer significant benefits over a GTX260 896. My posts above contradicts this statement.



He isn't saying two GTX260s is better than a single GTX260 with more VRAM. Two GTX260s equal a GTX295, and will curb stomp a GTX260 1792 without breaking a sweat.


Here is a chart reviewing a GTX260 with 1792mb of RAM. The extra VRAM doesn't do much to improve the performance. The only reason it performs better than the stock GTX260 in this review is because it has a massive factory overclock of 105MHz from 575MHz to 680MHz

http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-n260gtx-light...
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 7:00:43 AM

i have 1 more question, is there a way to help the graphics using the ram memory ? do u think option number one will handle top games for 2 years or something like that ?
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 7:00:46 AM

And now that I'm reading more posts......... what are the MINIMUM frame rates according to Tom's ????
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 7:17:56 AM

@swifty_morgan: 2 GTX 260 896mb's doesn't give you 1792mb of vram. It is still and will always be 896mb no matter what you do. They will just share processing power, not vram.

2 GTX 260 896mb != 1 GTX 260 1792mb

Crap. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking.

You're in a SLI setup, not the same as the single card solution with 1792mb.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 7:25:30 AM

masterjaw said:
@swifty_morgan: 2 GTX 260 896mb's doesn't give you 1792mb of vram. It is still and will always be 896mb no matter what you do. They will just share processing power, not vram.

2 GTX 260 896mb != 1 GTX 260 1792mb

Crap. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking.

You're in a SLI setup, not the same as the single card solution with 1792mb.


I hate to call people STUPID but you're also BLIND....go back and read it again.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 7:39:56 AM

swifty_morgan said:
I hate to call people STUPID but you're also BLIND....go back and read it again.


Quote:
I have that card and a couple of 896 cards. Taking Crysis for example........ With the 1792 you can play with no spit and sputter with 8AA@ 1680x1050 even in the snow scenes....and you CANNOT with the 896.......... even with AA turned off.


If you hate calling people stupid then what should I call you then? A guru perhaps.

Quote:
you CANNOT with the 896


How did you manage to play Crysis then? with 896mb equipped on both cards? Yes guru, you are damn right.

And as I said before, a faster card is always better than a lower card with higher mems. Notice the singularity of the noun? Therefore, I'm talking about single card solutions, not SLI setups.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 8:10:24 AM

First thing I said was I have 2 896 cards. I didn't say I had them sli-ed when I did the 896/1792 comparison. Later I said that I had sli'ed them in reference to whether or not I would buy a 295..... having sli-ed them...NO, I wouldn't buy a 295. It's not worth it... PERIOD! sli'ed896 vs 295...not much difference there is there ? Rather have the extra memory and the better performance..... could care less if the 295 gives me 1000 fps. That's NOT what I'm after.

The Crysis thing. it says 1792 and 896...... not sli anything.

And my words go to DX10........ DX9 blows in comparison and is less demanding on cards and if a game is DX10 capable I play it in DX10........ as will I when I run DX11 games.

Then I said something to the effect that the 896 card was running 640/2300 and the lightning 650/222....... and I said I'd choose the lightning because of the extra ram because it gave me better results than the faster clocked card. What's the big deal here ?

When you're done reading benchmarks from around the web go buy some of these cards and find out for yourself....... and take a good look at the hardware and the speeds they are running this stuff at....... not real world for me and I bet not real world for you..... and let me know how many of them say these cards hit low spots causing games to play like crap in spots because they small amounts of memory or the low memory interface that can't keep up with the demands.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 2:34:51 PM

I play Crysis with an XFX GTX 260 (216 core, 896 MB memory) w/ E8400 OC'd @ 3.6 Ghz and have no issues with 4AA @ 1680x1050. I wouldn't suggest the extra memory unless youi just have money to burn. But if you're on a budget, don't buy the extra video memorybut instead use the cash towards an SSD.

Whatever videocard you decide on, consider XFX's double lifetime warranty. The warranty allows you to sell the card later after 1 or 2 years and the buyer still gets the lifetime warranty.

Good luck!

Don't let the banter above distract or confuse you, just two egos clashing, lol.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 3:31:58 PM

swifty_morgan said:
First thing I said was I have 2 896 cards. I didn't say I had them sli-ed when I did the 896/1792 comparison. Later I said that I had sli'ed them in reference to whether or not I would buy a 295..... having sli-ed them...NO, I wouldn't buy a 295. It's not worth it... PERIOD! sli'ed896 vs 295...not much difference there is there ? Rather have the extra memory and the better performance..... could care less if the 295 gives me 1000 fps. That's NOT what I'm after.

The Crysis thing. it says 1792 and 896...... not sli anything.

And my words go to DX10........ DX9 blows in comparison and is less demanding on cards and if a game is DX10 capable I play it in DX10........ as will I when I run DX11 games.

Then I said something to the effect that the 896 card was running 640/2300 and the lightning 650/222....... and I said I'd choose the lightning because of the extra ram because it gave me better results than the faster clocked card. What's the big deal here ?

When you're done reading benchmarks from around the web go buy some of these cards and find out for yourself....... and take a good look at the hardware and the speeds they are running this stuff at....... not real world for me and I bet not real world for you..... and let me know how many of them say these cards hit low spots causing games to play like crap in spots because they small amounts of memory or the low memory interface that can't keep up with the demands.



You have fallen in to the same TRAP as I have on this thread and people who never trust what others have to say from first hand experience vs the charts so you may call them chart nazis or some thing along those Orwellian lines.
I have a fairly simple setup compared to others on hear but I do run a pair of 9800gt 1gb cards in sli and the extra ram goes a long ways when running large textures or aa like at 32XQ which looks fantastic. Wish that I had a worthy quad setup for 64XQ for professional 2D and 3D work while being able to play my games with stunning clarity.
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 4:13:01 PM

hundredislandsboy said:
I play Crysis with an XFX GTX 260 (216 core, 896 MB memory) w/ E8400 OC'd @ 3.6 Ghz and have no issues with 4AA @ 1680x1050. I wouldn't suggest the extra memory unless youi just have money to burn. But if you're on a budget, don't buy the extra video memorybut instead use the cash towards an SSD.

Whatever videocard you decide on, consider XFX's double lifetime warranty. The warranty allows you to sell the card later after 1 or 2 years and the buyer still gets the lifetime warranty.

Good luck!

Don't let the banter above distract or confuse you, just two egos clashing, lol.



Ty man i will wait to see how mi system works i just bought the option number 1
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 4:19:53 PM

lexrg said:
Ty man i will wait to see how mi system works i just bought the option number 1



Good luck and enjoy you wont be disappointed. Post a few youtube vids :) 
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 4:23:34 PM

Shure i will !
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 4, 2010 5:34:10 PM

NFORCE4MAX: You hit the nail on the head........ that along with my stubborness I can't let it drop.

HUNDREDISLND: Agree with the faster processor. Crysis did like that with a lesser card. ( 4870 )
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2010 6:31:56 PM

swifty_morgan said:
NFORCE4MAX: You hit the nail on the head........ that along with my stubborness I can't let it drop.

HUNDREDISLND: Agree with the faster processor. Crysis did like that with a lesser card. ( 4870 )


Well if he knows how to overclock that i5-750 CPU he plans to buy, and with the faster memory too, it should be better gaming system than my e8400 @ 3.6 Ghz.
m
0
l
May 16, 2010 9:06:03 PM

Best answer selected by lexrg.
m
0
l
!