Best gpu for 1280x1024

[anish449]

Hello,
NVIDIA GTX 560ti or AMD RADEON 6950(1 or 2gb) ,which one is best for 1280x1024 17" monitor

 

[amuffin]

:lol: thats such a low resolution, even something like a 6770 would fulfull your needs. But if you insist a 6950 would be the best choice

 

[Supernova1138]

At your resolution you'll use maybe half the horsepower of either card unless you try to max out Crysis, Crysis 2 or Metro 2033. If you aren't planning on upgrading to a higher resolution display you may want to consider getting a cheaper card like the 6770, it will offer the same performance as the 6950 and 560Ti at 1280x1024 on all but the most graphically intense titles. As said above, the 6950 is a little bit faster at stock clockspeeds. The 560Ti has more overclocking potential, but how far above the 6950 that will get you will vary depending on which model you get.

 

[de5_Roy]

at your res, you'd benefit more from a fast cpu. what is your current cpu? as for the cards, any one of them will do (imo they'd be overkill). you should go for the cheapest card. may be the 6950 1gb. however, the 560ti will have good driver support from nvidia. get at least a quad-core with 3.1 ghz (overclocked to 4+ ghz is better).

 

[spentshells]

I would suggest a 6770 to max out most anything or a 6850 to max it all at your resolution.

 

[refillable]

It is pretty funny to get 6950/560Ti for 1280x1024. The fps you will get with 6950/560Ti will be the same as 6790/550Ti. So better get 6790/550Ti which is much cheaper, About $100 cheaper. In this resolution CPU is more important than GPU also. So do not get 6950/560Ti For that resolution.

 

[spentshells]

This as well. +1

 

[Homeboy2]

Hello,
NVIDIA GTX 560ti or AMD RADEON 6950(1 or 2gb) ,which one is best for 1280x1024 17" monitor

Forget about the vid card and buy a decent monitor first.

 

[refillable]

Forget about the vid card and buy a decent monitor first.

Monitor depends on your needs. If you don't need decent monitor then don't get one.

 

[theuniquegamer]

According to your resolution the 560ti or 6950 are overkill(if you max out everything then its good) these gpus are for your future upgrade. I think you should buy a 6770 or 6790 then after 6months or more upgrade to any 28nm upcoming gpu

 

[CryptorX]

I haven't read all the replies but most of you seem to imply that anything equal or superior to a 560~6950 is way overkill, i disagree... Is high resolutions the only aspect that defines a good graphics card?
Actually, as far as i know, high or low resolutions are affected mostly by the amount of vram, obviously all those extra pixels will have to be processed by something but it won't be nothing special to the gpu. Now how about FX? Aren't you guys forgetting AA, AF, Ray Tracing, DOF, Shadows, Shaders, Physics, Tesselation and plenty of other highly demanding effects... Do you guys really think that because he's going to play on lower resolutions these FX will be less demanding?... Or resolutions are everything to you?
Try to max out Crysis Warhead or Metro with DX11 enabled and all it's features with a 800x600 or even 640x480 resolution with a 6770 and you'll see what i mean...

 

[amuffin]

I haven't read all the replies but most of you seem to imply that anything equal or superior to a 560~6950 is way overkill, i disagree... Is high resolutions the only aspect that defines a good graphics card?
Actually, as far as i know, high or low resolutions are affected mostly by the amount of vram, obviously all those extra pixels will have to be processed by something but it won't be nothing special to the gpu. Now how about FX? Aren't you guys forgetting AA, AF, Ray Tracing, DOF, Shadows, Shaders, Physics, Tesselation and plenty of other highly demanding effects... Do you guys really think that because he's going to play on lower resolutions these FX will be less demanding or resolutions are everything to you?

We aren't forgetting about anything, all of the fx can be calculated very very easily or at a small scale because of his resolution. Also not all games support ray tracing dof physics and tesselation otherwise everything else such as aa af shadows and shaders can be calculated very very easily in a mid range graphics card.

 

[mohit_king]

Hello,
NVIDIA GTX 560ti or AMD RADEON 6950(1 or 2gb) ,which one is best for 1280x1024 17" monitor

you can go for the gtx 460 it gives you a lot of power saving and low noise ..............go for the evga se edition you will be highly satisfied with the perfomance i am using benq e2220 21 inch screen and play at 1600*900 in all the games such as crysis and gta iv.............NVIDIA GTX 560ti or AMD RADEON 6950 way over the line for screen you have

 

[amuffin]

you can go for the gtx 460 it gives you a lot of power saving and low noise ..............go for the evga se edition you will be highly satisfied with the perfomance i am using benq e2220 21 inch screen and play at 1600*900 in all the games such as crysis and gta iv.............NVIDIA GTX 560ti or AMD RADEON 6950 way over the line for screen you have

The "se" version has less cores than the regular 460, so if he wanted to do sli that would be a problem.

 

[spentshells]

I haven't read all the replies but most of you seem to imply that anything equal or superior to a 560~6950 is way overkill, i disagree... Is high resolutions the only aspect that defines a good graphics card?
Actually, as far as i know, high or low resolutions are affected mostly by the amount of vram, obviously all those extra pixels will have to be processed by something but it won't be nothing special to the gpu. Now how about FX? Aren't you guys forgetting AA, AF, Ray Tracing, DOF, Shadows, Shaders, Physics, Tesselation and plenty of other highly demanding effects... Do you guys really think that because he's going to play on lower resolutions these FX will be less demanding?... Or resolutions are everything to you?
Try to max out Crysis Warhead or Metro with DX11 enabled and all it's features with a 800x600 or even 640x480 resolution with a 6770 and you'll see what i mean...

I can max crysis2 with a 5770 at 1366x720 high res pack dx11 all ultra settings no AA average framerate is about 32fps with explosions and such.

Try to max out metro at all and that sounds impossible.

 

[gamer25]

"GTX 550 Ti" OR "GTX 460" would gives you the desired performance

 

[CryptorX]

I can max crysis2 with a 5770 at 1366x720 high res pack dx11 all ultra settings no AA average framerate is about 32fps with explosions and such.

Try to max out metro at all and that sounds impossible.

Crysis 2 is highly optimized, but there is no way you have the tessellation pack enabled, no AA, and that game may have some nice FX (ray tracing being the most impressive) but the physics engine is far from impressive... so Crysis 2 just because his predecessors were catastrophically optimized, therefore, extremely demanding don't count as a reference in demanding games in my book (if i were Chuck Norris son would that make me a badass?), and 32 fps is getting near the limits of the acceptable, but a 5770 it's a nice card, i am just saying that no matter what resolution you play with, you can even take full advantage of a GTX580, maybe not his Vram, but is Vram the only thing we should look at?

 

[refillable]

OP is not answering on his thread. We are only busy giving answer. LOL

 

[Mudit Sathe]

You can either get a GTS 450, GTX 550ti or GTX 460......

 

[Homeboy2]

Monitor depends on your needs. If you don't need decent monitor then don't get one.

Everyone needs a decent monitor

 

[de5_Roy]

Everyone needs a decent monitor

that doesn't mean they must get one. there could be budget constraints, availability problems, high price - a lot of factors could be different in different parts of the world.
op's resolution is not that low. the next display resolutions to upgrade to would be 1368x768 or something like that or 1400x900/1600x900 or 1920x1080. only 1080p offers slightly higher vertical resolution.

 

[Homeboy2]

that doesn't mean they must get one. there could be budget constraints, availability problems, high price - a lot of factors could be different in different parts of the world.
op's resolution is not that low. the next display resolutions to upgrade to would be 1368x768 or something like that or 1400x900/1600x900 or 1920x1080. only 1080p offers slightly higher vertical resolution.

I don't advocate passing a law to get one, there is no monitor shortage and they are dirt cheap, the op is talking about getting a 6950, if he can afford that he should get a good monitor first, it just common sense.

 

[anish449]

thanks guys for the speedy response the thing is i am planing to upgrade my existing 8yr old pc i am planning for getting
i7 2600(no plan to oc)
sabertooth p67 motherboard
8 gb ram(2*4gb) 1333hz
and a good gpu
but my monitor is samsung sync master 740n. is there any problem with the above
configuration also pls suggest a good psu my budget is around 60k INR

 

[de5_Roy]

if you don't plan to oc, then get an h6x motherboard. and if you don't want to oc but want to use cfx/sli in the future, then i suggest a z68 atx motherboard. with a z68 motherboard you get to use the igp and igp-features like quick sync.
make sure that the ram is 1.5v ram.
are you buying online or from a shop? prices and availability should be different in india.

 

[anish449]

if you don't plan to oc, then get an h6x motherboard. and if you don't want to oc but want to use cfx/sli in the future, then i suggest a z68 atx motherboard. with a z68 motherboard you get to use the igp and igp-features like quick sync.
make sure that the ram is 1.5v ram.
are you buying online or from a shop? prices and availability should be different in india.

won't using a gpu makes integratd graphics useless ie will h6x or z68 be of any additional advantage w.r.t p67 and also i plan to get sabertooth due to its thermal efficiency and cfx and sli support.i am planing to get it from store on xmas.