Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVidia Geforce series

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 14, 2012 2:25:01 PM

Which series of Geforce is recommended just for gaming, or primarily for gaming? I have a blu ray drive so I may watch some HD, however gaming is the main reasoin for the card. As it looks, GTX is the way to go just because it seems that they are the best performance overall, but I am not sure how much of that is dedicated to gaming.

I am also wondering when the 570 will come down some in price. On the website now looking new releases of cards to get an idea. I am not really sure pay over 300.00 for that card is really worth it right now. As a rule of thumb I usually spend 200.00 on a card and keep it for about 2 years, then get another one. I keep looking at the 560 as well, but the 570 looks like it blows it away, and considering spending the money.

More about : nvidia geforce series

February 14, 2012 2:32:23 PM

The 570 does indeed blow away the 560.
The cheaper alternative to the 570 is the 560ti 448 core. It has the same amount of vram as the 570 and performs closely out of the box and overclocks very well. For under 300 the 560ti 448 is the way to go
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 2:36:02 PM

Is there a real difference between the GT or GTS and GTX if you are just using it for gaming?
m
0
l
Related resources
February 14, 2012 2:37:29 PM

Gtx is the higher end.gaming series cards
the numbering system will always tell you what tier
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 2:44:09 PM

Thanks. Yeah you answered that the other day for about waiting on a card, or I think it was you, then I was playing some COD and got a taste of 1920 x 1080. It was pretty sweet even on my 4890, but when there was heavy fire it gave it some trouble. I usually play on 1440 x 900 with AA x2, and I am wanting to starting going up a bit on it. Waiting still looks sensible, but the 560gtx is starting to look pretty good though
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 2:48:04 PM

The 560 ti 448 is 265 after rebate currently.....
The reason yu decided on waiting was the availability of newer cards and prices of the last gen possibly dropping.
If you want something now for below 300 i say 560ti 448
although a bit overkill on your resolution, when you upgrade your monitor eventually the power wont be lacking
i still say not to get caught up in the upgrare fever and wait; worst case is you end up with the 560ti anyway
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:04:02 PM

The 448 has more shader cores and more vram. Its faster out of the box extremely close to a 570. And can overclock well past a 570's stock performance.
The 570 does blow away a reg 560 by about 40%.
Scroll to where i said it would be total overkill on his resolution until he upgradea his monitor. Read my friend it helps.
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:06:01 PM

You could always buy 2xGTX 460's and run them in SLI. This will get you more performance then the 560 and 570, however the price is a bit more then the 560.
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:07:45 PM

Yeah I am looking at nVidia right now and it plays COD Black ops at 78 fps at 1920 with 16xaa and everything cranked. Not sure if I am reading it right and I think the processor may be different, but it shows at 92 fps on the 570. I think it was was at 1920 x 1080. I also will play some Skyrim as well and on average it shows about 53 fps on the 560ti with 4x AA at 1920 x 1080. I do not think the 570 had the correct benchmarks though for it because it shows 46 fps. Anyway, I guess the 53 fps is pretty doable at that high res? I never run that high.
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:08:49 PM

boone145 said:
You could always buy 2xGTX 460's and run them in SLI. This will get you more performance then the 560 and 570, however the price is a bit more then the 560.

Slow down there slugger
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:11:45 PM

Saint 92 said:
Yeah I am looking at nVidia right now and it plays COD Black ops at 78 fps at 1920 with 16xaa and everything cranked. Not sure if I am reading it right and I think the processor may be different, but it shows at 92 fps on the 570. I think it was was at 1920 x 1080. I also will play some Skyrim as well and on average it shows about 53 fps on the 560ti with 4x AA at 1920 x 1080. I do not think the 570 had the correct benchmarks though for it because it shows 46 fps. Anyway, I guess the 53 fps is pretty doable at that high res? I never run that high.

There is a certian limit to what your graphics card can do in Skyrim with it being so cpu restrained. A 460 sli barely beat a 570 in Skyrim because it is so dependent on cpu.
Other games... Yes the ti 448 would be in your machine for a very long time in that price bracket if you arent wanting to wait
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:16:12 PM

Yeah, cool. One last thing on the monitor. Where are all the huge monitors at? Mine is pretty nice, but I would like a 40 in on my wall if you understand where I am coming from. Came into a bit of money which is why this is burning a hole in pocket right now.
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:24:00 PM

BigMack70 said:
Maybe you could read where I said my issue was with the 570 vs the 560ti. I didn't want OP to get confused by your post (you were the first one to mention anything about a vanilla 560).

And just because the 448 core will beat the 560ti in benchmarks - so what? What games/settings are unplayable on the 560ti that are playable on the 448 core? As far as I can tell, there's not gonna be any meaningful real world difference between the two, except that with the 560ti you get an extra $50 in your pocket.

Its FASTER than the norm ti. Its basically a 570 but 80 buckd cheaper. I dont know hoe to put it any simpler
OP mentioned a 560 that is why i was comparing it to the 570, as i said before reading thoroughly helps.
You dont understand gpu architecture if you dont see.why the 448 would operate faster than.a.normal ti. Go read an.article or something.
Op, 1920x1080 can be attained on.various sizes of monitora including full 1080p hdtvs with the correct plugins.
If you want.to game in.an.office 24" has always been just fine for me
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:26:10 PM

BigMack70 said:
The nicest monitors are 30", cost around $1000-1300 and have a 2560x1600 resolution.

If you want a 40" screen, you need to buy an HDTV and you'll get 1080p resolution. At that point, the 448 core version might be worth it for the extra power. If you get a 30" monitor with 2560x1600 res, you should be getting an HD 7950 minimum.

A 40" tv at 1080p wont make a.difference in the power of a.card vs.a 24" monitor at 1080p..... Its the same ratio.....
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 3:31:27 PM

OP? Gonna have to start looking for the sears catalog again I guess, puberties coming back, lol. Thanks for the help guys.
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 4:04:11 PM

Saint 92 said:
OP? Gonna have to start looking for the sears catalog again I guess, puberties coming back, lol. Thanks for the help guys.

Op= original post or poster ie you
never a problem helping someone weigh their options on an.upgrade. Gluck in whatever you decide
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 4:05:51 PM

BigMack70 said:
1) Saw that OP was gaming at 1440x900 and looking for a new monitor and assumed he wasn't gaming at 1080p already. I stand corrected on that.

2) I understand architectural differences and benchmarks just fine. You don't seem to understand that a small difference in benchmarks doesn't always have any meaning in real world game performance. There is no difference in user experience between playing a game at 40fps and playing a game at 44fps, unless you are looking for it. Unless you are running benchmarks, I fail to see where you are going to notice the difference between a 560ti 448 and a 560ti in your gaming experience. You're gonna notice the $50 in your bank account more than the difference in performance between those cards.

Not really but Im done wasting my breath
m
0
l
February 14, 2012 4:15:18 PM

Sounds cool. Samsung freak though. My setup is will allow for about a 27 in or maybe a 32 in. I almost want to buy another plasma and mount it on my wall, but its hard to find the right ports. Trying to balance my monitor, card, and prossessor prices.
m
0
l
!