Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 285... time to go?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 12, 2013 2:36:25 AM

Hello all,

I'm currently tossing up between building my own new machine and just getting a better video card. My PC is reasonably old, but it still plays fairly new games like the new X-Com and Max Payne 3 with no problem. I suspect it would struggle with Far Cry 3 or Crysis 3 though.

I'm wondering if I'm missing out though - and just not realising it. Would replacing a GTX 285 with something beefier make a noticeable difference?

It's running with a Core2 Quad CPU - Q9650 @3ghz - and while I know I could make a new machine for under $1000, I'm wondering if just grabbing a newer GPU, something from the last generation that's now cheap, would be worthwhile. What do you guys think?

More about : gtx 285 time

a b Î Nvidia
January 12, 2013 2:45:01 AM

I think you should get new gen card of nvidia gtx 6 series.new gen support games better and performs better with less power consumption.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 2:45:04 AM

The Max Payne 3 config screen and your gameplay would be a good judge. Yeah everything is getting on in age, but you can easily start with a new video card, and move to the rest (PSU allowing). A modern system should be able to max out MP3 @ 1920x1080, at least with MXAA turned down. And In My Opinion, if your not using ultra textures, I'd say you are missing out.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b Î Nvidia
January 12, 2013 2:51:16 AM

For gaming your CPU isn't that bad. More so if you got it clocked higher then 3GHz. The GTX285 is dated now. Should be a bit faster then a GTX460, which is slower then the new GTX650TI. A GTX570, or GTX660 or better should be ok, but I'm not sure I'd go much higher then that. Don't forget about AMDs cards either.
Share
January 12, 2013 3:38:47 AM

Crysis 3 requires a direct x 11 graphic card and the GTX 285 is limited to direct x 10.


P.s: i read somewhere that if crysis 3 is a success, game developers would make more games with direct x 11 as a minimum requirement.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 3:41:14 AM

Actually, the GTX 285 is DirectX 10.1, not 10. Still not 11, but not 10 either.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 3:41:57 AM

Thanks for your ideas and feedback folks. I wasn't expecting to hear people say I should get a latest gen card, because I thought it would be bottlenecked by the rest of the system, or that it wouldn't be compatible. I want to build my next machine myself, so if I'm going to get a card that's very new and good I think I will wait 'til I do the whole thing.

I was kind of intending to spend around $100 on something that was 'good but now superseded' and which virtue of not being as old as my gtx285 would be better.

I appreciate the input.. Thank you all..
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 3:45:19 AM

post-script: Thanks for letting me know about the directX limit. I think I have Directx11 installed but it's not available as an option in Max Payne 3, so I think your comments that it's not compatible would be correct.

I'll have to read up on directX 11 and learn more about why it's going to be good. Thanks again.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 3:47:24 AM

blazorthon said:
Actually, the GTX 285 is DirectX 10.1, not 10. Still not 11, but not 10 either.

Whether 10.1 or 10, for sure it will not play crysis 3, this is the new way they are killing older generations :( 
Bloody sure if his card supported direct x 11, it would have blown the hell out of crysis 3
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 3:52:07 AM

ashfaq786 said:
Whether 10.1 or 10, for sure it will not play crysis 3, this is the new way they are killing older generations :( 
Bloody sure if his card supported direct x 11, it would have blown the hell out of crysis 3


To be fair, it is like five or six years old. It's time to move on to new graphics APIs that are more efficient and powerful by this point or else it'll be more than consoles that are holding PC gaming back.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 4:43:45 AM

blazorthon said:
To be fair, it is like five or six years old. It's time to move on to new graphics APIs that are more efficient and powerful by this point or else it'll be more than consoles that are holding PC gaming back.

According to a friend of mine, bcoz of consoles, we are 5 years lagging behind :( 
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 8:19:59 AM

ashfaq786 said:
According to a friend of mine, bcoz of consoles, we are 5 years lagging behind :( 


At least, most consoles are obsolete when they are first released, and the simple fact the games are pre-configured graphics wise makes it worse.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 8:38:43 AM

Getting a card better than a GTX 285 would be pretty difficult if you only had $100 to spend. Even if you did spend $100, the difference would only be getting DirectX compatibility and a slight power/performance advantage. Its really not worth it with such a low budget, and even then you would have to be extremely lucky to find someone willing to part with something like a 560ti for $100.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 4:46:01 PM

abbadon_34 said:
At least, most consoles are obsolete when they are first released, and the simple fact the games are pre-configured graphics wise makes it worse.


Most consoles, maybe, but at least for when the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were first released, they were high-end. They just didn't remain high-end for long and are now extremely low end and kinda obsolete compared to modern desktops :/ 
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
January 13, 2013 1:58:54 AM

Not sure I totally agree with that. The Xenos was ahead of its time, sorta. At least it used a unified shader architecture. The CPU was straight from IBM. I'm not aware of anything odd there. The Cell was new. I won't get into how "high end" Cell was. But the GPU in the PS3 was very basic, even when it came out. (Basically a 7900GS from what I remember.) The Blu ray drive was the most advanced thing on those consoles. As mentioned above consoles don't ship with top of the line parts. The companies take a loss on each one and the more high end stuff you include the worse that loss is.
m
0
l
!