What to get for 1920x1200 gaming?

M

MrSlacker

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
1,218
I am finally building a new rig after 2 years with my old one. I haven't been gaming much lately because my rig can't handle the new games on my 24" LCD. So I am looking for a card for my new rig. Here are my future specs:
i7 920 D0 at around 4Ghz
6 gigs of RAM
24" LCD @ 1920x1200
nice big PSU... around 700W+

I am debating if I should go with single GTX 260, but afraid of it not being to able to handle everything I throw at it. SLI GTX 260 is also an option, but I would prefer to get 1 card now, and add another one later when they are really cheap. Is GTX 280 or 275 worth the money or can I just OC 260 to the same speeds? What about ATI cards?

In other words, what would be the best bang for the buck to game on 1920x1200 with high settings and not worry about any lag. Budget is $350 MAX (would prefer to be under $300).

Thanks!
 
GTX260 216, GTX280, HD4870, HD4870X2, HD4890 are all your best options.

My personal order would be:

4870X2, 4890, GTX280, 4870, GTX260/216.
 
I would say GTX280, but thats because I am not a big fan of ATI. Just to give you an idea, one GTX 280 can run TF2 on maxed settings at 2560x1600 with the fps never dropping below 60. If I were you I would get one, which is roughly 250$ depending on the version, and then wait a little while and go SLI later.
 
MrSlacker said:
I am finally building a new rig after 2 years with my old one. I haven't been gaming much lately because my rig can't handle the new games on my 24" LCD. So I am looking for a card for my new rig. Here are my future specs:
i7 920 D0 at around 4Ghz
6 gigs of RAM
24" LCD @ 1920x1200
nice big PSU... around 700W+

I am debating if I should go with single GTX 260, but afraid of it not being to able to handle everything I throw at it. SLI GTX 260 is also an option, but I would prefer to get 1 card now, and add another one later when they are really cheap. Is GTX 280 or 275 worth the money or can I just OC 260 to the same speeds? What about ATI cards?

In other words, what would be the best bang for the buck to game on 1920x1200 with high settings and not worry about any lag. Budget is $350 MAX (would prefer to be under $300).

Thanks!
Click to expand...

a single 4890 would work, the green equivalent is a GTX275 (just cost a little more) either would serve you well. a GTX260 is fine for the budget end.
 
i currently use a GTX285 @ 1920x1080 and it is just fine perhaps overkill.
 
Both the GTX275 and the HD4890 will do that resolution without difficulty. Make certain you have a good, stable power supply. Depending on what games you're planning to play.... I find that the Nvidia cards of late tend to run smoother for racing and flight simulation games...(despite not having the exotic memory ATI has)...at least in my configuration anyway. This is especially true when watching playbacks. The ATI cards tends to be faster for most in FPS. You won't really be effected too much in actual gameplay with either. Go with what suits your budget. I have a GTX275 and I love that thing. It is smooth as silk.
 
Last edited:
285/4890 260 choke in new games @ that resolution e.g Stalker,Far Cry 2 or Crysis
 
Q: What to get for 1920x1200 Gaming?

A: The most powerful video card you can afford.
 
Crysis isn't a new game as much as a poorly coded game. Games released in 2007 have no reason to not be able to be run in 2009 at max settings.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis isn't a new game as much as a poorly coded game. Games released in 2007 have no reason to not be able to be run in 2009 at max settings.
Click to expand...

This is true to some degree. Crysis Warhead ran much better given the same hardware, OS and drivers.
 
I really dont understand these "what card to get" threads especially from people that have been on here for years and clearly understand comps. can people not look at dozens of reviews and make this decision for themselves? everyones opinion will be different. one person will say a card is overkill while another will say that same card isnt enough. some people want 60fps with 16xAA and others couldnt care less about most iq settings or getting over 30fps. to me its simple...just look at reviews and decide for yourself based on your own games, iq preferences, power and noise concerns.
 
I don't know... I'm currently using rather old Gigabyte 8800GTX w/E6850/3GHz @1920x1200 and most of the games work absolutly acceptable. Very few of them produces lower than 30fps. Of course, this depends on details (most of the games running on max details though), but - if 8800GTX do the job, it is no question for GTX285.

Somebody recommended GTX280...why 280 and not 285 instead?

PSU... I can recommend Corsair 620HX (Seasonic M12 modular is the OEM), one of the best PSU I've ever used - quiet, powerful and simply capable of anything. Friend of mine is running 8800Ultra SLI with it, with no problems at all!
 
thats what i tell people, get whatever you can afford at the time, only time when i have to ask really is when im picking something for another computer that has a small budget as i dont really keep an eye on what is the best price / performance cards in the lower end.
 
psyside said:
285/4890 260 choke in new games @ that resolution e.g Stalker,Far Cry 2 or Crysis
Click to expand...

Agree.

I'd get the GTX285 which you can find at around $300 now. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130480

If money was 'somewhat' of a concern, I'd get the 4890. Or the GTX275.

With the current GPU choices and your budget and existing kit, I would not go lower than that and would not consider the GTX260 unless you are into older games (or strategy games) as you will have to compromise for games like Stalker, Far Cry 2. I've got one and it was a great GPU but technolgy and prices move on and if I had to buy today, it would not be the GTX260.

p.s. Not too keen on dual GPU cards, so have excluded the GTX295 and the 4870X2.
 
Well I game with the followng:

Q6600/evga 260 (vanillia) with default driver options and max in game settings
Q6700/bfg 9800gtx with default driver options and 2xAA
On my 8800GTX on cod4 I can use 4xAA
 
4890 is probably the best bang-for-the-buck under $300 with the highest price/performance.

The GTX275 is neck-and-neck with the 4890 (outperforms in some games, loses in others) but costs a bit more.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis isn't a new game as much as a poorly coded game. Games released in 2007 have no reason to not be able to be run in 2009 at max settings.
Click to expand...

They do when we haven't had any *new* cards for a year. We really still only have 2008 cards, after all, and only 1 generation has passed since Crysis was released ;) Also, I don't think "poorly coded" really works when the game is so damned beautiful.

@OP: It really depends on the games you play. Most games aren't all that demanding, and a single GTX 275 or 4890 would be plenty.
 
Alright thanks. So do you think GTX 275 or 4890 is worth the extra $100 over GTX 260?
 
MrSlacker said:
Alright thanks. So do you think GTX 275 or 4890 is worth the extra $100 over GTX 260?
Click to expand...

Why is the 4890 $100 more than the GTX 260? AFAIK, GTX 260 = $180 and 4890 = $200-230 (depending on discount/rebates).
 
PC_User said:
Why is the 4890 $100 more than the GTX 260? AFAIK, GTX 260 = $180 and 4890 = $200-230 (depending on discount/rebates).
Click to expand...

EVGA GTX260 = $160, GTX275=$240, 4980=$200. alright so its more of $40-$80 difference
 
MrSlacker said:
EVGA GTX260 = $160, GTX275=$240, 4980=$200. alright so its more of $40-$80 difference
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same thing. ;)

I would say the 4890 is worth $40 more than the GTX 260. The GTX 275, IMO, is not worth the $40 more than the 4890.
 
I seen in some benchmarks that a OC'd 4890 ( to 1ghz of course) performs at the heels of a 285... but you have to get lucky and get a 4890 that can OC to 1ghz, because I've heard that some don't.
 
I game at 1920x1200 on a 28" LCD and purchased a 4890. So far it has been working great!
 
heatthegreat said:
I seen in some benchmarks that a OC'd 4890 ( to 1ghz of course) performs at the heels of a 285... but you have to get lucky and get a 4890 that can OC to 1ghz, because I've heard that some don't.
Click to expand...

Even an overclocked GTX260 216 is on the heals of a GTX285 and that's cheaper


psyside said:
285/4890 260 choke in new games @ that resolution e.g Stalker,Far Cry 2 or Crysis
Click to expand...

Umm, no they don't. :rolleyes:

Keep telling yourself that though.
 
Last edited:
adobian said:
Canyou recommend a brand of 4890 that could overclock to 1ghz?
Click to expand...

no, its still luck of the draw, but even a stock 4890 is ~ GTX280 in terms of playability. personally I would spend a little more and get the XFX 4890 it can be had for around 225 or so
 
I'm currently running an HD4870 / 1GB at 1920x1200, it does fine! ... for one display. The drivers are the issue in this instance. So I decided to go back to Nvidia cards. What I chose was a GTX275. It seemed like a reasonable compromise between the cheap 260s, and the more expensive 285s.

Then I decided to "take the plunge" and build a Core i7. So I'll use the new GTX275 in it. At first I'll probably stick a spare 8800GT in for dedicated physics, or to help run the second display. But if a game doesn't run so well, I'll just back the settings off a bit. It's not like that's a hard thing to do...
 
95% of the people here would recomend a 4890 over a 260 even if it was 100 more, me personally i got my OCed 260 for 140 bucks and am thrilled with it, i mean arnt we all going to have dx 11 cards a year from now??? didnt want to break the bank to tide me over and i get just as good of performance out of this card as i would have a 280/4890 oh ya less money same performance and better driver support
 
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
here it is becuase i know the fanboys will dispute, here it is real world u get the SAME gaming performace from a 48701gb/4890/260 @ 1900x1200 with AA in most games EXACT same playable settings for ALL games spend the extra money if you want and tell yourself youll be better off when new games come out........then buy a dx11 card anyway and forget u wasted money
 
I am a Nvidia fan... I would get a 260 or 285 for now... I like cards that can run PhysX. ;)

Then when the 300 comes out, run it for graphics, and your 260 or 285 in dedicated PhysX mode.

You then will have a DX11 system due to the 300, and you old card as a dedicated PhysX processor will still be killer! (It won't need to be DX11.)
 
ebilcake said:
Even an overclocked GTX260 216 is on the heals of a GTX285 and that's cheaper




Umm, no they don't. :rolleyes:

Keep telling yourself that though.
Click to expand...

In STALKER Clear Sky and Crysis/Crysis Warhead a single Geforce GTX 260 216 or a single Geforce GTX 285 would choke at 1920x1200 especially when AA and AF are added to the mix. I found a single Geforce GTX 280 and a single 4870 X2 didn't give very good performance by themselves in either game. Thus I doubt a single Geforce GTX 260 216 or a single Geforce GTX 285 would do much better. The Geforce GTX 285 is faster than the Geforce GTX 280, but not by a large enough margin to make it that much less of a struggle in those games.

What is good enough performance is somewhat relative. On a single Geforce GTX 280 I found that the frame rates were ok for the most part but in heavy firefights and certain spots in the terrain the performance would fall into the high teens and low 20's. For me that's not cool. I already had to back down from my monitor's native resolution of 2560x1600 to 1920x1200 to get even that much performance. I threw in 2 more Geforce GTX 280's and the performance got to be good enough for 2560x1600 in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky and it took at least two Geforce GTX 280's to give me decent performance at 1920x1200 in Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

If you don't like eye candy or AA/AF then sure a single Geforce GTX 260 216 or a single Geforce GTX 285 is probably fine. In most games they would be fine at 1920x1200 but there are quite a few exceptions where one benefits from higher end or multiple GPUs at 1920x1200.
 
MrSlacker said:
EVGA GTX260 = $160, GTX275=$240, 4980=$200. alright so its more of $40-$80 difference
Click to expand...

Actually, if the OP hurries, he can get a 4890 for only $180 AR with free shipping. That puts it $60 cheaper than the GTX275 which is similar in performance. I just checked and the coupon code is still active:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-4890_1G

$20 off coupon code:

memorial20
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
I really dont understand these "what card to get" threads especially from people that have been on here for years and clearly understand comps. can people not look at dozens of reviews and make this decision for themselves? everyones opinion will be different. one person will say a card is overkill while another will say that same card isnt enough. some people want 60fps with 16xAA and others couldnt care less about most iq settings or getting over 30fps. to me its simple...just look at reviews and decide for yourself based on your own games, iq preferences, power and noise concerns.
Click to expand...

yup.

ownt

i just stepped up from a 260 216 to a 285 and there is a world of difference between the two at 1920x1200 and higher resolutions with AA and AF enabled.

i wouldnt take back my 260 for nething
 
Dan_D said:
... it took at least two Geforce GTX 280's to give me decent performance at 1920x1200 in Crysis and Crysis Warhead.
Click to expand...

I realize that not everyone agrees with me, but IMO these two games are the least optimized games in PC gaming history. Yes, I guess they look cool, but their performance, even on really high end gear is Crap! I avoid everything with the Crytek Studios name on it. (And NO I have NEVER downloaded a copy of Crysis!! Mainly because I never wanted to play it.)


That being said, I'd have to agree that if he can buy an HD4890 for around $180, then he should. Just one of these cards will run almost any game at the resolution he wants, with most, if not all, of the features turned up. Same thing can be said for a GTX275/280. Though in my experience more games are optimized for Nvidia video cards. I also think that lately Nvidia's drivers have been better than ATI's. And if he looks around he should be able to find decent deals on whatever he wants...
 
Cannydog said:
I realize that not everyone agrees with me, but IMO these two games are the least optimized games in PC gaming history. Yes, I guess they look cool, but their performance, even on really high end gear is Crap! I avoid everything with the Crytek Studios name on it. (And NO I have NEVER downloaded a copy of Crysis!! Mainly because I never wanted to play it.)


That being said, I'd have to agree that if he can buy an HD4890 for around $180, then he should. Just one of these cards will run almost any game at the resolution he wants, with most, if not all, of the features turned up. Same thing can be said for a GTX275/280. Though in my experience more games are optimized for Nvidia video cards. I also think that lately Nvidia's drivers have been better than ATI's. And if he looks around he should be able to find decent deals on whatever he wants...
Click to expand...

Well S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky and others fall into that category as well. Blame optimization all you want but the fact remains that some people may have to buy a higher end video card to get the performance they want in the games they want to play. Just because you think they are poorly coded (even if this is truly the case) or because you don't think they are good games makes them no less relevant to others. Games never get less demanding. They only become more so. Doom 4, AVP, or whatever else is coming next may not run worth a damn on an ATI Radeon HD 4890 when they come out. We don't know. Anyone who plays games at 1920x1200 or higher that doesn't want to accept less than high settings in even today's games should probably go for the biggest and baddest video card (or 2) available. Price factors in of course but at resolutions of 1920x1200 or better, value shopping is less important than getting a powerful card to handle the resolutions in question.

That is only my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top