Best card for 1680 x 1050 gaming?

[Valset]

why are we arguing about this? we are talking game play not desktop graphics. the amount of vram that is beneficial is pretty well established. (a 4870 512 and 1gb perform very similar that this res) we have seen a recent upswing in memory mattering but we are splitting hairs here.


OP, the gen consensus seems to be that a 6850 or a 460GTX would be fine for that. both provide similar game play and are pretty inexpensive. if you wanted to spend a little more then a 6870 or a high end OCed 460 would be nice (I would opt for the 6870 out of that but its a personal preference). both come with 1gb of memory that is more then needed at your res. (H reviews don't show 1gb memory mattering really until 4mp)

 

[Cataulin]

I'll be in the ball park range of 100-150 once everything gets settled after tax season. Also this Is a old computer I know but currently budget wise I can just max out what I can I'll last a while. I haven't fully decided yet which direction I'll go CPU wise but with GPU I'm friendly to either side. I will be constructing a new setup in the near future. So I'd also like to have a card that will transfer over no problem to the new rig as well.


Also Yeah I know about my missing CPU its a Pentium D Esomething. Ive been eying the FS/FT threads for a good processor to replace it.

Also whats up with argument?

 

[cannondale06]

I'll be in the ball park range of 100-150 once everything gets settled after tax season. Also this Is a old computer I know but currently budget wise I can just max out what I can I'll last a while. I haven't fully decided yet which direction I'll go CPU wise but with GPU I'm friendly to either side. I will be constructing a new setup in the near future. So I'd also like to have a card that will transfer over no problem to the new rig as well.


Also Yeah I know about my missing CPU its a Pentium D Esomething. Ive been eying the FS/FT threads for a good processor to replace it.

Also whats up with argument?

a Pentium D? that cpu is laughably slow for modern games and would bottleneck the crap out of any decent card. this is why its important to list ALL your specs when asking for help. also shame on all you other posters, other than Happy, for not asking such a basic question. 2gb of system ram and a Pentium D are not worthy of putting in a fast card. get a new cpu and more system ram and then get a video card.

 

[Cataulin]

a Pentium D? that cpu is laughably slow for modern games and would bottleneck the crap out of any decent card.

It is, I know but I really just play U3 with it. works just fine for now. Like I said I am currently eying a different processor.

 

[Red Falcon]

War Zone, I'm just waiting for cannondale06 to come in and straighten things out here once and for all.

There is a crap ton of info with GPUs and memory usage/allocation with which you apparently have no idea on what you are talking about.

This is why I don't really post in the video card forum that much, mainly b/c I don't like to argue with FUD that has been disproven over and over. It gets a bit tiring.

So when playing a game at max settings, why is it that a GTX460 1GB will outperform a GTX460 768MB? They are nearly the same card, some memory bandwidth not withstanding, yet the GTX460 with 1GB will run a LOT faster depending on the game. It is due to the extra memory needed, especially at high resolutions.

As moving to a higher res does in fact require more VRAM, just take a look at [H]'s graphics cards reviews and see the needs at different resolutions.

It seems like your GPU memory meter is a bit messed up, there are a bunch of other out there that are much better.

Win7 isn't bloatware, as Mac OS X and even Ubuntu Linux do the exact same thing, mainly for Aero and 3D effects on the desktop, as well as texture layering, AA/AF, etc. All modern OSes outside of CLI do this unless you specifically turn it off, and even then when I turn Aero off and all other effects, I'm still eating over 64MB of VRAM. Believe me, it takes more than 8MB of memory to run 1080p at 32-bit color. I suggest you do a bit more research on the subject.

OP, just make sure to get something with 1GB or more memory and you should be good. Definitely get a CPU upgrade as that will probably be the most beneficial to you.

 

[cannondale06]

It is, I know but I really just play U3 with it. works just fine for now. Like I said I am currently eying a different processor.

yeah that's why I said get the new cpu and more ram first. there's not much point in buying a fast card now because it could be weeks before you find or even decide on a cpu and at that time we may have better video card prices.

 

[Cataulin]

yeah that's why I said get the new cpu and more ram first. there's not much point in buying a fast card now because it could be weeks before you find or even decide on a cpu and at that time we may have better video card prices.

Yeah you guys are making a good point. I think the excitement of money in the bank is getting to me I think for the time being Ill browse for a cpu upgrade. Ill still look around at GPU's of course. Ive already got 4gb of ram on the way.

 

[cannondale06]

Yeah you guys are making a good point. I think the excitement of money in the bank is getting to me I think for the time being Ill browse for a cpu upgrade. Ill still look around at GPU's of course. Ive already got 4gb of ram on the way.

just make sure the cpus you are looking at are compatible with your mobo.

 

[jkjambo]

for that resolution nvidia 460/470 , or ati 5850/5870

 

[alf717]

512MB has done well for me for the past three years now at 1920x1080. Still I'm hoping to get a 2GB card one of these days. I don't think I'll be going any higher than 1080P for a while now.

 

[cannondale06]

512MB has done well for me for the past three years now at 1920x1080. Still I'm hoping to get a 2GB card one of these days. I don't think I'll be going any higher than 1080P for a while now.

of course 512mb has been enough because your 3870 does not have the power to run settings to push it over 512mb at 1920x1080. a game like Metro 2033 will go over 512mb even on low settings at 1920x1080 though. and I have a hard time believing you can even play many newer games at 1920x1080 on anything higher than low settings with a 3870 anyway. btw any card worthy of having 2gb of vram would be significantly held back by your 6400 X2.

 

[happymedium]

a Pentium D? that cpu is laughably slow for modern games and would bottleneck the crap out of any decent card. this is why its important to list ALL your specs when asking for help. also shame on all you other posters, other than Happy, for not asking such a basic question. 2gb of system ram and a Pentium D are not worthy of putting in a fast card. get a new cpu and more system ram and then get a video card.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree.

I'll go one step futher. About your motherboard................

"The Intel Desktop Board DG31PR is built to support a range of processors including the Intel Core 2 Quad processor (95W TDP) and the Intel Core 2 Duo processor."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121323

Get yourself a cheap core 2 quad q8400 at 2.66 ghz since you can't overclock with that board. Well I don't think you can.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115057

If I were you I'd look into a q9550 at 2.8 for less then 180$ used.

Good luck.

 

[War Zone]

Agreed the OP mobo supports more cpus ,and a Pentium4D is dog slow for that mobo
cpu support list

If you want a cpu that's dirt cheap and clocks like mad try the e5200\5300\5400\etc {used $50}
e5200 overclock info
newegg link for cpu

Cataulin:
Also whats up with argument?

Not much man just a feu people out their that like acting like they know what their talking about but in fact no nothing about what their talking about , all good

Btw some parts of the how the video card work are 100% the video cards job and are not shared tasks with the cpu, to name a feu {res\textures\AA\AF} are not affected by cpu power in one bit.If you have say 30 fps in game "X" and you pop in a 5x times more powerful video card that means you can jack the {res\textures\AA\AF} in a big way and still end up with 30 fps .Other things on the video card topic work different and are shared tasks with the cpu~video card to different percentages.

or that resolution nvidia 460/470 , or ati 5850/5870

+1
agreed

 

[joxang]

why are we arguing about this? we are talking game play not desktop graphics.

This. WarZone is getting a boner over technicalities - he does know his stuff but it's completely irrelevant in this thread when we're talking about the difference between running a modern game at 1680 x 1050, and 2560x1600, which does require a huge memory hike *even if you keep the other graphics settings at the same level*.

We say: increasing resolution in games requires a lot more memory.
War Zone: nooooooo resolution alone doesn't use that much memory!!!

Not the point

 

[samuelmorris]

I don't really see why the whole argument was necessary to be honest. I imagine most people realise you need almost no memory to run the desktop, and if there is something like a 128MB requirement to run Aero on the desktop that's likely to be a specification limit in the code, more than it is actually running out of memory. I'd be very surprised if Aero used anywhere near that much, even at eyefinity resolutions.

The point being argued was, and always should have been, memory requirement for games, for which memory needed to run the desktop resolution would be near-irrelevant

 

[phide]

And AA is pointless just use more res seeing as that ends up doing the same thing only better.

How do you propose people with LCDs do that? Supersampling?

 

[samuelmorris]

I think he's trying to say that at a higher pixel density you won't see aliases. I thought that at first, but nah, you need an enormous pixel density to mask the majority of aliases, and even then they aren't gone completely. It's just a case of whether they actually affect you or not.

 

[Red Falcon]

I don't really see why the whole argument was necessary to be honest. I imagine most people realise you need almost no memory to run the desktop, and if there is something like a 128MB requirement to run Aero on the desktop that's likely to be a specification limit in the code, more than it is actually running out of memory. I'd be very surprised if Aero used anywhere near that much, even at eyefinity resolutions.

The point being argued was, and always should have been, memory requirement for games, for which memory needed to run the desktop resolution would be near-irrelevant

The most memory I've seen used from Aero at 1080p is 84MB by itself.

Other apps such as flash player, VLC, and others can cause it to go up, but only because they themselves utilize VRAM.

War Zone may actually be right about the 1600x1200 comparison to 1080p, but even then it would take a minimum of a 16MB card, however this is irrelevant to the thread.

Going from 1680x1050 to 2560x1600 in any modern game past 2008 will require a lot more VRAM due to the much larger amount of pixels, AA/AF needed, and any other setting which may utilize resolution as well. Hence why we are saying to the OP "get a graphics card with 1GB or more."

 

[joxang]

Yay massive sense infusion. Back on topic.

 

[Sovereign]

I have a 470 pushing 1680x1050. It's probably overkill, but I also haven't seen any problems with it. The dollar/performance ratio is, however, not as good (samuelmorris pointed this out, I believe).

 

[MrXROK]

So when playing a game at max settings, why is it that a GTX460 1GB will outperform a GTX460 768MB? They are nearly the same card, some memory bandwidth not withstanding, yet the GTX460 with 1GB will run a LOT faster depending on the game. It is due to the extra memory needed, especially at high resolutions.

As moving to a higher res does in fact require more VRAM, just take a look at [H]'s graphics cards reviews and see the needs at different resolutions.

It seems like your GPU memory meter is a bit messed up, there are a bunch of other out there that are much better.

GTX460 1gb will outperform a 768mb GTX460 not because of VRAM but extra rop and memory clusters.

VRAM has little to do with performance unless you run out of vram and start texture thrashing.

Currently 768mb is enough for modern games @ 1080P @ 4xAA...

 

[MrXROK]

I'll be in the ball park range of 100-150 once everything gets settled after tax season. Also this Is a old computer I know but currently budget wise I can just max out what I can I'll last a while. I haven't fully decided yet which direction I'll go CPU wise but with GPU I'm friendly to either side. I will be constructing a new setup in the near future. So I'd also like to have a card that will transfer over no problem to the new rig as well.


Also Yeah I know about my missing CPU its a Pentium D Esomething. Ive been eying the FS/FT threads for a good processor to replace it.

Also whats up with argument?

It's really not worth upgrading your GPU. You should just keep your computer for a while until you can get a new system.

If you get a quad core in there you have to factor in a new PSU, RAM, and CPU. That's basically most of the core components. It's more economical to buy a cheap quad AMD setup.

 

[cannondale06]

GTX460 1gb will outperform a 768mb GTX460 not because of VRAM but extra rop and memory clusters.

VRAM has little to do with performance unless you run out of vram and start texture thrashing.

Currently 768mb is enough for modern games @ 1080P @ 4xAA...

we all know its not just the additional vram in the case of the the gtx460 but you are wrong claiming 768mb is enough for all games at 1080 with 4x AA. even without any AA at all, Clear Sky, Metro 2033. and GTA 4 all need more than 768mb for settings a gtx460 can easily handle. and that's just the games I am positive about so I am sure there might be a few others. and please don't use the excuse that a few games don't matter because surely most gtx460 owners would want to play those games.

 

[HohnyF]

Call of Pripyat settles for 1008MB VRAM on my sistem.

I'm pretty sure it would take more if I had it,
but I can't be positive it would be unplayable if I had 768MB variant.

 

[cannondale06]

Call of Pripyat settles for 1008MB VRAM on my sistem.

I'm pretty sure it would take more if I had it,
but I can't be positive it would be unplayable if I had 768MB variant.

you would have to reduce the settings or it would be unplayable at times. I had to reduce my settings in Clear Sky because I was hitching when using over 890mb of vram.

 

[HohnyF]

Clear Sky is worse for NVidia compared to CoP, because no HBAO mode for SSAO.

HBAO is much more optimized for NV.

 

[War Zone]

I remember a feu times going out and looking for ways to mod all textures in a game so as to pimp fps& video card memory use {*.bmp vs *.jpg} .
Some games out their imho are just bloatware and will try and use system resources just for the sake of using more and at the same time giving the end user no options to configure the game in any way shape or form.
Theirs nothing like having a low\med\high setting for the hole game that about as useful as trying to teach a rock what monotheism is.

my self i don't care about games on this topic, imho its just bad programing and at the same time lazy on game company "X" part with a good dose of trying to push people in to buying newer hardware just for the sake of trying to push people to buy more hardware.
Using as a example the biggest bloatware games out their for pc as a defense to say we should all go running out to the store as fast as we can to go and buy video cards with 4 gigs ram doesn't work in my book.

Unlike console game programing were one size fits all seeing as all hardware on a xbox 360 is all the same, on computers this isn't the case and if you make a game that cant be optimize for a wide range of hardware then your just killing off your costumer base.

good example of a game company that seems to have made it on my shit list with flying colors would be {EA games} for more then one reason.
good example of a game company that made it on my good list would be {blizzard}.Just wait till Diablo III comes out ,bet ya it run fine on a Pentium 4 with a older video card with limited video ram with the right settings.

Ps The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay for pc was killer on how you could configure it for different hardware setups and as a extra bonus uses openGL.

 

[YamahaAlex37]

It's really not worth upgrading your GPU. You should just keep your computer for a while until you can get a new system.

If you get a quad core in there you have to factor in a new PSU, RAM, and CPU. That's basically most of the core components. It's more economical to buy a cheap quad AMD setup.

This would make sense if he said CPU or RAM, but it is definitely worth it for you to upgrade your GPU, because if you decide to upgrade the system the GPU can come with unlike other upgrades. Why not get this part out of the way now, and I guarantee it will suck a lot more life out of your computer, considering you only have 300mb of ram now.

I don't think this price can be beat right now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/HIS-H685F1GD-Ra...oryZ3762QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Just get it!

 

[War Zone]

Shit nice find YamahaAlex37 im all most temped to get that video card for my self

Ps diablo III PC Minimum System Requirements

* Windows® XP/Windows Vista®/Windows® 7 (Updated with the latest Service Packs) with DirectX® 9.0c
* 2.6 GHz Pentium® IV or equivalent AMD Athlon® processor
* 128 MB PCIe NVIDIA® GeForce® 6600 GT or ATI Radeon® 9800 PRO video card or better
* 12 GB available HD space
* 1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista®/Windows® 7 users)
* DVD-ROM drive
* Broadband Internet connection
* 1024X720 minimum display resolution

 

[Nightwing749]

yet the GTX460 with 1GB will run a LOT faster

http://www(dot) hardwarecanucks(dot) com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/34089-nvidia-geforce-gtx-460-1gb-gtx-460-768mb-review(dot) html

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (1680 x 1050 Highest Settings)
GTX 460 1GB : 50.81 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 48.76 fps

..even Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2560 x 1600 @ Max Settings)
GTX 460 1GB: 21.99 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 20.29 fps

Metro 2033 (1680 x 1050 Highest Settings)
GTX 460 1GB: 19.54 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 17.24 fps

I'm not sure if it's me but 1-2 extra frame rates is not by any means "a LOT" faster.
Do a little research next time.

Anyways, 460 GTX 768MB has my vote for an excellent budget card @ 1680 x 1050.

 

[CFP]

My 4870x2 is still chugging along quite nicely at 833/915, so a 5870 would be more than enough considering it outperforms the 4870x2 somewhat.

And while many people will cite VRAM has some kind of huge issue, I find I hit my acceptable-playable-FPS wall at 1680x1050 in a game like GTA IV before I get into the high 900's for MBs of VRAM utilised.

 

[Red Falcon]

http://www(dot) hardwarecanucks(dot) com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/34089-nvidia-geforce-gtx-460-1gb-gtx-460-768mb-review(dot) html

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (1680 x 1050 Highest Settings)
GTX 460 1GB : 50.81 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 48.76 fps

..even Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2560 x 1600 @ Max Settings)
GTX 460 1GB: 21.99 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 20.29 fps

Metro 2033 (1680 x 1050 Highest Settings)
GTX 460 1GB: 19.54 fps
GTX 460 768MB: 17.24 fps

I'm not sure if it's me but 1-2 extra frame rates is not by any means "a LOT" faster.
Do a little research next time.

Anyways, 460 GTX 768MB has my vote for an excellent budget card @ 1680 x 1050.

lol, you're right, but some to some [H] members that may make all the difference in the world.

GTX460 1gb will outperform a 768mb GTX460 not because of VRAM but extra rop and memory clusters.

VRAM has little to do with performance unless you run out of vram and start texture thrashing.

Currently 768mb is enough for modern games @ 1080P @ 4xAA...

You're right as well, the only thing is is that at certain resolutions+settings depending on the game, it may require much more than 768MB of memory, especially with high AA/AF in use. 1GB is becoming much more common than it was 2 or 3 years ago. I'm not saying 768MB is bad, it's just that for certain circumstances, that extra 256MB of memory may come in handy.

 

[MrXROK]

we all know its not just the additional vram in the case of the the gtx460 but you are wrong claiming 768mb is enough for all games at 1080 with 4x AA. even without any AA at all, Clear Sky, Metro 2033. and GTA 4 all need more than 768mb for settings a gtx460 can easily handle. and that's just the games I am positive about so I am sure there might be a few others. and please don't use the excuse that a few games don't matter because surely most gtx460 owners would want to play those games.

GTA4 is one of those games you need more than a 1 gb card to max out. It's not the norm.

As for Metro 2033 you can't max out that game with a 460 period whether it be 1gb @ 1080P or 768mb.

Don't play clear skys so I don't know.

1 gb card can 2560x1600 4xAA without much issues. 8x AA is another story.

 

[MrXROK]

This would make sense if he said CPU or RAM, but it is definitely worth it for you to upgrade your GPU, because if you decide to upgrade the system the GPU can come with unlike other upgrades. Why not get this part out of the way now, and I guarantee it will suck a lot more life out of your computer, considering you only have 300mb of ram now.

I don't think this price can be beat right now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/HIS-H685F1GD-Ra...oryZ3762QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Just get it!

It's pointless to upgrade with an ancient CPU. he will be bottlenecked even with 6850.

Trying to play modern games with Pentium D is a crap shot even if he had 5970x2.

 

[YamahaAlex37]

It's pointless to upgrade with an ancient CPU. he will be bottlenecked even with 6850.

Trying to play modern games with Pentium D is a crap shot even if he had 5970x2.

Well if he updates the entire system, GPU is part of that right? Why not get that part over with, and I guarantee that 320mb of VRAM was limiting him.

 

[cannondale06]

GTA4 is one of those games you need more than a 1 gb card to max out. It's not the norm.

As for Metro 2033 you can't max out that game with a 460 period whether it be 1gb @ 1080P or 768mb.

Don't play clear skys so I don't know.

1 gb card can 2560x1600 4xAA without much issues. 8x AA is another story.

as usual you can never admit when you are wrong and can only come up with excuses. it doesn't matter if GTA 4 is the norm or not if its is a game he wants to play then that is what matters. GTA 4 and its Episodes would represent tons of hours of gameplay so that game alone could make the 768mb a poor choice.

next your comment about metro 2033 is wrong. a GTX460 could easily play Metro 2033 on high or very high settings without 4x AA and it will still go over 768mb at 1920x1080. my older 192sp GTX260 easily handled high settings at 1920x1080 in that game.

and I have played Clear Sky so I know for a fact even without AA it will easily exceed 768mb at 1920x1080. I have a slower GTX260 and I had to turn down settings for the sole reason that I was exceeding even the 896mb on my card.

so again your comment saying a GTX460 768mb can play all games at 1920x1080 WITH 4x AA is flat out wrong. those are 3 games that even WITHOUT AA will go over 768mb at 1920x1080.

 

[samuelmorris]

What on earth? A GTX460 maxing out Metro 2033? Great, I love my 3fps...

 

[cannondale06]

What on earth? A GTX460 maxing out Metro 2033? Great, I love my 3fps...

who said maxing it out? of course a gtx460 cant max out the game with 4x AA, tessellation, dof and physx. I was saying high or very high settings without all those other settings at the same time. so AGAIN it would exceed 768mb at playable settings a gtx460 could otherwise handle.

 

[phide]

As for Metro 2033 you can't max out that game with a 460 period whether it be 1gb @ 1080P or 768mb.

next your comment about metro 2033 is wrong. a GTX460 could easily play Metro 2033 on high or very high settings without 4x AA and it will still go over 768mb at 1920x1080.

who said maxing it out? of course a gtx460 cant max out the game with 4x AA, tessellation, dof and physx.

Note that there isn't any 'brick wall' with respect to VRAM. Texture data can be paged in to and out of available system RAM as the API sees fit for a performance penalty.

 

[samuelmorris]

Well that's the comment you responded to. I would definitely agree it would exceed 768MB memory at 1920x1080 on very high settings, but I also think it would be beyond the GTX460's capabilities if you wanted more than a slideshow. From HardOCP's own data:
HD5850 - 1920x1200 High w/Tesselation, NoAA: 42fps average, 23fps minimum
GTX470 - 1920x1200 Very High w/Tesselation, AAA: 38fps average, 23fps minimum.

We know that the GTX470 is roughly 30% faster than the 768MB GTX460, so you'd be looking at a frame rate of a little under 30 average and around 17-18 minimum, with tesselation but no DoF or physics. HardOCP seemed to think tesselation made little difference to performance which is why they left it enabled, so even without it, I can't see a 460 making more than 35 average, 20 minimum at those settings, which to me would be pretty turgid.
At the time the test was conducted, due to drivers, there was around a 5% advantage to nvidia for average frame rates, and 30% for minimums.
So if we extrapolate from the 5850's results on high with no AA, we have to add that bias in, knowing that the 5850 is normally 25% beyond the 460.
This comes out with an average frame rate of 35, and a minimum frame rate of 24. Neither of these is looking great.

Note that there isn't any 'brick wall' with respect to VRAM. Texture data can be paged in to and out of available system RAM as the API sees fit for a performance penalty.

Not entirely true, this happens first, and then there is a brick wall at which point you will either crash, or just get 1-3fps. This has happened in several games, it happened to 512MB 4870s in GRiD, and more recently to Vision surround GTX570s in F1 2010