GTX/Ultra overkill for dual 1680x1050?

ZerazaX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,582
So right now I've got a dual Dell 2007WFP 20.1" LCD set up with no computer to go with it Go figure :p

And I'm going to be building one with it. So I'm thinking, is the GTX/Ultra overkill for 1680 x 1050? I realize they show their biggest performance increases at 1920 x 1200 and higher res compared to the GTS, but I also know that the GTX and Ultra can play games such as Oblivion at 1680 with tons of AA and other settings on whereas the GTS will not be able to match the same settings.

Anyone here gaming with the GTX or Ultra at those res's and can give a comparison against the GTS? At least, I suppose, it would be a tad bit futureproof at that res for future games, though nothing is guaranteed.
 

citizen__erased

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
445
Well, i'm happy with my GTS 640 on my 1920x1200 Dell 2407 so i'm sure it'd be great at that resolution. If money isn't tight though, just get the GTX. The Ultra is a complete waste of money in my opinion.
 

Teknokid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
1,292
i run my gtx on 1600x1200, the reso is great on it, all my titles run maxed, some only just though.
 

prasvt

Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
557
Supposedly, when DX10 games start showing up, they'll run better than DX9 cards run DX9 games. I can run most games at 1680 x 1050 with my 8800gts 320mb (xfx xxx edition) with high resolutions. But personally, I don't see the point of jacking up the AA at high resolutions since it seems like the need to do so diminishes the higher up you go - but that's just me.

So I'm guessing a GTX or Ultra would definitely be overkill unless you're playing at 1920x1200 in the future.

On the other hand, there's Windows Vista. So maybe a GTX/Ultra would make up for the slight performance decrease that occurs going from xp to vista.
 

T-nm

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
335
I tried css (maxed) in 3360x1050 (2x22"), 60+FPS. What's funny is that the crosshair is in the middle.
Those new cards can handle anything really. The only difference I see between the GTX/Ultra and GTS are the clocks, the rest doesn't change anything.
 

ZerazaX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,582
It's really hard to get past the quality of the S-IPS panels so in all likelihood if I upgrade my monitor, its going to be a 2560 x 1600 S-IPS 30" (or a really expensive 26" S-IPS from NEC).

Of course, going to the 30" means SLi/CF time just to play at native resolution.

I realize the GTS640 probably handles 1680x1050 fine, although Vista does seem to create slowdowns with the lower 8800's. As far as the GTX/Ultra being the same as the GTS... not true at all. The GTX/Ultra have more shaders and other physical differences as well as performing much better clock for clock easily.

I suppose some of this comes down to whether I want to future proof by buying a card now or getting a GTS640 and waiting for the next gen... or just getting a good card now. But if the GTX/Ultra is really overkill, then it might be moot already.
 

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
I tried css (maxed) in 3360x1050 (2x22"), 60+FPS. What's funny is that the crosshair is in the middle.
Those new cards can handle anything really. The only difference I see between the GTX/Ultra and GTS are the clocks, the rest doesn't change anything.

You're right...the fact that the GTS only has 75% of the hardware in the GTX in addition to lower clocks doesn't change anything at all.
 

ZerazaX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,582
You mean at those reso's? Cause i know 1920 and higher the GTX and Ultra easily pull away from the 640
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,136
I tried css (maxed) in 3360x1050 (2x22"), 60+FPS. What's funny is that the crosshair is in the middle.
Those new cards can handle anything really. The only difference I see between the GTX/Ultra and GTS are the clocks, the rest doesn't change anything.

Wrong. The 8800 GTS has 96 stream processors, where as the GTX and Ultra both have 128 stream processors and more ROPs. The only differences between the GTX and Ultra are core revision -- thus far all GTX's are A2 cores, all Ultras are A3 cores, the A3 runs a little cooler than the A2, uses slightly less power, and OC's better as a result -- and clocks. The Ultra's shader clock are also slightly higher per core clock than the GTX. Most GTX's will run at Ultra speeds without issue, and some will run well above Ultra speeds, but Ultras almost always OC higher due to the revised A3 core.

A GTX or Ultra won't be overkill at that res. I can get mine to struggle even at 1600x1200 if I try at it.
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,136
Well, i'm happy with my GTS 640 on my 1920x1200 Dell 2407 so i'm sure it'd be great at that resolution. If money isn't tight though, just get the GTX. The Ultra is a complete waste of money in my opinion.

This was definitely true a couple of months ago -- dear god, $800 plus for a single card, come on Nvidia... -- but now that Ultras can be found for $50-75 more than a GTX... it's not quite so stupid a move. They do OC better, they do run cooler, they draw a few less watts at stock clocks. If you want the best of the best, right now, that's it.
 

ZerazaX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,582
Yeah that's what I'm thinking. $50-70 more than a GTX and higher OC room means its actually priced correctly now, and the DX10 benchies showed that the Ultra was actually playable...
 

zamardii

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
3,106
Top