How "overkill" is a GTX 260 or HD 4870 for 1680x1050 gaming?

N

nothingworks

n00b
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
13
I'm putting a new machine together, and plan to post a more complete thread in General Hardware. I am starting with the video card though, and could use some suggestions. Some points to consider:

- My current setup has a Dell 2005FPW 20" LCD running at 1680x1050. I have a second panel, a Samsung 151N(?) 15" LCD running at 768x1024. I plan on using these with my new machine.

- It's possible that I might move to a 22" LCD in the future, after I get my new machine (let's call it 50/50). Even if I did, I don't know if the new panel would still be at 1680x1050. Let's just say there's a 25% chance that I could be running at 1920x1200 in a year's time.

- I currently game with an X800 XL at 1680x1050. I am getting tired of stuttering frames, opting out of HDR, and so on. This build is meant to play all the latest games and play them well, and since I'm building a whole new system and not upgrading, I am motivated to get a video card that's on the "overkill" side rather than play it safe.

- I want to find that GPU tier that will play anything, Crysis aside, at my current res and completely destroy it at max settings w/ AA. "Should be fine" is not part of my vocabulary here!

Questions:
- Should I be looking at a GTX 260 or HD4870 as the ideal tier? From what I've read and have been told, I could be happy with a 9800GTX at a 1680 resolution, but would a 260/4870 not give me that extra muscle for those more stubborn titles (e.g., Crysis, Stalker)? Keep in mind that I want to max everything out and have high frame rates.

- If I did go with a 260, since it's been out for a bit, are there particular variants or brands that I should look for? Same question for the 4870.

- Given the remote possiblity of moving up to 1920x1200, should I at least consider something like a GTX 275? If I stick with 1680x1050 forever more, the ~50% premium I'd pay for a 275 over a 260 will be completely wasted. On the other hand, I'd hate to upgrade the panel in half a year then feel I need to upgrade the card. You can never win. From this perspective, my thoughts on this right now are to stick with a 260 at 1680x1050, and assume a panel upgrade just might coincide with a new crop of DX11 cards.

Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks for reading.
 
even a remote possibility is enough for me to purchase what I MIGHT need then.
 
not at all overkill IMO

With some games it might be more than enough @ 1680, but there are plenty of others that will stress that card no problem. With that said, a 260 is more than enough (in most titles) to run 1920x1200 maxed without aa enabled

If you can find a more powerful card for not much more $$$, then I'd say go for it, but neither of the cards you listed are a bad buy either :) They're plenty powerful
 
If you even think you want to go 1920 x 1200, go with a 4890/GTX 275. Even if you don't end up doing it the extra horsepower will be nice to crank up the graphics at 1680x1050, especially in games like Crysis.
 
There is no question you will want to go with the 4890/275 (or 4870/260 depending on price). 1680x1050 is the nominal "22inch" resolution. You'll be very happy with your self for doing so.
 
Very very not overkill. I game at that resolution using an overclocked 8800GTX and it's enough for almost all games but games like Crysis are making it, well, cry.

Though I must suggest that you do hold off for the newer hardware coming out this fall. That way you can either A: pick up a DX11 card or B. pick up a DX10 card at lower prices.
 
i second the wait a little bit idea / i just scored a gtx260 for about $115 shipped and its allowing me to ride crysis up to 1920x1080 with a couple of high settings...

i was coming from a 8800gts 640 [which only allowed 720p at the same settings]

that being said... here in a few months, the new dx11 cards will be out, if they are a significant enough upgrade then the price of this gens bang for buck cards will fall and become mucho affordable [the big dog cards will probably still stay up there in price for awhile though]

so if you can score say a 260 or 4870 for around $100 ... id go for it, but i wouldnt buy one new for $175+
 
speaking from my own experience, a 4870 with 1GB is definitely NOT a over kill for that resolution.
 
if you fall into "waiting for the next gen", then you will always be waiting for the next best thing, because there will always be better things on the horizon. with that said, i suggest you go ahead and get either a 260 or 4870 now, but also make sure that you get a mobo with crossfire/sli, so when the next gens come out you can just buy another 260 or 4870 for a cheaper price then run em in crossfire/sli.
 
I game with a gtx 260 (216) evga ssc at 1680 x 1050 and it's not overkill at all IMO. New games will always be coming out that need more gpu power and it's able to give it at that resolution.
 
my gtx 260 is about the sweet spot for my 1680x1050 monitor.... some games can do max settings + a ton of AA but I do just 2xaa on crysis..... still get around 40-50 FPS (30 ish after ice)

I'd go with the 4890/gtx 275.... or if you really want to max stuff (8xaa +) 280/285
 
ratmasta said:
if you fall into "waiting for the next gen", then you will always be waiting for the next best thing...
Click to expand...

not really... waiting just because is different from waiting for a specific reason

we know the dx11 cards are coming soon / and we know they are indeed the very next generation and not a die shrink or refresh

that being said, if you are on the fence right here now today - then it makes sense to wait

1 for the option of getting the newest and hottest

2 for the price drop of the current gen

i wasnt suggesting he wait indefinitely / or just on gp
 
There is such a thing as overkill. Why buy a $300 card when a $150 card will give you the same performance? A Core 216 or a 4870 would be a great choice. Those cards are still some of the best on the market. A GTX 275 isn't worth it. You can easily find a 280 for less.
 
i run 1680 x 1050 on a 4850 with everything maxed (most games) EXCLUDING AA, which i still have on, but not maxed. If i had a 4870 / 260 i would max AA. I would say that the 4870 / 260 is infact, the perfect card for that res + max candy.
 
jamhamm said:
1 for the option of getting the newest and hottest

2 for the price drop of the current gen
Click to expand...

The price drop of the current gen? The GTX 260 has been at or under 150$ for MONTHS, exactly how much further do you expect it to fall?
 
Thats underkill by now...with Crysis / GTA IV you need at least GTX 285 / HD 4890 OC to come close to normalkill for that resolution. Maybe HD 4870x2 / GTX 295 would be considered overkill for that resolution.
 
Ya, Crysis ran well for me with my 260 on 1280 resolution, but it wasn't phenomonal. So I'd imagine it would struggle a touch at higher res.
 
My 4850 won't handle a lot of FSAA in some new games at 1680x1050, so a 4870 1GB or similar would certainly not be overkill if you like eye candy. But of course, you can get by with a 4850 or 9800GTX - it's not so slow that you can't enjoy new games...you'll just have to back off slightly on the eye candy and not just mindlessly max everything out and expect 90 FPS.

Also the price drop of the current gen has indeed already happened. The GTX260 launched at $400 and the 4870 512MB at $300 and now they're selling for like $150/$130. You can get a 4870 1GB or GTX260 for $50 less than I paid for my 4850 512MB when they launched so there's really no reason to go with anything less. It's better to save a bit on the CPU instead if you're on a tight budget.
 
Last edited:
I just got a 4890 OC and wouldn't want anything less if you plan on playing stuff like Crysis or any newer games. Crysis runs like butter on Very High @ 1280x960, and 1600x1200 gives about 30 FPS. Pretty much any other game will let you max AA at 1050 and run it super smoothly, but newer games will take more. I'd get a 4890 at the least, mine was only $260 CAD so they're pretty cheap.
 
My 9800gtx+ handles everything I play at 1680x1050 - Crysis was enjoyable, but not maxed out as others have pointed out. But I get no drops in frame rates in everything else. I still went ahead and got a HD4870 and a GTX260 (two different computers) because what the hell, they were like $125 each after rebates. For that money, I'd rather be overkill for the current generation of games and be ready for new stuff down the road.

But yeah - I think it is overkill right now, but the price is right so why not.
 
I useGTX 260/216 on my 20" and I have no problems with alot of 4xAA and higher on just about everything I play demos included.Big improvement over my 4850.Ctysis is still a pain.16x10 looks very good,cranked.
 
Some of you are making me scared.

I ordered a 4870 and a 24'' 1920x1200 monitor. Are you suggesting I should've went with a 4890 for WoW and Crysis?
 
I went from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 just for my 120hz monitor. At first it was problematic playing at high resolutions (1920+) but then I switched to a different monitor :)
 
i second the wait a little bit idea / i just scored a gtx260 for about $115 shipped and its allowing me to ride crysis up to 1920x1080 with a couple of high settings...
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you find it for $115?

The GTX 260 is in the sweet spot right now for price performance. I think it sounds like the right card for you and offers the option to even add a second one in the future.

The 4870 is also a really solid video card. I guess it depends on your computer motherboard. Does it support Crossfire or SLI? That will probably dictate which one you choose.

LearninToBuild said:
Some of you are making me scared.

I ordered a 4870 and a 24'' 1920x1200 monitor. Are you suggesting I should've went with a 4890 for WoW and Crysis?
Click to expand...

1st. Let's get one thing straight. Crysis KILLS just about every video card out there. So don't worry about it. You won't be able to run it on high settings without buying like two $500 video cards.

2nd. The GTX260 should crush WOW easily, even at 1920x1200. You'll be getting 60 fps in most of the game's areas. Ooops noted that you got the 4870 too. Well it's comparable to the GTX 260 anyways so you shouldn't have problems running WOW at max rez with that card either. Test em out and see which one you like better.
 
Last edited:
vjcsmoke said:
1st. Let's get one thing straight. Crysis KILLS just about every video card out there. So don't worry about it. You won't be able to run it on high settings without buying like two $500 video cards.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Like I said earlier it's very playable at ~1600x1200 on Very High with a 4890. On my machine I dropped the resolution down a notch and my average FPS is in the high 40's-50's, it runs smooth as butter. My single card was only $250 CAD, quite a far cry from the $1,000 you've suggested.
 
Not overkill.

You'd wish you had bought a faster card when new games come out.
 
LearninToBuild said:
Some of you are making me scared.

I ordered a 4870 and a 24'' 1920x1200 monitor. Are you suggesting I should've went with a 4890 for WoW and Crysis?
Click to expand...

Well, Crysis pretty much requires an SLI setup or at least a GTX285 (it prefers Nvidia) and a monster CPU. That has always been the case. When the cards launched, it never ran smoothly maxed out on a 4870. The 4890 just features a higher clock speed, not enough to make any significant difference - if a 4870 is too slow, a 4890 is likely also too slow.

WoW was also available at launch and ran great at the time. While there has probably been a few patches and updates since, the game won't magically begin to run slower just because the cards have been out for a year.

But last summer, Crysis was an exception, not the norm. What's happening is that *new* games are coming out that are closer to Crysis in terms of hardware requirements. Far Cry 2 is one example where my system pushes 41 FPS at 1680x1050 no AA but everything else maxed (RanchSmall demo). According to Anandtech, a 4870 1GB should manage 49.2 FPS at 19xx12, and a 512MB version 42.8 FPS. With 4x FSAA it takes GTX260 SLI to break 60 FPS at 19x12. According to their data, all single-GPU setups are below 40 FPS at those settings.

However the majority of new games still run great, and older games that ran great at the time the cards were released still run great, obviously. But the old "rule", "4850 for 1680x1050, 4870 for 1900x1200", isn't really true for the most demanding games any more.
 
Doesn't this really all boil down to money though? If the OP could afford to get whatever he wants he would just get the 4870x2 or GTX295 probably.

It's kind of like customizing a car. How fast you wanna go depends on how much you can spend.

If you are concerned with money, stick with the 4850. Coming from an X800XL you are going to notice a huge performance increase in the games you have now, and the 4850 you can get for what around $80 shipped AR now. It handles new games really well.

I had a 4850, 4870, 4870x2, GTX260, 4850x2.

Out of all those cards I was most impressed with the 4850 being the best and the 4850x2 2GB card a close second. Those two to me are still the best bang for the buck cards you can get. 4850x2 pretty much maxes everything out at 1920x1200, and does well even at 2560x1600.
 
firas said:
thanks for pointing to this, [email protected] at 1680X1050 and I find the GTX 285 SSC hardly enough!
42 min FPS in Farcry 2, 41 min FPS in H.A.W.X, something similar in NFS undercover and so on, so I can’t really see how such a card would be enough for 1920x1200, at least for those who don’t like to lower graphic settings like me .

@1Wolf, you already had twin ultra's so u'r next move can’t be more obvious .... tri GTX 285 :D
Click to expand...

and I recently found when I play skirmish in Red Alert 3 (6 players map) frame rates drops below 40 :(
 
lol, I've got CF 4890 @ 1680x1050 and I can finally run Crysis at max with 4x AA. I know CF is overkill, but I love it.
 
joecuddles said:
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Like I said earlier it's very playable at ~1600x1200 on Very High with a 4890. On my machine I dropped the resolution down a notch and my average FPS is in the high 40's-50's, it runs smooth as butter. My single card was only $250 CAD, quite a far cry from the $1,000 you've suggested.
Click to expand...

I'm also sorry to say that I don't consider it 'buttery smooth' when the video card skips frames. The typical LCD refreshes at 60 hz. If you're getting 40-50 fps, that means that 10-20 frames in that second are not being rendered. And when you have an average FPS of 40-50 that says nothing about the minimum frame rate which can be considerably less especially if a lot is going on in the game, such as explosions, lots of enemies closing, in etc.

I'm not saying that a 4890 is not a quality video card. But I am doubting very much that you are running a single 4890 at 1920x1200 with the highest settings, 8x AA 16x FA enabled, and getting a 'buttery' smooth framerate that doesn't skip frames in Crysis.

Here's a benchmark of Crysis Warhead with the 4890.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0MSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Min FPS 23 Max FPS 56 Avg FPS 31.4

Put a pair of GTX 295 in SLI, the $500 video cards that I was talking about, and you CAN get around 60 FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and 8x AF.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html

As I said, that WOULD be overkill so why worry about it? Crysis still kills most video cards out there. Just get the best value card you can now and worry about getting a card that can own Crysis when it is actually released. Right now nothing but a pair of the most expensive will do the job.
 
vjcsmoke said:
I'm also sorry to say that I don't consider it 'buttery smooth' when the video card skips frames. The typical LCD refreshes at 60 hz. If you're getting 40-50 fps, that means that 10-20 frames in that second are not being rendered. And when you have an average FPS of 40-50 that says nothing about the minimum frame rate which can be considerably less especially if a lot is going on in the game, such as explosions, lots of enemies closing, in etc.
Click to expand...

I really don't get that technical about the reality of framerates. I consider myself a graphics whore and I have a hard time seeing the difference (in reality) between 55 FPS and 60 FPS, regardless of any technical jargon behind it. We're talking about real world performance, not numbers. As long as framerates aren't dropping below 30ish in any game it makes for a very smooth experience and it's more than satisfactory for myself.

vjcsmoke said:
I'm not saying that a 4890 is not a quality video card. But I am doubting very much that you are running a single 4890 at 1920x1200 with the highest settings, 8x AA 16x FA enabled, and getting a 'buttery' smooth framerate that doesn't skip frames in Crysis.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a good thing that I never said that then.
 
vjcsmoke said:
Where in the world did you find it for $115?

The GTX 260 is in the sweet spot right now for price performance. I think it sounds like the right card for you and offers the option to even add a second one in the future.
Click to expand...

Actually, from what I've seen, the 4890 OC is the best deal available right now. You do have to complete a few steps to get the price down, but with an end price of $125, I'd say it's worth the hassle.
 
Creig said:
Actually, from what I've seen, the 4890 OC is the best deal available right now. You do have to complete a few steps to get the price down, but with an end price of $125, I'd say it's worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

Hmm that's a lot of steps but those are significant savings. Thanks for passing along the info.
 
Creig said:
Actually, from what I've seen, the 4890 OC is the best deal available right now. You do have to complete a few steps to get the price down, but with an end price of $125, I'd say it's worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

Just a note, the $125 price ended last week (ZZF raised their price $10). The eBillme rebate also ended yesterday so that $30 rebate is gone.

I ordered one on Tuesday, for $135 after MSI/eBillme rebates and bing cashback.
 
I'm currently running a 4890 at 1680x1050 and I personally wouldn't go any lower than that level of card. A few months ago I was in your same predicament, I chose to go bigger than smaller and I'm very happy with the decision. I can run my current games like WoW and Fallout 3 at max settings and I still have room for more intense games in the future. Consider it an investment, the bigger you can afford now, the longer it will be before you need an upgrade.

Long story short, I agree with everyone else in that a 4870 or 260 GTX is definately not overkill.
 
G0M3S said:
lol, I've got CF 4890 @ 1680x1050 and I can finally run Crysis at max with 4x AA. I know CF is overkill, but I love it.
Click to expand...

I got 4890s crossfired also @1920x1080 and it runs everything great to. I've seen a lot deals going around so why not crossfire these days :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top