I recently bought the hottie video cards, here it is

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GMERGOD

n00b
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
47
Today I bought the 2XGTS 250 that was sale on Dec 12 and 17, 2009, Mmm.. I thought better grab the 2X GTS 250 on sale than regrets. as steal a deal! Whoooo! Whoooo!

b_162748.jpg

I realize that I didn't feeling regrets of what I got two GeForce G250, I am exciting that 2XGTS 250 will be configure by SLI.

However I need upgrade the motherbaord and Power Supply with SLI. I have more difficult deciding which one of Motherboard:

A) MSI NF750-G55 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 750a SLI HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard- DDR3, I would upgrade DDR3 RAM

B) XFX nForce® 750i SLI® motherboard, DDR3, I would upgrade DDR3 RAM.
 
This is a great example of why nvidia's marketing is immoral.

If you take care of those rebates, its not the end of the world, but you just bought something that is 2007 tech, and those two cards in SLI will be around the same performance as a gtx 280, which can be found for cheaper, and will avoid the microstuttering penalty associated with SLI.

edit: See if you can take them back. There are plenty of good cards you can have for less than you spent that will give you similar performance, without the need to get a new motherboard. If you can get a radeon 5850, that's your best bet. They retail at 250 (you spend 240 after the mail in rebates are refunded), but cannot be found for less than $310. However, if you take into account the new motherboard, it is a good deal. And performance will be higher than 2*250's, plus you'll get DX11 features.
 
hmm.. personally if i were you, i would have used that money for 1 higher end card (maybe a gtx275 or gtx285 depending on what you want to spend) then buy another of the same a year from now if you still wanted to sli.

i could only justify a gts250 sli setup if you already had 1 existing gts250 and wanted a little boost.

i recently jumped from a 8800gt sli setup (very similar to gts250 in performance) to a single ati 4890 (which i paid $179 canadian including rebate) and i get way better performance and I'm not limited to a game's multi-gpu support. some games scale very nicely in sli, some don't.
 
I assume that was fry's, for the love of God, plz take those back and pickup a single (insert highend card costing $300 here). You will get much more then what you have now...
 
I agree with everyone here. You have a lot of options which would have yeilded better performance than 2x250s. Some could've cost you less money.

Seeing has how you're already budgetting for a motherboard, RAM, and PSU, why didn't you just pick up a HD 5870 or GTX 285 (if you prefer nvidia). Both can be had for around $400 and you could've kept your current components. Of course PSU upgrades are welcome ANY TIME.
 
Return them and get a good video card. $300 is a lot to waste on sub-par old technology. Sorry mayne.
 
Wow, a lot of negativity about this guy's purchase. First off, the GTS 250 is a proven GPU capable of handling 99.9% of the newest games out there nicely. Two of them...even better. Two of those cards for $260 is about GTX285 performance...and GTX285s still cost you upwards of $380...and heck, even more. Secondly, sli scales great in 99.9% of the games out there.

Thirdly, EVGA has a step up program, so he can step up if need be. And he gets a lifetime warranty on both cards. Still going to say not worth it? How many $650 5970s are out there with a 1 year warranty, lol.

Lastly this set up won't suffer in games that require a large frame buffer like the GTX260 sli would since it has 1GB per GPU.
 
I know you are trying to be positive PS3, but he could buy any other NVIDIA EVGA card and have lifetime warranty, especially for the price.

Heres the thing. If you are happy with your purchase, then keep it. If you need us to tell you it was a worthy purchase...its gonna be hard.

You have to now buy a PSU and new motherboard.

I agree, yes the cards will run the games.... but for the price you could get a single card which performs faster than both in SLI.

either way, congratulations on your purchase, because we dont know what system you had previously.

my vote is to return them and buy something different.
 
PS3 said:
Wow, a lot of negativity about this guy's purchase. First off, the GTS 250 is a proven GPU capable of handling 99.9% of the newest games out there nicely. Two of them...even better. Two of those cards for $260 is about GTX285 performance...and GTX285s still cost you upwards of $380...and heck, even more. Secondly, sli scales great in 99.9% of the games out there.

Thirdly, EVGA has a step up program, so he can step up if need be. And he gets a lifetime warranty on both cards. Still going to say not worth it? How many $650 5970s are out there with a 1 year warranty, lol.

Lastly this set up won't suffer in games that require a large frame buffer like the GTX260 sli would since it has 1GB per GPU.
Click to expand...

stop trolling? or you want to end up like SonDa?

what kind of world you living that allow GTS 250 to run 99.9% of newest games nicely?

L4D2 below 40fps all the time, cannot even max out Dragon Age with acceptable fps, RE5 max setting constantly drop down to 30-40fps, Street Fighter 4 max setting even worse for fighting game, Stalker series is just nasty to make these cards look worse.

not even mentioning Crysis yet...

GTS 250 run 99.9 newest games nicely? or you mean on low-medium setting :p?

not even mentioning how bad its going to be on SLI with low-mid range card.....
 
shansoft said:
L4D2 below 40fps all the time, cannot even max out Dragon Age with acceptable fps, RE5 max setting constantly drop down to 30-40fps, Street Fighter 4 max setting even worse for fighting game, Stalker series is just nasty to make these cards look worse.

not even mentioning Crysis yet...

GTS 250 run 99.9 newest games nicely? or you mean on low-medium setting :p?

not even mentioning how bad its going to be on SLI with low-mid range card.....
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I disagree. Depends on your resolution, but I'd say it does well up to 1680x1050, and not bad at 1920x1080.

I agree with the other posters, however. I would only jump on discounts like that to upgrade an old machine or if I already had the same GPU. Buying two is simply not economical, especially with all the ownage AMD has been serving up recently in the market.
 
PS3 said:
Wow, a lot of negativity about this guy's purchase. First off, the GTS 250 is a proven GPU capable of handling 99.9% of the newest games out there nicely. Two of them...even better. Two of those cards for $260 is about GTX285 performance...and GTX285s still cost you upwards of $380...and heck, even more. Secondly, sli scales great in 99.9% of the games out there.

Thirdly, EVGA has a step up program, so he can step up if need be. And he gets a lifetime warranty on both cards. Still going to say not worth it? How many $650 5970s are out there with a 1 year warranty, lol.

Lastly this set up won't suffer in games that require a large frame buffer like the GTX260 sli would since it has 1GB per GPU.
Click to expand...

The point is you can get a better setup for less or equal money, and certainly less hassle. Nothing you said here changes that and nothing you can say will change that.

Proven GPU??? Opposed to an UNproven GPU??? WTF is that suppose to mean? Other then Fermi, all GPU's have been "proven"

I'm not sure how you slipped through the cracks when all the trolls were banned, but keep it up and i'm sure you'll trip the sensors sooner rather than later.
 
friend'scatdied said:
With all due respect, I disagree. Depends on your resolution, but I'd say it does well up to 1680x1050, and not bad at 1920x1080.

I agree with the other posters, however. I would only jump on discounts like that to upgrade an old machine or if I already had the same GPU. Buying two is simply not economical, especially with all the ownage AMD has been serving up recently in the market.
Click to expand...

1680*1050 NO WAY! 720p maybe...

I am using my 8800 GTX and its pretty laggy on max setting without AA already.

which GTS 250 should only have a small boost from 8800 GTX... there is no way GTS 250 can handle them on that resolution.
 
2wiced said:
I know you are trying to be positive PS3, but he could buy any other NVIDIA EVGA card and have lifetime warranty, especially for the price.

Heres the thing. If you are happy with your purchase, then keep it. If you need us to tell you it was a worthy purchase...its gonna be hard.

You have to now buy a PSU and new motherboard.

I agree, yes the cards will run the games.... but for the price you could get a single card which performs faster than both in SLI.

either way, congratulations on your purchase, because we dont know what system you had previously.

my vote is to return them and buy something different.
Click to expand...

Just saying that isn't a bad solution as everyone is making it out to be. I personally would go with a gtx275 or 4890 at that price range. You can get an xfx 4890 at best buy for $218 after taxes. If the 5850 was still $260, it would be an obvious no brainer. That said, the 4890 doesn't lag too far behind the 5850 from my own personal benches.

But yah, what he has is great, but there is always something better, sigh. Don't take what I say to heart though, I am having a ball with Forza 3 on my xbox 360 elite and I know the gts250 has a much better GPU so I'm told. :D
 
shansoft said:
stop trolling? or you want to end up like SonDa?

what kind of world you living that allow GTS 250 to run 99.9% of newest games nicely?

L4D2 below 40fps all the time, cannot even max out Dragon Age with acceptable fps, RE5 max setting constantly drop down to 30-40fps, Street Fighter 4 max setting even worse for fighting game, Stalker series is just nasty to make these cards look worse.

not even mentioning Crysis yet...

GTS 250 run 99.9 newest games nicely? or you mean on low-medium setting :p?

not even mentioning how bad its going to be on SLI with low-mid range card.....
Click to expand...

Whoa buddy before you go saying how people will end up. Fix your situation. Can't belive I am defending PS3 but...

As far as i know, a GTS 250 is the same or similar to my 9800GTX (512MB 65nm). Granted I have my card clocked at 815/2026/1250. It can play any of the new games at max settings while rocking AA/AF. That's on 1680X1050. Also this is on all the procs I have tested with the GTX, that being Q9550, E5200, E5400, E7400 @ Q6600.

I don't know what is going on with your card, but mine runs L4D2 with constant 50-60 frames, Dragon Age maxed out never dips under 55 frames, As far as I remember I never got under 45 in RE5. Never played SF4 so can't say. Crysis played fine on High settings with 2XAA with 35 frames average.

Like i said I dont know if there is a difference between cards, but my 9800GTX is doing just fine playing all the newer games on high/max settings. Granted i would of never picked up a card right now since im waiting for more cards to be available on the market. I think his purchase would hold up fine.

Also jesus PS3 already got rid of the GTX 295? You switch cards more than I switch underwear.
 
shansoft said:
1680*1050 NO WAY! 720p maybe...

I am using my 8800 GTX and its pretty laggy on max setting without AA already.

which GTS 250 should only have a small boost from 8800 GTX... there is no way GTS 250 can handle them on that resolution.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm running Crysis Very High and it's quite smooth and playable at resolutions of 1440x900 (with 4x AA and 8x AF) and 1680x1050 -- I don't have a particularly monstrous setup (not OCed at all either, though the build is very new). At 1920x1080 I have to drop it down to High but it still runs great. L4D2 and Dragon Age: Origins is also super-smooth to 1920x1080, maxed with some AA and AF. I think the GTS 250 makes a very good value card if you can get it at a nice discount (got mine for $73 after rebates). But if I had a beefier budget I would have gone with an HD 4890 or HD 5770, and not really consider SLI.

You should be doing better with your setup IMO, since the gap between the 8800 GTX and GTS 250 is really quite small there is no reason you should not be getting similar or better performance (given your OC'd Quad).
 
Casper312 said:
Whoa buddy before you go saying how people will end up. Fix your situation. Can't belive I am defending PS3 but...

As far as i know, a GTS 250 is the same or similar to my 9800GTX (512MB 65nm). Granted I have my card clocked at 815/2026/1250. It can play any of the new games at max settings while rocking AA/AF. That's on 1680X1050. Also this is on all the procs I have tested with the GTX, that being Q9550, E5200, E5400, E7400 @ Q6600.

I don't know what is going on with your card, but mine runs L4D2 with constant 50-60 frames, Dragon Age maxed out never dips under 55 frames, As far as I remember I never got under 45 in RE5. Never played SF4 so can't say. Crysis played fine on High settings with 2XAA with 35 frames average.

Like i said I dont know if there is a difference between cards, but my 9800GTX is doing just fine playing all the newer games on high/max settings. Granted i would of never picked up a card right now since im waiting for more cards to be available on the market. I think his purchase would hold up fine.
Click to expand...

it drops under 45 all the time if you turn AA, without AA in Mercenary mode it still can't keep up to a smooth gameplay.
in L4D2, there is no way you can have constant 50-60 fps with 4xAA, especially in massive zombies event.

Crysis with 35fps on 2xAA? thats even more impossible, no idea where you got that number from, in first scene yes, 35 is possible, but once you off the "Contact mission" there is no way to keep 35 as your average, 25 avg fps is the max you can get on that resolution.
About Dragon age, try to crank up AA to 8xAA, no way you can have 55 fps on average, in some scene where it have nearly nothing is possible, but during the battle or some place like "Fade" you will find your card extremely chocking, even 4xAA drops to 20-30fps in Fade where it have flames.


friend'scatdied said:
Really? I'm running Crysis Very High and it's quite smooth and playable at resolutions of 1440x900 (with 4x AA and 8x AF) and 1680x1050 -- I don't have a particularly monstrous setup (not OCed at all either, though the build is very new). At 1920x1080 I have to drop it down to High but it still runs great. L4D2 and Dragon Age: Origins is also super-smooth to 1920x1080, maxed with some AA and AF. I think the GTS 250 makes a very good value card if you can get it at a nice discount (got mine for $73 after rebates). But if I had a beefier budget I would have gone with an HD 4890 or HD 5770, and not really consider SLI.

You should be doing better with your setup IMO.
Click to expand...

Smooth for some people on 20fps doesn't mean its smooth for others, some people find 30fps smooth some people only find 60fps to be smooth.

in L4D2 like I said, if you find 30fps smooth doesn't mean other people find that fps to be smooth. And for most people in [H], its not a acceptable fps unless it have extreme motion blur to back it up.
 
Casper312 said:
Whoa buddy before you go saying how people will end up. Fix your situation. Can't belive I am defending PS3 but...

As far as i know, a GTS 250 is the same or similar to my 9800GTX (512MB 65nm). Granted I have my card clocked at 815/2026/1250. It can play any of the new games at max settings while rocking AA/AF. That's on 1680X1050. Also this is on all the procs I have tested with the GTX, that being Q9550, E5200, E5400, E7400 @ Q6600.

I don't know what is going on with your card, but mine runs L4D2 with constant 50-60 frames, Dragon Age maxed out never dips under 55 frames, As far as I remember I never got under 45 in RE5. Never played SF4 so can't say. Crysis played fine on High settings with 2XAA with 35 frames average.

Like i said I dont know if there is a difference between cards, but my 9800GTX is doing just fine playing all the newer games on high/max settings. Granted i would of never picked up a card right now since im waiting for more cards to be available on the market. I think his purchase would hold up fine.

Also jesus PS3 already got rid of the GTX 295? You switch cards more than I switch underwear.
Click to expand...

I have three consoles, I just don't need a video card right now. Forza 3 is taking up most of my gaming time. The on board graphics chip handles everything fine for now on the pc, though if I could get a 5970 for $300 I would definitely pull the trigger :p. I can wait for Fergie, lol.

Oh yah, and if you aint free balling, then you are wrong. ;)
 
You're not going to find a 5970 for $300, so maybe it's best to leave the responsibility of giving advise to people who actually own a video card and game on the PC.
 
^ Not even in the double digits with any form of AA on and that card. Thats single frames.
 
Ok I think enough people have dumped on the double GTS 250 setup. So I don't think I have to add anything there.

But how are you going to power those video cards?
What's your current power supply?
I'd say you should go for at least an HX620 to power a pair of GTS 250.
If you get a quality 750/850W psu you can power a pair of even better cards in the future.
 
inotocracy said:
Bullshit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to run FRAPS next time I play. :)

Granted, I only took it to Very High recently during the Assault level, and up to the Alien spaceship level. I just got to Paradise Lost so I haven't played through with snow yet, but the first minute in that level was perfectly OK. Nvidia CP is on the highest Quality preset which enables 4x AA globally, and -- IIRC -- 8x AF.

Oh, and my bad, I do have to take the settings down to High on 1680x1050. No AA/AF, either. But 1440x900 still plays well on Very High.

And no, it's not as low as 20-25 FPS. I know what 20-25 FPS feels like.. I've been there with my 6600GT on a couple of titles two years ago with all low settings. :p Definitely not as high as 40 to 60 either, but meh. I'll have to FRAPs the figures. You guys are certainly a demanding bunch.

Also, the flames in The Fade in Dragon Age: Origins caused no FPS problems in maxed settings. I don't see how that game is particularly taxing at all. Crysis and Crysis: Warhead are the only games I know of that can't reliably be maxed out at all of my resolutions.

I'm sorry I didn't spend 4x the money for that ultra-smooth 40-70 FPS with maxed-out AA and AF. ;) Then again, I also didn't spend 3x the money for two of what I have (which is a worse value proposition). But I must be insane for plunking down $73 on a four-generation-old GPU that manages to run all the latest games at settings that are "barely" playable.


TDP is 150W per card so two will suck down 300W at the worst, so leave nice headroom for the rest of the system. Make sure your 12V rails have enough amps. Then again, I'm running mine off a 300W PSU so what do I know anyway?
 
Last edited:
Just saying...the gts 250 is more than enough to game nicely. Look at Forza 3, it's all in the programming, lol. If programmers would actually spend some time trying to make the games on the pc look good, and take advantage of the $600 e-peen hardware, then the pc might actually have a better looking / better playing racing game than forza 3...and unfortunately....they don't. Just saying, it's not all about hardware, but even if it was the GTS250 is quite good still. Problem is you guys are comparing a GTS250 to video cards that cost twice as much. And that Sir, aint right. :(
 
SHIFT on the PC looks far better than Forza on the 360. Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about, not that that's a big secret anyway. Whether the actual game is better is another matter.
 
I haven't played NFS shift yet. I'm talking about Forza 3, not Forza.
 
PS3 said:
Just saying...the gts 250 is more than enough to game nicely. Look at Forza 3, it's all in the programming, lol. If programmers would actually spend some time trying to make the games on the pc look good, and take advantage of the $600 e-peen hardware, then the pc might actually have a better looking / better playing racing game than forza 3...and unfortunately....they don't. Just saying, it's not all about hardware, but even if it was the GTS250 is quite good still. Problem is you guys are comparing a GTS250 to video cards that cost twice as much. And that Sir, aint right. :(
Click to expand...

Trolls?

Froza 3 map textures are seriously bad and blur. the game is incomparable to some new game like NFS: Shift or DiRT 2, and its even way worse than Grid, which is old already...
And no, I am bored of Forza 3 the first 2 hours I am playing it, unlike Grid, NFS: Shift, DiRT 2...you name it...
not mentioning Forza 3 is running 720p

you seriously need to stop trolling now, this is getting really disturbing. I believe I am not the only one who think it this way, and the majority of us hope you to stop it.

friend'scatdied said:
I guess I'll have to run FRAPS next time I play. :)

Granted, I only took it to Very High recently during the Assault level, and up to the Alien spaceship level. I just got to Paradise Lost so I haven't played through with snow yet, but the first minute in that level was perfectly OK. Nvidia CP is on the highest Quality preset which enables 4x AA globally, and -- IIRC -- 8x AF.

Oh, and my bad, I do have to take the settings down to High on 1680x1050. No AA/AF, either. But 1440x900 still plays well on Very High.

And no, it's not as low as 20-25 FPS. I know what 20-25 FPS feels like.. I've been there with my 6600GT on a couple of titles two years ago with all low settings. :p Definitely not as high as 40 to 60 either, but meh. I'll have to FRAPs the figures.

The flames in The Fade in Dragon Age: Origins caused no FPS problems in maxed settings. I don't see how that game is particularly taxing.

I'm sorry I didn't spend 4x the money for that ultra-smooth 40-70 FPS with maxed-out AA and AF. ;) Then again, I also didn't spend 3x the money for two of what I have (which is a worse value proposition). But I must be insane for plunking down $73 on a four-generation-old GPU that manages to run all the latest games at settings that are "barely" playable.


TDP is 150W per card so two will suck down 300W at the worst, so leave nice headroom for the rest of the system. Make sure your 12V rails have enough amps. Then again, I'm running mine off a 300W PSU so what do I know anyway?
Click to expand...

uh? Very High playable on 1440*900? maybe 20fps is suitable for you, but for others NO.

I have been playing Crysis since it first came out, and play it essentially every couple days in a week until now. I am very sure about GTS 250 cannot handle Very High in any of the resolution aside from 800*600. Pull random number out from no where will not help you anywhere..

And Dragon Age, I am not quite sure what you are talking about there, the game constantly drops to 30-40 in max setting on my 8800 GTX.

I assume all your number are from your own guess, then how do you know your actual fps?

thing is, you think is smooth on 20-30fps but majority of [H] don't find it playable.

GTS 250 handle all recent game fine? That is very obvious that it does not...
 
Wow this thread has seriously devolved. We don't need to get into a discussion about the relative performance of these cards, except to say that at $170, even with a mail in rebate, the 250 is a bad deal. He could pick up a 4870 or better for roughly the same price per card, and considering he needs to get a new motherboard and a psu (most likely) to run 2 of those, I'd suggest getting a powerful single card ~300 dollars (cost of 2 cards, after rebate + motherboard is more than this by ~ 60) and save yourself the money, hassle, and gain performance.

PS3 and his best friend are adding nothing to this discussion.
 
I haven't played shift personally, but Forza 3 looks a lot better than Grid IMHO, and more importantly, the game play and feel is 10x better.
 
PS3 said:
I haven't played shift personally, but Forza 3 looks a lot better than Grid IMHO, and more importantly, the game play and feel is 10x better.
Click to expand...

because your integrated graphic chip can't run? :confused:
 
PS3 said:
Problem is you guys are comparing a GTS250 to video cards that cost twice as much. And that Sir, aint right. :(
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unfair to compare a single GTS 250 to video cards that cost twice as much, but the OP bought TWO GTS 250s. In this case, the comparisons make sense.

For me, I simply thought there were better/more efficient ways to spend the money. Now, with this setup the OP has to obtain an SLI motherboard, memory, and a power supply to power both cards thus adding to the overall cost of the video cards alone. Yes, those three things may improve overall performance not just games, but it feels like an unnecessary upgrade just to be able to use the video cards. Now, the video cards cost the OP $259.98 (with rebates). Optimistically, let's say the next series of upgrades costs the OP another $250 for a total of $509.98.

Why couldn't he just have upgraded to a single $500 video card? or a $400 video card?
 
shansoft said:
because your integrated graphic chip can't run? :confused:
Click to expand...

LOL. This guy is running integrated graphics chip and trying to pontificate on what GPU is enough to run modern PC games?? :confused:

Reminds me of the saying - "The blind attempting to lead the blind."
 
PS3 said:
I haven't played shift personally, but Forza 3 looks a lot better than Grid IMHO, and more importantly, the game play and feel is 10x better.
Click to expand...

GRID does not equal SHIFT. Different games, different developers, just different. Like I said, if you're not playing PC games, you need to stop making comments about them. You were very clear in your last post when you said the PC does not have a racer that looks as good as Forza and now we know that you haven't even played the best looking racer (along with Dirt) on the PC at all.

I have not had extensive time with Forza which is why I did not comment on the gameplay, but I have spent enough time with it to know what it looks like. Point being, you REALLY need to stop making comments when you're not familiar with the topic. You seem to always favor what YOU have. When you had ATI you were an ATI fanboy, when you had nVIdia you were an nVidia fanboy, now that you game on the 360 you're making claims that it has better graphics. It doesn't, it hasn't had better graphics for years and it never will no matter how good the programing is. It just doesn't have the hardware to do so. Even games that are about as direct of a console port as they come (Modern Warfare 2) look substantially better on the PC.
 
Uh... I saw the thread title and read part of the first post and thought "yeah, this is total viral marketing stupidity."
 
vjcsmoke said:
LOL. This guy is running integrated graphics chip and trying to pontificate on what GPU is enough to run modern PC games?? :confused:

Reminds me of the saying - "The blind attempting to lead the blind."
Click to expand...

PS3, for sure (because he posted it about 90 [bleeptastic]-ing times with it in his case) had a 5850.

He later got a GTX295 (posted a whole buncha [sillystuff]-ing junk on how it "easily whooped the 5970" or whatever).

Then he said farewell for 6 months.

2 months later, he's back.

I'm sorry PS3, I love'ya (you do have a lot of good, valid points), but I don't really like'ya (because of the wierd bits you have posted here).
 
jeremyshaw said:
I'm sorry PS3, I love'ya (you do have a lot of good, valid points), but I don't really like'ya (because of the wierd bits you have posted here).
Click to expand...
Ewwwww! I'm glad I only skimped the thread, I don't want to see PS3' "bits!!" lol :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top