• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

recommendation

C

contitego

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
173
I am not a huge gamer. I will be playing in 1920 by 1080. Looking for a recommendation, cost isn't an issue. Mostly looking to occasionally play a few FPS at the above resolution.

Is there a point in getting a card that does high res, when I am not planning on upgrading my monitor?
 
contitego said:
I am not a huge gamer. I will be playing in 1920 by 1080. Looking for a recommendation, cost isn't an issue. Mostly looking to occasionally play a few FPS at the above resolution.
Click to expand...

Radeon HD 6950 2GB. Can be had for around $250 online. This is what I will tell you to buy if you tell me you want to play at 1920x1080, and you don't tell me what games you play / plan on playing soon.

You might be able to cut the power a bit and save about $50 if you told me what games you play.

Is there a point in getting a card that does high res, when I am not planning on upgrading my monitor?
Click to expand...

What card are you specifically referring to? There are several that can "do high res."
 
contitego said:
higher than 1920 by 1080
Click to expand...

Oh, you are referring to the supported monitor resolutions, right?

There is a difference between a video card supporting a resolution, and a card being powerful enough to run a video game at your given resolution. Let me make the difference clear below:

* Card spec sheet says it supports up to 2560x1600: this means the card will run the Windows desktop, run programs like Word/IE/Firefox and play videos smoothly at 2560x1600.

* You want to play a game at 2560x1600 resolution: your card supports the resolution, but the performance you will see running the game depends on three things:

1. How much computational horsepower your graphics card has. It takes tons of math to create 3D games.

2. How complex the game is that you are running, and how high the settings you've chosen are.

3. How much memory your card has (sometimes an issue at higher resolutions).

You'll find that most cards these days support 2560x1600 resolution (Windows desktop), but if you want to play modern games at 1920x1080 smoothly, you'll need a lot of graphics horsepower. The 6950 I mentioned in my post above has plenty of power for that resolution.
 
Thanks, I am looking into that model. I understand the difference. I would like to run games smoothly at 1920 by 1080. I have an intel i540 with 4Gb of memory.

I would mostly be playing newer FPS, and maybe Starcraft 2.
 
Depending on how much you feel you might need the extra memory, you can probably cut $50 from that price by going with a 6950 1gb model or 560 Ti.

I mostly play WoW which is an older game but my gpu memory usage never really goes over 600mb, so I saved some cash by hitting a 1gb card instead of the 2gb. I also game at 1920 x 1080. Future games might use more memory and initially I thought I might need 2gb, but after reading about how Skyrim is being developed for consoles (as are most current/next 2 years games) I didn't feel the extra memory was necessary.
 
Devilpup said:
Depending on how much you feel you might need the extra memory, you can probably cut $50 from that price by going with a 6950 1gb model or 560 Ti.

I mostly play WoW which is an older game but my gpu memory usage never really goes over 600mb, so I saved some cash by hitting a 1gb card instead of the 2gb. I also game at 1920 x 1080. Future games might use more memory and initially I thought I might need 2gb, but after reading about how Skyrim is being developed for consoles (as are most current/next 2 years games) I didn't feel the extra memory was necessary.
Click to expand...

If he wants to play Battlefield 3, he will probably want the extra memory. And do realize that people buy these things to run for years, not months: that's why I told him to get the 6950 instead of, say, a 6870 (which can run 1920x1080, but only just). Who knows what the memory requirements will be like in Christmas 2012?

Also, the savings going with the 1GB card versus 2GB is only $20, not the magical $50 you claim. And yes, that's the case even if you get MIRs involved.
 
Since you said cost isn't an issue, have you thought about a CPU upgrade?
 
450 said:
Since you said cost isn't an issue, have you thought about a CPU upgrade?
Click to expand...

I have a 650W psu right now. The video card is something I am looking into. I am selling my drums I have that I don't play. I also have a major purchase coming up this weekend. I am hoping to do the upgrade after the major purchase. The money is already set aside of said purchase.
 
contitego said:
I have a 650W psu right now. The video card is something I am looking into. I am selling my drums I have that I don't play. I also have a major purchase coming up this weekend. I am hoping to do the upgrade after the major purchase. The money is already set aside of said purchase.
Click to expand...

Then don't upgrade your CPU, save it for later. Right now the only modern game that truly "needs" a quad core is BF:BC2, and you can get smooth gameplay using an AMD GPU and a fast dual-core. Every other game will play incredibly well with your i3, because they're mostly only using two threads.

Also, because you have Clarkdale, you can overclock if you need to (if your motherboard supports it). The extra threads should make your system feel as smooth as a 4-core, so no downsides to keeping it.
 
defaultluser said:
If he wants to play Battlefield 3, he will probably want the extra memory. And do realize that people buy these things to run for years, not months: that's why I told him to get the 6950 instead of, say, a 6870 (which can run 1920x1080, but only just). Who knows what the memory requirements will be like in Christmas 2012?

Also, the savings going with the 1GB card versus 2GB is only $20, not the magical $50 you claim. And yes, that's the case even if you get MIRs involved.
Click to expand...

The Galaxy 560 Ti went as low as ~190 recently AMIR, if you can show me a 2gb 6950 for 210 I'll probably buy it even though I just bought the card I'm using now.

I do realize people buy these things to run for years, but I am basing my recommendation on the fact that a good bulk of games are being designed with console hardware in mind, and that isn't going to up the requirements for another year or two. The only new console coming out in 2012 is what, the new Wii? And that's based on graphics from two generations ago? Even after new consoles come out, it's quite likely that a 1gb card will still be enough to handle normal gaming at that resolution. If games come out next year that won't play on a 1gb card, how many copies of that do you think will sell? Above anything else software companies are in the business of making money, so assuming less than 20% of the potential gamers have have >1gb cards (making that number up), would it be a smart move to make games with higher requirements? The OP said he is not a huge gamer so it doesn't sound like turning a couple of settings down a notch would be a big deal.

Then again if money truly is not a concern then go nuts, get a 6970, xfire 6970, or 6990 and be done with it. Or hell, get a 3gb GTX 580 on the green side.
 
Devilpup said:
The Galaxy 560 Ti went as low as ~190 recently AMIR
Click to expand...

I would not suggest Fermi cards because he has a dual-core. It's been shown in benchmarks that certain games require a lot more CPU power with Fermi than with modern AMD cards. It's enough of a performance hit to make a fast dual-core like the i3 unplayable with Fermi, while it can drive AMD just fine.

If he's going to buy AMD, then he should buy a 6950...there is no better value. And if the difference is $20, he might as well go 2GB.
 
defaultluser said:
If he's going to buy AMD, then he should buy a 6950...there is no better value. And if the difference is $20, he might as well go 2GB.
Click to expand...

Now that part I will agree with, and if the price difference were only $20 when I bought my card I would likely have gone 6950 2gb too.

Never saw too much about issues with 2 core being worse performance on one card vs another card though, and my play experience with a 2 core processor doesn't leave me wanting very much. By the article you linked it doesn't seem like a huge difference for someone that isn't a hardcore gamer or fps junkie anyway.

But yeah, overall if the difference is $20 I'd roll with the 6950 and sacrifice the 5 trips to starbucks for it.
 
defaultluser said:
I would not suggest Fermi cards because he has a dual-core. It's been shown in benchmarks that certain games require a lot more CPU power with Fermi than with modern AMD cards. It's enough of a performance hit to make a fast dual-core like the i3 unplayable with Fermi, while it can drive AMD just fine.

If he's going to buy AMD, then he should buy a 6950...there is no better value. And if the difference is $20, he might as well go 2GB.
Click to expand...

My bad, the processor is an i5 760. I typed it in wrong. Not sure what I was thinking! I am on my laptop more than on my desktop.
It's a quad step down from the i7 950, didn't feel like spending $100 bucks more for HT.
 
contitego said:
My bad, the processor is an i5 760. I typed it in wrong. Not sure what I was thinking! I am on my laptop more than on my desktop.
It's a quad step down from the i7 950, didn't feel like spending $100 bucks more for HT.
Click to expand...

Then you have everything you need. Since you have a quad core, you can buy whichever you fancy: Nvidia or AMD.
 
defaultluser said:
Then you have everything you need. Since you have a quad core, you can buy whichever you fancy: Nvidia or AMD.
Click to expand...

I will be bookmarking this page. The ATI looks good, I will keep it in mind.

Starcraft 2 ran pretty good with my 8800gt maxed out.
 
I am also waiting for Rage. I made the mistake of purchasing a card before Doom 3 came out, and Doom 3 didn't run to well on my card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top