GTX295 @1680x1050 + future

[Homeboy2]

^ 19'' is no good!?!?! HEY man, I got a 17' running Crysis on ultra-high (gfx mod) at 1280x1024, and I have no complaints since I'm getting like 30-40 fps average.

Hey, why don't you get a 15" running at 800x600? you could prolly get 60 fps with that!

 

[bornking]

My two cents:
I run a Q9450 at 3.0 and GTX 295.
I run 2 24" monitors, but with my drivers they run either independently at 1920x1200 each, or one of them at that res. Previous drivers allowed me to run games at 3840x1200 which was bada$$.

Anywho, at 1920x1200 I run one monitor for gaming on my GTX 295 and it is absolutely phenominal. Never overkill when you use the best with the best.

Go for it. As Rocky Balboa says!

Cheers.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Hey, why don't you get a 15" running at 800x600? you could prolly get 60 fps with that!

naw, because 1280x1024 is actually the gaming standard - or what the majority of people with LCD monitors use.

800x600 is like 10 year old CRT monitors

 

[sassan]

Go for the Nvidia 285 or if you can find the Nvidia 280 for that resolution.

I run mine at the same res as yours and I moved from p4 3.0 ghz ht.

and trust me it's fast

No need for the 295 for now, save the money and get it later, hell get the BFG there is a tradeback program where you can send in your card and pay the diffrence later on and get a newer card cheaper.

Best of luck

 

[random1283]

I would buy a GTX275 or 285 and then spend my next wad of cash buying another 1 or 2 for sli in the future, (whenever you get another opportunity) ATM the 295 will absolutely max out anything you throw at it, and in that perspective it is not overkill. And looking forward it will last you a very long time (realtive) like the 8800GTX if you bought one 3 years ago it still is the equivalent of a 4850 today.

 

[michaelmk86]

kkkk1 go for the GTX295 with out second thought it is better to have more fps in 1680x1050 instead of 1920x1200 and less fps.

1920x1200 is 30% bigger than the 1680x1050 so if the 1680x1050 is overkill then the 1920x1200 is also overkill.

 

[Kkkk1]

It's very interesting reading. Although someone said about ditching my "crappy 22" monitor and get 24 or 30". mmm my Samsung 22" is fantastic and love it to bits, it's certainly not crappy. I'm sat right in front of it and just don't want a bigger screen. Thanks for all the responses. 295 it is...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

^ ='(

crappy 22' monitor?
I have a 17' monitor...I feel so unloved.

 

[Zenthar]

In computers, like pretty much everything in life, when you taste the best, going back to the "good" is tough. I'm sure if I was to try a 30" LCD with dual 285 or 295, I would find pretty much everything else "crappy" 😛.

 

[swifty_morgan]

In computers, like pretty much everything in life, when you taste the best, going back to the "good" is tough. I'm sure if I was to try a 30" LCD with dual 285 or 295, I would find pretty much everything else "crappy" 😛.

Well, it's the truth isn't it ? Probably one of the reasons I got hammered when I said the 4870/512 wasn't as good as people said.................. You try the better products and you can see the difference you truthfully know the difference. Hard for some people to swallow.

Anybody want to buy a 22" monitor. It seems too short at the top. I want to move up to a 24' at least.......... Notice how playing Farcry2 that it seems to be one of the few games that actually screams for a huge monitor ?

 

[Zenthar]

But it is a sacrifice many of us have to make. I myself keep using a 1680x1050 22" monitor because going over that would require a 400-500$ GPU instead of a 300$ one. I could spend more, but I would probably to have to cut-back on my two weeks a year of ~35-50 megapixel jungle/beach 😛.

 

[mamw93]

For right now it is overkill but your right that in the future it may not be. So your just future proofing yourself.

 

[Homeboy2]

For right now it is overkill but your right that in the future it may not be. So your just future proofing yourself.

Again for the thousandth time, there is NO such thing as "future proof" maybe you mean "future resistant"? Go ahead and buy a card thats "good enough" for a decent price and in the future you will be able to buy another medium price card that will blow away anything you can buy right now.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

It's more cost effective and just as good if you buy the medium high end cards every 2 years instead of buying the high-high end and trying to future proof.

 

[wh3resmycar]

the future is dx11. im betting a 100$ dx11 card will wipe the floor with the gtx295, especially if it'll run dx11 apps. the same way a 7950gx2 is unwanted compared to a 4670/9600.

so the future + gtx295 is wishful thinking.

if you measure "future" in tech terms, that'll be equivalent to 6-8 months.

 

[Zenthar]

the future is dx11. im betting a 100$ dx11 card will wipe the floor with the gtx295

The same thing was said about DX10, but it took at least a year for it to become a reality.

the same way a 7950gx2 is unwanted compared to a 4670/9600.

Right now, true, but we are nearly 3 years after the GX2 release. But overall you are right, after 2-3 years, no matter what you bought (CPU, GPU, ...) it's worth crap. Today's 3000$ PC will be tomorrow's 500$ Dell computer...

It would be a great exercise to actually see how much, over time, it can cost to keep a build at least low/high/mid range. Maybe is is worth paying little extra in the beginning, maybe not. Right now a 4670 will beat a 7950GX2, but if someone had bought a 100$ card back then, how many times would he have to upgrade to keep-up with games? A year ago I paid 330$CAD for my OCed 8800GTS (G92) and now I'm looking at another 300$ upgrade (something like 4890 or GTX275); how does a 600$ card one year ago compares to GTX275?