PDA

View Full Version : Comin back to PC gaming - confused


Pages : [1] 2

JohnEJohn
07-12-08, 09:37 AM
Long time no see.

Need some advice on what graphics card to get as been out of the PC game for a while because of money/wife lol and been using consoles...

I have A core2duo E4500 running at 2.7 Ghz with 2GB DDR Ram running on a HDTV (1080P)
on XP with SP3

I really gon't know wheter to get the 9800GX2, the GTX 260 or GTX 280. I can get the 9800GX2 or the GTX 260 for almost the same price, judging by my specs which I know aren't exacly brilliant what would you reccomend I get?

I want to be able to play the latest games at the highest settings with high AF and probably some AA.

(The specs in my sig I gave to my brother last year... kicks self)

Cheers

Uberpwnage
07-12-08, 10:06 AM
I wouldn't get the GX2, yea it looks good on paper, but as many past users (myself included) will tell you, the minimum frames and limited bandwidth ruined the experience. Idk if you care much about microstuttering, some do, some dont, but the GX2 had pretty bad stuttering. GoW for example was unplayable IMO, and CoD4 performance was all over the map, one day it would be fine, the next I had to turn AA off it was so bad.

GTX 260 might be an ok choice at this point, but don't be afraid to go for a 4870 either. At 1080p, the two should be neck and neck, and in some games the 4870 is faster. The GTX 280 is pretty much dead right now, the 4870X2 is to be announced on Monday with availability August 12th, with the 2x1GB version being $549 and the 2x512MB version being $499, microstuttering has supposedly been fixed aswell and both cards will probably outpace the current 280 by a fair amount. If you really want a 280, then you should probably wait for the inevitable price cuts or the 55nm refresh that will compete with the 4870X2.

1080p is a pretty manageable resolution so you'd really be fine with a 260 or 4870 for quite some time, no need to go for the more expensive cards unless you just have cash to burn or want to run 16xAA in every game. Also, the better the GPU, the more your CPU will bottleneck you.

jcrox
07-12-08, 10:12 AM
Get the 260. Its an excellent performer at a great price with none of the issues of the GX2.

methimpikehoses
07-12-08, 10:21 AM
Or the ATi 4870, which often has better performance than the 260. ;)

wollyka
07-12-08, 11:03 AM
i recommend both the GTX260 or the 4870 at this price point..

LT.Schaffer
07-12-08, 12:30 PM
+1 for the GTX 260:thumbsup:

Lfctony
07-12-08, 12:32 PM
4870...

Tr1cK
07-12-08, 12:41 PM
4260870!

jAkUp
07-12-08, 12:46 PM
I would go with with 260 for the extra VMem and PhysX support.

SH64
07-12-08, 12:51 PM
For high res + AA i believe the 260 is the better choice due to its higher video memory. second option would be the 4870.

JohnEJohn
07-12-08, 12:52 PM
Think the 260 it maybe then or maybe the ATI card.
Is 2 GB of Ram still enough by the way?

Uberpwnage
07-12-08, 12:56 PM
Think the 260 it maybe then or maybe the ATI card.
Is 2 GB of Ram still enough by the way?
For now if you stay on XP. Ram is cheap anyway though, you could get another 2GB for next to nothing.

nekrosoft13
07-12-08, 01:16 PM
Think the 260 it maybe then or maybe the ATI card.
Is 2 GB of Ram still enough by the way?

go with GTX 260, and ram is very cheap, you can get 4gb for about 60 bucks.

JohnEJohn
07-12-08, 01:19 PM
Fair enough, is there any real benefits in terms of gaming features/performance in switching to vista?

I seem to remember Crysis being the last big game coming out before I stopped PC gaming which would only work in vista because of Direct X 10 support. Does XP's version of direct x support the latest games with all the feautures they same way vista does?

I tell you it wasn't that long ago and things have changed quite a bit since then

JohnEJohn
07-12-08, 01:25 PM
Yeah go with the GTX 260 over the HD 4870 even though it performs worse and cost the same. :retard:

Well thanks for that, didn't see your other post for some reason. Might check some benchmarks etc. Remember i'm only asking for a bit of advice :)

Tr1cK
07-12-08, 01:25 PM
For real, lets clear the FUD.

The 4800s run AA much more efficiently than any Nvidia card currently. They take much less of a framerate hit when AA is enabled. They are a new design that is more efficient from the ground up. Nvidias 2-series is just a slight redesign of the 9800s which were just slightly different than the 8800s. Therefore, ATI with 512mb of RAM is not the same as Nvidias with 512mb. Nvidias architecture currently hits frame buffer limitations quicker than the Radeon 4800s.

Also, as far as the CUDA/PhysX support, it is in the works for ATI cards. Nvidia is currently supporting this venture also. ATI also a TON more shaders (800 unified vs the 192 for the GTX260 and the 240 for the GTX280) than any card on the market with the 4800 series. PhysX uses those shaders to run. It appears to me that the 4800s may be a pure beast with PhysX enabled due to having more horsepower to run them. That's purely speculation, because we have yet to see the CUDA ATI driver, but it's a damn good one.

Driver support is going to be key for the 4800 series. I believe they have a ton of untapped potential.

DiscipleDOC
07-12-08, 01:27 PM
I would go with with 260 for the extra VMem and PhysX support.

My name is DiscipleDOC, and I approve this message. :thumbsup:

Feyy
07-12-08, 01:28 PM
I'd go with the 4870 :)

Tr1cK
07-12-08, 01:30 PM
Its not quite that simple. The shader architecture between Nvidia and Ati are wayyyyy different.

Shhhh, I know it's just me spreading the FUD the other direction. :p

People that are simple enough to think that more VRAM is better regardless of anything else due to it being a bigger number will probably also bite the hook on the shaders being better due to having more.

mullet
07-12-08, 01:30 PM
edit.

mullet
07-12-08, 01:37 PM
edit.

Jas28
07-12-08, 01:37 PM
The 4870 and the 260 are great cards! Just pick the one you think is best...you will hear from either side that one is better than the other. YOU have to make the choice and there will always be someone on a forum telling you... you made the wrong choice.

Don't worry to much about it, don't think you can go wrong either. :)

mullet
07-12-08, 01:39 PM
I agree if it plays at the resolution with the FPS and features you need or want at the price range you can afford then go for it no matter what brand.

nekrosoft13
07-12-08, 01:47 PM
main reasons why i would recommend gtx260 over 4780 are: extra memory, driver, nhancer (best app to set game profiles), ability to set up seperate game profiles, cuda and physx

jAkUp
07-12-08, 01:57 PM
Shhhh, I know it's just me spreading the FUD the other direction. :p

People that are simple enough to think that more VRAM is better regardless of anything else due to it being a bigger number will probably also bite the hook on the shaders being better due to having more.

Shader units are completely seperate from texture memory.

Texture memory is texture memory and unless you are using ATI's compression algorithm, once you run out thats it. Games with high res textures, high AA/AF and resolution will run over the 512MB mark. The GX2 was more than proof of this.

Performance wise the 260 and 4870 are extremely close, but the 260 OC's pretty well ;)