Justifying A GeForce GTX 275

[seeker]

I came across a TigerDirect ad offering a BFG GeForce GTX 275 OC Video Card - 896MB for $201.98 shipped after a $30 MIR. It's not that I really need a new video card, but this is so much lower than I had seen this card for recently, I'm tempted, but to decide, I need more than a cheap price. Since I have been having a problem operating my monitor on a HDMI cable with my current video card, and this card says that it is HDMI (with an adapter), I started wondering if not all PCIe video cards with DVI connectors wouldn't be HDMI also...with adapters?

I'm certain that this card will outperform what I have, but that really only comes into play on games, which isn't really a priority at the moment. Is there any other factor that I should consider before making a decision?

[Bigbuck]

The BFG 275's at Newegg are all around that price.

[seeker]

Thanks, but I wouldn't order from Newegg if they were giving them away free.

[pakotlar]

I would grab a 4890 easily over a 275, even a 285 if it is a 960 or 1000mhz version. Standard 4890's, which all OC past 900mhz can be found ~ 160 dollars.

4890's will certainly be more future proof than the GT200. For reference of how the last great ATI cards aged check this out:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,675205/Benchmark-review-with-six-graphics-card-generations/Reviews/?page=5

X1950XTX, and to a lesser extent X1900xtx KILL the 7900 series in quite a few scenarios today. Shader heavy games are murder for the G71 series. I believe that future games will show similar results on 4890 vs GT200b. I run a GTX 285, and still would rather go 4890.

ATI's technology since r300, with the noticeable exception of the r600 series, has absolutely murdered nvidia's in longevity. At the time they perform the same, but down the road, nVidia always loses out. It seems that nVidia develops for todays games, and usually wins or ties ATI (winning more often, at least this generation, and won in x1800 vs 7800 & 7900), but down the road, ATI's vision is proven to be the superior one.

[zingzong]

I would grab a 4890 easily over a 275, even a 285 if it is a 960 or 1000mhz version. Standard 4890's, which all OC past 900mhz can be found ~ 160 dollars. .

GTX 275>4890. Nvidia better driver support+physx. The 4890's are nice but has two major strikes against it, texture units and driver support.

4890's will certainly be more future proof than the GT200. For reference of how the last great ATI cards aged check this out:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,675205/Benchmark-review-with-six-graphics-card-generations/Reviews/?page=5.

ROTFCOPTER! This isnt the days of the X850XT vs the 6800Ultra, yes back then ATI was most definently better as I owned both a X850XT and a X1900XTX up until the arrival of the 8800GTX and these benches that you posted only prove how much better the 8800GTX aged compared to its direct competitor the 2900XT.

X1950XTX, and to a lesser extent X1900xtx KILL the 7900 series in quite a few scenarios today. Shader heavy games are murder for the G71 series.

Noooooo really! I bet no one was even aware of that! Once again, this isnt 2005 jack.:headexplode:

I run a GTX 285, and still would rather go 4890..

Then why dont you sell your lowley 285 and get one? :rolleyes2


ATI's technology since r300, with the noticeable exception of the r600 series, has absolutely murdered nvidia's in longevity.

ATI reigned in the R300 days, lost in the R600 days badly to Nvidia and now both are pretty much trading blows accross the board. Get your facts straight.

[Bigbuck]

GTX 275>4890. Nvidia better driver support+physx. The 4890's are nice but has two major strikes against it, texture units and driver support.

This is pretty much personnel opinion. The 4890 either ties or beats the GTX 275 in every game AnandTech reviewed the cards with. Not to mention Phsyx is definitely not a selling point. It does absolutely nothing in games that do not use it and there are not many well known games that use it. Maybe it will be something work paying the extra money for in the future, but right not it is not worth it. I would rather put that extra $50-$100 on a nice CPU cooler or extra RAM. I cannot speak for driver support as I do not own an ATI card, but I know it is not as bad as it used to be. There are problems with drivers on both sides, its just that Nvidia decides to leak the majority of them.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3555&p=12
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3588
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

[zingzong]

Not to mention Phsyx is definitely not a selling point. It does absolutely nothing in games that do not use it and there are not many well known games that use it.

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

Your kidding right? that link you posted proves just how nice having physx capable hardware really is. That is a load of games and its only a partial list at that.

My latest experience with ATI vs Nvidia is that while the newer ATI cards can sometimes hold a fairly high framerate I find it isnt always consistent, for example when things heat up in a game aka explosions or a lot of characters running around the Nvidia cards seem to hold up much better in the min FPS department and I believe this is due to the higher texture and rops count of the GTX 275. This just makes for a much smoother gaming experience overall as I find the Frame rates to be more consistent with Nvidia's latest hardware.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539

But yes, as you said overall the two cards are pretty close together for the most part. Either card is a good choice, I just prefer the 275 to the 4890 for the above mentioned reasons.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/cod4.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/fallout3.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/far2.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/crysis.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/stalker.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_toxic_hd_4890_review/images/l4d.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/gigabyte_gv-n295-18i-b_rev2.0_geforce_gtx_295_review/images/arma1920.gif

[BelligerentBill]

I upgraded from an 8800GTS like you have to a GTX 275 and I think you'll be extremely happy if you do it.... I certainly am. I'm even using my 8800 GTS in the system as a dedicated Physx processor.

I used to be all about ATI but I never could stomach the shadow quality in almost every game out at the time of my last card. That was my deciding factor when I switched to Nvidia and I would be hard pressed to ever consider going back. I don't know if their shadow quality has been fixed or not, but I don't even care to find out. I've been nothing short of happy with every nVidia card I've had since then (2x 7800 GS AGP cards, 8800 GTS, GTX 275).

Go ahead and get yourself the card, you won't be disappointed.

[bob saget]

I made exactly the same change as you.
Do you find physx games run faster with the 8800GTS? I got a lower 3dvantage score with the 8800GTS, this is normal?
If you have tried it with games, which ones have you tried with?

[BelligerentBill]

It's slower in 3DMark Vantage because Vantage is testing ONLY Physx and not much on rendering. In an actual game the GPU is being taxed much more by rendering the graphics and has less overhead available to process Physx.

I did extensive testing with Cryostasis, Unreal Tournament 3, and Sacred 2 by logging 5 minutes of play using Fraps and every time my minimum FPS was higher by 5-10 fps while using the 8800 GTS as the Physx processor. My maximum FPS didn't really change but that's to be expected. While the GPU is being taxed the most by rendering having the Physx processing offloaded to another card helps immensly. I'm confident this will only improve over time as nVidia further optimizes their Physx drivers.

[bob saget]

I got you.

[pakotlar]

Your kidding right? that link you posted proves just how nice having physx capable hardware really is. That is a load of games and its only a partial list at that.

My latest experience with ATI vs Nvidia is that while the newer ATI cards can sometimes hold a fairly high framerate I find it isnt always consistent, for example when things heat up in a game aka explosions or a lot of characters running around the Nvidia cards seem to hold up much better in the min FPS department and I believe this is due to the higher texture and rops count of the GTX 275. This just makes for a much smoother gaming experience overall as I find the Frame rates to be more consistent with Nvidia's latest hardware.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539

But yes, as you said overall the two cards are pretty close together for the most part. Either card is a good choice, I just prefer the 275 to the 4890 for the above mentioned reasons.


The texturing units on the GT200 series run at pretty low utilization rates, and actually texturing performance between the two, especially in multi-texturing, is very similar. R790 has both greater ALU utilization, but also greater raw processing units. Unless you are using the extra MUL on GT200, you actually have quite a bit less processing power. Second of all, some of the big performance boosters in DX10.1 are carried over to DX11, so you can expect ATI to benefit from that (ex...fetch4, much faster multisampling coverage).

So, no I'm not joking. They perform similarly right now, but the 4890 OC (the xtx of today) at ~950mhz starts to beat the GTX285, or tie it, at a far lower cost. The anandtech benchies you linked show that. ATI seems to have a bigger drop off at 2560*1200, so if that's your res. I would stick with the GTX 275 or 285.

As for why I'm sticking with my GTX 285, 1) it's none of your business and 2) I'm not going to spend money on a slight downgrade/slight upgrade (depending on the scenario). I firmly believe that in 2011 the 4890 OC will prove to be the better performer, but by then obviously newer stuff will be out. Still, its a good upgrade path if you decide to go crossfire down the road.

As for texturing units:

Btw, the Fx5800 also excelled at texturing. Problem is that texturing is pretty much the least of your worries. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforcefx-5600-ultra,600-13.html

The fact that the 4890 meets the GTX 285 with way less bandwidth, 1/2 the ROP's and texture units should indicate to you that the GTX 285 has a very poor balance of Texturing & Rasterization vs ALU/math processing. In future games 4890's advantages in the latter will show themselves even more than they do today, whereas today it already shows itself, and especially in dx10.1 cases.

Here is how "fast" GT200 textures: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=53993

It's actually meeting very little of its actual "theoretical" performance. It seems that ATI actually has the advantage in texturing.

Here is the performance that a 250 dollar 1ghz 4890 gets you : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3555&p=12

From personal experience, the GTX 285 overclocks nowhere nearly as far. Plus the added benefit that you buy these cards running at 1ghz stock.

Don't get me wrong; I love my GTX 285. But I'd never buy it if I didn't get it for roughly ~0.

[pakotlar]

GTX 275>
ATI reigned in the R300 days, lost in the R600 days badly to Nvidia and now both are pretty much trading blows accross the board. Get your facts straight.

Thanks for the elucidation big guy. How is this different from what I wrote?

ATI's technology since r300, with the noticeable exception of the r600 series, has absolutely murdered nvidia's in longevity. At the time they perform the same, but down the road, nVidia always loses out. It seems that nVidia develops for todays games, and usually wins or ties ATI (winning more often, at least this generation, and won in x1800 vs 7800 & 7900), but down the road, ATI's vision is proven to be the superior one.

Aka: During the product cycle nVidia's cards rival ATI's, winning more games than ATI or less (during that generation) depending on which series we're talking about. But roughly on par +/- ATI's part, at the time.

I said that ATI's products have historically been more future-proof. nVidia designs great products, but with some exception (g80 for instance) their products don't have legs as long as ATI's.

Worth noticing this generation, it seems that GT200's texturing subsystem is poorly developed, as it achieves very low levels of utilizations in quite a few non-trivial cases. The GTX 280 actually has lower texturing rates for color ops than 4870, never mind the 4890 1ghz. GT200 series as a whole has significantly less ALU power.

Anyways, besides the elegance of ATI's part, the fact is that it seems to be better engineered for new, shader-intensive games, and is beginning to consistently outperform its rival (with the highest end 925mhz + sku's, especially with regards to the 1ghz SKU). That's why I'm recommending the 4890 OC over the GTX275 right now. The 275 isn't a bad card though.

[BelligerentBill]

Two years from now any performance advantage that ATI's current lineup might theoretically have will be moot anyways. A good card nowadays will get you about a years use before emerging games begin to make it a low end part. So it doesn't really matter what you get, your shelf life is going to be the same give or take at the most six months.

[zingzong]

From personal experience, the GTX 285 overclocks nowhere nearly as far. Plus the added benefit that you buy these cards running at 1ghz stock.


GTX 260's 275's and 285's have just as much overclocking headroom as the HD 4890. Yes a 1ghz core may sound awesome but people often seem to forget that its rival can produce similar gaming performance at much lower clocks.

I have owned a GTX 260 that did 750mhz core, its stock clock was 602mhz so if you do the math thats 148mhz overclock on the core without even touching the voltage plus this was on the stock cooler.

I now own a BFG GTX 275 that does 760mhz core 1600shader and 2600mem. One of my best friends owns a PNY 275 which clocks up just as high as mine.

[zingzong]

and is beginning to consistently outperform its rival .

No it isnt.


(with the highest end 925mhz + sku's, especially with regards to the 1ghz SKU). That's why I'm recommending the 4890 OC over the GTX275 right now. The 275 isn't a bad card though.

Well of course a 4890 OC is faster than a stock GTX 275, are you forgetting that the GTX 275 can overclock pretty amazingly as well? stock for stock or overclocked vs overclocked the results will still be the same with each card trading blows according to the game being played.

[pakotlar]

No it isnt.


Well of course a 4890 OC is faster than a stock GTX 275, are you forgetting that the GTX 275 can overclock pretty amazingly as well? stock for stock or overclocked vs overclocked the results will still be the same with each card trading blows according to the game being played.

Sure it is.

And 4890 OC is a standard ATI SKU, like the XTX was vs the XT. Here's the official line:
"AMD classifies any Radeon HD 4890 card clocked at 900MHz or better as separate product, dubbed the "Radeon HD 4890 OC," although clock speeds on those cards will vary." http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Arguing that you "may" be able to overclock the 275 to speeds that beat the 1ghz ATI card is really besides the point. Unless you can buy an overclocked model that beats a 1ghz ATI sku, its really pointless.
Maxed out 275 vs. a maxed out 4890 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575&p=7

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19178.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19179.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19181.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19177.png

As for overclocking a 275 GTX significantly past the point in this review, I doubt it. You may hit ~720 core, or 1700 on the shaders, buts thats what, +2%. Memory is tapped. My GTX 285, for what its worth, maxes out 702/1600/2.7ghz for stability under Furmark, and the consensus from 275/285 owners is that GT200b is pretty much tapped out at ~ 700 core, unless you're volt-modding.

And like I said, 4890's are cheaper. You can pick one up for $180 on newegg right now, and I've seen as low as $150 recently after rebate.

Anyways this is a pointless debate. I've given my recommendation, it wasn't directed at you, nor do you have an argument about anything I've said. You're just trying to show me up since the last time you refuted something you didn't understand, and this isn't really the place for that.

[LycosV]

In my experience the life of a high end graphics card is always cut short by the demands of some new standard (ie DirectX or SM) generally not a loss of performance.
I was facing the 4890 vs GTX275 decision just the other day. The performance fo both cards is really close and while DX10.1 support and 1GB of memory had be gunning for the 4890, I finally ordered the GTX275. Here's why in no particular order:
1. PhysX - Sure not a lot of games support it, but those that do are cooler with PhysX.
2. 3D Vision - I really liked the old 3D shutter glasses and while I can't make myself pay the insane ammount nvidia wants for their 3D glasses, I'd like to keep that option open. Besides, I really think/hope that 3D is coming back for good this time.
3. AMD/ATI's financial situation - I honestly think that AMD is not long for this world, at least not in its current state. They've lost money over the last 11 quarters and with intel ripping them six ways from Sunday, I just can't see them being around as a serious competitor for much longer.

[seeker]

As interesting and enlightening the responses to my question have been, they make it appear that the only reason to spend more on a video card is to keep up with the rising tide of games. I'm still in the backwater of that technology, and don't anticipate any movement forward for myself, because I'm happily able to keep afloat where I am.

The insight that I'm looking for is what I may need to paddle to isles, either near or far, to survey other horizons, such as HTPC...especially that in my OP regarding HDMI connectivity.

[pakotlar]

As interesting and enlightening the responses to my question have been, they make it appear that the only reason to spend more on a video card is to keep up with the rising tide of games. I'm still in the backwater of that technology, and don't anticipate any movement forward for myself, because I'm happily able to keep afloat where I am.

The insight that I'm looking for is what I may need to paddle to isles, either near or far, to survey other horizons, such as HTPC...especially that in my OP regarding HDMI connectivity.

Well as far as HDMI, all new cards are HDMI 1.1 compliant; you can use a DVI-HDMI adapter I believe. Both 4890 and 275 will support this; 4890 will be cheaper.

As far as "Paddling the MI" ... you're telling me you want to do what? If its to play older games with the best image quality, I think either will suffice. The 4890 probably performs somewhat better with higher AA levels (8x vs 8xQ...8x/ATI faster), and depending on the game faster with TSAA although the TSAA ATI uses is a multisampling/supersampling hybrid, and quality sits between nVidia's cheap MSTSAA and its more expensive SSTSAA. But honestly if you aren't really a graphic hoe, 8x is overkill, especially if you plan on playing from a distance on your couch.

As far as 275 vs 4890 vs 260 216 vs 4870, in your case I'd just get a 4870 since it can be had so cheap. About 150.

As far as the cheapest HDMI compatible card, there are far better options than any of those cards. Plus, if you plan to throw any of the above into a shuttle I sure hope you have GREAT cooling. It's completely possible, but have good airflow, and the best bet would be to get a card with a nice aftermarket cooler, I'm thinking of the Vapor-X 4890. If you're planning to buy something new, I would spend the time to research your options, and buy something above the cheapest option. A card with a good aftermarket cooler will be quieter, run better, and potentially last longer. And the noise difference can be very significant.

Hope that helps.

[seeker]

Well as far as HDMI, all new cards are HDMI 1.1 compliant; you can use a DVI-HDMI adapter I believe.

The reason that I questioned this is because I have twice been told by Acer tech support that I had to use a DVI-DVI cable to connect my monitor and video card, and as I had experienced, a DVI-HDMI cable would not work. I'm assuming that this cable is equivalent to using an adapter of some kind...true? If what I was told by the Acer folk is true, then I fail to understand the use or pupose of even having an HDMI connector on the monitor, because I have not found any video card with a HDMI connector for output.


As far as "Paddling the MI" ... you're telling me you want to do what? Spend money to not play anything recent? What are you buying the card for again?

This is exactly the point, if there is no essential requirement for a new video card, except to keep up with gaming, then I'll use that money elsewhere.


As far as 275 vs 4890 vs 260 216 vs 4870, in your case I'd just get a 4890 since its 20-30 dollars more than a GTX 260 or 4870.

As far as the cheapest HDMI compatible card, there are far better options than any of those cards. Plus, if you plan to throw any of the above into a shuttle I sure hope you have GREAT cooling. It's completely possible, but have good airflow, and the best bet would be to get a card with a nice aftermarket cooler, I'm thinking of the Vapor-X 4890.
Can you verify that the EVGA 8800 GTS that I have is supposed to be HDMI compatible?

[pakotlar]

GTX 260's 275's and 285's have just as much overclocking headroom as the HD 4890. Yes a 1ghz core may sound awesome but people often seem to forget that its rival can produce similar gaming performance at much lower clocks.

I have owned a GTX 260 that did 750mhz core, its stock clock was 602mhz so if you do the math thats 148mhz overclock on the core without even touching the voltage plus this was on the stock cooler.

I now own a BFG GTX 275 that does 760mhz core 1600shader and 2600mem. One of my best friends owns a PNY 275 which clocks up just as high as mine.

Dude, tell me honestly, you can't count right? In your next reply, give me the % increases between your overclocked model and its stock speeds. The calculate what % increase in core & shader performance you can expect from buying a 1ghz SKU vs a 850mhz SKU. Then take a look at the anandtech benchies I posted. I'm actualy laughing right now. YOUR CARDS ARE CLOCKED THE SAME!

[pakotlar]

The reason that I questioned this is because I have twice been told by Acer tech support that I had to use a DVI-DVI cable to connect my monitor and video card, and as I had experienced, a DVI-HDMI cable would not work. I'm assuming that this cable is equivalent to using an adapter of some kind...true? If what I was told by the Acer folk is true, then I fail to understand the use or pupose of even having an HDMI connector on the monitor, because I have not found any video card with a HDMI connector for output.

This is exactly the point, if there is no essential requirement for a new video card, except to keep up with gaming, then I'll use that money elsewhere.

Can you verify that the EVGA 8800 GTS that I have is supposed to be HDMI compatible?

Well, no because I'm not your google slave. Comeon buddy, you can do it. To my memory G80 had HDMI support, but I don't believe that every manufacturer needed to implement it.

What is the Card #, i'll check it out for you.

Yeah if you can uses that 8800GTS in a shuttle box, then I wouldn't upgrade. The GTX 275 is going to give you headaches (noise) headaches (power requirements) as will the 4890. Unless you get an aftermarket cooler version but thats like 30 bucks more.

[pakotlar]

The reason that I questioned this is because I have twice been told by Acer tech support that I had to use a DVI-DVI cable to connect my monitor and video card, and as I had experienced, a DVI-HDMI cable would not work. I'm assuming that this cable is equivalent to using an adapter of some kind...true? If what I was told by the Acer folk is true, then I fail to understand the use or pupose of even having an HDMI connector on the monitor, because I have not found any video card with a HDMI connector for output.



EDIT: THIS IS ROUGHLYL HOW TO SET IT UP: http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/images/news/hdmi2.gif

Ok man, I gotcha. Dude, DVI can also pass a HDCP signal. Ok...

So, http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100737720.

The spdif connector looksl ike this: http://xtreview.com/images/Gainword%20video%20card%208800%20GT06.jpg it's 2 pins.

READ THIS http://www.computing.net/answers/hardware/dvihdmi-spdif/57905.html

And then DO this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/600/2
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=11936 Attach to your moterhboard. That should give you the ability to take any soundsource from the computer playin in AC/3 and port it your TV/receiver via the HDMI adapter cable.

Hope that helps! I need a cape :D
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=11935
The DVI-HDMI adapter will carry the audio signal through DVI.

If you don't have spdif on your 8800GTS go here : http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/home-theater-pc-discussion/44772-dvi-hdmi-audio-issue-workaround-nvidia-8000gt-cards.html
for the fix. They'll have you edit the reg filed of the driver to make sure you can get video. Obviiously this will require you to have a seperate sound source. Make sure you get teh latest drivers, this issue may have been fixed.

[BelligerentBill]

Sure it is.

And 4890 OC is a standard ATI SKU, like the XTX was vs the XT. Here's the official line:
"AMD classifies any Radeon HD 4890 card clocked at 900MHz or better as separate product, dubbed the "Radeon HD 4890 OC," although clock speeds on those cards will vary." http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Arguing that you "may" be able to overclock the 275 to speeds that beat the 1ghz ATI card is really besides the point. Unless you can buy an overclocked model that beats a 1ghz ATI sku, its really pointless.
Maxed out 275 vs. a maxed out 4890 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575&p=7

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19178.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19179.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19181.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx275overclock_052609173423/19177.png

As for overclocking a 275 GTX significantly past the point in this review, I doubt it. You may hit ~720 core, or 1700 on the shaders, buts thats what, +2%. Memory is tapped. My GTX 285, for what its worth, maxes out 702/1600/2.7ghz for stability under Furmark, and the consensus from 275/285 owners is that GT200b is pretty much tapped out at ~ 700 core, unless you're volt-modding.

And like I said, 4890's are cheaper. You can pick one up for $180 on newegg right now, and I've seen as low as $150 recently after rebate.

Anyways this is a pointless debate. I've given my recommendation, it wasn't directed at you, nor do you have an argument about anything I've said. You're just trying to show me up since the last time you refuted something you didn't understand, and this isn't really the place for that.

It must be noted that these tests are run at 1920x1600. At this point you're entering into territory where GDDR5 will consistently outperform GDDR3. Considering the 4890 has to be clocked so high to achieve this given it's theoretical memory bandwidth the value isn't as great as it appears to be. Not to mention that most people do not have a display that is capable of this resolution (most have 1440x900 and 1680x1050). If you're into buying high end monitors with your high end hardware, you're not going to hang onto a GTX 2xx or ATI 48xx long anyways.