8800gtx overkill?

Bales1983 · 6 Mar 2008 at 08:03

Hi,

Looking at the 8800gtx on offer this week,

i have a HP 6325 desktop with 3gb of 667mhz ram and an allendale e4500 at 2.2ghz. i cant overclock on this board, and my psu is 300w lol

if i get the card and a 600w psu will anything hold it back.

my monitor only goes to 1440x900 so is this over the top, any other cards that will more than cope on highest settings for games?

Thanks

Lee

skunksta · 6 Mar 2008 at 08:17

Cant see you being cpu limited at that res.And that system with the new psu should have no problem.But as you said it might be somewhat overkill.Maybe save a few £ and get the new GTS at the new prices there going for or a GT.

willhub · 6 Mar 2008 at 08:22

Wont be overkill at all, at that res an 8800GTS 512 would be cheaper and also perform as good of better than the GTX.

I'd get a decent PSU aswell, 300W might be pushing it, especially if its a cheap PSU.

ten80p · 6 Mar 2008 at 12:34

With the prices and performance of GT and GTS-512 the GTX is def overkill esp at that res, in fact if I were building a brand new rig today myself I'd prob be going GTS-512 or X2

willhub · 6 Mar 2008 at 13:34

ten80p said:
With the prices and performance of GT and GTS-512 the GTX is def overkill esp at that res, in fact if I were building a brand new rig today myself I'd prob be going GTS-512 or X2

In terms of performance the GTX is not overkill, and you can get them for £200 now.

james.miller · 6 Mar 2008 at 13:37

the card wouldnt be overkill, but the psu would lol.

520w corsair. more than enough

ten80p · 6 Mar 2008 at 13:44

willhub said:
In terms of performance the GTX is not overkill, and you can get them for £200 now.

At the res the original poster is playing at, an overclocked GT or GTS-512 with better shader performance will match or beat a GTX, if I'd not got a 24" LCD I'd have bought a GT

bikes · 6 Mar 2008 at 13:48

james.miller said:
the card wouldnt be overkill, but the psu would lol.

520w corsair. more than enough

+1

I dont understand why a lot of people think they need 600w+ psu's with single gpu's nowadays, considering hardware manufacturers are making more and more energy efficient bits of kit.

Bales1983 · 6 Mar 2008 at 15:00

james.miller said:
the card wouldnt be overkill, but the psu would lol.

520w corsair. more than enough

Thanks for the info seems bit expensive at 70 quid?

Anything that's still good quality but about 50ish?

Lee

Rackerz · 6 Mar 2008 at 15:09

I recommend the Corsair as well, those things will actually power anything you throw at them.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-023-OC&groupid=701&catid=123&subcat=

That's the only other one I can recommend at £58.

Stonedofmoo · 6 Mar 2008 at 15:25

bikes said:
+1

I dont understand why a lot of people think they need 600w+ psu's with single gpu's nowadays, considering hardware manufacturers are making more and more energy efficient bits of kit.

You don't need them, but since most the research and technoligy is in the 500-650w sector you can get far more efficient power supplies in that range than when you get a lower wattage psu. PSU's are most efficient when using 50-60% of their max power.

So getting a 600w PSU could in the long run save you money over say, a 450w.

willhub · 6 Mar 2008 at 16:52

ten80p said:
At the res the original poster is playing at, an overclocked GT or GTS-512 with better shader performance will match or beat a GTX, if I'd not got a 24" LCD I'd have bought a GT

But what I was trying to say is, an 8800GTX for that res in terms of performance is not overkill, I was not trying to say which card is better at that res.

ebilcake · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:12

8800GTX and 1440*900 work very well together, will handle everything maxed with 16xAF/4xAA, with the exception of Crysis but even that should be more then playable with everything on high.

It's actually a shame there are no 24" displays with 1440*900 native, i'd buy one. lol

hernaldo · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:22

I'd go for a lower end 8800 card personally given your restrictions...tbh

james.miller · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:27

ebilcake said:
8800GTX and 1440*900 work very well together, will handle everything maxed with 16xAF/4xAA, with the exception of Crysis but even that should be more then playable with everything on high.

It's actually a shame there are no 24" displays with 1440*900 native, i'd buy one. lol

that would look pretty awful lol

ebilcake · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:35

james.miller said:
that would look pretty awful lol

I disagree, even 1366*768 on a 32" isnt that bad, allot of console gamers play at worse resolutions with no issues, shrink the screen to 24" and up the resolution to 1440*900 and you have a decent gaming monitor.

1920*1200 is great but todays cards are struggling, I have a 24" 1920*1200 display and 8800GTX btw.

james.miller · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:36

i cant agree with you lol. console gamers with 32" screens dont sit 30cm away from the screen. i have a 24" too, by the way.

todays cards have always struggled with 1920x1200, its always been the way. its the point where you always have to be on the bleeding edge to play games the way they should be played. i dont think that will ever really change.

ebilcake · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:43

james.miller said:
i cant agree with you lol. console gamers with 32" screens dont sit 30cm away from the screen. i have a 24" too, by the way.

I don't even sit 30cm infront of my 2407WFP, almost a meter away infact, the days of sitting that close to a screen are pretty much over with LCD screens but I agree with your point, but the smaller screen size and increased resolution would make it more then acceptable.

james.miller · 6 Mar 2008 at 17:48

well, never do i, but it was just to illustrate the point. the problem is, the further away you sit, the bigger the screen has to be for you to be able to see[i/] the increased resolution. for example, if your sitting 12-14ft away froma screen, you'd be very hard pressed to tell to tell the difference betwene a 40" 1080p and a 40" 720p screen. our eye's just arent good enough lol

conversely, with a monitor on a desk that you sit much closer too, we can make out far far finer detail, or lack there of

i think id sooner have a 32" 720p screen than a 24" 1440x900

ebilcake · 6 Mar 2008 at 20:19

james.miller said:
i think id sooner have a 32" 720p screen than a 24" 1440x900

Don't understand that logic at all, 32" is great as long as your at least 1.5-2 meters from the screen, a 24" display with slightly higher resolution would be fine as a desktop display imo and the low resolution would mean you can enjoy better performance then a 24" 1920*1200 display.

I don't think I sit close enough to my 2407WFP to really see all the detail and doubt most other users do either.