• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Building a new machine: GTS or GTX on 1920 X 1200

Associate
Joined
26 Mar 2005
Posts
143
Hi folks,

I'm building a new machine in the near future, once I see what the Intel prices are going to be like at the end of the month.

I have a Dell 2405 monitor on 1920*1200 res, currently being powered by an X800XL (not the best setup :rolleyes: ).

I was initially looking at getting a 8800GTX but I'm wondering is it better to get a GTS or is the GTX really worth the extra cost.

I'm planning on keeping this machine for 3 or so years so what are your opinions?

thanks,

Ken
 
The 2900HD gives a healthy boost over the GTS in most games especially DX10(so far) if you'll be going for that and it's not much more expensive. Every new set of drivers sees bigger improvements as well. :)
 
Running GTS 640mb @ 1680x1050 here and FEAR brings it to its knees if you crank up the AA+AF
Go for the GTX if you can afford it ;)
 
minging said:
Running GTS 640mb @ 1680x1050 here and FEAR brings it to its knees if you crank up the AA+AF
Go for the GTX if you can afford it ;)

NO, thats not the graphics card, must be your CPU Bottlenecking it or you got 1GB RAM as i got the same gfx card and play at same res and i dont get any fps lag even with AA+AF.
 
Darg said:
The 2900HD gives a healthy boost over the GTS in most games especially DX10(so far) if you'll be going for that and it's not much more expensive. Every new set of drivers sees bigger improvements as well. :)


I thought the OP asked about 2 Nvidia cards, not ATI :confused: .



If you want to play new games soon like Crysis get the best you can afford or wait till next refresh. :)


To above users, I built a customers rig with a 8600GTS and it maxed game in every setting with supersampling and high quality settings in driver @ 1280x1024 (high as his LCD went) and I was suprised how fast it was, cannot remember speeds in tests though.
FEAR is not a CPU dependant game more so GPU, but ideally needs 2GiG ram and was 1st game to make me buy 2GiG as it ate my 1GiG and 1.5GiG page file at settings I ran it with on my own PC when game released.
 
Last edited:
truebluecfc said:
NO, thats not the graphics card, must be your CPU Bottlenecking it or you got 1GB RAM as i got the same gfx card and play at same res and i dont get any fps lag even with AA+AF.

Nope c2d at 2.9 with 2 gig mem , didnt say it was getting any lag but of of curiosity
what scores do you get at 1680x1050 4x4x everything else max ?
29/47/62fps and 0/32/68% @ 4x 4x here
29/47/61fps and 0/34/66% @ 4x 8x
29/47/61fps and 0/36/64% @ 4x 16x :D
 
Last edited:
minging said:
Nope c2d at 2.9 with 2 gig mem , didnt say it was getting any lag but of of curiosity
what scores do you get at 1680x1050 4x4x everything else max ?
29/47/62fps and 0/32/68% @ 4x 4x here
29/47/61fps and 0/34/66% @ 4x 8x
29/47/61fps and 0/36/64% @ 4x 16x :D


I still dont get how FEAR brings the 640GTS to its knees though.
 
Gor for the GTX if you can. I've got a GTS and its starting to struggle on a few games when I crank up the settings at 1920x1200. (Mainly Stalker!)
 
My GTS is starting to feel the burn in some games at 1920x1200 since I got my new monitor. I'd say go for the GTX.
 
I would go for a GTX, at that resolution.

You would get away with a 640mb GTS or a 2900xt, but I would prefer to spend the extra and get the GTX, especially if you're wanting to keep the system for up to 3 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom