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.
, based on hours of gaming on different panels I've noticed that if I'm playing on your average IPS panel (dell ultrasharps in this case) my scores in MW2 are in the region of 18 kills to 10 deaths, playing on the average TN panel (samsung) more like 24 to 8 or so and playing on a 120Hz TN I've been hitting 4:1 KDRs with scores in the region of 40-6 quite common.
Sorry, what I meant was mainly the price difference part. Also, to me 21.5" would be more than big enough. Right now I'm on a 1680x1050 20" monitor at a reasonable distance (about 1 metre from where I sit). I just want a 16:9 ratio 1080 monitor so there's no black border at top and bottom when watching some 16:9 videos. I guess size preference varys from people and price is another thing that need considered. Would be best to actually go have a look at the 21.5" and 23" in a store or something to see which suit you better...price wise 23" would definitely be more expensive, but guess that goes without saying.Why
Is size not the issue here and why most people are suggesting a dimensionally larger monitor to subjectively improve the gaming experience rather than a higher res which may/may not give greater visual clarity but at the expense of FPS.
![[TW]Sponge](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Scratch, Scratch
Running 260GTX-216 OC'd to 700 core.
Cards on the table, I do have an urge to upgrade.
Most people need a reason, some more than others, & mine is to be able to run DX11 titles in all their glory at playable fps.
Whilst we're being honest, i also enjoy buying/playing with new tech.
My current card is by & large fine with all the titles I play i.e Crysis, FO3, Oblivion, JC2 although even on my little old monitor, it does at times struggle
Having quickly analysed all the informed replies, I am pretty sure I am going to go with a GTX470 as it will give me extra performance over a 460 with the added benefit of satisfying my curiosity/ego whilst saving me £120.00 for near 480 performance when OC'd.
That's right. Although Q6600 at 3.2GHz could bottleneck cards at overclocked GTX460 1GB and above in older games, such as Crysis...but that's only because the game was written to use only two cores. With the newer games becoming more and more commonly supporting the use of 3rd and 4th core, a Q6600 at 3.2GHz won't be much of a limitation for even a GTX480; playing older games that only uses 1 or 2 cores though is a different story.My CPU is a Quad core Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz on a 400 FSB
Yes, old tech but hardly slow tech
)
Now who's the one trying to raise the bait here? You obviously haven't see this thread:Only just noticed this post.
Now I know I should not rise to the bait here ... but you make that statement like it's an absolute.
Question... have you owned any of these cards? Have you run benchmarks and games and cross checked the figures yourself? or are you doing like so many people do, just picking bits and pieces out of articles that you've read on the NET?
I can do that as well:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/07/12/nvidia-geforce-gtx-460-graphics-card-review/7
and that doesn't really back your figures up.
In some games a stock 460 actually beets a 5850, in some it's about the same and in others it behind,. And resolution and AA applied also make a big difference.
While I was basing my comment on actually owning a 460 clocked at 850MHz and not just looking at bench mark figures but comparing the same game on my system, with my friend who has a 470 at stock and there certainly aint much in it.
Not trying to be rude here but just trying to point out that it's not quite that simple.
Which ever card he chooses (if he does) then I'm sure he will be more than happy.
