• 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.

Which GPU for 1900x1200 gaming ?

Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2007
Posts
15,321
Location
Northampton
So after ordering my new 1900x1200 screen i need to get a new gpu as my trusty old 2900xt will just break down and cry like a movie star at the oscars, id like to stick with ATI but im unsure which to get, budget at the moment is £200 i cannot go over it, any help is appreciated :)
 
Hi DF1986, the graphics cards that people will most likely mention will be the ATI Radeon 4870 for example this one here and the Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 Core 216 such as this one here. They are both fantastic cards and are very closely matched in performance so which ever one you choose, I'm sure you will be happy with it. :)

To help you choose though, have a look at the following articles which are both well worth reading:

Guru3D - Top 10 games Radeon 4870 1 GB & GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 test

Bit-Tech - Christmas 2008 Graphics Performance on Core i7
 
If you want to stick with ATI and don't want to spend more than £200, then i guess a 4870 it is, the 260 is a good card aswell but i'm not sure if you will find one for less then 225 odd
 
Ok thanks all for the help appreciated a lot, i have ordered the Asus ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3, i know people said the 4870 but as i figure it if i make a saving here i can get a second in a month or two and cross fire :p thanks again all :)
 
You know that when you crossfire the 4850's you still effectively only have 512MB of virtual memory right?
 
You know that when you crossfire the 4850's you still effectively only have 512MB of virtual memory right?

where did this horse poop that 512mb on the ati cards wasn't enough at 1920x1200, I can name two entire games that tend to use more at that res. GTA4, which still runs like horseturd on a 4870x2 at that res with everything at max which is what requires that much memory, and grid, which still plays fine at that res with 512mb memory. I can't name another game that needs more memory.

We still need some new reviews comparing the current 4870's the 512/1gb versions as the reviews on the 1gb launch showed it was faster, but slightly faster and at all resolutions, when below the 512mb threshold there was no reason for it to be faster. most likely the newer cards simply had better timings on the memory which would account for a similar speed boost across resolutions. IF the newer 512mb cards around have memory with better timings they could be just as fast, you wouldn't notice the difference between them anyway.


4850 is easily the best value price point to buy, and crossfiring 2x512mb versions is also hitting pretty much the best price point you can. I got my 4870x2 when it was £300, but since prices went up really the 4850 is the card to buy if you want value for money rather than e-peen.


Take a look at this, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/12/18/first-look-nvidia-geforce-gtx-295-1792mb/4#Scene_1

on Fallout 3 you can clearly see the two resolution options that cause it to go above 512mb memory used 1680x1050 with 8xaa, its fine again and ONLY 3fps short of the 1GB version at 1920x1200 with 4xaa (8xaa is a huge hit and looks almost identical) and again at 1920x1200 with 8xaa it drops massively. But ath the 1920x1200 with 4xaa its clearly faster(5%) even though its NOT a memory size limit.

This repeats itself basically across all the games, a memory limit is shown when it takes a massive hit between resolutions, not a small expected drop from simply needing more horsepower. But in all games even without a memory limit the 1GB version is normally 5% faster, its NOT the memory size. But in lots of situations the cards are neck a neck(crysis) and most situations its only a 5% difference. The few resolutions it gets spanked at are 1920x1200 and 8xaa. I wouldn't pay a shedload more for a card just to use a very slightly higher AA level. 512mb is NOT a limit at that level and in crossfire games 2x4850 will be faster than a single 4870 1GB except using unnoticeable IQ levels. Yes you can see the difference between 4 and 8xaa when you blow up a 1" square of a screen shot to encompass the entire screen just for review purposes, in real life you can't see the difference.
 
Last edited:
I personally dropped from 4850 crossfire to single cause I had a 22" monitor and crosffire really wasn't needed. Since doing that I upgraded to a 28" monitor.

I am really surprised how well this card handles this res. Its pretty damn good. Even Crysis Warhead on Gamer and Far Cry 2 on vey high runs nicely (subjective to those leet people who need 60+ FPS). Hovers around 30 in Warhead and over 40 in FC2.

You don't really need more than a 4850 - only if you are dead set on maxing every setting.
 
Yes you can see the difference between 4 and 8xaa when you blow up a 1" square of a screen shot to encompass the entire screen just for review purposes, in real life you can't see the difference.

I'm glad it's not just me then, some review sights go on and on about image quality and 8x AA and 16x AA, i always wondered what the fuss was about as i too struggled to see any improvement when going higher than 4x AA

At least now i know it's not my eyesight playing tricks
 
I wonder if the ati radeon 4870X2 will drop around the 250 300 mark in january.

I highly doubt it personally. They would then have to reduce the prices of their entire range, including the newly released HD4850X2s.

The price of the HD4870X2 has very recently fallen to £350-£380 at most retailers and I can't see it coming below that anytime soon, especially seeing as the new nVidia GTX295 should be significantly more expensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom