Originally Posted by MajorGN Confused with the review, you are saying that if you play at 1280x1024 there is no use getting a GTX like I will be doing pretty soon? Or have I read wrong.
I havent upgraded for 3 years, and in March I will start ordering my stuff, which is going to be £1800 for the machine only. Which means I really want the thing to last as long as it can. Is the GTX worth the £180 more than this? IMO I think it is due to it being more future proof for games i.e. Crysis. Which I will def be playing.
I would probably go for a 640MB GTS if you're concerned about future proofing, but I believe the GTS 320MB will stand up for itself at this resolution too.
Originally Posted by Ringold As far as the benchmark style goes, [H] seems to be sticking with the highest-playable-settings. Personally, I wouldn't buy anything without at least two different reviews anyway, and checking both gives two different types of insight!
In their review, their card got slaughtered under Quake 4, where as here it held up under fire just as well as the others. Difference in settings? The overall trend seems to suggest Anandtech's results are awry; the ones here and at [H] suggest a slight disadvantage at best at 16x12, not a slaughter.
Great review though -- compared several major brands!
They have used Ultra Quality (which kills performance on cards with less than 512MB of memory). There's little to no image quality benefit enabling it (the textures are just uncompressed, but you'd be pushed to notice the difference when playing the game), which is why we tested with high quality and there was very little drop in performance.
Originally Posted by aon`aTv.gsus666 As far as I understood all the reviews of G80 it's not totally pointless to get a GTX to play @ 1280x1024. You'll get everything maxed out + AA + AF at awesome frame rates. Owning a GTS myself I have to say it's way enough at the moment for EVERY game I tested @ 1280 but if you want to last your coming PC for another 3 years go for a GTX as the next next-gen games (the ones after Unreal Engine 3.0) will definitly stress your GTX a lot. And within 3 years wouldn't it be realistic to say you might own a 22"-24" monitor? If you have the money to go for a GTX, do it damnit! :)
[offtopic]
£1800? That's about 2,687.89! What do you plan buying? Core 2 Quad, GTX SLI? I paid roughly 1,300 for my PC (see sig)...
[/offtopic]
Understand.
My setup for £1800 actually isnt that impressive, I was disapointed tbh.
Originally Posted by Tim S I would probably go for a 640MB GTS if you're concerned about future proofing, but I believe the GTS 320MB will stand up for itself at this resolution too.
You think the GTS 320mb would stay up there at high playable settings @ 1920x1200 in the future?
Originally Posted by Tim S They have used Ultra Quality (which kills performance on cards with less than 512MB of memory). There's little to no image quality benefit enabling it (the textures are just uncompressed, but you'd be pushed to notice the difference when playing the game), which is why we tested with high quality and there was very little drop in performance.
Aaaah, that makes sense. Thank you thank you. Great review. :)
Comments 26 to 35 of 35
Understand.
My setup for £1800 actually isnt that impressive, I was disapointed tbh.
CPU: Intel E6600
GPU: 8800GTX
CASE: Silverstone TJ09
MOBO: ASUS Striker
RAM: Dominator 8600 2GB
PSU: Tagan 700W
1x Raptor 170GB 1000RPM + 300 or 500GB WD 72000RPM
Then extra's which are 2x DVD Drives, 1x Floppy, Memory and CPU Coolers. Which comes to around £100.
The rest comes to £1700. Not alot for so much money. :( And I'm building it myself. Will order around March time, Ready for C&C3.
You think the GTS 320mb would stay up there at high playable settings @ 1920x1200 in the future?
Aaaah, that makes sense. Thank you thank you. Great review. :)
But I already envy you for it. :)