Name the Gefore/Radeon you have and state a small review

thegodfatherdany

Hey geeks. Just want to know more personal opinions about different graphic cards.
What games do you play on maximum ? Does it overheat?....?
I have an 8500GT 1gb ram Inno3d and it USED to be great for games like NFS, COD, NBA, TDU. No overheating problems. Hoping for a nice GTX 280! What about yours?

xterm

Radeon 6970

Can't give much of a review, but I had problems with it (alongside the drivers), not to mention it's very pricy.

enthralled

NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 1GB:
In my opinion, it's good enough for modern games using medium, sometimes high settings (on laptop's non-fullHD resolution).

Sup3r

Nvidia GeForce GT 220 ( Inno3d )

No Overheating at all , can play COD, AC , BF , Skyrim , DriverSF , and any modern game without any problems.

peekaie

Radeon 4850

For $150, can play high demanding games like bf3 and crysis on near ultra quality, and smoothly.

Khaled

Sapphire Radeon HD 6870

I play on 1080p resoltion ( 1920*1080 ) almost every game i have on maxed out settings and it runs them more smoothly than i ever hoped for, some maybe less smooth than others but nothing less than 45 frames per second and that including games like BF3 on ultra ( i still dont understand why they said it will require a GTX 580 or the sort to play it on ultra )

And considering its not exactly a power hungry card and that it cost me 190$ ( amazon US at the time i got it ) i say its a pretty damn good bargain

and i didnt really find any troubles with any drivers or the such

Im pretty happy with it to say the least

Beej

6970 goes for about 600$, not that expensive being the highest what amd has to offer (well in the old series anyway).

I have a gtx 460 from msi, HAWK Tallon's Attack edition, it doesnt overheat or noisy and can play games in 3d @ 1080p (most games). Crysis series/bf3/metro 2033/arma 2/ witcher 2 are the games i cannot max out (without 3d ofcourse). But i can set details to high or very high but sacrifice a little AA.

@thegodfatherdany: Forget the gtx 280 thats a really old card, if you want a card in the same performance, get a gtx 460/gtx560/6870 and BTW all of these cards are faster than a gtx 280, consume less power, overclock more, and produce less heat.

thegodfatherdany

Beej wrote6970 goes for about 600$, not that expensive being the highest what amd has to offer (well in the old series anyway).
@thegodfatherdany: Forget the gtx 280 thats a really old card, if you want a card in the same performance, get a gtx 460/gtx560/6870 and BTW all of these cards are faster than a gtx 280, consume less power, overclock more, and produce less heat.

Well if you check ebay, you can find one for 350$ ATI Radeon 6970! WOW nice ways to steal you in Lebanon.
Yea thats what im thinking now since khaled told me its a great card and cheap on ebay and i saw the benchmarks and dude they were fantastic!

AvoK95

Asus GTX 560TI Direct CU II:
Pros: Very good card , can run any game at 1080p with a decent framerate, runs very cool and easy to overclock.
Cons: The card should be cheaper than 304$ , the fans aren't the same size , the cards lenght is blocking my 3 SATA ports making me use 1 ESATA port for my DVDRW. The Asus Smart Doctor (OC software that came with it) Sometimes conflicts with the latest Nvidia drivers and Asus doesn't update his software to often.
I would recommend this card to someone who wants to have a good rig for a good price.

MrClass

I am a proud owner of a BFG Nvidia GTX 280. Great card, comes factory overclocked. Heats up like crazy on some games ( 100 degrees when playing Burnout Paradise). Was pretty expensive when it got released ( 600$ or so). Can still pull it off for some new games like Codmw3, but EA's new frostbite engine kills the card. Have to use medium graphics settings to play NFS: The Run and BF3 with decent FPS. Was a great card few years ago, but now you'll find it suffering with new games ( resolution is of course 1920x1080)

Flakk

EVGA GTX550 Ti
Very good card for the price, kinda wish i got the 560 but i wasn't going to risk it with my aging rig. It runs everything i throw at it on high settings and high resolution.
Idle and load temps are perfect, no overheating whatsoever.
Its silent and the the PCB size is convenient.

thegodfatherdany

MrClass wroteI am a proud owner of a BFG Nvidia GTX 280. Great card, comes factory overclocked. Heats up like crazy on some games ( 100 degrees when playing Burnout Paradise). Was pretty expensive when it got released ( 600$ or so). Can still pull it off for some new games like Codmw3, but EA's new frostbite engine kills the card. Have to use medium graphics settings to play NFS: The Run and BF3 with decent FPS. Was a great card few years ago, but now you'll find it suffering with new games ( resolution is of course 1920x1080)

I think it doesnt run these new games well because of its old core setup. My brother has a GTS 250 (newer than GTX 280) and he can not to say max it but play it on very very high settings ( maybe because he has 16gb ram dunno). So one can conclude it is best to buy a new midrange card for a good price than buying a high end card 2 years ago.

As for the resolution, this 1920x1080 is a killer. Why dont you get an LCD 32" with resolution 1366 x 768 ( http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/lcd-tv/LA32D481G4LXL/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl= ) and you should observe a 20 fps increase on every game you play.

yasamoka

thegodfatherdany wrote
MrClass wroteI am a proud owner of a BFG Nvidia GTX 280. Great card, comes factory overclocked. Heats up like crazy on some games ( 100 degrees when playing Burnout Paradise). Was pretty expensive when it got released ( 600$ or so). Can still pull it off for some new games like Codmw3, but EA's new frostbite engine kills the card. Have to use medium graphics settings to play NFS: The Run and BF3 with decent FPS. Was a great card few years ago, but now you'll find it suffering with new games ( resolution is of course 1920x1080)
I think it doesnt run these new games well because of its old core setup. My brother has a GTS 250 (newer than GTX 280) and he can not to say max it but play it on very very high settings ( maybe because he has 16gb ram dunno). So one can conclude it is best to buy a new midrange card for a good price than buying a high end card 2 years ago.

As for the resolution, this 1920x1080 is a killer. Why dont you get an LCD 32" with resolution 1366 x 768 ( http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/lcd-tv/LA32D481G4LXL/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl= ) and you should observe a 20 fps increase on every game you play.

What??
First of all, it's ALWAYS better to get a new midrange card rather than get an old high-end card. This is because a new architecture provides less power consumption, less heat, more features, and often more performance for less launch price. GTX 460, for example, is more powerful than the GTX 280, but not by a long shot. It consumes 170W, supports DirectX11. On the other hand, the GTX 280 consumes 230W, and supports DirectX10. In computations other than gaming, the GTX 460 is even faster, and this is because of the difference in shader count at approximately same frequencies (336 vs 240).

Second of all, 1920 x 1080 is not a killer. GTX 460, 560, 560Ti, 570, and AMD Radeon HD5770, HD5830, HD5850, HD 6790, HD 6850, HD 6870, HD6970 can ALL play games well on 1920 x 1080. I have a GTX 260 @ 1920 x 1080, and I know what Mr.Class means. He means he cannot absolutely max out games on the GTX 280. I have Battlefield 3, and I run it at High with 0xAA and no HBAO (killer for FPS) at a MINIMUM of 26FPS (worse case and rare) and usually a minimum of 28FPS and sustained 30s FPS and many times 40s. My GTX 260 is OCed though. So it reaches GTX 280 levels if I'm not mistaken.

The pixel density of a 1366 x 768 32" display is very low. It's MUCH lower than the pixel density of a 24" panel @ 1920 x 1080.

thegodfatherdany

yasamoka wroteSecond of all, 1920 x 1080 is not a killer. GTX 460, 560, 560Ti, 570, and AMD Radeon HD5770, HD5830, HD5850, HD 6790, HD 6850, HD 6870, HD6970 can ALL play games well on 1920 x 1080. I have a GTX 260 @ 1920 x 1080, and I know what Mr.Class means. He means he cannot absolutely max out games on the GTX 280. I have Battlefield 3, and I run it at High with 0xAA and no HBAO (killer for FPS) at a MINIMUM of 26FPS (worse case and rare) and usually a minimum of 28FPS and sustained 30s FPS and many times 40s. My GTX 260 is OCed though. So it reaches GTX 280 levels if I'm not mistaken.

The pixel density of a 1366 x 768 32" display is very low. It's MUCH lower than the pixel density of a 24" panel @ 1920 x 1080.

I know they can play it but why so if they are running low in performance in some games like NFS and other new games. Doesnt Mr Class need this 20 fps at least to play on high details?

cmwic

I have Asus GTX 580 Direct CUII.
It can run everything u throw at it at max settings without breaking a sweat.

yasamoka

@thegodfatherdany: Usually it's not this way. Rather than lowering the resolution, you could get a new graphics card (rather than paying for a new monitor or TV), or just tweak the settings. In such demanding games, tweaking the settings gives me quite close levels of details to max settings (sometimes without the polish such as HBAO), at very playable framerates. Second of all, it's not always 20 FPS. It's a percentage increase dependant on his CPU bottleneck, his memory bandwidth, and theoretically (and basically) the ratio of the new resolution to the old resolution.