ATI Radeon HD4890 at 1280x1024 resolution?

[dpk33]

Is this a waste? And for 1680x1050 resolution as well.

 

[boochi]

It is a very good card performance wise. It also is also a notorious energy hog.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you already have the card, it's going to be pretty fast for most games at those resolutions (although Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 may be a bit too much with everythink cranked at 1680x1050). Otherwise, if you are looking for a budget card, get the GTX460 768mb instead.

 

[FalseChristian]

I have to disagree with RussianSensation. You would want GTX 460 1GB.

 

[Barfo]

I have to disagree with RussianSensation. You would want GTX 460 1GB.

I agree with RussianSensation and disagree with you. He said he games at 1280x1024. I know memory quantity is not the only diference between the cards, but the 1GB will be overkill at that resolution.

 

[hardboy]

ir is just about okay at 12x10 high settings, not max

 

[JimmiG]

The 4890 is actually faster than a 768MB GTX460 some of the time. Certainly the difference isn't that great. With the first generation of DX11, most of the transistors were spent on implementing the new features rather than on improving the performance.

The 4890 should be fine for nearly all games at that resolution. Of course if you want the best possible experience (maxed out settings) you need something faster.

 

[CraigRT]

I had a 4890 which I ran maxed 1920x1080 and it was butter.

It is a great card.

 

[Munky]

Until recently, I used a 4890 to play at 1920x1200, and with the exception of a few games like Metro 2033 and Crysis, it ran almost everything well enough for high settings. At 1280x1024, you'd be set for another 2-3 years with the card.

 

[RussianSensation]

You would want GTX 460 1GB.

If the price difference is minimal, certainly the 460 1GB version is preferable. For instance you can get a Zotac 460 1GB for $120. But if the OP already has a 4890, then I would just keep that for his intended resolutions.

 

[toyota]

jeez a 4890 will tear through any game on max at a pathetic 1280 res. thats faster than my card and besides AA there are very few settings I ever have to reduce in most games even at 1920x1080.

 

[dpk33]

what about just cause 2 and bad company 2 and possibly battlefield 3 max settings, 8x AA, etc, at 1680x1050 resolution?

 

[toyota]

what about just cause 2 and bad company 2 and possibly battlefield 3 max settings, 8x AA, etc, at 1680x1050 resolution?

stop looking for jaggies and play the game. with less AA you can turn hi res shadows off and be fine in Just Cause 2. Bad Company 2 will be fine on max with less AA too. thats assuming the rest of the pc is very good.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

AA vastly improves IQ. Jaggies are distracting in multiplayer games and can obscure enemies. In motion there is a lot of shimmer without AA and/or AF.

 

[toyota]

AA vastly improves IQ. Jaggies are distracting in multiplayer games and can obscure enemies. In motion there is a lot of shimmer without AA and/or AF.

I think I have only seen a few games ever where jaggies bothered me using no AA at all. and some of those don't even allow AA to be used. every game and every person is different of course but 2x or 4x AA is usually plenty and that was my point. nothing wrong with using more AA than that but the hit on performance is usually not worth it without a very high end card.

 

[tweakboy]

It will fly from that low res

 

[hardboy]

As simple as it can get
12X10 6850 or 5830 or above
16X10 5870 or 6870 oc or 6950 1gb
19X10 6970
And I assume that some games won't be played at max settings and many without aa and af
crysis for instace requires a 6970 for 60 fps at 14x9

 

[hardboy]

To play bf 3 at 16x10 0x aa but near max you will need a 6950 2gb

 

[betasub]

To play bf 3 at 16x10 0x aa but near max you will need a 6950 2gb

Source? Or is this just the result of some crystal ball-gazing?

---
Sent from my PC, but I really shouldn't brag about it.