Best graphics card for 1600x900 resolution?

[ZootAllures91]

This would be in conjunction with an i7-870 and 8GB of cas-7 DDR3-1333. Thanks!

 

[toyota]

and what gpu do you have now? and what power supply? and what games are you wanting to play? ...

 

[ZootAllures91]

Right now it's a GTX 650 Ti, and a 650 Watt PSU. The 650 Ti was bought when I had an i5-650 and 4GB RAM in the PC, but I recently upgraded to the i7-870 and 8GB RAM that I mentioned in my original post, so now I'm looking to upgrade the GPU as the "final step" of the process. As far as what games I'm trying to play... I'm moreso just generally looking for whatever card will offer the best possible performance at 1600x900, in conjunction with the rest of my recently-upgraded hardware and without being exorbitantly expensive.

 

[toyota]

well unless you are trying to run high or very high settings in the few really demanding games then your 650 ti is fine at 1600x900 for gaming. you could always grab the 750 ti which is about 30% faster and will let you play all but the most demanding games on highest settings.

 

[DooKey]

270 or GTX 760 would be as high up the video card ladder I would go.

 

[lehtv]

1600 x 900 being 30% fewer pixels to render compared to 1920 x 1080 ... I would also not go higher than GTX 760 for that resolution. GTX 760 runs 1080p fine as well.

However, your CPU is the bigger factor here. It will absolutely limit the performance of a GTX 760 in a lot of games, on that resolution. Stock 7950 was very noticeably limited by my i7-920 @ 3.36GHz on 1080p, and prompted me to upgrade to 3770K.

For that CPU, I'd probably get an R9 270 at most.

 

[Anarchist420]

1600 x 900 being 30% fewer pixels to render compared to 1920 x 1080 ... I would also not go higher than GTX 760 for that resolution. GTX 760 runs 1080p fine as well.

not if you want all the effects and good AA quality. I run my GTX 780 at a max res of 1600x900.

However, your CPU is the bigger factor here. It will absolutely limit the performance of a GTX 760 in a lot of games, on that resolution. Stock 7950 was very noticeably limited by my i7-920 @ 3.36GHz on 1080p, and prompted me to upgrade to 3770K.

agreed that his CPU is a huge limiting factor

 

[toyota]

not if you want all the effects and good AA quality. I run my GTX 780 at a max res of 1600x900.

that is beyond ridiculous. so you look at all the settings and in your mind it makes more sense to crank everything but then use 1600x900? it only takes a little common sense to back off on AA levels. and if your monitors native resolution is above 1600x900 then what you are doing is flat out stupid. native res will always look more crisp and all the AA in the world will not make up for the blurriness of dropping below native.

 

[Zanovar]

not if you want all the effects and good AA quality. I run my GTX 780 at a max res of 1600x900.

agreed that his CPU is a huge limiting factor

Sorry bit off topic op,but do you plan to run that rez forever?sweet mother of god.780?

 

[lehtv]

not if you want all the effects and good AA quality. I run my GTX 780 at a max res of 1600x900.

I don't even

 

[tweakboy]

Grab a GTX 760 to that and your set.

 

[NewYorksFinest]

EVGA GeForce GTX 750 ti 2GB

 

[TreVader]

270 stomps the 750 and costs $20 more, sometimes less when the 750ti is aftermarket.


The 750ti is a good card but overpriced. Stick with AMD, the mining craze is over.

 

[TreVader]

260X for 99.99
Same speed as the 750ti for 33% less money.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r7260x2gd5ocv1

750ti 149.99

270 179.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/club-3d-video-card-cgaxr9276

 

[tential]

Sorry bit off topic op,but do you plan to run that rez forever?sweet mother of god.780?

When he posted something like that it was essentially a thread highjack. It's going to be EXTREMELY hard for anyone to ignore that post.

 

[Zanovar]

When he posted something like that it was essentially a thread highjack. It's going to be EXTREMELY hard for anyone to ignore that post.

Erm nvm

 

[Techhog]

1600 x 900 being 30% fewer pixels to render compared to 1920 x 1080 ... I would also not go higher than GTX 760 for that resolution. GTX 760 runs 1080p fine as well.

However, your CPU is the bigger factor here. It will absolutely limit the performance of a GTX 760 in a lot of games, on that resolution. Stock 7950 was very noticeably limited by my i7-920 @ 3.36GHz on 1080p, and prompted me to upgrade to 3770K.

For that CPU, I'd probably get an R9 270 at most.

This. I do some games windowed at 1600x900 for streaming, and when I do that, some of my games perform exactly identically with my GPU clocked at 880/1250 or 1200/1500.

 

[BFG10K]

For that resolution a 750TI is the perfect choice, and it'll scale to 1080P in the future if you need it.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Radeon R7 265 is faster than a 750Ti for the same price.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1127?vs=1130

 

[lehtv]

Radeon R7 265 is faster than a 750Ti for the same price.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1127?vs=1130

Newegg also has MSI R7 260X for $100 AR, a full $50 less compared to the similarly performing 750 Ti. Not that the 750 Ti isn't an awesome card in terms of performance per watt though, but its price is just a bit high

 

[omeds]

I'd be looking at 270x or 760 tbh. Here's a review with 16 games at 1600x900.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not sure why so many are suggesting 750ti. It is a great card for a weaker power supply, but the op ha a 650 watt. Considering that, I think the gtx660 would be a better choice, and provide a more noticeable upgrade from the 650ti.

That said, considering the CPU and resolution, I am not sure an upgrade from the 650ti is really needed or worthwhile.

 

[Anarchist420]

that is beyond ridiculous. so you look at all the settings and in your mind it makes more sense to crank everything but then use 1600x900? it only takes a little common sense to back off on AA levels. and if your monitors native resolution is above 1600x900 then what you are doing is flat out stupid. native res will always look more crisp and all the AA in the world will not make up for the blurriness of dropping below native.

3 things: 1. i dont see how it is blurry when i use "do not scale" with "perform scaling" set to "GPU" and checked "override application settings". 2. i have it set to 1600x900 so that i can use 75Hz within my monitors pixel clock and get less input lag than it would at 1080p 60Hz. 3. screen res has nothing to do with aliasing so i am not sure what you mean when you say that i should back off of AA before decreasing resolution.

 

[Yuriman]

3 things: 1. i dont see how it is blurry when i use "do not scale" with "perform scaling" set to "GPU" and checked "override application settings". 2. i have it set to 1600x900 so that i can use 75Hz within my monitors pixel clock and get less input lag than it would at 1080p 60Hz. 3. screen res has nothing to do with aliasing so i am not sure what you mean when you say that i should back off of AA before decreasing resolution.

This is a bit of a thread-jack, but if the GPU is doing the scaling, wouldn't it end up outputting the monitor's native resolution? So you wouldn't get 75hz? OTOH, if you let the monitor do the scaling and display 1600x900, wouldn't you have added input lag?

 

[NTMBK]

3 things: 1. i dont see how it is blurry when i use "do not scale" with "perform scaling" set to "GPU" and checked "override application settings". 2. i have it set to 1600x900 so that i can use 75Hz within my monitors pixel clock and get less input lag than it would at 1080p 60Hz. 3. screen res has nothing to do with aliasing so i am not sure what you mean when you say that i should back off of AA before decreasing resolution.

No matter whether your GPU or monitor does it, you will be interpolating a 1600x900 framebuffer up to 1920x1080. This is going to cause artifacts/blurring, and reduce your image quality.