• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What card for 1680x1050 GTX275 or 285

zod96

Platinum Member
What card would be best for 1680x1050 with say max AA and AF. A GTX275 or 285? I know the GTX285 would be better but would it be that much better to justify the $100 difference?
 
Those games aren't very demanding, especially not at 1680*1050. Try and grab a GTX260 216c or a HD 4870 1GB, depending on which one is cheaper. A GTX285 would be overkill for sure, but won't last you much longer then a GTX260, so try to save yourself some money.
 
Is it just me or has the new PC games selection been very poor lately? Your list there are all old games.

I've played Oblivion, COD4 and COD5 on my 8800GTS 512MB with max settings except AA, which I usually keep at 2x. Runs perfect at 1680x1050. What does that tell you about gtx275 or 285?

I would be curious how those cards do with Crysis @ Very High or Ultra settings. Those situations still kill my 8800gts.
 
I would say that at your resolution, you would do fine with a GTX260 216. If you are planning to go with a bigger monitor with higher resolution, then I would say GTX275/285 considerations.
 
This isn't for your own rig, is it? You already have a 4890...

To be honest, it doesn't seem particularly cost effective for you to be upgrading from your previous 4870 (if I recall correctly) to a 4890, and again to a GTX275 or GTX285.
 
For price/performance I'd recommend the GTX 260 216, and if you want to spend a bit more, the HD 4890. If you really want to max AA (8x and 16x MSAA or SSAA), then go for the 4890.
 
4890 or 275 (896 MB) mb? or, for less, 260/216 or 4870 1GB.
 
zod96 - I thought you said the card wasn't for you? Why does your profile then show that you now have a GTX 285?
 
I changed my mind I figured a GTX 285 totally blows a away an old slow ass system like a SLI 8800GT type system 🙂
 
285 GTX is probably not $100 better than 275 GTX.

I noticed Value can scale very poorly at both the extreme top end and extreme bottom end of Video cards. (ie, both very cheap and very expensive GPUs can be a bad value)
 
I'm also interested in a GTX275 vs. GTX285 comparison but at 1920x with AA/AF because I was planning to get a 285 soon. Shouldn't the 285 pull noticeably ahead at that res because AT's GTX275 review (both stock cards) seems to show that it doesn't. Why does this card cost $100 more, am I missing something?
 
Extrapolating from this review: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=20 , the GTX 285 seems to be ~5-8% faster than the GTX 275. But in the end that's expected. It pretty much has the same core as the GTX 275, only clocked slightly higher, and the four missing ROPs and gimped memory bus aren't that critical to the performance of the card. I think the price premium comes from it being a flagship part, and nothing more. NVIDIA pretty much cannibalized the GTX 285 by releasing the GTX 275 in it's attempt to stay competitive with DAMMIT's 4890.
 
Originally posted by: MrK6
Extrapolating from this review: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=20 , the GTX 285 seems to be ~5-8% faster than the GTX 275. But in the end that's expected. It pretty much has the same core as the GTX 275, only clocked slightly higher, and the four missing ROPs and gimped memory bus aren't that critical to the performance of the card. I think the price premium comes from it being a flagship part, and nothing more. NVIDIA pretty much cannibalized the GTX 285 by releasing the GTX 275 in it's attempt to stay competitive with DAMMIT's 4890.

Yah, the 285's advantage over the 275 is about 7% at 1920 x 1200 in this TPU review:

http://i1.techpowerup.com/revi...mages/perfrel_1920.gif
 
Back
Top