would a 4870 512mb be sufficient enough for

[118axis]

I'm having to buy a new monitor.since my monitor just decided not to work one day.I'm going to get a 1600x1200 monitor,because its the same price as my old 1400x900.I'm trying to figure out if 4870 512mb would be enough for high and ultra settings in the newest games
or would I have to get a 4870 1024mb or maybe a 260 216-core?

4870 512MB $155
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814161268

4870 1gb $185
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814161269

260 896mb $180
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814150361

 

[SlowSpyder]

I ran a 4870 512MB on a 22" widescreen, that is pretty close to your pixel count, and it ran flawlessly in everything I played, often I used 4xAA. I upgraded my monitor to the 26" (couldn't resist, Best Buy had it on clearance from $499 to $291) and it actually does much better than I thought it would with 1980x1200. I think you'll be fine with 16x12 based on my experiences with a 512MB 4870. Go for it. :thumbsup:

*edit - You can't beat that 4890 at $180. I'd get that in a heart beat if I was buying today.

That link doesn't work if you click it. Copy/Paste into a browser does work.

 

[Eureka]

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-4890_1G
Coupon: GPUOMG20

Sapphire 4890, $230 - $20 coupon - $11.50 CB - $20 rebate = ~$180 shipped. Enjoy.

EDIT: Link acting weird, try searching for "Sapphire 4890" on their webpage.

 

[error8]

Get the 1 gb version of 4870, or gtx 260. I can say for sure, that you will hit some situations, where 512 mb of vram is not enough at 1680X1050, even with no AA, since I had both 4870 512 and now 4870 1gb.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: cevilgenius
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-4890_1G
Coupon: GPUOMG20

Sapphire 4890, $230 - $20 coupon - $11.50 CB - $20 rebate = ~$180 shipped. Enjoy.

That price is obscene. :Q

 

[118axis]

thanks guys,so the best choice would to get the 4870 1gb or gtx260. not really sure on which one yet though.
1600x1200 monitors are way too expensive! lol. the one I needed is 1680x1050 like error8 mentioned.

 

[amdhunter]

I was running a 512MB 4870 on my 23" Dell @ 2048x1152 and it played everything I had fine, with 4xAA on.

All my Steam Engine games ran flawlessly with 4xAA enabled, 16AF. Also, Call of Duty World at War ran extremely well maxed out at 1920x1080. I couldn't get the res higher, no option for it.

Fallout 3 ran superbly on it at 2048x1152. Mass Effect was like water also.

-----

I have a 4890 1GB now, but honestly, it doesn't feel any faster. Seemed like a waste of money to me, especially since I don't have anything else to play right now.


It was powered by a Q6600 @ 3.2GHz + 8GB DDR2 - not really a powerhouse setup, but more than capable for anything right now.

 

[OCGuy]

Yes, that is fine.

The memory overkill these days is almost as bad as the PSU overkill.

 

[error8]

I felt a big difference going from 512 to 1 gb of video memory in Fallout 3. It used to stutter a lot in the open areas with 2x-4x AA on the 512 mb version, but it doesn't anymore, even with 8XAA. GTA 4 lets me improve my visual quality now with more vram, Price of Persia runs flawlessly with 8X AA, where again, it used to stutter in some areas a bit, with 4xAA, with 512 mb of vram. GRID was unplayable with 8X AA, now it works perfectly.There are games however, that ran fine on 512 mb, like any Source engine game even with 8X AA.

So, most of the time, a 512 mb card is enough, even with AA on, but there are some situations, where you run out of video memory, even when there is no AA on. To say that there is no difference between a 4870 512 and a 4870 1gb, is wrong. Games will use more ram from now on, that is a fact and to not pay 20$ more, for double the ram, is just wrong.

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
I was running a 512MB 4870 on my 23" Dell @ 2048x1152 and it played everything I had fine, with 4xAA on.

All my Steam Engine games ran flawlessly with 4xAA enabled, 16AF. Also, Call of Duty World at War ran extremely well maxed out at 1920x1080. I couldn't get the res higher, no option for it.

Fallout 3 ran superbly on it at 2048x1152. Mass Effect was like water also.

-----

I have a 4890 1GB now, but honestly, it doesn't feel any faster. Seemed like a waste of money to me, especially since I don't have anything else to play right now.


It was powered by a Q6600 @ 3.2GHz + 8GB DDR2 - not really a powerhouse setup, but more than capable for anything right now.

For COD and Steam games the 4870 (even the 4850) would be overkill. Of course, with the 4890 prices dropping so much, the $20 difference ($180 vs $160) says to go with the 4890, especially with the higher resolutions.

 

[Udgnim]

get the 4870 1 GB or 260

a lot of games will run fine with 512 MB at 16*12, but I'd rather have a video card with longer life

my setup is E8500 @ 4.2 & 4870 512 stock

 

[SlowSpyder]

For the record I'm not suggesting you buy a 512MB card, but it will run games just fine at that res. If I were buying today I'd probably get a 1GB version if I was getting a 4870/4890.