Is it worth upgrading since I'm limited to 1280*1024?

[MaxAwesome]

8800GT. I love it, but it's getting old.

I'm thinking of upgrading to the GTX series, probably the GTX 275. However, since i'm not considering upgrading my monitor (17" LCD), which is limited @ 1280*1024 (native res), I'm wondering, would I see a difference in performance anyway?

[erocker]

A GTS 250 is about as big of a card as you need. Have a look at one of W1zzards reviews, your resolution should be covered.

[r9]

The question is do you have games that don`t run smooth. If all you games you play run smooth don`t hurry the prices go only one way.

[DanishDevil]

I would wait until you have a little more money, and spend about $150 on a nice 21" 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 monitor, and $150 on a GTX260. The price of a GTX275 really isn't too different from that.

[MaxAwesome]

I'm going to try and give a practical and hypothetical example: If on any given game, and assuming the in this scenario the CPU wouldn't be the bottleneck, I get 50fps with 8800gt and not happy with it, would a faster card yield a higher framerate?

I suppose it would?

[DanishDevil]

Yes it would, but anything over 45-50FPS won't make a real difference to 99% of people.

[MaxAwesome]

Originally Posted by DanishDevil

Yes it would, but anything over 45-50FPS won't make a real difference to 99% of people.

Yes, but 50fps was just a random number

[erocker]

How can you not be happy with 50fps? Anyways, looking at the graph it's not hard to base a decision on this. Pay no attention to the colored bars. Your card falls into the 9800GT range, find a card that is better than it at a good price. Personally, I don't think upgrading is necessary at all in your case.

[MaxAwesome]

Originally Posted by erocker

How can you not be happy with 50fps? Anyways, looking at the graph it's not hard to base a decision on this. Pay no attention to the colored bars. Your card falls into the 9800GT range, find a card that is better than it at a good price. Personally, I don't think upgrading is necessary at all in your case.

http://i4.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sa...rfrel_1280.gif

Well, erocker, I wouldn't be unhappy with 50fps, is was a random number

But the 8800gt will eventually be too slow for gaming...

[erocker]

Not anytime soon and you are good for now. Wait it out a few months, new cards will be out, older cards will get cheaper. Why not upgrade your monitor? Then perhaps you will have a real reason to want to upgrade your graphics card.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by MaxAwesome

Well, erocker, I wouldn't be unhappy with 50fps, is was a random number

But the 8800gt will eventually be too slow for gaming...

yeah but not at 1280*1024... its already too slow for modern gaming at 1680x1050 and above, but I think even crysis runs like butter on a g92 at such an low resolution.

[MaxAwesome]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

yeah but not at 1280*1024... its already too slow for modern gaming at 1680x1050 and above, but I think even crysis runs like butter on a g92 at such an low resolution.

Well, truth is, I've been a PC gamer since I was 14 (1998) and ever since I have used small monitors: Started with a 15" Nokia CRT monitor, 17" Philips CRT, 19" Sony CRT, and now 17" Acer LCD.

I have grown quite accommodated to what you describe as "low resolutions". 1280*1024 is pretty good for me. To my eyes, I'm not less of an "hardcore gamer" because of my res :P


But the question remains: even though the 8800gt is more than enough @ this res, should I buy a faster card (after these opinions, I decided I won't for now), I would see a significant improvement, right? For example, a GTX 275 would still be close to 2x faster, despite the "low" resolution, or am I wrong?

[Kenshai]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

yeah but not at 1280*1024... its already too slow for modern gaming at 1680x1050 and above, but I think even crysis runs like butter on a g92 at such an low resolution.

I don't really know of many modern games that don't run just fine on an 8800gt at 1680-1050. Maybe not at max graphics but definitely can run any modern game at that resolution. Hell my 8800gs was running stuff at that resolution with minor stutters here and there.

I'm going to go with everyone else, go for a monitor then if you feel the need bump up to a bigger and better card.

[ShadowFold]

Wait until there are games that you can't run, and then upgrade. It's kinda silly now, because you'll regret it once all the newer games come out a year from now.

[Mussels]

i'd wait for DX11, and get a card that performs at least half again as fast as your current one, one resolution up. that way youre set for a year or two at your current res, with no real harm if you get a good deal on a slightly larger screen.

[kurosagi01]

i agree with mussels,you should wait until dx11 is released.The 8800GT is perfect card for 1280x1024 to be honest; it can handle almost any games at that resolution

[Jeffredo]

I finally bought a larger monitor last summer (went from a 17" to 22" WS). It was so worth it. As cheap as GPUs and LCDs are now you're doing your gaming (and oc'd E8400) a disservice by not getting a better set up. All this talk to "DX11" is academic and waiting doesn't make sense if you need/want something now.

[qubit]

You have a fast CPU coupled to only a moderately powerful card, which will be a bottleneck.

Tell me, using FRAPS, can you play your most demanding game with all the eye candy maxed out and still achieve a solid 60fps (no dropped frames) at 1280x1024? If you can, then you don't need to upgrade, if you cannot, then upgrade. Any time the card misses a frame you get judder, which looks crap and spoils your aim. It's as simple as that.

[mdm-adph]

No, it's not worth upgrading. But...

Yes, you'll still be happy if you buy a new card, and you'll be supporting the economies of various countries, so spend away!

[Darren]

MaxAwesome, if you can not achieve above 50 FPS with a 4 GHz CPU I'd be very surprised. I've got a shitty CPU and 50 FPS is the minimum I tend to get all maxed out at 1440x900.

You do not need an upgrade your rig is fine.

If you felt the compulsion to upgrade GPUs (not that you need a new one at all) I wouldn't get anything less than the GTX 260 216 core version or ATI 4870 otherwise the performance increase would be too negligible to make a difference, but at such a low resolution it would negate the benefit of those luxury high end GPUs as its only at extremely high resolutions they separate from the lower tier GPUs.

[hat]

You can't ask us to make up your mind for you. I know how it feels to want to upgrade when you already have everything... I used to have a 9800GT (same card you have really... just rebranded) before it died. Great card, even with Crysis maxed out at my resolution (1440x900, slightly smaller than yours) it ran fine (in dx9 mode). Point is if all your applications run smoothly enough for you, don't upgrade and wait until something revolutionary comes out (like DX11).

[MaxAwesome]

I regularly use FRAPS, and @ my native resolution everything runs @ 80+ constant.

Recently, I played FEAR 2 and Assault on Dark Athena everything maxed out @ 90+ FPS.

The fact that I never use AA probably helps.

I guess I got the upgrade itch... But well, 1280*1024 plus no AA, proably means my 8800GT will last a lot longer than I thought.

[hat]

Hm... I got an upgrade idea for you. Use AA

I don't use AA much myself, in fact 2xaa is enough for me in any situation (except Doom3 for some reason). Sometimes I don't even use AA at all like in Stalker. Makes it too slow for my 7900GT. However when I had my 9800GT I maxed out on AA in Stalker and it didn't seem to do anything so I shut it off again.

[MaxAwesome]

Well, I don't know if it's because my screen is only 17", but @ 1280*1024, I barely see any jagged lines and whatnot. It's a "tight" resolution, which perfectly fills my screen space without looking jagged. That's why I never used AA. If it looked ugly, I would have turned AA on.

[Kenshai]

Originally Posted by MaxAwesome

Well, I don't know if it's because my screen is only 17", but @ 1280*1024, I barely see any jagged lines and whatnot. It's a "tight" resolution, which perfectly fills my screen space without looking jagged. That's why I never used AA. If it looked ugly, I would have turned AA on.

I didn't think AA really did a whole lot, but I'll be damned once I switched from it off to a 1680x1050 8xAA+ in all my games my jaws dropped at how much different games can look with it. (I upgraded my monitor and video card at the same time)