Help me pick a new video card

Loser-P

Loser-P

Member
I'm planning on spending my tax refund on a Dell U2711 27" monitor to replace my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB.

Since I'm blowing all my refund on the new monitor, I'd like to spend around $250 or less on the new video card to replace my HD 4850.

Would either the HD 6870 or HD 6950 be capable of playing somewhat newer games (especially my current obsession Skyrim) at the Dell's native resolution of 2560 x 1440 at a decent frame rate?

Or would either of these cards be over kill considering I have a somewhat older CPU? Core 2 Quad Q9450 OC to 3.2GHz
 
1) That resolution is big boy territory. Typically, that is a resolution where multi GPU people play at. However, yes the 6950 can handle Skyrim at that resolution with 2xAA/16xAF. I would up the budget to $269 for the HIS IceQ TurboX because it's temp/noise ratio is superior to the rest. Keep in mind though, Skyrim loves CPU power more than GPU power.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161372

2) I have doubts about single card longevity on that resolution. Just saying. You are going to turn down or off some bells and whistles faster than you might be thinking down the line.

3) Consider...

A) What value Pitcairn Islands may bring to the $200 to $300 market. Seems like it may reach here some time in March. This the new HD 7850/70 series with a possible HD 7890.

B) Increasing your budget to say the HD 7950.

I like B.

3) Your CPU is fine. My Q9300 was sufficient for most of everything I played. Never tried it on Skyrim, but I have a feeling it would kneel on that game.

So regarding 3, you should highly consider a mobo, ram, CPU upgrade soon.
 
Skyrim seems a question of CPU, not of GPU. Look:

http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

1st graph: i7-2600k@4GHz -> 81 fps; i7-2600k@2GHz -> 44 fps => linear scaling with CPU frequency! The second graph hints where your [email protected] GHz would be (with a GTX580@1680x1050): near the 1100T mark (49 fps) (the game can use 2 CPU cores, and C2Q is about as fast as AMD's Deneb/Thuban per cycle and thread).

http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page4.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page5.html

Results with an i7-2600k and different GPUs. Even the HD6770 (about as powerful as a 4870 in DX9) and 6750 get good results at "low" resolution (1680x1050) for their level. Quality settings don't count much, but resolution does (half fps @2560x1600).

Unlike CRT's, LCD's look quite bad when not used at their maximum resolution. So if you get a monitor like that you'll be tied to having ultra-powerful systems. I advice 1920x1200 if you can find one. 1920x1080 displays are more popular although for general use they're mediocre.

Many other games are GPU bound. For those you could survive with just a better gfx card, but with money I'd consider a new system. Does the CRT work? I think it's your least urgent upgrade.
 
i'm at 2560x1600 and use two 6970 for skyrim
at 1440p don't think i would like it with less than a 7970
 
Full system upgrade isn't going to happen for a while and as much as I'd like to get a shinny new 7970 it's a bit too much to spend right now.


I'd like to upgrade my monitor as soon as possible since my current one seems like it might die some time soon.

I'm very set on my choice of that Dell because I know that I'll keep it a long time so I'd rather go bigger and higher resolution even though it costs at least twice as much as a 24 inch or lower res 27 inch.

I run my current monitor at 1600 x 1200, a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 screen would just be wider than my current screen but the same height (both physically and in pixels) so that's a slightly meh upgrade and I refuse to get any screen that's 1920 x 1080, losing those 120 pixels is a no no.

I spend a lot of time watching TV and movies on my computer so a larger screen would be nice (I'd consider a 30" if it would fit on my desk) although I do play games fairly frequently it's a secondary concern for me.


I know running Skyrim at that res is asking a lot but the latest patch has helped performance a lot and made the game somewhat less cpu bound. Before the patch I had to run the game at 1280 x 960 to get good frame rates. Now I can run at my preferred res of 1600 x 1200 4xaa all ultra settings except shadows at high. Also Skyrim is the only new game I play, before I bought it I spent most of my time playing TF2.


I think I might either get a cheaper card for the short term and replace it when I upgrade my computer (problem is I have no idea when I might be able to afford do a full system upgrade) or save up a bit for a 7970 or wait for prices to come down.

Either way if anyone else has some suggestions for a single gpu I'd still like to hear it.

Also my suggested budget of $250 is only an approximation I could go a bit higher. For a short term upgrade I think $300 is the very most I would want to spend but I'd much rather spend somewhere in the $200-250 range. My 4850 was only $200 and it's served me well for these last 3 and half years and I kind of feel like spending much more than that for a gpu is a little crazy.
 
Money saved on buying this HP LED IPS monitor over the Dell 27" will save you enough for a 7950 which is sufficient to drive at 2560x1440 resolution.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MR4P0W/ref=pe_171560_22575560_pe_vfe_dp1

The Dell 27" has a 30ms lag time, meaning it is about 2 frames behind the video card output. The HP 27" is 10ms of lag time, less then 1fps. For gaming the HP would be better. The Dell is a extended gamut monitor, meaning 10bit color which is great for professional 10bit work flow. For games 10bit will skew the colors some what since 8 bits will be streched to 10 bits. The HP is a standard gamut monitor meaning 8 bit calibrated while it is listed as billions of colors it is actually 8bit then interpreted 10bit.

I recommend the HP and 7950 which will give you a lot more in the end.
 
I would get a 27inch 1080p instead. Your try to get a resolution that you cannot power on a single mid range gpu. I would get a 27in 1080p and look into a used gtx 580
 
[yt]TJRnHfcFq5g[/yt]

The 4850 can handles Skyrim at 1080p just fine, but it just needs a faster CPU. Of course, upgrade GPU would helps a lot....however, Skyrim loves CPU more than GPU.
 
nycdarkness said:
I would get a 27inch 1080p instead. Your try to get a resolution that you cannot power on a single mid range gpu. I would get a 27in 1080p and look into a used gtx 580
Click to expand...

A used 580 around $300 would be a good deal, anything more then $350 I would pass. As for 1080p too much loss on the vertical as he mentioned already.
 
You could get a superior 1080p display to 1200p display, plus have a wider aspect ratio for gaming, 120hz etc. I would go with a 27" 1080p myself.. You wont even notice the 120 pixels, its all in your head.
 
noko said:
[...]

The Dell 27" has a 30ms lag time, meaning it is about 2 frames behind the video card output. [...]
Click to expand...
WRONG! It has Response Time : 6ms!
The monitor is superb.
But the U2410, mine, 1920x1200 really is an upgrade over 1600x1200 CRT. Mine was an Eizo T965. Save the money by not taking U2711, but U2410 insetad, and go 7970 on the videocard.
If Skyrim is your most important game you gain nothing with crossfire.
 
Blín D'ñero;1336833322 said:
WRONG! It has Response Time : 6ms!
The monitor is superb.
But the U2410, mine, 1920x1200 really is an upgrade over 1600x1200 CRT. Mine was an Eizo T965. Save the money by not taking U2711, but U2410 insetad, and go 7970 on the videocard.
If Skyrim is your most important game you gain nothing with crossfire.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not the same thing, response time is how fast the pixel can change, lag time is how far behind the monitor is from the video card output. CRT monitors are virtually instant or right with the video card output changes. LCDs are not that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag
 
Last edited:
Loser-P said:
I'm planning on spending my tax refund on a Dell U2711 27" monitor to replace my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB.

Since I'm blowing all my refund on the new monitor, I'd like to spend around $250 or less on the new video card to replace my HD 4850.

Would either the HD 6870 or HD 6950 be capable of playing somewhat newer games (especially my current obsession Skyrim) at the Dell's native resolution of 2560 x 1440 at a decent frame rate?

Or would either of these cards be over kill considering I have a somewhat older CPU? Core 2 Quad Q9450 OC to 3.2GHz
Click to expand...

You're getting pretty heavily towards being CPU and platform limited. A 6870 would be a nice upgrade from your 4850, a 6950 a better one, but at that res you'll soon wish you had more power; especially in the CPU department.

For right now, I'd say wait (and if you're planning to spend tax return money, then you'll be waiting a little anyway I think) until a few more of the next gen cards have dropped. Waiting gets you a look at the new cards, to see if they're worth splurging on, and also the older cards get firesaled so maybe you can get that 6950 for cheaper.
 
noko said:
Actually the money saved on the HP IPS monitor may get him close to a 7970.
Click to expand...

Good advice. Coherent to the OP'ers request. And that monitor is LED too.

nycdarkness said:
I would get a 27inch 1080p instead. Your try to get a resolution that you cannot power on a single mid range gpu. I would get a 27in 1080p and look into a used gtx 580
Click to expand...

This is not only against what he wants (he specifically stressed his need for a 27" IPS monitor above all else). But it also just plain bad advice. You want him to downgrade his panel quality, and resolution(and horribly stretch out the pixel pitch ratio), AND buy a used card. lol.


demo said:
You could get a superior 1080p display to 1200p display, plus have a wider aspect ratio for gaming, 120hz etc. I would go with a 27" 1080p myself.. You wont even notice the 120 pixels, its all in your head.
Click to expand...

I got lost at the "superior" part. I'm no IPS snob, but you would get laughed at saying that most anywhere outside Rage(place is getting dumber by the year). Lets not assume everyone out there is looking for 1337 frag pwning competition gaming(that ironically must be 3D capable despite being exactly opposite to competitive gaming) monitor, and anyone that does not, is not a gamer. Pretty safe to assume, he is a gamer, casual, looking for superior(yes I said it) 2D quality, and colors and viewing angles. Ya IPS monitors sell and are in demand for a good reason.

by the way, your math is wrong with the difference between 1200 and 1080. Try 230,400 pixels. And the difference between 1080 and 1440 is 1,612,800 pixels. If seeing that difference is just your head, you should get a check up. Both cornea and cerebrum.
 
Last edited:
Sound_Card said:
I got lost at the "superior" part. I'm no IPS snob, but you would get laughed at saying that most anywhere outside Rage(place is getting dumber by the year). Lets not assume everyone out there is looking for 1337 frag pwning competition gaming(that ironically must be 3D capable despite being exactly opposite to competitive gaming) monitor, and anyone that does not, is not a gamer. Pretty safe to assume, he is a gamer, casual, looking for superior(yes I said it) 2D quality, and colors and viewing angles. Ya IPS monitors sell and are in demand for a good reason.

by the way, your math is wrong with the difference between 1200 and 1080. Try 230,400 pixels. And the difference between 1080 and 1440 is 1,612,800 pixels.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I feel a high quality 27" 120hz display is superior to a 24" 1200p 60hz display for gaming, IPS or not. No its not just on these forums, I frequent a lot of forums and many gamers say the same thing.

Not sure what you are talking about competitive gamer and 3D for, you dont have to use 3D you know? you can use 120hz 2D for that, which believe it or not blows the pants off any 60hz display for gaming.... plus you have the option of 3D for other games if you want.

No my maths isnt off, there is 120 verticle pixels difference, no need to get smart. Yes the difference between 1080p and 1200p is barely anything in the real world, and you certainly wont notice in games, but you will however notice the the wider aspect ratio of 16:9.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Sorry but I feel a high quality 27" 120hz display is superior to a 24" 1200p 60hz display for gaming, IPS or not. No its not just on these forums, I frequent a lot of forums and many gamers say the same thing.

Not sure what you are talking about competitive gamer and 3D for, you dont have to use 3D you know? you can use 120hz 2D for that, which believe it or not blows the pants off any 60hz display for gaming.... plus you have the option of 3D for other games if you want.

No my maths isnt off, there is 120 verticle pixels difference, no need to get smart. Yes the difference between 1080p and 1200p is barely anything in the real world, and you certainly wont notice in games, but you will however notice the the wider aspect ratio of 16:9.
Click to expand...

We are talking about 27" IPS 1440 monitor. But let me take a sec to :lol: superior comment again. I go as far as just leaving it right there. No one in this forum ever convinces you on anything. It's your preference, so alas, it is a failed campaign to attempt to say anything more. Your preference just conflicts with what the OP was wanting.

what does 120hz 2D mean? Does that mean better colors and, viewing angles than an IPS 60hz panel?

Congrats, you know that the second set of numbers is vertical lines. Their for, you get 120 more lines vertically(See what I did there? you ... get... 120... vertical... lines... more... but.... far.... more.... than...120... pixels.....)
So I suppose you already know that space filled 120 lines tall and 1,920 lines wide, is more than just 120 pixels of view-able space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top