XXXXXX

This topic is locked from further discussion.

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 89 Posts

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2338697,00.asp

I'm building a new PC:

Intel Core I7 920

Antec Sonata 500w Silent

Vista Home Premium 64-bit

6Gig DDR3 RAM

Seagate 1TB HDD

Gigabyte UD5P motherboard

Many people have told me I don't need a GTX295 and that I should get a GTX285 because I have a 1440x900 resolution, but won't I have more FPS in games with the 295? Check the link.

15 years ago

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts

295 is pointless at 1400*900 i'ld get a 4890 personally

15 years ago

1779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 WDT-BlackKat

Member since 2008 • 1779 Posts

If you can afford to build a new computer with a GTX 295, surely you can throw a couple more hundred and get a bigger monitor?

15 years ago

4636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 4636 Posts

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2338697,00.asp
I'm building a new PC:
Intel Core I7 920
Antec Sonata 500w Silent
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
6Gig DDR3 RAM
Seagate 1TB HDD
Gigabyte UD5P motherboard
Many people have told me I don't need a GTX295 and that I should get a GTX285 because I have a 1440x900 resolution, but won't I have more FPS in games with the 295? Check the link.
Vravage

Double check me to be sure, but if remember right the Sonata case use to come with a Antec Earthwatt 500w psu..and it only hade 2-6 pin connectors. the GTX 295 requires 1-6 pin and 1-8 pin connector.

15 years ago

6104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 6104 Posts

I would not use a 1440 x 900 resolution monitor with that machine personally. Doing so would essentially waste a lot of it's power. It's time to move up to 1920 x 1200 in my opinion.

15 years ago

1381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 SinfulPotato

Member since 2005 • 1381 Posts

Don't buy Vista, use Windows 7 RC and buy that in a few months when it hits shelves..

15 years ago

deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 deactivated-59d151f079814

Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

I would not use a 1440 x 900 resolution monitor with that machine personally. Doing so would essentially waste a lot of it's power. It's time to move up to 1920 x 1200 in my opinion.Bane_v2

I would say go 1680 x 1050 22".. Best of both worlds.. 1920 x 1200 imo is trouble in the sense that your computer will take a greater performance hit as time goes on.. Due to newer games getting released and being forced to play at such a high resolution..

15 years ago

1670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 Gamefreak1296

Member since 2005 • 1670 Posts

Don't buy Vista, use Windows 7 RC and buy that in a few months when it hits shelves..SinfulPotato

Agreed, Windows 7 is dramaticly less of a power hog.

15 years ago

14962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 14962 Posts

It would go to waste on such a small monitor.

15 years ago

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 87 Posts

how about going with a 4890 or something similar and putting the leftover money to get a better monitor

15 years ago

7942

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#11 aura_enchanted

Member since 2006 • 7942 Posts

f that get a 4830 enjoy your stellar frames at that resolution cause a 4670 and 9600gt do very well in that territory anyhow and anything over a 4770/4830 is bonafied overkill. save yourself even more money and get a better monitor (possibly a 20+ inch)

15 years ago

8864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 linkin_guy109

Member since 2005 • 8864 Posts

you need a bigger power supply if you want a 295, they take a minimum 600 something or 700 something wattage to run it

15 years ago

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 DataCabbitKSW

Member since 2009 • 25 Posts

You will DEFINITELY need a bigger power supply if you want to run a 295 or even a 4870x2. I will also second what some people are saying in that if you have enough cash to throw down on a new system with a 295 in it, you should shave some off to get a better monitor. You can pick up 21 or 22 inch widescreens @ 1920x1200 for cheap money (under $200). Also, I would agree to try out and use the Windows 7 RC. You will really only be delaying the purchase of an OS, but that way you are plenty used to it by the time it comes out in retail (October 22nd). Pick it up for free over here from Microsoft on TechNet: http://tinyurl.com/832nco Be forewarned that as of current, there is no official way to do an in-place upgrade from the RC/Pre-RTM builds to the final retail release version. So when the time comes, you will need to do a fresh install again.

15 years ago

8609

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Solid_Tango

Member since 2009 • 8609 Posts

get a bigger Psu like 850w

15 years ago

812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 djdarkforces

Member since 2009 • 812 Posts

what a waste of power 4890 whould max anything at that res

15 years ago

3210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 TerroRizing

Member since 2007 • 3210 Posts

[QUOTE="SinfulPotato"]Don't buy Vista, use Windows 7 RC and buy that in a few months when it hits shelves..Gamefreak1296

Agreed, Windows 7 is dramaticly less of a power hog.

I dont find its any different than vista as far as performance, and some of my programs run like garbage with it. I say give windows 7 a try, I cant be the only one who doesnt care for it.

15 years ago

2007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18 Munkyman587

Member since 2003 • 2007 Posts

[QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]
[QUOTE="SinfulPotato"]Don't buy Vista, use Windows 7 RC and buy that in a few months when it hits shelves..TerroRizing

Agreed, Windows 7 is dramaticly less of a power hog.

I dont find its any different than vista as far as performance, and some of my programs run like garbage with it. I say give windows 7 a try, I cant be the only one who doesnt care for it.

7 is considerably tuned up. It works well with old hardware, unlike vista. Don't get me wrong, I like vista more than xp... but it is a bit heavy and not the best for older machines. Even netbooks are claimed to run Win7 like butter.

15 years ago

3210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 TerroRizing

Member since 2007 • 3210 Posts

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"][QUOTE="Gamefreak1296"]
Agreed, Windows 7 is dramaticly less of a power hog.
Munkyman587

I dont find its any different than vista as far as performance, and some of my programs run like garbage with it. I say give windows 7 a try, I cant be the only one who doesnt care for it.

7 is considerably tuned up. It works well with old hardware, unlike vista. Don't get me wrong, I like vista more than xp... but it is a bit heavy and not the best for older machines. Even netbooks are claimed to run Win7 like butter.

Ya it does seem to scale better, but I had some serious issues on my machine. So far windows vista 64 is my favorite version of windows.

15 years ago

365

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 365 Posts

sorry, this may be a bit out of place here but i've wondered this for a while - you say it's a waste at 1440x900, but would this not mean a longer period until an upgrade would be required?

15 years ago

831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 831 Posts

sorry, this may be a bit out of place here but i've wondered this for a while - you say it's a waste at 1440x900, but would this not mean a longer period until an upgrade would be required?
stumunro

By having such a low resolution it'll be putting more work load on the CPU than the GPU. Until very intense games start coming out, don't say Crysis because it sucks, then it is a waste.

15 years ago

420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Carminesqueez

Member since 2009 • 420 Posts

better to have a high res like 1920x1080 to blast off that 295. use it on a 1080p. if your point is just to have high fps on a low res, yes you'll have high numbers but there's no difference on the eyes compare to a geForce9800 or gts250 running on 1440x900.

15 years ago

3210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 TerroRizing

Member since 2007 • 3210 Posts

[QUOTE="stumunro"]
sorry, this may be a bit out of place here but i've wondered this for a while - you say it's a waste at 1440x900, but would this not mean a longer period until an upgrade would be required?
Carminesqueez

no. it's not like that.

Sure it is, eventually a gts 250 wont cut it at all for new games. I dont know where some of you come up with this stuff. Pop in crysis, or even something like far cry 2 and compare the two cards at 1440*900.

15 years ago

420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Carminesqueez

Member since 2009 • 420 Posts

[QUOTE="Carminesqueez"][QUOTE="stumunro"]
sorry, this may be a bit out of place here but i've wondered this for a while - you say it's a waste at 1440x900, but would this not mean a longer period until an upgrade would be required?
TerroRizing

no. it's not like that.

Sure it is, eventually a gts 250 wont cut it at all for new games. I dont know where some of you come up with this stuff. Pop in crysis, or even something like far cry 2 and compare the two cards at 1440*900.

i mean yeah it's a longer period until an upgrade would be required. he is definitely future-proofing on a 295. i misunderstood it. i thought he was sayin that a "longer period until an upgrade is required" if he will use it on a low resolution. that's my mistake

15 years ago

3210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 TerroRizing

Member since 2007 • 3210 Posts

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]
[QUOTE="Carminesqueez"] no. it's not like that.Carminesqueez

Sure it is, eventually a gts 250 wont cut it at all for new games. I dont know where some of you come up with this stuff. Pop in crysis, or even something like far cry 2 and compare the two cards at 1440*900.

i mean yeah it's a longer period until an upgrade would be required. he is definitely future-proofing on a 295. i misunderstood it. i thought he was sayin that a "longer period until an upgrade is required" if he will use it on a low resolution. that's my mistake

its ok, i say many muchstupider things myself from time to time.

15 years ago

3630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 3630 Posts

I don't think the 295 or any 10.5" card will fit in the Sonata, I've got one and I had to take all my parts out and put them into my Lian-Li case to fit my GTX 275 in.

Also, 500w won't be sufficient for the 295 I don't think.

Get a 4890 or GTX 285.

15 years ago

977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 Masterdj1992

Member since 2007 • 977 Posts

4890 with Vapor X Cooling

24 Inch HD Monitor

Just get these instead of 295.... There I linked so you know b/c everyone kept saying to get so here is your decision! :P

15 years ago

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment