Best Gpu for 1600 x 900

So I have a friend who finally decided to upgrade his gpu to something that can actually play 3d games. As above his resolution is 1600x 900. He doesnt mind used cards so i looked around for him and found an Asus 550 ti for $125. NOW I know these cards arent the best, but for his resolution and a certain price, I was thinking its ok. Maybe if i haggle it down to 100? Thanks

If he wants a card that will run new and future games at his res, he would probably want a minimum of an overclocked 460 or 6850.C_Rule

So if he expects to runs things on high, he needs a 460/6850? He just doenst want to spend too much, so this 550 ti looked promising.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]If he wants a card that will run new and future games at his res, he would probably want a minimum of an overclocked 460 or 6850.Azurites

So if he expects to runs things on high, he needs a 460/6850? He just doenst want to spend too much, so this 550 ti looked promising.

You certainly wouldn't want more than a 460 at that res if you're on a budget. My 275 is far from high end now, but it still runs everything fine for me at 1920x1080. A 460 is better, so i doubt you'd need more.

Comom people his friend is getting a graphics card for the first time, not everyone needs a 460 or 6850.:?

If you want to save money then get this, it will play every game at high at that resolution. Just remember that you can get SIGNIFICANTLY more performance by spending around $50-70 more. A new GTX 550 is going for $135 so if you want that you might as well spend the $10 more and get a new card, never been a fan of used products.

Although I have a GTX560ti I cannot recommend the 550ti. I recommend getting a 6790, far more performance and an absolute steal at its price. Here is a in depth review of the 6790.freesafety13

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390

At those price ranges the GTX 460 is the way to go imo especially for that resolution. If you want a 200-240$ card 560 Ti I would recommend for those res.

Especially if you consider overclocking, the GTX 460 @ 150$ is an amazing value.

1600x900 is considered a low resolution, so any card around 100 bucks should do as long as you pay attention, I would recommend the 5770 or the 450/550.

Comom people his friend is getting a graphics card for the first time, not everyone needs a 460 or 6850.:?

If you want to save money then get this, it will play every game at high at that resolution. Just remember that you can get SIGNIFICANTLY more performance by spending around $50-70 more. A new GTX 550 is going for $135 so if you want that you might as well spend the $10 more and get a new card, never been a fan of used products.

Gambler_3

the 6790 IS getting cheaper but its not there yet 10 dollars more and then itd be top dog at its price tag its very close but those 460's sitll ahve quite a grip when it falls into the 130-140 price tag itd DEFINTETLY get favour over the 5770 and 460 SE

450? Are you serious? Just because it's his first card, doesn't mean he can't get a good one.C_Rule

"but for his resolution and a certain price, I was thinking its ok. Maybe if i haggle it down to 100? Thanks"

While you can certainly get more value by spending a bit more, that's not what the TC wants to do. The 450 will play metro 2033 in high at that res, what else will someone upgrading from integrated want??

whoa o.0 calm down people lol. Anyway I intitally also suggested the 5770 and the 460, but once he heard it was a "last" gen card, he lost interest. Yes, I also know this a terrible reason to overlook those two cards, but hes unreasonable. Anyway I convinced him to up his budget a bit, and he says 1xx. So I guess the 6850 is up his alley. Thanks alot

Also an old Enermax 550w should run it all just fine right?

[QUOTE="freesafety13"]Although I have a GTX560ti I cannot recommend the 550ti. I recommend getting a 6790, far more performance and an absolute steal at its price. Here is a in depth review of the 6790.Gambler_3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="freesafety13"]Although I have a GTX560ti I cannot recommend the 550ti. I recommend getting a 6790, far more performance and an absolute steal at its price. Here is a in depth review of the 6790.freesafety13

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390

Hm I just noticed thats the 6790, I read that as 6970 and dismissed it as too much =P. Now its between that and the 6850 which is quiet a bit more for a bit more power. It does seem a good choice.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="freesafety13"]Although I have a GTX560ti I cannot recommend the 550ti. I recommend getting a 6790, far more performance and an absolute steal at its price. Here is a in depth review of the 6790.freesafety13

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390

*sigh* If only more people used these....

For the resolution in question, this is not even a contest......

[QUOTE="freesafety13"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]How the hell is that good value let alone a "steal"?:?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390

Gambler_3

*sigh* If only more people used these....

For the resolution in question, this is not even a contest......

i have one beef with this and that the 465 is WORSE than the 6850 in EVERYTHING

i have one beef with this and that the 465 is WORSE than the 6850 in EVERYTHING

ionusX

The 450 will play metro 2033 in high at that res

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The 450 will play metro 2033 in high at that res

C_Rule

Any graphics card above HD 4850 will let you play at 1600x900 resolution without problems.

That resolution is not a big deal to be honest.

i have one beef with this and that the 465 is WORSE than the 6850 in EVERYTHING

ionusX

Empirical data using new drivers says otherwise, as the chart shows.

Any graphics card above HD 4850 will let you play at 1600x900 resolution without problems.

That resolution is not a big deal to be honest.

BLaZiNg_SPEED

I can assure you, you won't be maxing recent games with a 4850 or 450 @1600x900.

450 being able to max metro is the most absurd thing I have read on this forum.


I like to play my games, not turn them into slide shows.

C_Rule

I said high not very high or any DX11 features.

DX10 high settings with no AA is going to be really smooth with a GTS 450, I know it and not just going from some benchmarks.....

[QUOTE="BLaZiNg_SPEED"]

Any graphics card above HD 4850 will let you play at 1600x900 resolution without problems.

That resolution is not a big deal to be honest.

C_Rule

Well I don't know I never had a HD 4850. I had a HD 4890 which was running all my games including Crysis at 1920x1200 resolution all high settings.

I presume that since my HD 4890 is just a bit weaker than the HD 4850. He should be able to play all of his games with a HD 4850 especially since it is 1600x900 and not 1920x1200.

I do not consider 1600x900 as a very high resolution! So if a HD 4850 can't handle it, then no card similar to that would be able to handle it.:roll:

Max, high, same thing. You get less than 20 fps with near max settings @1600x900. You'd have to turn the settings right down to get anything playable.C_Rule

There is a "high" setting and a "very high" setting, there is a phenominal performance difference between the 2......and then there are some useless but utterly demanding DX11 settings which should be steered clear of unless you have SLI or CF....

There you go.....

:roll:

My God, that Min. Framerate is awful. There is no way I would consider that game playable with a minimum framerate of 6. No thanks. With that said, Gambler, you are correct that a 460 will outperform the 6790 at the resolution in question but for the same price I figured the OC could easily get a 6790 and be able to play games at a higher FPS once they upgrade to 1920x1080.freesafety13

And secondly it will happen no matter what the settings, it's just poor optimization by the devs.

See even in low settings. The run 1 doubles your min FPS.

And GTX 460 is better in any resolution....

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The 450 will play metro 2033 in high at that res

Gambler_3

This is an amalgamation of 2 different memes, "Are you a wizard?" which implies that you can do something no one else can and "Magnets, how do they work?" which implies that you don't know what you are talking about.

He is saying that you are making outlandish claims.

No one considers 11 fps decent.

No one considers 11 fps decent.

GummiRaccoon

Other than Metro, a GTX 460 is more than enough to play all modern games at high settings at 1600x900. It's a pretty low res really.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

No one considers 11 fps decent.

Gambler_3

oh wait.

heres the proof that proves you are right. i thought everyone knew METRO and the original Crysis was horribly coded, and thats the real reason PCs have such a hard time running these games.

best minimum frames per second on all the upper tier cards is 13 at medium.

so. yeah. take all advice from this forum with a boulder of salt :P.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

No one considers 11 fps decent.

gearsofhalogeek

oh wait.

heres the proof that proves you are right. i thought everyone knew METRO and the original Crysis was horribly coded, and thats the real reason PCs have such a hard time running these games.

best minimum frames per second on all the upper tier cards is 13 at medium.

so. yeah. take all advice from this forum with a boulder of salt :P.

I would be interested in seeing the minimum FPS of better cards.....even in LOW settings I cannot get better than 14....Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I would be interested in seeing the minimum FPS of better cards.....even in LOW settings I cannot get better than 14....freesafety13

I was talking about the frontline one....that is the one which seems to have a min FPS bottleneck....

That's not the same benchmark. I was talking about the frontline one....that is the one which seems to have a min FPS bottleneck....Gambler_3