Which graphic card for 3840*1024 resolution

pierricktpt · Post by **pierricktpt** » 11 Sep 2008, 00:27

Hi all,
I would like to change my 8800GTS 320Mo in order to play without lags with full details to FSX, and GTR2 principally.
I use TH2Go with 3 * 1280 *1204 19" screens.
I have multiple choice:
Radeon HD4850
Radeon HD4870
GTX 260
GTX 280
Which card do you advise for my configuration and how many RAM capicty embeded on the card?
Thanks in advance!

Post by **skipclarke** » 11 Sep 2008, 00:44

I would say the best NVIDIA you can buy. That leaves the new widescreen resolutions as a future option.

JosephJEHancock · Post by **JosephJEHancock** » 11 Sep 2008, 08:40

Basically, you need something with a hefty amount of video ram, ideally. The GTX260 would be the minimum choice for me, but if you can afford a GTX280 or even the 4870X2, then go for it.

As Ibrin said, the best NVidia you can afford is a good choice, as although the 4870 is a beast, you want loads of VRAM.

pierricktpt · Post by **pierricktpt** » 11 Sep 2008, 09:27

As Ibrin said, the best NVidia you can afford is a good choice, as although the 4870 is a beast, you want loads of VRAM.

Why do you prefer nvidia compared to ATI cards? Just for resolution capicity?
The price difference between ATI and nvidia make me think about it...

Post by **skipclarke** » 11 Sep 2008, 12:25

NVIDIA has always had better support of the high end resolutions in TH. For the longest time ATI hardware couldn't support 3840x1024, and now they can't support 5040x1050.

NVIDIA hardware/drivers have long supported pillarboxing, which is crucial when a game doesn't support widescreen. I believe ATI now has that fixed, but it's taken forever. Also, NVIDIA lets you set custom resolutions in the control panel. I used this to set a custom res of 1600x1024, for games that didn't support TH. Finally, NVIDIA has been a longtime supporter of the WSGF.

In my mind, performance between the two companies runs either neck-and-neck, or leapfrogs each six months or so. They both make good performing cards, and poor performing cards. I recommend NVIDIA, as I think they have been more widescreen and TH friendly.

JosephJEHancock · Post by **JosephJEHancock** » 11 Sep 2008, 19:17

I agree with that. For the time being they have the performance crown, because of the great price to performance ratio of the 4850 and 4870 cards, but if you are going super high end NVidia is still the winner in say Crysis, with 3 x 280 gtx. I may be waiting until they release the 212 series card early next year to replace my 8800GTX, unless ATI has a better alternative.

Yui · Post by **Yui** » 12 Sep 2008, 00:03

I'm sure no specs out there can max out FSX on busy airports and cities with 30+ framerates on very high resolutions. I'm not saying just ultra high settings; but all the sliders all the way to the right. If you have the money, then by all means get the fastest (4870 x2). You also need the fastest CPU.

allanstrings · Post by **allanstrings** » 12 Sep 2008, 07:38

As an on-the-cheap alternative (if your motherboard supports it), consider grabbing a matching 8800 and SLi... the increased resolution of triple-heading makes probably the best use of double cards, IMO. I doubled my framerates in WoW and F.E.A.R. by adding the other card (even after de-overclocking my original back to stock to match the new one).

My current understanding of the way triple-heading affects your current system vs. SLi is that if your one video card can push 1600*1200 with all the sliders up, linking a second will allow you to keep the same settings at 3x 1280*1024.

Post by **Downtown1** » 13 Sep 2008, 06:00

ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 for the 3840x1024. If that's too expensive I would say the 4870 1GB when they come out.

I had a 2x8800GTS 640MB previously and I am getting pretty much double performance.

baff · Post by **baff** » 16 Sep 2008, 17:45

I have two cards that I've tried 3840x1024 with.

Both have 1GB of RAM.

The first one cost me Â£90 and is a 9600 GT.

The second is a GTX280 and cost me Â£330.

Damned if I can see the difference. They both run Crysis on max settings with no complaint.

Krystm · Post by **Krystm** » 16 Sep 2008, 19:31

I don't know aobut 9600 GT at MAX settings at least not across 3840x1024 my system dips to about 20 FPS on Max settings and don't even think about AA.

I am upgrading 2 of my 9600s for 2 GTX280s for SLI. Id Suggest the 280 if you can afford it for having the most memory bandwidth. The ATI has a lot of good reviews too but I haven't used a ATI card since the X1600. So not really fair for me to try to tell you not to get an ATI :wink:

JosephJEHancock · Post by **JosephJEHancock** » 16 Sep 2008, 20:29

Yeah...I was going to say that myself. A 9600GT on Very High at 3840x1024? Video proof or it didn't happen...

Widescreen Gaming Forum