9800gtx+ or upgrade to gtx 260 core216?

Hi, I currently have a 9800gtx+ card in my computer. It was probably bought around... 30 days ago at max. I WANT to run games a 1900X1080 res maybe upto 1920X1200, and be able to play crysis so it looks pretty. My question is, is it worth it to wait like another month and do 90day setup and get one of the gtx 260 core 216 cards? I figure in 30 more days its probably it might devalue more. I dont know if I want to wait to getting close to 90 days...

Please tell me your opinions

 

well, to be honest, it depends what settings you want crysis to run at.

A GTX 260 216 55nm SSC will run crysis at very high 1680x1050 at 30fps average. As soon as it bumps up the resolution to 1920x1080, your going to drop below 25-30fps average and its gonna get choppy.

1920x1080 is an expensive resolution in terms of the hardware you need to run games at it. i'd say a GTX280 or GTX285 minimum for running 1920x1080, but thats just me.

 

okay, well, skip the 1920X1200 screen, we will just stick w/ 1920X1080 (I can always run the screen at non native res). So you saying get the gtx 260? Does anyone have a guess at how much the price will drop in a month or a month and a half?

 

i think you should buy aopther 9800gtx+ two in SLI have better perfonace that an single gtx260 216 and gonna give more perfonmance at that resolution..

 

260 kills the 9800GTX+ @1920x1200, which is just a die shrink to 55nm on the 8800 GTS 512mb (1.5 year old card) compared to the much faster GT200 based cards (260/280).

There is nothing about the 9800GTX+ which makes it a better choice over the 260 (especially considering 260's are ~$200 now).

Also to the people suggesting he buy another card and SLI, isn't he using the eVGA step-up program to get the 260?

 

SLI 9800GTX+ is faster then 1 260/280.@ 1920x1200 no AA
My tri sli 9800GTX+ is faster then my 280 sli with no AA @1920x1200

Just hope when my new cards come they will be faster then my 9800GTX+ LOL,of course they will.

 

How can he do SLI with the eVGA step-up program. You realize they only send you one card right?

 

I had to make the same decision that you are. I'm also running at 1920x1200. It's debatable whether the SLI 9800GTX+s outperform a single GTX 260 (need to see benchmarks). The point is, though, that the GTX 260's offer an incredible performance boost, especially at higher resolutions. Considering their prices are nearing the $200 mark, as LedHed said, there is no reason to purchase old technology and SLI it. This is energetically costly and produces a lot of heat. At that resolution, you can expect 45+ frames on Crysis, which is fine. This way, you would be able to buy another GTX 260 if prices went down further.

In short, I would step up to the GTX 260 216.

EDIT: I would also wait as long as possible before the 90 days. Prices should start going down.

 

yeah, point is im not going to spend 150 more on a 9800gtx+ that requires me to get a whole new power supply, im just talkin about single card solutions right now... I dont have the cash to get a 800w psu. plus, in the future isnt it better to have 2 260s insted of 2 9800gtx+'s?


so far im getting understanding that you are saying upgrade...

btw has anyone done the 90day setup program? id kinda like to know how it works...


and... 3rdly would I see a huge improvement of speed with the core 216 insted of the core 192 ( standard core )? its still like 300 bucks for a core 216, I mean for that I could almost buy a gtx 280 because they have a massive rebate.

 

Well considering an 8800 GT in SLI beat a GTX 260.....not promoting him doing SLI as he's doing step up, but yes, the 9800 GTX+ in SLI would have better performance, but you have to figure: it's SLI, and SLI has it's own set of problems

http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_charts_crysis/

as to the OP, if you want to play Crysis/Crysis Warhead at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, look at the VGA chart, at 1920x1200 (which will be basically the same performance as 1920x1080), a GTX 260 Core 216 Superclock plays the game at that resolution at 48FPS, and that's on MEDIUM

Now i can tell you from experience, i was able to play the game at very high settings with two 8800 GT's in SLI at 1680x1050 "decently", a GTX 260 would perform less...i can't really give you any suggestion to play crysis/crysis warhead at that resolution with nice graphics other then a GTX 295...i know, it's expensive...but that's just the way it is

 

260gtx 216 core is good

AT that resolution i would get a 295gtx.

 

Ah, this is true. My mistake. I'm used to all these benchmarks at full settings. I guess you will just need to compromise price vs performance. Hopefully the prices of GTX 260s will go down some.

What about a GTX 280 overclocked? Or the GTX 285? My budget precludes me from buying a 295.

 

No doubts, go for the GTX 260/216 and if you can look forward for the GTX 280 or even so the new GTX 285.

You wont be dissapointed at all.:banana:

 

Thing is, crysis looks awesome at high settings without AA at even 1280x1024 res. Playing crysis at highend resolutions with AA and very high settings isnt possible with playable fps. That depends ofcourse if you can play a game with drops to 10 fps and average of 20ish fps and still call it playable, I dont.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,758.html

This is an example, the best performers is playing at 22 fps average. Imo the idea with crysis isnt to run it at high resos, as I said before it already looks awesome at any res and any detail settings. Crysis can be run for braging rights and as a benchmark, but if you want to play through the game, I for one went through it at 1280x1024 @ medium with no AA just to be able to have great fps instead of kickass graphics. It still looked great, and I didnt suck because i had drops to 5 fps. Imo thats more important than better looking graphics.

 

i went from a 9800gtx to a 260 (stock) and game @1920x1200.

very happy.

but if u have the cash and have a fast cpu (3.4ghz or over) go for a 280/285/295.

thats what i'm doing.

 

I was going to go 295, but CF 4850's for well under $200(US) is too good of a deal to double the price for less than 40% more performance.

 

still, I cant buy a sli card because... I dont have 300 dollers for another graphics card and another psu, so... yeah

 

well, i've been reading that a GTX 260 c216 or even regular 260 can overclock just as well as a 280 in performance, 285 however may be a little different if they keep the voltages up with a decent cooler (unlike what they did with the GTX 260 c216 55nm)

but even then, at the OP's resolution, it more then likely still won't be able to play Crysis/Warehead at highest settings at either 1980x1050/1200, pretty much the only graphics card setups that would, would be GTX 260 SLI(included c216 and 55nm), GTX 280/285 SLI, or GTX 295

Now, a GTX 260 c216 will suffice the OP for every other game at that resolution for the most part except Crysis

 

It will be worth it for you to go with a GTX 260/c216/55nm (either of the 3 will be good), most games at that resolution with that card will be fine, you'll just have to wait a bit longer to play crysis at that resolution with everything at the highest they can be, i don't even then the 40nm GT212 card will be able to play Crysis at that resolution at very high settings, and that card looks to be a beast, i'm suspecting that no single-GPU will be able to at least until the GT300 series

 

i don't trust tomshardware worth anything, but i agree with your post