# Video Card(s)??



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

Ok first, a quick overview of what I have

Case: Thermaltake V9 Black
Motherboard: ASRock X58
CPU: Intel I7 2.8GHz
Ram: 12 gigs DDR3
Sound: Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fata1ty Professional
Power: BFG Tech EX-1200 1200W
Physx: EVGA GeForce 9800 1GB
Video: ?!?!?!!

This is the question, should I get 1 GTX 295 or 2 GTX 260's on a SLI???


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> Ok first, a quick overview of what I have
> 
> Case: Thermaltake V9 Black
> Motherboard: ASRock X58
> ...


 
You just fried my brain with all that tech talk. I'm good with computers, but not that good. Sorry can't help. Mabye if you explain a little I can help.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 12, 2010)

Better question: Why?

Are you trying to tell us that what you currently have isn't able to run something?  'Cause if that's true, somethings severely messed up with your setup... that or you're expecting 60+ fps at 16800x10500 on your 300" monitor.

Reality: You have NO reason to upgrade yet.  Wait until you actually can't run something at godlike frame rates, then upgrade.  And there's no point in SLI unless you run dual gaming monitors.  Better to take that cash that's burning a hole in your pocket and save it for a while.  Could well be another year before you have to consider an upgrade, and I guarantee you that in 1 year, that same cash will be a LOT better card than it will today.


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> You just fried my brain with all that tech talk. I'm good with computers, but not that good. Sorry can't help. Mabye if you explain a little I can help.


 
Long story short, I built the computer the way I want, got everything great, I just need to know what would work better for gaming/that computer the one video card or 2. (dont know your knowlage, so im a guess) the 9800 is stand alone Physx only (offloading physics calculations from the CPU and let the CPU run faster per-say), I didnt install the video drivers, with the SLI (Scalable Link Interface) I can run 2 video card as 1 top share the load of the graphics. 
I just dont know if the 2 260's will be better than the 1 295 or not


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Better question: Why?
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that what you currently have isn't able to run something? 'Cause if that's true, somethings severely messed up with your setup... that or you're expecting 60+ fps at 16800x10500 on your 300" monitor.
> 
> Reality: You have NO reason to upgrade yet. Wait until you actually can't run something at godlike frame rates, then upgrade. And there's no point in SLI unless you run dual gaming monitors. Better to take that cash that's burning a hole in your pocket and save it for a while. Could well be another year before you have to consider an upgrade, and I guarantee you that in 1 year, that same cash will be a LOT better card than it will today.


 
There thats all i needed to know, I run 3 displays, and all the monitors are 1920x1080 at 60htz 28 inch


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> Long story short, I built the computer the way I want, got everything great, I just need to know what would work better for gaming/that computer the one video card or 2. (dont know your knowlage, so im a guess) the 9800 is stand alone Physx only (offloading physics calculations from the CPU and let the CPU run faster per-say), I didnt install the video drivers, with the SLI (Scalable Link Interface) I can run 2 video card as 1 top share the load of the graphics.
> I just dont know if the 2 260's will be better than the 1 295 or not


 
Which was made first? I've had the experience that if you use an older version of something it tends to work better. For example an older version of car may be safer and be more reliable than a new suped up one.


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

Well I have 2 (this one is the 3rd) computers, this one is for gaming only, this one is a internet computer (lol got it at walmart) and the other one is just to play around with it has a 9800 and TowClaws isright the 9800 alone running Physx and Graphics does fine, unless I play a game and put it to hd settings.. and I have the bug.. I just want more power


----------



## xcliber (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> Ok first, a quick overview of what I have
> 
> Case: Thermaltake V9 Black
> Motherboard: ASRock X58
> ...


Either option would be sufficient.
If it helps, lookup the benchmarks results and comparisons for the two setups. I've heard of people having trouble with the GTX 295 though. In your case, you should probably go with the dual GTX 260s. They will be cheaper than the 295, and will have more than enough power to plow through all of todays latest games at the highest settings/resolutions. Personally, i would wait for the GTX 400 series to be released later this month if you want the best.



Furry Gamer said:


> You just fried my brain with all that tech talk. I'm good with computers, but not that good. Sorry can't help. Mabye if you explain a little I can help.


Then why are you posting in this thread? 
I thought his description of his dilemma was quite clear: "Which is better: 2x GTX260x or 1x GTX295?"



ToeClaws said:


> Better question: Why?
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that what you currently have isn't able to run something? 'Cause if that's true, somethings severely messed up with your setup... that or you're expecting 60+ fps at 16800x10500 on your 300" monitor.
> 
> Reality: You have NO reason to upgrade yet. Wait until you actually can't run something at godlike frame rates, then upgrade. And there's no point in SLI unless you run dual gaming monitors. Better to take that cash that's burning a hole in your pocket and save it for a while. Could well be another year before you have to consider an upgrade, and I guarantee you that in 1 year, that same cash will be a LOT better card than it will today.


WTF?! He asked which setup is better, not whether or not he should upgrade.
And FYI, I have almost the identical setup (i7 920, 6GB DDR3, 9800GTX+) and some newer games do come in at about 30-45 FPS with the settings maxed out at 1680x1050 resolution. The 9800 is an outdated card and with Moore's Law, now is as good a time as any to upgrade it.


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

xcliber said:


> Either option would be sufficient.
> If it helps, lookup the benchmarks results and comparisons for the two setups. I've heard of people having trouble with the GTX 295 though. In your case, you should probably go with the dual GTX 260s. Personally, i would wait for the GTX 400 series to be released later this month if you want the best.
> 
> 
> ...


 

That should help, I think Ill go with the 260's..
(>'.')><('.'<) and a hug for you. I think you need it


----------



## xcliber (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> That should help, I think Ill go with the 260's..
> (>'.')><('.'<) and a hug for you. I think you need it


YAY! *hugs



Furry Gamer said:


> Which was made first? I've had the experience that if you use an older version of something it tends to work better. For example an older version of car may be safer and be more reliable than a new suped up one.


Not always true. Actually in the case of cars, usually the newer ones are safer and usually just as or more reliable. In this case it's irrelevant though. 
The difference isn't in the age of the product, it's in how powerful it is. A GTX295 is technically more powerful than 2 GTX260s, but both have been around long enough to have most of the bugs ironed out on both the hardware and driver sides.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 12, 2010)

xcliber said:


> WTF?! He asked which setup is better, not whether or not he should upgrade.
> And FYI, I have almost the identical setup (i7 920, 6GB DDR3, 9800GTX+) and some newer games do come in at about 30-45 FPS with the settings maxed out at 1680x1050 resolution. The 9800 is an outdated card and with Moore's Law, now is as good a time as any to upgrade it.



Thought he was asking about upgrading. *shrugs*  Deep breath now.

And umm... 30 to 45 fps is still good - movies only run at 24.  There's always the argument that higher rates help more in shooters and other games demanding quick reaction time, but at 24+ fps, I think the player's individual skills are more a factor than animation speed.

Oh a sidenote... holy crap - where are you guys getting the funds to build such godlike hardware?


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Thought he was asking about upgrading. *shrugs*  Deep breath now.
> 
> And umm... 30 to 45 fps is still good - movies only run at 24.  There's always the argument that higher rates help more in shooters and other games demanding quick reaction time, but at 24+ fps, I think the player's individual skills are more a factor than animation speed.
> 
> Oh a sidenote... holy crap - where are you guys getting the funds to build such godlike hardware?



My job.. I get everything off Newegg/Tiger Direct and build myself, This one cost about $2000, but I dont buy it all at once, spend about 4 or 5 hundred a month. :|


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> My job.. I get everything off Newegg/Tiger Direct and build myself, This one cost about $2000, but I dont buy it all at once, spend about 4 or 5 hundred a month. :|



Nice.   Had that at one point too.  What with trying to pay off debts and save up for a house, I'm guessing it'll be 2040 before I have that sorta frivolity cash again. >_<


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 12, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Nice.   Had that at one point too.  What with trying to pay off debts and save up for a house, I'm guessing it'll be 2040 before I have that sorta frivolity cash again. >_<




Yeah debt is a bitch, but I wont let that stand in the way of a little fun


----------



## Nollix (Mar 12, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> You just fried my brain with all that tech talk. I'm good with computers, but not that good. Sorry can't help. Mabye if you explain a little I can help.





Furry Gamer said:


> Which was made first? I've had the experience that if you use an older version of something it tends to work better. For example an older version of car may be safer and be more reliable than a new suped up one.



Wow, you're an idiot.

Also@OP:
Don't SLI 260s, get at least 275s. The 295 by itself is comparable to 275s in SLI.


----------



## Liam (Mar 12, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> Yeah debt is a bitch, but I wont let that stand in the way of a little fun


Until the bank forecloses your rig.


----------



## xcliber (Mar 12, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Thought he was asking about upgrading. *shrugs*  Deep breath now.
> 
> And umm... 30 to 45 fps is still good - movies only run at 24.  There's always the argument that higher rates help more in shooters and other games demanding quick reaction time, but at 24+ fps, I think the player's individual skills are more a factor than animation speed.
> 
> Oh a sidenote... holy crap - where are you guys getting the funds to build such godlike hardware?


T'sall good.

Movies are prerendered/recorded. Games are rendered on the fly. 25-35 fps is playable, but often stutters, and looks/feels more like 10-15. You really need a constant 60+ for games to be responsive enough to be fun and to play as smooth as a movie. (I think Interlacing in movies and the lack thereof in games has something to do with it)

I started mine with a tax refund 3 years ago and have been upgrading since. This year's taxes brought in enough to make the jump to a Core i7 with 6GB of DDR3 ram. Aside from the that and the Mobo, I already had the rest of my components from months past. Got the video card last summer(ish). So it's not like I just jumped up and bought a $2000 rig one day.



Nollix said:


> Don't SLI 260s, get at least 275s. The 295 by itself is comparable to 275s in SLI.


This is true, but it's also more expensive (by maybe $200).
260s will hold him until the next round of hardware comes around. But if he can afford it, then yes, a pair of 275s would probably be worth it.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm just gonna chime in and say that you should wait for the 400 series rather than spending inordinate amounts of money on the already-obsolete, yet powerful 200-series just to upgrade from an already still-decent 9800. Sure, it's showing its age, but wait the few months - At the very least, even if you don't want the 400-series cards, the price of the 200-series will fall and you'll save yourself some cash to drop on other stuff.


----------



## xcliber (Mar 13, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I'm just gonna chime in and say that you should wait for the 400 series rather than spending inordinate amounts of money on the already-obsolete, yet powerful 200-series just to upgrade from an already still-decent 9800. Sure, it's showing its age, but wait the few months - At the very least, even if you don't want the 400-series cards, the price of the 200-series will fall and you'll save yourself some cash to drop on other stuff.


I said this once already, but you said it better. So I'll just second this!


----------



## Maxwell (Mar 13, 2010)

No ati love?
Get either a 5890 OP, or wait till the 4 series, which is soon.


----------



## xcliber (Mar 13, 2010)

Maxwell said:


> No ati love?
> Get either a 5890 OP, or wait till the 4 series, which is soon.


You can't use a 9800 as a dedicated physx card with ATI.


----------



## Maxwell (Mar 13, 2010)

xcliber said:


> You can't use a 9800 as a dedicated physx card with ATI.


You can if your running 7.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 13, 2010)

Maxwell said:


> You can if your running 7.



Actually, I think that nVidia's drivers disallow this altogether. You'd pretty much have to install a modified driver to do that, which won't work under 64-bit Windows, either. In order to have actual PhysX acceleration, you'd need an all-nVidia machine, at least, for now. Compute Shaders in DX11 cards should take that need away, but we'll see how that goes.


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Mar 13, 2010)

Maxwell said:


> You can if your running 7.



lol now thats something I didnt know


----------



## xcliber (Mar 13, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> lol now thats something I didnt know


I don't think it's worth attempting. You would probably need modified drivers, and there's no guarantee it will work.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 13, 2010)

ShadowWolf401 said:


> lol now thats something I didnt know


It used to be the case, but it isn't any more; Ever since Forceware version 186, nVidia GPU's no longer allow PhysX acceleration if a non-nVidia GPU is also present in the system. In other words, it won't work any more without a modified driver.

Also, on an unrelated note, I feel sad for the rest of your system - An ASRock motherboard? Really?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 13, 2010)

Seems like you're going with the best reguardless of cost...

HD5970 is the best out there, even the GTX480's can't touch it in power or price.

If that's a bit too costly then try a HD5870. Both are made by ATi, but if you don't care ATi/Nvidia then right now ATi is the better option in terms of price and performance.


----------



## xcliber (Mar 13, 2010)

I actually have the same Mobo (unfortunately). I was building on a budget. It does it's job though. I can't get even a small stable overclock on it.

No big deal though considering the i7 is powerful enough without ocing.


----------



## Kiva19 (Mar 13, 2010)

I agree. Why don't you go with an ATI card? I am currently trying to decide what I want to put in my compy. I only have one PCI-E slot, so I am limited to a single card. I'm thinking about a Radeon HD 5850. 

If I were you, I'd go with ATI =P


----------



## Runefox (Mar 13, 2010)

I'd like to reiterate that if he's looking to use PhysX acceleration using the 9800 he already has, he needs to continue to use nVidia graphics cards - nVidia disabled the ability for their cards to run PhysX when ATI cards are present in the system, so it's either all nVidia+PhysX or ATI with no PhysX.


----------



## Kiva19 (Mar 14, 2010)

Oh. I never really thought of that. Then again, I've never had the money to dedicate an entire graphics card to doing physics processes =P


----------



## Nollix (Mar 14, 2010)

Physx is a worthless gimmick anyway. Go with ATI unless you wanna wait for Fermi.


----------



## Hyena (Mar 14, 2010)

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but rumor has it Nvidia is going to take the GTS 250 / GTX 260, 275 ETC ETC, give them Direct X 11 support and rename them the GTS 350 / GTX 360 etc etc, I would wait for that to come out *if* they go that route, I wouldn't be investing in a DX10 card. If you don't want to wait that long, I would suggest the ATI HD5,000 cards, they seem to be leading in price, power and most certainly efficiency. Crossfire two ATI HD5770's and you'll get a bit more power than two GTX 260's and about the same performance as a GTX 295 and with the ATI 5's you get DX 11 support. You can pick up the 5770 from XFX (good brand) for around $154 right now. really good deal. 

short of it, don't spend your money on a DX 10 card, with Windows 7 and DX 11 being out, and Vista getting DX 11 as well, I kind of see a DX 10 card as a waste of money unless you get a really really good deal like I did ( GTS 250 512MB for $99 about 6 months ago)


----------



## incongruency (Mar 15, 2010)

Hyena said:


> I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but rumor has it Nvidia is going to take the GTS 250 / GTX 260, 275 ETC ETC, give them Direct X 11 support and rename them the GTS 350 / GTX 360 etc etc, I would wait for that to come out *if* they go that route, I wouldn't be investing in a DX10 card. If you don't want to wait that long, I would suggest the ATI HD5,000 cards, they seem to be leading in price, power and most certainly efficiency. Crossfire two ATI HD5770's and you'll get a bit more power than two GTX 260's and about the same performance as a GTX 295 and with the ATI 5's you get DX 11 support. You can pick up the 5770 from XFX (good brand) for around $154 right now. really good deal.
> 
> short of it, don't spend your money on a DX 10 card, with Windows 7 and DX 11 being out, and Vista getting DX 11 as well, I kind of see a DX 10 card as a waste of money unless you get a really really good deal like I did ( GTS 250 512MB for $99 about 6 months ago)


As much as I agree with you, and as much as I enjoy my 5770, it needs to be said again:  The original poster has an nVidia Physx card and because of this _cannot_ use an ATi card and continue to have Physx acceleration.

In this case, ATi is out of the question.


----------

