What Graphics Card Should I Choose?

[Baseballkid9734 0]

So, I'm building my first computer and I have most of my specs picked out. I just need to know what would be a better card. I'm looking to play games like this, CoD5 (custom maps), Left4Dead, maybe even battlefield. I'm looking for minimal fps lag on a fairly high resolution on fairly high settings. I have narrowed it down to these cards:

>http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130652

>http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130770

and this >http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814150521

any suggestions? thanks :)

[BobDole (DayZ) 129]

id buy the 550

always nvidia over ati

Edited July 30, 2012 by BobDole

[John69 64]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/15/nvidia-geforce-gtx-550-ti-1gb-review/8

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/10/22/ati-radeon-hd-6870-review/6

I think the gtx 560 SE or the HD 6870 will be the best choise, just my 2 cents. My favourite out of the 3 cards ...the HD 6870.

Also to consider, you will need a good PSU min +450W.

[drewmaw 56]

LOLZ

I have a 3750 4.5GHZ Quad and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, with 8gb of ram...

At 1920x1200 with graphics on high, normal aliasing, VSync (which is mandatory for this game) etc... I'm getting around 30-50fps.

550 or 560 isn't enough by a long shot.

Edited July 30, 2012 by drewmaw

[Noobster (DayZ) 3]

Asus > EVGA.

[Blindingsun 233]

LOLZ

I have a 3750 4.5GHZ Quad and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, with 8gb of ram...

At 1920x1200 with graphics on high, normal aliasing, VSync (which is mandatory for this game) etc... I'm getting around 30-50fps.

550 or 560 isn't enough by a long shot.

there's no reason to play at that resolution unless you're using some strange monitor. 1080p is native to most screens now.

. I'm using a 560Ti twin frozrII and I'm getting 40-60fps constantly on very high.

you have no fucking clue what you're on about.

*get an MSI card, best I've tried*. period.

*edit, but then again you've got a shitty AMD processor and I've got an i5 2500k ,. prolly why your FPS is sucking hard. LOL

Edited July 30, 2012 by Blindingsun

[drewmaw 56]

there's no reason to play at that resolution unless you're using some strange monitor. 1080p is native to most screens now.

. I'm using a 560Ti twin frozrII and I'm getting 40-60fps constantly on very high.

you have no fucking clue what you're on about.

*get an MSI card, best I've tried*. period.

*edit, but then again you've got a shitty AMD processor and I've got an i5 2500k ,. prolly why your FPS is sucking hard. LOL

AMD Processor!?? It's an Intel Sandy Bridge i5 3750!

What resolution do you play at?? My monitor is 27" and can support it, so I do it!

[BlksnshN 127]

LOLZ

I have a 3750 4.5GHZ Quad and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, with 8gb of ram...

At 1920x1200 with graphics on high, normal aliasing, VSync (which is mandatory for this game) etc... I'm getting around 30-50fps.

550 or 560 isn't enough by a long shot.

I'm running a GTX 460 at 1080p on a 47" TV and I get 30 - 60 fps. I would say that screen resolution is holding you back.

Edited July 30, 2012 by BlksnshN

[Blindingsun 233]

AMD Processor!?? It's an Intel Sandy Bridge i5 3750!

What resolution do you play at?? My monitor is 27" and can support it, so I do it!

dude there is NO reason to run a resolution higher than 1080p. none. not at all. the human eye can;t tell the difference. and as thus you're dumbasfuck.

[The_Man 393]

LOLZ

I have a 3750 4.5GHZ Quad and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, with 8gb of ram...

At 1920x1200 with graphics on high, normal aliasing, VSync (which is mandatory for this game) etc... I'm getting around 30-50fps.

550 or 560 isn't enough by a long shot.

Lol, 550 or 560 isn't enough? I game with an overclocked GTX 260 and it works great. I've played on those higher end ones and it is pretty but you don't NEED them to play this game without a disadvantage.

[BobDole (DayZ) 129]

Asus > EVGA.

good joke

[BobDole (DayZ) 129]

LOLZ

I have a 3750 4.5GHZ Quad and an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, with 8gb of ram...

At 1920x1200 with graphics on high, normal aliasing, VSync (which is mandatory for this game) etc... I'm getting around 30-50fps.

550 or 560 isn't enough by a long shot.

lulz i get better fps then you with high settings on a gtx 275 youre doing something wrong

[The_Man 393]

Make sure to invest in an SSD or nice harddrive! It will have a great affect on your FPS for this game! You don't need (but it helps!) a modern video card for this 2 year old game. Have a balanced system by not investing most of your cash into one component. Don't want to have your money wasted via bottlenecking.

[wtf im nameless 7]

dude there is NO reason to run a resolution higher than 1080p. none. not at all. the human eye can;t tell the difference. and as thus you're dumbasfuck.

People on the internet never cease to amaze me. LOL

[Prion 61]

get a 560 Ti, i got mine on sale w/ a rebate for $170. you'll be happy with that card for sure.

[kentk94 194]

People on the internet never cease to amaze me. LOL

Same thing can be said for you man. You come in here with your amazing post count, offer a snide remark and nothing to back it up.

[Sinoby 39]

dude there is NO reason to run a resolution higher than 1080p. none. not at all. the human eye can;t tell the difference. and as thus you're dumbasfuck.

Well, There is. Are you aware that some monitors are 16:9 while others are 16:10? He is using a 16:10 one, running 1080p will lead to distortion of proportions on his screen. And for 27" resolution 1920*1200 is not the best. I would go for higher one like 1440p.

But to the point of graphical cards - make sure you apply tweaks to your game, listed on different sites. I would disable AA of grass or just set 3d resolution higher then your actual one. It adds some nice sharpness st a low cost. Disabling post processing will help too since it just looks stupid anyway

[lun4tic 8]

dude there is NO reason to run a resolution higher than 1080p. none. not at all. the human eye can;t tell the difference. and as thus you're dumbasfuck.

People said the same thing about running games at 60fps, and they were wrong. Of course we can tell the difference.

[drewmaw 56]

My monitor doesn't natively display 16x9, only 16x10, which is 1920x1200...

Why would 120 more pixels make such a huge performance drop?

[wtf im nameless 7]

Same thing can be said for you man. You come in here with your amazing post count, offer a snide remark and nothing to back it up.

If someone who's calling other people "dumbasfuck" was running around saying the sky is green would you take the time to dig up facts on how the sky is really blue? Once they teach him ratios in math class he can look me up and I'll explain it in more detail. In the meantime I would suggest nobody takes Audio/Video/Computer advice from him.

[drewmaw 56]

At any rate, I've turned my Res down to 1680x1050, the next step down from 1920x1200, while maintaining the 16x10 aspect ration, and everything is on very high with +8 anti-aliasing, running at 60fps lol. :)

I can honestly say that I can't tell the difference between the two resolutions!

Thanks!

Edited July 30, 2012 by drewmaw

[blaf 63]

id buy the 550

always nvidia over ati

Err... no

[prominentalex 76]

The ATI is the card I'm getting. I love Nvidia, but I wanted to try something new. I run Arma on a GTS 250 Maxed out except no AA or shadows, and get 40fps @ 1080p.

Edited July 30, 2012 by prominentalex

[The_Man 393]

The ATI is the card I'm getting. I love Nvidia, but I wanted to try something new. I run Arma on a GTS 250 Maxed out except no AA or shadows, and get 40fps @ 1080p.

ATI is more bang for your buck!

[BigDaddyDavee 5]

9800 gt