GTX460 sli for $130 or a single card

[Goku]

The 560s will probably start to choke at 2560x1600 if that is what you plan on doing. Their both ram starved and underpowered for that resolution in my opinion anyway.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Goku

The 560s will probably start to choke at 2560x1600 if that is what you plan on doing. Their both ram starved and underpowered for that resolution in my opinion anyway.

Due to the particular model I've got, I've got 2 gigs on each card. I suspect the video RAM won't be holding me back. We'll see how the power holds up. I'm optimistic since 560's aren't *that* far behind 570's.

[Goku]

It will play games but it's still underpowered for that resolution IMO. Worse case a excuse to get a gtx 670 or 680.

[Hyncharas]

I would say SLI; however, any game at retail seems to only accommodate it after the first balance patch.

[MonsterBone]

All good FPS players run low res anyways so whats the point?

[Knocky]

I use a 32' 720p TV for my monitor.

I use a 1360 x 768 resolution.

I have taken it to 1920 x 1080.

The only real difference I see is that the UI is smaller.

Graphic wise I do not see any difference.

Perhaps if I were to take screen shots and look at em side by side I would.

But why would I want a 2560x1600 resolution?

[Goku]

You see more area with a higher resolution. Graphics don't get better. I prefer 1920x1080 verse something like 1280x720 due to seeing more.

[kaffis]

It's about maintaining a dot pitch (so the graphics don't look *worse*) while increasing viewable area, as Goku alluded to. I've got a 1920x1200 24" display, and that's a good enough dot pitch that I don't often get bothered by things like aliasing. But if I want to increase the screen size to 27" or 30" or whatever, I need to increase the resolution or else my dot pitch will be degrading and I run the risk of getting back in a bothersome range, image quality-wise.

As for "good FPS gamers run at low resolutions anyways"... I don't know what to say, man. If I run a good framerate, turning down the graphics so I can't see detail as well just to get a *better* framerate seems silly. You do know that even if my reflexes are awesome enough that framerates above 45, or 60, or 75, or wherever you want to draw that line matter... there isn't a display on the planet that will do anything with more than 120 frames a second. So turning down your resolution and graphics options to get that leet 240fps is, well... yeah.

And I can say, by the same token, then, that "good FPS players buy good rigs for themselves" and accomplish the same thing.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

Originally Posted by Hyncharas

I would say SLI; however, any game at retail seems to only accommodate it after the first balance patch.

It's a planning and timing issue. "Automatic" SLI support depends upon profiles that are included in the drivers. Since drivers need testing, there's a turn-around time. Some games optimize down to the wire and that can affect the profile in the driver.

[RNFB]

Originally Posted by Goku

You see more area with a higher resolution. Graphics don't get better. I prefer 1920x1080 verse something like 1280x720 due to seeing more.

This is incorrect, and backwards. Higher resolutions do not provide more viewing area and increase picture quality.

[Knocky]

GAH!!!

I came close to getting screwed.

The new GTX460 has a memory interface of 192 bits.

My old one is 256 bits.

WTF?!?!?

They cant be SLI'ed.