Should i go with 2 gtx 285's or just on gtx 295 i have been looking at benchmarks and 2 gtx 285 wins most of time but few fps and it only 100 so more should i go with dual gtx 285'?
We need a bit more info to make an informed decision on that. What games do you play? What is the resolution of your monitor? What is the budget for the system? What are the specs of the rest of the system (do you even have an SLI-capable motherboard)? But even before I know any of that, I can tell you I wouldn't go for either of those. I would either get a GTX 275 or 4890, or if you absolutely must have that extra power, a 4870 X2 or 2 GTX 260s in SLI. These are the most economical options; the GTX 285 and 295 just stink in terms of value for money.
If you really, truly need that much power, I would go the 285 route if I were you. nVidia tends to have long-term support issues with its dual-PCB cards (see 7950 GX2, 9800 GX2), and until they've proven to the world that they consider them to be more than vaporware, I can't recommend them in good conscience. - Diosjenin -
Really? Even though the GTX 275 is very nearly just as quick (only a few FPS off in most games), yet £80 cheaper? I'm sorry, but it's just not good value whichever way you look at it. Plus, I doubt the OP needs anything nearly as powerful as two GTX 285s or a GTX 295 when a GTX 275 will play almost every game at max settings at 1920*1200. You won't notice any difference in gaming performance at anything above 60 FPS really, so blowing over £400 on a setup that will pull over 100 FPS is a complete and utter waste of money.
smc8788 and Diosjenin are both right; the dual-GPU cars are to be avoided like the plague in the long term because they rely so heavily on drivers for their efficiency. To get two 285s is to needlessly throw money at NVIDIA (actually go right ahead); you'd be better off with 2 260s.
I want to play crysis maxed in 1920x1200 and i also want to play mass effect, the witcher, gta 4 and dragon age origins when it comes out this year
All other games are still (visually) far below that of Crysis, so based on that, 2x285 is your best option [link]. Out of curiosity, though - these were tested on a Core i7, and on high-end GPU setups like these, i7 can actually gives a serious performance boost over Core 2. What kind of CPU are you running this on? Because if it's a Core 2, either 2x285 or 295 might run into a slight performance bottleneck, and it might be more worth your money going with a 2x275 or 2x260 setup instead... - Diosjenin -
I don't have pc yet but it will be using intel i7 940 but won't be overclocking will i still run it above 30fps?
Oh, for sure. Even 2x260s get about 40fps (according to Diojenin's link). 2x285s will be smooth as butter with Crysis.
Ah, maxxing-out Crysis! I still think 2x260s would be a worthwhile economy, but I can point out one other immediate economy worth making; don't buy a 940. 920 WILL do the same job for less money. Good luck!
+1 940 is a waste of money .... ooo an extra 300mhz for an extra 100% of your money pffffft also the 285 and 295 are equally as bad providing hoprrible value for money. a 275 will play crysis at max on 1920x1200 so why waste your money. 2x260 may be an alternative but i dont trust SLI or crossfire as they vary wildly across games.
The first bit is undeniable, but then NVIDIA are trying to claw back from a $200m Q1 loss. The second bit I'm not so sure about. 2x260 is very nearly the equal of a 295, and I'm unconvinced that just one 275 will do that. (I haven't tried, but I think my lone 280 would struggle.)
hmm well the cheapest 295 on scan is £394 and you can get 2x260(216) for just £296 hmm did a quick check the 275 will play crysis @ 1920x1200 high settings with 4xAA minimum 40FPS. also the 275 is faster than the 280 not much after looking at some benchys it scores slightly higher FPS 1-5 in most games.
Wow, I find that hard to believe. Are you sure you didn't sneak another GTX 275 in there? This suggests the figure would be more like 12 FPS minimum, and only reaching an average 22 FPS. I know people keep going on about how good nVidia drivers are, but I seriously doubt they're that good. Of course, that's not to mention the hope of reaching maximum details on Crysis @ 1920*1200 is a futile effort in the first place. I mean, why do people keep stating this as the be all and end all feature for their new system? Are you saying that the sole purpose for spending the best part of £500 on GPU power is for one single 2-year-old game? Not only that, but a game that is horribly optimised and puts needlessly high demands on hardware? I know it looks great at full details, I really do, but when you're taking this kind of money it just isn't worth it. Not when nearly every other game on the market will play fine on a £200 card; save that extra £300 and buy a better card in one year's time which will blow the GTX 295 out of the water. Constant upgrades is how you get good value for money in this business, not buying something which is on the bleeding edge of technology for a brief period of time, because such things always demand extreme premiums.
Is i7 940 really not worth it keep in mind i will not ever be overclocking so would it not be safe to go with 940?
Ergh. If you pointblack refuse ever to overclock, then yes, a 940 would be better matched to your graphics cards. But bear in mind that I - a complete novice on his first build - have managed to run my 920 at 3.8GHz at times without particular effort. It is so easy that for the £200 difference you'd be a fool to pay for the 940, especially since to bring a 920 to 3.0Ghz (faster than the 940) is slightly easier than falling off a log. Seriously. Bit-Tech can offer probably 15 overclocking guides right now that could take you to 4Ghz. 3Ghz is so easy you don't even need a guide.
Really is it that easy is it just changing some settings around? Would my cooler be good enough to over clock to 3.6 ghz i just read some guides and it says for i7 3.6ghz is best setting here. Also does ibuypower lock the bios because that where i just ordered from with following specs: Intel i7 940 2 x 285 Coolmaster v10 Coolmaster HAF 932 crossair 6 g ddr3 ram The cost was $2195 but i also ordered a g15 mouse g5 mouse a monitor and other stuff my case and cooler: CoolerMaster HAF 932 http://www.coolermaster.com/products/product.php?language=en&act=detail&id=5363 Coolmaster v10 http://www.coolermaster.com/products/product.php?act=detail&id=6074
Holy crap, with a V10 most certainly yes! Why would you even get a TEC cooler if you weren't overclocking? That's pretty much as good as air cooling gets right now, so you should be able to go to ~4.2GHz with that and still have good temps. But please tell me you're getting a decent, high wattage PSU with that setup, because that's one power-hungry monster system you've specced right there.
It coming with Termaltake Tough power 1200w Power Supply here it is not getting for site but just show u http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153055 I do hopes it good because it ibp best and most costing psu But still do you know if ibuypower locks bios like dell and other providers? Yes or no
I highly doubt they would, but the only way to be sure would be to drop them a line and ask them. From my experience with other custom build/boutique retailers, they'll just leave everything as is and build the system for you (i.e. the BIOS will depend on the motherboard used). Other OEM companies like Dell and HP use their own BIOS', which don't allow features like altering frequencies enabling you to overclock. Note that overclocking always involves operating components outside of the manufacturer's guidelines, which, if care is taken and is done correctly, is still perfectly safe, but will almost always void the manufacturer's warranty.
