The keyword in my last post is "most". You happen to be someone who truly appreciates the highest possible framerates in a game, and that's cool - I'm the same way. However, I'd be hard-pressed to see most people who game at 1440x900 unsatisfied with a $150 GPU. Yes, people like higher performance, but is it REALLY worth the extra $80 - $100, when a $150 gives completely playable framerates to begin with?
For hardcore online gamers, I don't disagree with a beefy GPU, but like I said earlier, it's rare to see a low-end resolution even properly take advantage of a mid-range GPU... it's a joke for the card to handle. I'd be hard-pressed to see a decent $150 GPU with 1GB of GDDR not be able to handle any game at 1440x900 with great settings are playable frame rates. I'll put myself to the test though ;-) When I find some time, I'll put all my theories to the test and see what I come up with.
I'm going to jump to conclusions here and assume that most people who game at 1440x900 or lower aren't looking to purchase a $250 GPU (19" monitors I've seen cost less than that). They're looking to get a wicked card at the best possible price, and at that resolution, I personally think a $150 card is going to deliver the goods. If you disagree, that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinion, and you obviously take things pretty seriously.
Personally, since graphics cards are such a great value nowadays at any price, I'd like to think that the best possible upgrade for a gamer would be a new monitor, one that's larger. Not only do you have a larger viewing area, but you'd also have a finer resolution that in some games almost negates the need for anti-aliasing (games like Crysis and CoD: World at War look fantastic without it... games like L4D should have it though).
Either way, thanks for your opinions, I definitely see what your saying, but after putting many different graphics cards to the test, I still feel that anything over $150 for a GPU at a low resolution is over-spending, <em>unless</em> you want AA in every game out there and the best possible FPS without going broke.
For hardcore online gamers, I don't disagree with a beefy GPU, but like I said earlier, it's rare to see a low-end resolution even properly take advantage of a mid-range GPU... it's a joke for the card to handle. I'd be hard-pressed to see a decent $150 GPU with 1GB of GDDR not be able to handle any game at 1440x900 with great settings are playable frame rates. I'll put myself to the test though ;-) When I find some time, I'll put all my theories to the test and see what I come up with.
I'm going to jump to conclusions here and assume that most people who game at 1440x900 or lower aren't looking to purchase a $250 GPU (19" monitors I've seen cost less than that). They're looking to get a wicked card at the best possible price, and at that resolution, I personally think a $150 card is going to deliver the goods. If you disagree, that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinion, and you obviously take things pretty seriously.
Personally, since graphics cards are such a great value nowadays at any price, I'd like to think that the best possible upgrade for a gamer would be a new monitor, one that's larger. Not only do you have a larger viewing area, but you'd also have a finer resolution that in some games almost negates the need for anti-aliasing (games like Crysis and CoD: World at War look fantastic without it... games like L4D should have it though).
Either way, thanks for your opinions, I definitely see what your saying, but after putting many different graphics cards to the test, I still feel that anything over $150 for a GPU at a low resolution is over-spending, <em>unless</em> you want AA in every game out there and the best possible FPS without going broke.
