Suggestions for a new GPU (and perhaps a monitor)?
 

So, after playing the BF3 beta, I've come to realise that my 9800GTX is not going to cut it anymore, so I'm in need of a new GPU.
I'm not quite sure what sure what GPUs would be suitable for use in my ageing desktop, so I'm looking for suggestions. At this stage, I would prefer a GTX 560.

• I'm ephasising stability over performance (so, no pre-overclocked cards)
• I'm on a strict budget. Best if it's not over 250USD.
• I would rather avoid Leadtek cards for now.
• I'll most likely be shopping from Umart, a local online retailer. I have yet to try an overseas-based retailer for computer components, but I don't mind as long as it's reliable and ships to here for a reasonable cost.

I'm also looking for suggestions for a new widescreen monitor. Preferably between 17-22 inches and under 400AUD (buying locally). Not too fussy about brand and features, but it should have a DVI port as a minimum, and perhaps a HDMI port as well (HDCP compatibility). I won't actually buy monitor yet, but any suggestions I'll keep in mind for a future purchase.
Thanks in advance! :)

gtx560 ti / hd6950 should run the game on high settings with AA @ 1080p at your price point using US dollars. i read some people had success running those cards at max settings with aa also @ 1080p but nothing is solid proof until the official game comes out along with info from credible benchmarking sites.

Something I forgot to mention: I do need suggestions for a particular brand and kind of card as well, as the GPU manufacturers tend to make some changes that differ from the standard specifications. I would prefer to buy a video card that is made by a reputable company...
(Asus GTX560 1G DC/2DI GDDR5, MSI GTX560 TI Twin Frozr II OC as examples for suggestions)

popular choices have been EVGA and MSI for nvidia cards for a long while now. i personally stick to EVGA only. if i had to choose an amd card, i would go for the XFX brand IF given a choice. it is ultimately up to you to choose.

and make sure you get a 560 TI if you made up your mind. not just a plain old 560.

Any particular reason you want such a small monitor? $400 AUD will buy you a Dell U2412M, which is a very nice 24" 16:10 IPS panel, i.e. everything you could possibly want in a monitor. It does not have a HDMI port, but it does have DisplayPort, which is electrically compatible with HDMI (i.e. it's just a different connector, no active adapters needed).

Main reason is because I have a fairly small desk in a relatively small room that's already a little cluttered. I currently have a 17inch 5:4 LCD monitor right now, I don't really want or need anything too much larger... (cost will probably be the main factor though, are any of Dell's smaller monitors good?)

For the GPU, I'm gonna need one with a good fan/heatsink (or at least, easy to clean)...
How does the 550Ti hold up to the 560 and 560Ti? Most of the 560Ti cards are outside my budget.

550ti will not meet your demands for BF3 unless you want to play on medium settings with a possible chance of no AA. it is worse than a gtx460. did you look into the hd6950 aside from Umart? if you really aren't going to play BF3 on a 1080p monitor, a gtx460 1gb will do you fine for your budget.

Monitors smaller than 22" is really something of a niche market these days. You'll be hard pressed to find anything decent which is smaller than that, since all the monitor manufacturers focus their efforts on the 23-30" range and just sell cheap junk for the smaller sizes. That said the U2212HM is basically a 2" smaller and 150 AUD cheaper version of the 2412M, but it's 16:9 rather than 16:10.

More general advice for monitor buying: the year is almost 2012. Do not under any circumstances buy a TN panel. IPS panels are a lot better and have caught up to TN panels in terms of input lag, so there's no reason to go TN anymore, even for the most spergy of gamers. Also, 16:9 is pig disgusting; 16:10 is the way to go. HP, LG and Dell are generally good brands. Go hog wild.

I will probably buy a new monitor this year and I've considered the U2412M, but it seems that it doesn't support any frequencies outside of 50Hz...60Hz, i.e. no multiple of 24Hz, which together with its 6 bit panel would be the only major cons of this monitor. But I guess you currently have to compromise if you want to stay below 300 Euro... (8 bit polarized IPS panels with 120 Hz are just a dream at the moment.)
I have a hard time finding solid information on monitors that do 24Hz, but in the 23" to 24" range it seems that this feature is very rare. The only other option would be a 120Hz TN panel.
Any suggestions?

Sony PVM2541 (24-25")? But costs a bit over 6 grant, the PVM1741(16-17") is about 4. Both are pro equipment, normally used industry, so they have BNC connectors, but also one hdmi. Both supports 24hz as input signal for HD resolutions. But you want to check the specs on pro.sony.com (Trimaster Oled monitor)

There's nothing even remotely affordable that has both good panel and support for a mod24 refresh rate (literally the cheapest thing you can find that does that sort of thing natively without Powerstrip and shit like that is some Eizo model from 2008 that costs $1.2k USD and doesn't seem to be produced anymore). Just give it up already. Also, rather than 24 Hz you'll probably want 48 or 72 Hz.

mod24 refresh rates are highly overrated anyway; they're sorta like the video nerd equivalent of Monster cables. Just Deal With It.

That's incorrect. Pre-overclocked just means they already did a safe factory overclock on the card and the higher speeds on the box are guaranteed, and the card is on warranty like just any other card. If the card is not performing at the speeds advertised on the box, or not working property, you get a replacement. The warranty is just as long as normal cards, and the card is just as stable, you just pay a little more for a little more performance.

And to answer your questions, the radeon 6950 or 560 ti. I don't know where you shop but they ARE in your price range.

You should consider that a wider display format like 16:10 is not comparable to 5:4 regarding the display diagonal. The 5:4 is kinda more like a square.

For a 19" 5:4 display the display area is approximately 15"x12" thats 180 square inch.

For a 19" 16:10 display the display area is approximately 16"x10" thats 160 square inch.

If you wanted something in 16:10 that is the same height as the 19" 5:4 display, you'ld need to take a display that is roughly 19.2"x12" => a 23" 16:10 display.

So in your case it might be better to aim for the upper end of the "17-22 inches".

Thanks, but no thanks. That's slightly above my budget. :heh:

That's why I said multiple of 24Hz. Some manufacturers say they support 47Hz...75Hz, but according to reviews the screens don't report anything above 60Hz/below 50Hz or convert to 60Hz internally even if they do accept something else. I just find it silly because it's a standard feature of most displays >30", so that basically means the producers are just too lazy to implement it for screens designated for PC users.
Anways, I'll probably settle for the U2412M in the end.