thank god for that i felt this conversation was deteriorating rapidly and i couldnt see where i was going wrong...
Again, i appreciate the replies, i am not bashing you...
I'm just very reluctant to waste money and time testing out new setups for marginal increases in pixel pushing power...
Especially when my only main concern is, keeping the res, maybe upping the texture details... some more fps's.
The reason i postulated your advice was 'bad' in the first post was because i have never, in my experience... seen a good 'value' card from nvidia...
When i got the 2-series... The 250 was shite... the 9800 beat it..
When i got a 9800... the 8500 was probably shite and beaten by the 7950... Infact, i dont even know if there was an 8500 but i know i only upgraded when i had enough for the 8800 because that series 'value' card was shite...
[when i say beat it, i mean.. 'beat it for my specific purposes', as in.. high resolution gaming without too much pp]
So i had assumed that it had continued in that fashion...
So i imagine, the 450 is shite, the 550 is shite, the 650 is shite... all the way up to the 950...
Soo.... using that logic i realise somewhere in here, the 'shite value card' will eclipse my cards on the basis that they have made rendering optimizations, etc ... But when the new series comes out, the previous series drops in price. You know, basic graphics card/market economics... When that happens, usually you can get the 'next version up' of the previous series which actually performs better for less.. But doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles on it (that most games probably wont support anyway and if the optimizations pertain to antialiasing or post-processing then it's not a concern for me)
That was my basis on dismissing your advice mate, not just 'oh i'm going to act like a dick today'
Like i said.. believe it or not, i'd be happy to find out i'm horribly wrong and can save myself some money...
..failing that i'm looking at AMD cards (r9 280/290 to be specific) as they seem to be the best value for performance in my price range...
I guess i should try and find a comparison of them to your suggestion... But reviews are kind of inconsistant because for it to be relevant to me personally, i need it to be aroound my desired resolution and not negatively affected by either developers implementation of their releveant triple-monitor technology... (such as it is with something called micro-stuttering with ATI? [no personal experience with ATI in years, just what ive read], and i'm sure there are kinks with nvidia surround that affect performance... )