build parts 2nd try!

[tbonehmb]

so i've kind of been revising my build over the last week and i'm pretty sure im ready to go with the following components. just wanna check to see it will all work before i put in the order. thanks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.573241


Processor: Intel Core i7-950 Bloomfield 3.06GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor

Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X58 LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Motherboard

RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory

Harddrive: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive

PSU: CORSAIR 850W ATX12V 2.2 / EPS12V 2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready Active PFC Power Supply (Model:CMPSU-850TX)

Case: NZXT Phantom White Steel/Plastic ATX Full Tower Computer Case (Model:PHAN-001WT)

Video Card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-130-610&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Keywords=cool&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

CD Drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=27-136-185&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Keywords=%28keywords%29&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

CPU Cooler: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181010

GPU Cooler: ?? Do i need one?

monitor: http://www.apple.com/displays/

monitor adapter: http://www.atlona.com/Atlona-Dual-Link-DVI-to-Mini-DisplayPort-Converter-USB-Powered.html

also would i need any additional fans besides ones included w/ case?

[RickyTick]

Looks great. No need for a gpu cooler.

[tbonehmb]

would this have any trouble running games at high res? like 2560x1440

[zburns]

Google the EVGA cat #, the page that comes up says the following near the top: Resolution & Refresh, 240Hz Max Refresh Rate, 2048x1536 Max Analog, 2560x1600 Max Digital

However, when I google your monitor and look at specs, here is what I get: Supported resolutions: 2560 by 1440 pixels, 1920 by 1080 pixels, 1280 by 720 pixels. Yours is a 27 inch monitor (the diagonal measurement). My monitor is a 24 inch monitor; my pixels 1200 x 1920 -- very small pixels, very good definition or resolution, excellent images. My 1200 vertical resolution existed before the 1080P High Definition (HD) standard came out. The equivalent to my 1200 vertical res, is 1080 vertical res. Because you have a larger monitor, height and width, you must have a greater number of pixels (2560 x 1440) to have the same maximum resolution of 1080 x 1920 pixels on a 24 inch monitor--said differently, we both have the same size pixels. Your images on the 27 inch monitor will have the same edge sharpness as my images on my 24 inch Samsung.

The evga 2560 x 1600 resolution covers your monitor as well as a 27 inch version of my monitor with a slightly vertical dimension.
----------------------
After looking at my post, I do not whether your question was directed at games working at the maximum monitor resolution or were you imlying that at this maximum resolution, your gpu card would be generating too much heat?

[tbonehmb]

yea im wondering more whether or not the system would be able to handle running those games, but the information on the resolutions was really helpful to :D

[zburns]

The point of my post is that the Evga card on its spec sheet clearly states that it supports the resolution of your monitor -- this means that the system will run at the native resolution of your 27 inch monitor which is the highest detail resolution you can obtain. Only the card sees this resolution as a challenge. The cpu processes the data that feeds the card at a maximum speed governed by cpu specs and the memory behind it.

I think I see your point regards system. Ricky Tick and others have the gaming experience and can better answer regards cpu and memory. If the larger monitor is a challenge regards the frames per second, a review done with a larger monitor would show benchmark results and how they faired against a step down in monitor size and resolution. I will take a look at some of the reviews and benchmarks; it would be best if the monitor size and its impact (at native resolution) was discussed specifically in a review -- only because 'unknown things just happen' but real life tests that give results you can interpret and depend on -- is the best approach!!! What I am saying is an actual test at your monitor size is better than 'extrapolating' a benchmark result at a smaller monitor size. But games are run on HDTVs, but they are at 1080 x 1920 res.

Somebody who runs games that strain a system can tell by looking at cpu % usage at max res, at a high fps, can make a good educated guess as to how the 27 inch monitor will perform. You are not the first to run games at higher than 1080 x 1920 so the answer is out there! I would think that as long as the cpu and or memory is not stressed to continuous 100 %, you would be okay; but theory is one thing, acutal proven results tell the true story!

[zburns]

With respect to what I said in the above post. Evga says the card supports your high resolution. The card has its own parallel processors (384) and 1 gig of memory. The step up in screen size to cover is about 26 % larger. How does one know whether the card will handle the increase without stressing the cpu or memory further?

[zburns]

Am still looking for definitive comments on your higher resolution 2560x1440. My feeling is that it is not a problem and I know what I am looking for in the way of a technical explanation, I just have not found it yet. I probably am not saying this correctly, but your card will not start from scratch and generate a 'graphics' set of instructions for each 'resolution setting' of your monitor. Changing the resolution has to do with the way the signals that go to each pixel are allocated. Hopefully tomorrow I can pin it down.

[zburns]

Am still looking for definitive comments on your higher resolution 2560x1440. My feeling is that it is not a problem and I know what I am looking for in the way of a technical explanation, I just have not found it yet. I probably am not saying this correctly, but your card will not start from scratch and generate a 'graphics' set of instructions for each 'resolution setting' of your monitor. Changing the resolution has to do with the way the signals that go to each pixel are allocated. Hopefully tomorrow I can pin it down.

Corrected Post below:

The above description is probably totally wrong in that it may apply to a TV monitor, but not to a computer monitor run by a high speed, high wattage video card. Before the card ever does any processing on the video game, the monitor resolution is preset, therefore, the 'wattage' (which represents the effort -in energy- expended by the card) does take into account the larger, by 26%, increase in area (number of pixels is 26% larger). EVGA in stating that the card "supports" the higher resolution should be a total 'encompassing statement', meaning that the EVGA card will run at the higher resolution at the same frames per second as at the more common resolution of one layer less.

This 27 inch monitor has a maximum resolution that causes the same number of pixels per unit area (and therefore the same size) to be used as does a 24" monitor operating at 1080 by 1920, and so on (down the line according to monitor size). In order to produce sharpness, great detail, true colors, the gpu card does have to build the image based on the 'viewed resolution' or 'viewed pixels'; this in turn means that the increase in viewing area of one monitor with respect to the other does require an increased amount of energy or wattage to be used to account for the increased number of pixels.

So if EVGA says this card supports 2560 x 1440, by implication, it can be argued that they are stating the card itself will supply the processors and 'energy' or 'wattage' to accomplish the 'quality' image at the higher resolution. The only 'card specification' left to the imagination is 'does the frames per second' at the higher resolution remain the same as the fps at the next lower resolution -- this too, I would assume is implied but not necessarily the case unless EVGA specifically spells out the full terms of what the statement 'supports 2560 x 1440 resolution' includes in the way of specifications compared to specifications at the next lower resolution -- so only EVGA can answer that.

All that said, can the cpu and related RAM, be a limiting factor. Since 'reviewers' do tests with gpu cards, cpus and mobos, etc. and they express their opinions in the form of benchmarks, I would conclude that benchmarks on this new card are the way to answer the question by 'tbonehmb'.

I have for several days tried to logically figure out the answer; the above is my reasoning to get to the last statement. So hopefully there are benchmarks out there that will show some 'headroom' for the cpu, RAM, HD, etc. to have excess capacity to 'support' the EVGA 560 Ti in delivering max fps at the monitor native resolution of 2560 x 1440.

Another consideration is using Sandy Bridge. Assume the Bloomfield cpu above is a limiting factor, then the i7 2600K Sandy Bridge should be faster, not only for the higher clock freq, but because the internal architecture compared to Nehalem, is more speed efficient in terms of access to internal cache and memory.

So if you want the 'best you can do' with available Desktop components, I would think you would have more 'insurance' including 'future proofing' that you can run games at highest fps and at highest resolution by using Sandy Bridge instead of Bloomfield. (With OC capability to some extent in both cases ) Going the Sandy Bridge route gives you the max you can do -- within a budget close to your above list.

So to fully know the answer to your question, you (someone including myself) will have to interpret and trust existing benchmarks or go the Sandy Bridge route which is inherently faster than Bloomfield; Sandy Bridge being the fastest choice right now (even tho Bloomfield might work out just fine). Other present consideration is that EVGA should say more about the words "support for resolution 2560 x 1440" where you are assuming those words mean same max fps, as running a 24 " monitor at 1080 x 1920.