94 réponses à ce sujet

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Since we're talking about video-cards in general right now and I hear mixed opinions on SLI, I want to ask you folks a question.

I currently run a single ASUS GeForce GTX 660 Ti. I'm not complaining and the card still does the job, I can still play most games maxed-out, but I do feel that I'm pushing my card to its limits.

That said, I'm in doubt what I should do.

Should I buy another GTX 660 Ti and create a dual-way SLI setup with 2x GTX 660 Ti?

Or should I buy a new better video-card in the near future?

I know the SLI solution will be A LOT cheaper, so I definitely want to do that if the drawbacks are not too big. If SLI can really be as annoying as some people say (stutter, noise, heat, etc.) I might consider paying a bit more for a single new GPU. But if SLI really isn't all that bad I might consider going for a dual GTX 660 Ti setup, since I already have one GTX 660 Ti and a motherboard that supports SLI.

I'm telling you that it's not that bad. The only time I can hear my GPUs is when I manually go in and raise their fan speed. The bottom one gets a little hotter but I have a nice, airy case with a lot of fans and both cards stay about 20 degrees celsius below their maximum recommended operating temperatures. (80 degrees running Furmark at 1080)

I have very, very rarely experienced any kind of performance problem and that kind of thing is regularly patched thanks to the growing popularity of SLI. Nvidia has great software that lets you easily stay up to date on all of your drivers and profiles; it's as easy as clicking a notification on you taskbar when there is a new driver available.

Other than Guild Wars 2, which had some texture flicker for a few days before they patched it, and Assassin's Creed 3, which sucked for everyone, I have never been unable to simply install a game and play it at its maximum settings at 60 fps and 1080. All without messing around with driver settings at all.

Perhaps SLI was much worse off in the past, but I can only speak to my own experience, which has been very, very positive. I mean my setup is way more powerful than one Titan and it cost me less. There is a lot to love there.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 26 mai 2013 - 04:53 .

[The Heretic of Time]

^

Sounds good. Then I guess a SLI setup with another GTX 660 Ti is the way to go for me. Since the most recent price drop, the GTX 660 Ti only costs 250 bucks now, so that means it will be a very cheap upgrade for me! 

250 bucks for 80% more performance? YES PLEASE! 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 26 mai 2013 - 04:48 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

^

Sounds good. Then I guess a SLI setup with another GTX 660 Ti is the way to go for me. Since the most recent price drop, the GTX 660 Ti only costs 250 bucks now, so that means it will be a very cheap upgrade for me! 

250 bucks for 80% more performance? YES PLEASE! 

See what I'm sayin'? That's a pretty good solution even if you do have to deal with the odd inconvenience. 

[Splinter Cell 108]

What price drop? I never heard anything about this, Well I might consider using SLI, that is if the EVGA 660Ti version has dropped as well.

[The Heretic of Time]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

What price drop? I never heard anything about this, Well I might consider using SLI, that is if the EVGA 660Ti version has dropped as well.

Where I live the price of my ASUS GeForce GTX 660 Ti card dropped from 300 bucks to 250 bucks earlier this year. That's all I can say. I don't know about GTX cards from other manufacturers or the prices in other countries.

[The Heretic of Time]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

^

Sounds good. Then I guess a SLI setup with another GTX 660 Ti is the way to go for me. Since the most recent price drop, the GTX 660 Ti only costs 250 bucks now, so that means it will be a very cheap upgrade for me! 

250 bucks for 80% more performance? YES PLEASE! 

See what I'm sayin'? That's a pretty good solution even if you do have to deal with the odd inconvenience. 

One more question though:


I use 2 monitors at the moment. Does it matter in which of the 2 GPUs I plug my monitors in? Should I plug both monitors in 1 card, or 1 monitor on each card?

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

^

Sounds good. Then I guess a SLI setup with another GTX 660 Ti is the way to go for me. Since the most recent price drop, the GTX 660 Ti only costs 250 bucks now, so that means it will be a very cheap upgrade for me! 

250 bucks for 80% more performance? YES PLEASE! 

See what I'm sayin'? That's a pretty good solution even if you do have to deal with the odd inconvenience. 

One more question though:


I use 2 monitors at the moment. Does it matter in which of the 2 GPUs I plug my monitors in? Should I plug both monitors in 1 card, or 1 monitor on each card?

I can't tell you for sure. There are a lot of different ways to configure multiple monitor set ups according to which cards you are using. For example, the 680 requires you to plug all monitors into the 'master' card, while the 560 Ti allows you to plug them in anywhere you wish. I'm not sure if that is a difference in the architecture or what, but your manual should have that kind of information.

[Splinter Cell 108]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

What price drop? I never heard anything about this, Well I might consider using SLI, that is if the EVGA 660Ti version has dropped as well.

Where I live the price of my ASUS GeForce GTX 660 Ti card dropped from 300 bucks to 250 bucks earlier this year. That's all I can say. I don't know about GTX cards from other manufacturers or the prices in other countries.

I buy my stuff through Amazon, so who knows if the price dropped or not. I doubt it will, those items are not the most popular over there. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't and even if it did EVGA stuff is always more expensive because of their lifetime warranty, I wanted to get one of their motherboards but it was way too much, wasn't willing to pay $400 for a motherboard. 

[Ghost Lightning]

What we need is for AMD to launch their new series. Nvidia is gouging because there's no competition for their new line (which interestingly enough is just a few rebrands and a slightly thinned Titan). I think if AMD reveals the 8970 then prices of the 780 (and perhaps also the 600 cards) will instantly drop.

[deuce985]

I'm most likely going to build a new PC later this year even though my current gaming one is still fairly powerful. I'm concerned that with console gaming sitting strictly on ATI architecture, it's going to carry over to PC gaming with lazy ports. That means most PC ports will be optimized for ATI. Anyone else feel this way?

I'm not a Nvidia fanboy but I do prefer them. I've had bad experiences with ATI. Their performance in the GPUs is usually fantastic but their driver support is absolutely HORRIBLE and that's putting it nicely. I've had their drivers brick my PC before and yes, I properly uninstalled/installed them. Never had problems with Nvidia.

Battlefield 4 is supposedly being optimized for ATI. It's hard to imagine Nvidia sits around and lets ATI take the market share on PC. Nvidia still controls most of the market from my understanding. Anyways, my question is do ya'll think we'll be seeing a lot more ATI optimized games simply because of consoles? Nvidia usually has higher priced GPUs and yet they still have the majority market in GPUs. Would seem crazy that devs could ignore that.

[NeonFlux117]

deuce985 wrote...

I'm most likely going to build a new PC later this year even though my current gaming one is still fairly powerful. I'm concerned that with console gaming sitting strictly on ATI architecture, it's going to carry over to PC gaming with lazy ports. That means most PC ports will be optimized for ATI. Anyone else feel this way?

I'm not a Nvidia fanboy but I do prefer them. I've had bad experiences with ATI. Their performance in the GPUs is usually fantastic but their driver support is absolutely HORRIBLE and that's putting it nicely. I've had their drivers brick my PC before and yes, I properly uninstalled/installed them. Never had problems with Nvidia.

Battlefield 4 is supposedly being optimized for ATI. It's hard to imagine Nvidia sits around and lets ATI take the market share on PC. Nvidia still controls most of the market from my understanding. Anyways, my question is do ya'll think we'll be seeing a lot more ATI optimized games simply because of consoles? Nvidia usually has higher priced GPUs and yet they still have the majority market in GPUs. Would seem crazy that devs could ignore that.

AMD bro, it's AMD... Been so for bout 5 years now.     ;)

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 27 mai 2013 - 04:55 .

[Battlebloodmage]

It's a bit too rich for my blood. I hope that they drop the price somewhere down the line. It's tough being a video games nerd and a college student...

[deuce985]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I'm most likely going to build a new PC later this year even though my current gaming one is still fairly powerful. I'm concerned that with console gaming sitting strictly on ATI architecture, it's going to carry over to PC gaming with lazy ports. That means most PC ports will be optimized for ATI. Anyone else feel this way?

I'm not a Nvidia fanboy but I do prefer them. I've had bad experiences with ATI. Their performance in the GPUs is usually fantastic but their driver support is absolutely HORRIBLE and that's putting it nicely. I've had their drivers brick my PC before and yes, I properly uninstalled/installed them. Never had problems with Nvidia.

Battlefield 4 is supposedly being optimized for ATI. It's hard to imagine Nvidia sits around and lets ATI take the market share on PC. Nvidia still controls most of the market from my understanding. Anyways, my question is do ya'll think we'll be seeing a lot more ATI optimized games simply because of consoles? Nvidia usually has higher priced GPUs and yet they still have the majority market in GPUs. Would seem crazy that devs could ignore that.

AMD bro, it's AMD... Been so for bout 5 years now.     ;)

Yea, I still call them ATI. Bad habit. It's how I've always known them I guess.

Modifié par deuce985, 27 mai 2013 - 05:30 .

[Ghost Lightning]

I do think we'll see more games being AMD optimized. A lot of console ports already have pretty good benchmarks on AMD hardware compared to Nvidia. I think Sleeping Dogs and Hitman Absolution showed better performance with AMD cards iirc. We may see a lot more of that with both Xbox One and PS4 using AMD parts. I just hope the new consoles will support phisx cause i know to get that to work in some games with an AMD card you have to tweak things a bit.

[ObserverStatus]

Aw sweet! With this baby I can play the latest Metro and Crysis at maximum settings about two years before normal people can afford the hardware to do so!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Pretty satisfied with my GTX 470.

OC'ing it gets it to between GTX 570-580 performance at stock which is more than enough for 99.98% of games at 1080p.

At least that's what I tell myself before I cry to sleep at night.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

CrustyBot wrote...

Pretty satisfied with my GTX 470.

OC'ing it gets it to between GTX 570-580 performance at stock which is more than enough for 99.98% of games at 1080p.

At least that's what I tell myself before I cry to sleep at night.

Pretty satisfied with my GTS 250. It's enough for 66.65% of games at 1080p. Oh wait...
Well how can I overclock my Graphic Card anyway? Isn't it dangerous (lowers the life of system)?

BTW, what is this Mania to buy the best newest thing at the first month of release. This is pathetic... can't you wait for few months at least. You know you can spend your money for something more useful.

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 27 mai 2013 - 03:20 .

[deuce985]

EntropicAngel wrote...

bmwcrazy wrote...

I'm the opposite.

I probably won't ever buy a Radeon again after my horrible experience with the 4870 and the 5870 series.

AMD makes great hardware, but they're useless without good drivers that actually work. I've had much better luck with my Geforce cards.

Never had any problems with Radeon drivers, myself. Guess I'm lucky.


Seeing a comment a few posts up about Radeon drivers bricking their system, that's very interesting, because I've been quite frankly harsh on my equipment (one, maybe two fans in the case, occasionally a small case, case in a very cramped area with no air flow) and I've never had problems.

I will say something that kind of turned me off to nVidia was that a friend bought a machine from one of those IT-style companies that build machines (his father actually bought it), with an nVidia of course, and within six months it wouldn't even start up. Now, if he pulled the graphics card out it would start up fine, but his card just ruined it for some reason.

Legatus Arianus wrote...


Well how can I overclock my Graphic Card anyway? Isn't it dangerous (lowers the life of system)?

BTW, what is this Mania to buy the best newest thing at the first month of release. This is pathetic... can't you wait for few months at least. You know you can spend your money for something more useful.

I can't say if it ALWAYS does, but I can tell you that yes, it does tend to lower the life of the card. Something I personally have never been willing to bet on, even if I got hardware that's designed for OCing (like the Intel 3570k).


And, I'm sure you've heard the term "keeping up with the Joneses." It's that mindset.

I wouldn't say it completely "bricked" my system as in destroying it. The problem was more of a software error in their drivers that I had to clean manually. It was giving me BSoDs. But outside that, it's like they don't test their drivers properly. It seems like they release new drivers every week compared to Nvidia who only releases them every few months. The difference is Nvidia takes time to give better quality control, IMO. I can install Nvidia beta drivers without much worry about them doing any harm to my system. AMD drivers...not so much. It just seems they drop drivers as fast as possible and even then, sometimes they do not fix issues they're suppose to.

If AMD gave better driver support I would switch to them in a heartbeat because I've always been more impressed with their hardware. They usually run cooler, use less energy, more bang for the buck and higher overclocking efficiency. Nvidia corners the market in PC gaming. That might change this generation now that neither consoles is on Nvidia architecture though. Probably cheaper for them to optimize on AMD first. I just find it hard to believe though because Nvidia has a lot more money to throw around and a bigger market of people who have their GPUs.

Modifié par deuce985, 27 mai 2013 - 05:03 .

[Ravensword]

EntropicAngel wrote...

nVidia has more money to throw around? Say what?

nVidia is a graphics card company. AMD makes Graphics cards AND CPUs. How do you figure that nVidia has more cash flow?


But on the topic of drivers, I've never understood why people feel the need to update their drivers constantly. If the game works fine with the drivers you have, is there any real reason to update the drivers?

Impulsiveness?

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

nVidia has more money to throw around? Say what?

nVidia is a graphics card company. AMD makes Graphics cards AND CPUs. How do you figure that nVidia has more cash flow?


But on the topic of drivers, I've never understood why people feel the need to update their drivers constantly. If the game works fine with the drivers you have, is there any real reason to update the drivers?

Newer drivers consistently net performance gains and fix old issues. I would say it's definitely worth it; it only takes a couple of minutes anyway.

[Vort3xX]

^ can be quite a bit, i had an Radeon 7970 before i upgraded again and gained about 10 fps or more with the 12.8 or something like that ( don't really remember ) driver so it can make a difference yes.