How long does it take to upgrade? If it comes to it, I can order components and build a new PC in a week. Faster if I just grab whatever's on sale at my local Micro Center.
Probably taking the time to put the money aside for an upgrade. Not everyone has disposable income.
I second this. AMD is going to be the better experience for years to come, especially since they basically own the console market.
What about the new Nvidia cards that are more powerful but also more efficent than AMD's?
There is a game released that does require 4GB of Graphics ram, I can't remember what it was though
I think it should be noted that graphical tweaking and refinement is generally one of the last things a studio will focus on. Applying all the pretty bells and whistles is essentially adding that last layer of polish to really sell the game as eye candy. It's not unusual at all that BioWare has not revealed the system requirements yet because quite frankly the game hasn't even gone gold yet. Just by seeing the character creator and game play footage today, crafting is broken in the current build of the game. As you might imagine, that's something that absolutely needs to be fixed immediately as the entire system being broken is a bit more of a priority to fix than finalizing the system requirements. Also, why do people need to know the system requirements so far in advance? It does not take long at all to purchase hardware from newegg, amazon, etc. and then replace your old hardware. Have some patience and you'll know the system requirements sooner than you think.
What about the new Nvidia cards that are more powerful but also more efficent than AMD's?
There is a game released that does require 4GB of Graphics ram, I can't remember what it was though
Evil Within
Though they haven't exactly come out and said that it requires 4GB, they've just implied it'll be bad if you don't. They don't seem to be doing minimum requirements, which is pretty rubbish of them
According to the system requirements on its Steam page, it requires 3 GB MAIN memory, and recommended is 8 GB MAIN memory. Not VRAM.
Minimum graphics is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5850, recommended is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon HD 7950. Nothing really cutting edge there.
But 8GB VRAM is apparently needed to run the ultra texture pack. Which is really puzzling; it shouldn't take up that much memory unless they use 8K textures or if they load every texture into memory at once.
Hopefully they've been working with AMD and nVidia to get their thoughts on the build and what cards would be suited.
I assume since nothing has been said, it won't have Mantle support.
Hopefully they've been working with AMD and nVidia to get their thoughts on the build and what cards would be suited.
I assume since nothing has been said, it won't have Mantle support.
DAI was on the list of upcoming Mantle supported games that AMD released a while back.
I second this. AMD is going to be the better experience for years to come, especially since they basically own the console market.
This just is not true. AMD hasn't been relevant since they purchased ATI, which actually used to be a reputable GPU developer. Since the consolidation, AMD has been an absolute disaster, especially with their driver updates. AMD's newest series is certainly better than their previous attempts, but it's still leaps and bounds behind Nvidia. That's just a fact. Nvidia graphics cards are without a doubt more powerful, quieter, and more efficient. The only downside to Nvidia is their graphics cards are more expensive because they are of higher quality. The only reason Sony and Microsoft installed AMD GPUs into their consoles is because Nvidia is too pricey, and AMD was a cheap and affordable alternative to keep the price of the consoles down.
What about the new Nvidia cards that are more powerful but also more efficent than AMD's?
There is a game released that does require 4GB of Graphics ram, I can't remember what it was though
I would prefer better driver support. For example take the last Tomb Raider game. I have a 6850, and my friend has a newer Nvidia card. My card outperformed hers due to mostly driver support and the game being tailored for AMD. It was kinda sad, it should have outperformed me but it didn't. It does outperform me in games like BF4 that take advantage of newer architecture and drivers however.
DAI was on the list of upcoming Mantle supported games that AMD released a while back.
BF4 has mantle support now doesn't it? If it was implemented there I don't see why I wouldn't be in DA:I
This just is not true. AMD hasn't been relevant since they purchased ATI, which actually used to be a reputable GPU developer. Since the consolidation, AMD has been an absolute disaster, especially with their driver updates. AMD's newest series is certainly better than their previous attempts, but it's still leaps and bounds behind Nvidia. That's just a fact. Nvidia graphics cards are without a doubt more powerful, quieter, and more efficient. The only downside to Nvidia is their graphics cards are more expensive because they are of higher quality. The only reason Sony and Microsoft installed AMD GPUs into their consoles is because Nvidia is too pricey, and AMD was a cheap and affordable alternative to keep the price of the consoles down.
It's a bang for the buck thing for me. I don't see the performance gaps to be worth the price difference myself. Especially since your model of card can effect things like heat, loudness etc...
But 8GB VRAM is apparently needed to run the ultra texture pack. Which is really puzzling; it shouldn't take up that much memory unless they use 8K textures or if they load every texture into memory at once.
No way. That doesn't even make any sense. The recommended settings are definitely 8GB of RAM, which is the standard right now. A single GPU doesn't even come loaded with 8GB of VRAM. The game also isn't that graphically impressive, so that's definitely a mistake.
I would rather they not be tailored to one specific card maker, but have good driver support
But 8GB VRAM is apparently needed to run the ultra texture pack. Which is really puzzling; it shouldn't take up that much memory unless they use 8K textures or if they load every texture into memory at once.
Yeah, that's admittedly pretty odd. I'm sure sooner or later someone will post on the Steam forums about it and we'll know more.
No way. That doesn't even make any sense. The recommended settings are definitely 8GB of RAM, which is the standard right now. A single GPU doesn't even come loaded with 8GB of VRAM. The game also isn't that graphically impressive, so that's definitely a mistake.
It's actually correct, according to Steam forums. The ultra texture pack is an additional download and therefore, its requirements are not listed under the main game. Remains to be seen why it needs such a frakton of memory.
EDIT: some posts claim it's "only" 6 GB.
It's a bang for the buck thing for me. I don't see the performance gaps to be worth the price difference myself. Especially since your model of card can effect things like heat, loudness etc...
Loudness may be a nuisance, but heat management is crucial to maintain a healthy PC for the long-term. One of the major criticism's of AMD's new series is the fact that they are loud and they generate a lot more heat than the Nvidia equivalent. In my personal opinion, I don't cut corners when it comes to maintaining my gaming PC. It's too expensive and while it might be more money upfront, I end up saving more in the long run.
I also should add that more games also support Nvidia than they do AMD when it comes to extra features. Whether we are referring to TXAA (Nvidia's anti-aliasing), PhysX, and a variety of other popular features, Nvidia just generally provides a better service. I'd also like to add that Nvidia has much more frequent driver updates and performance boosts than AMD ever did. I might be able to name less than five games that actually supported AMD over Nvidia.
Irregardless, nobody should worry about the system requirements being anything crazy. Considering DAI is being built on Frostbite 3 and it won't be anywhere as intensive compared to BF4 with jets flying overhead and doing bombing runs, it's likely the system requirements will be fairly reasonable. You honestly won't need a state-of-the-art PC to run this game on ultra as this isn't Crysis 4 or anything like that.
No way. That doesn't even make any sense. The recommended settings are definitely 8GB of RAM, which is the standard right now. A single GPU doesn't even come loaded with 8GB of VRAM. The game also isn't that graphically impressive, so that's definitely a mistake.
My bad, looks like it's only 6 GB but still that's quite a lot. Either this game is very badly optimised/developers are inflating the requirements needed/it is a 4K texture pack.
Anyway back on topic I hope DAI has some detailed graphical options we can customise. Hopefully it will have BF4's internal scaler so I can downsample to 1440p.
That definitely makes more sense, although I question how "amazing" this ultra texture pack actually is.
Edit: I'm curious if there are just a few replacements with the 4k textures or if they actually overhauled a large variety of assets.
Loudness may be a nuisance, but heat management is crucial to maintain a healthy PC for the long-term. One of the major criticism's of AMD's new series is the fact that they are loud and they generate a lot more heat than the Nvidia equivalent. In my personal opinion, I don't cut corners when it comes to maintaining my gaming PC. It's too expensive and while it might be more money upfront, I end up saving more in the long run.
Ehh I live in a hot climate (and my room is very humid due to fish tanks) and my 6850 (4 years old now) has been holding up despite the fact that there was a time where I was pretty much abusing it. I do plan on upgrading and getting a 280x because of this game and my new TV though. But really the differences from what I've seen are marginal in benchtests (especially when it comes to temperature)
My chasis (and upgrading it's fans) has helped a lot as well I think.
Again I also think there are certain companies that are putting better coolers on their cards but are being over looked for brand loyalty; Asus models vs something less popular like Sapphire for example.
Hence liquid cooling.Loudness may be a nuisance, but heat management is crucial to maintain a healthy PC for the long-term. One of the major criticism's of AMD's new series is the fact that they are loud and they generate a lot more heat than the Nvidia equivalent. In my personal opinion, I don't cut corners when it comes to maintaining my gaming PC. It's too expensive and while it might be more money upfront, I end up saving more in the long run.
Ehh I live in a hot climate (and my room is very humid due to fish tanks) and my 6850 (4 years old now) has been holding up despite the fact that there was a time where I was pretty much abusing it. I do plan on upgrading and getting a 280x because of this game and my new TV though.
My chasis (and upgrading it's fans) has helped a lot as well I think.
Again I also think there are certain companies that are putting better coolers on their cards but are being over looked for brand loyalty; Asus models vs something less popular like Sapphire for example.
I have a Sapphire R9 290 and it works brilliantly. It's pretty silent and I never go above 75'C while gaming (the reference cards run up to 90'C for comparison).
I have a Sapphire R9 290 and it works brilliantly. It's pretty silent and I never go above 75'C while gaming (the reference cards run up to 90'C for comparison).
Oh cool. I've been pretty set on getting their Vapor X version of the 280x, it looks like it would be rather quiet.
This just is not true. AMD hasn't been relevant since they purchased ATI, which actually used to be a reputable GPU developer. Since the consolidation, AMD has been an absolute disaster, especially with their driver updates. AMD's newest series is certainly better than their previous attempts, but it's still leaps and bounds behind Nvidia. That's just a fact. Nvidia graphics cards are without a doubt more powerful, quieter, and more efficient. The only downside to Nvidia is their graphics cards are more expensive because they are of higher quality. The only reason Sony and Microsoft installed AMD GPUs into their consoles is because Nvidia is too pricey, and AMD was a cheap and affordable alternative to keep the price of the consoles down.
While everyone has their own opinion and certainly their own experiences with various companies...In my experience, I cannot say enough about how much I agree with this statement. Since 1992 when my family purchased our first 486 with a 2 mb ATI card, the RagePro II, then much later I personally purchased a 256 Mb ATI Radeon x850 (2004) and lastly the 256 Mb Radeon x1950 Pro (2006)....The cards themselves were OK (just OK), but they had horrible issues with their optimization/compatibility and the integration of their Drivers through Catalyst Control Centre. The only saving grace was that they (ATI) were a Canadian company (and I wanted to support our Canadian market), and their price/performance was quite decent and several hundred dollars cheaper than anything Nvidia offered. But I will say again, that every single ATI card I ever owned had major issues with Drivers. And in terms of the quality in their manufacturing, I also have to agree that since they were bought out by AMD and began out-sourcing their cards to such companies like Diamond, Sapphire, VisionTek and PowerColour...well, I have tried 4 diffierent cards from those manufacturers and they have all been absolutely garbage. Seizing fans, fusing PCBs, short-circuiting/burning out...and just plain 'under-powered'.
In between those years of blundering through ATI products, I have had several Nvidia-based cards beginning with the 16 MB Voodoo 3 3000 (which was an amazing card, and the best card on the market at the time for performing OpenGL; a predecessor to Directx). Next I had the 32 Mb Matrox Rainbow which was a beast in terms of lifespan. I've also had a 256mb GTX 8800 from PNY, a 512mb GTX 9800+ from MSI, a 1Gig GTX 285 OC from BFG Tech, 2 470s from EVGA, of which the only downer was that they ran qute hot. But none of these nvidia cards ever gave me any serious problems of any kind. (Unless you cant 8 ASUS 570s being RMA'd in 13 months because they stopped working to the point where even the ASUS rep said they were 'not fixable').
In short I will continue to support Nvidia (and especially EVGA) for the rest of my computer-building days
For my next build....I wholly intend on buying EVGA for as many products as I can (Motherboard, Power supply, Video card).
While everyone has their own opinion and certainly their own experiences with various companies...In my experience, I cannot say enough about how much I agree with this statement. Since 1992 when my family purchased our first 486 with a 2 mb ATI card, the RagePro II, then much later I personally purchased a 256 Mb ATI Radeon x850 (2004) and lastly the 256 Mb Radeon x1950 Pro (2006)....The cards themselves were OK (just OK), but they had horrible issues with their optimization/compatibility and the integration of their Drivers through Catalyst Control Centre. The only saving grace was that they (ATI) were a Canadian company (and I wanted to support our Canadian market), and their price/performance was quite decent and several hundred dollars cheaper than anything Nvidia offered. But I will say again, that every single ATI card I ever owned had major issues with Drivers. And in terms of the quality in their manufacturing, I also have to agree that since they were bought out by AMD and began out-sourcing their cards to such companies like Diamond, Sapphire, VisionTek and PowerColour...well, I have tried 4 diffierent cards from those manufacturers and they have all been absolutely garbage. Seizing fans, fusing PCBs, short-circuiting/burning out...and just plain 'under-powered'.
In between those years of blundering through ATI products, I have had several Nvidia-based cards beginning with the 16 MB Voodoo 3 3000 (which was an amazing card, and the best card on the market at the time for performing OpenGL; a predecessor to Directx). Next I had the 32 Mb Matrox Rainbow which was a beast in terms of lifespan. I've also had a 256mb GTX 8800 from PNY, a 512mb GTX 9800+ from MSI, a 1Gig GTX 285 OC from BFG Tech, 2 470s from EVGA, of which the only downer was that they ran qute hot. But none of these nvidia cards ever gave me any serious problems of any kind. (Unless you cant 8 ASUS 570s being RMA'd in 13 months because they stopped working to the point where even the ASUS rep said they were 'not fixable').
In short I will continue to support Nvidia (and especially EVGA) for the rest of my computer-building days
For my next build....I wholly intend on buying EVGA for as many products as I can (Motherboard, Power supply, Video card).
EVGA is meh.
Their GTX 970 ACX cooling went through QA, even though the heatpipes aren't properly aligned with the GPU (as in a whole bloody heatpipe has NO contact with the GPU, that's a third of the cooling potential right there).
EVGA's reaction? Go to press and say "well, our cooler is so awesome, we don't need that third heatpipe anyway and the GPU is so small, we can't fit three heatpipe on it". I would never buy from a manufacturer with such blatant lack of QA (and no, we're not talking rare monday assembly products, we are talking the ENTIRE production for the GTX 970).
I'd rather recommend Gigabyte. Particularily the G1 editions offer brilliant performance.
I'm hoping to get my hands on the asus version of the 970 when iI'm able like the set up for the STRIX
But we will see nay have to go with another brand.
Oh cool. I've been pretty set on getting their Vapor X version of the 280x, it looks like it would be rather quiet.
Retour en haut
