1427 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

K I'm looking into it now.

 

Bf4 supports hyperthreading, but has had a troubled relationship. For some people it works but doesn't give much extra performance, for some people it works and boosts their performance a good deal, for some it has no effect and for others it decreased performance compared to when they turned HT off manually.

 

Bf4 is also a bad example to compare to, because it has had lots of functional stability issues through its lifetime, continueing to this day. It is a fickle thing.

[UniformGreyColor]

It might be a matter of graphics drivers as well. I expect there to be a new one after DA launch for Nvidia?

[MasterPrudent]

Inquisition has been added to Can You Run It (http://www.systemreq...tslab.com/cyri) now. It treats my duel core cpu with hyper-threading as a four core cpu though so it may not be 100% reliable.

[UniformGreyColor]

Inquisition has been added to Can You Run It (http://www.systemreq...tslab.com/cyri) now. It treats my duel core cpu with hyper-threading as a four core cpu though so it may not be 100% reliable.

 

That site says my i5 2320 3.0GHz with 660 installed is recommended settings.

[UniformGreyColor]

Frames might drop to 15/sec or so but I think he can play it if he's willing to make that sacrifice. Also, I am planning sli with 980 in the distant future.

[MasterPrudent]

That site says my i5 2320 3.0GHz with 660 installed is recommended settings.

I'm not especially tech savvy so forgive me when I  say that, as far as I can see, it is?

[Fidite Nemini]

Inquisition has been added to Can You Run It (http://www.systemreq...tslab.com/cyri) now. It treats my duel core cpu with hyper-threading as a four core cpu though so it may not be 100% reliable.

 

 

That website is garbage. Do not use it for recommendations.

[UniformGreyColor]

That website is garbage. Do not use it for recommendations.

 

Right because we have someone here who know this stuff better than that site. I'm not talking about myself either. Really its hard to say without more info on whether or not Kinderovo can play it or not. I suspect he can, but without more info on how many calculations are being (alot vs a little) done its really hard to say.

[Fidite Nemini]

Right because we have someone here who know this stuff better than that site.

 

 

Everyone with enough technical expertise to put 1 and 1 together knows the stuff better than the website. This is the same website that tells people they can barely run (or not run at all) a game because they don't have the recommended OS, regardless of what their PC specs are. You can have quad SLI Titan Black, i7 5960X w/ 64 GB DDR4 4000MHz, all SSD storage rig, bla-bla and run Windows Vista and the website would tell you that you can't run the game well, because you don't have Windows 8.

 

 

It's completely unreliable.

[Deathangel008]

You can have quad SLI Titan Black, i7 5960X w/ 64 GB DDR4 4000MHz, all SSD storage rig, bla-bla and run Windows Vista and the website would tell you that you can't run the game well, because you don't have Windows 8.

but nobody with a system like this would still use Vista

[Fidite Nemini]

but nobody with a system like this would still use Vista

 

The point was, the matrix that website uses to give out its recommendations is stupid and nonsensical. Any forum with helpful members who have a rough idea how hardware works is better than SRL.

[Deathangel008]

The point was, the matrix that website uses to give out its recommendations is stupid and nonsensical. Any forum with helpful members who have a rough idea how hardware works is better than SRL.

i thought it was obvious that my post was meant to be a joke.

[Enad]

All this talk of high vram by people always makes me laugh. There is currently NO CARD on the market fast enough to power high vram( read 4 gigs or more) at ultra settings. At that point you are facing a huge bottleneck from your card. So more then 4 gigs is a waste of money. Unless you are running sli or crossfire on extremely high res monitors.

 

 

Your GPU doesn't 'power' the VRAM. There's no correlation between how fast your card is and VRAM. 

 

VRAM is great for games with high texture resolutions, or if you use high resolution monitor. No such thing as bottleneck due to VRAM, its an integral part of a GPU and if Nvidia wanted, they could stick 4GB VRAM on a GT 910 or whatever they're new low end card will be.

[Revan Reborn]

All this talk of high vram by people always makes me laugh. There is currently NO CARD on the market fast enough to power high vram( read 4 gigs or more) at ultra settings. At that point you are facing a huge bottleneck from your card. So more then 4 gigs is a waste of money. Unless you are running sli or crossfire on extremely high res monitors.

Link

 

and quote

 

 

 

 
ETA: My point is if you have to choose between more vram or a faster card pick the faster card. You will get better results. If you dont care about the cost and are getting the fastest card and want the more vram, then might as well go with it as it wont hurt. But for the budget conscious more vram is almost always a waste. 

This is true. VRAM is the biggest marketing scam in the gaming PC market today with the exception of SLI and Crossfire Mode. It's an absolute waste of money. I can run any game today without issue using a single GTX 770 2GB of VRAM. What really matters is how much RAM you have as that will determine your overall performance.

 

Barely any games even support SLI or Crossfire Mode. When I was running CM on my previous rig, my performance was worse and games tended to be buggier than just using one card. Developers build their game to benefit primarily the medium-end gaming PCs, not the high-end ones. You just need to realize how far you should go to get a great card versus just giving your money away. It's a fine line.

[Enad]

Yeah, sorry but you don't really know what your talking about here. Read the link. People on overclock.net know what they are talking about. 

 

I do, I'm also a part of overclock.net, so that means I know what I'm talking about right? 

 

Maybe you were trying to say no GAME uses as much VRAM as these GPUs have? In that case, you're mostly correct. Other than gaming at 1440p or above, you're likely not going to need more than 2-3GB of VRAM. 

VRAM recommendations have been getting out of hand lately, but that doesn't stop VRAM from helping out in specific games. I understand most don't need it, but very few huge games with very high texture resolutions definitely benefit, such as ArmA 3 and heavily modded Skyrim. DA:I may too since it too is large scale and has good graphics.

 

Perhaps you misread OCN guys post, he's not saying VRAM will bottleneck your GPU, he's saying by the time the average game truly needs 4GB of VRAM, our GPUs will be the bottleneck. Which is basically false at this point, considering some of the games coming out lately. Not to say those games rightfully need 4GB+ of VRAM but we're not exactly in an era of great ports. So more VRAM will definitely help with the games of today.

[RifuloftheWest]

Yes, but my question was where did you hear the rumors that GM200 was coming soon? It seems unlikely to come out so soon after the 980. I'm asking because if soon means...before November 18th, then I'll hold off on my 980 purchase.

It's likely a useless upgrade but I'm eager to see Maxwell for myself(Have a GTX 780ti), and the extra 1GB of VRAM should come in handy in DA:I, ArmA 3, Modded Skyrim and a few other games with high VRAM usage.

 

From the circles I travel in, the speculation is that the "Big Maxwell" will be held off until AMD makes their move with their new line and then used to counter. Supposedly AMD will release the R9 300something in the spring of 2015.

 

Or if you go by the release pattern from the NVIDIA's 700 series - specifically the 780ti, then one could expect a fall release.

 

Basically, it seems unlikely that NVIDIA will release something else from Maxwell to consumers before or around DAI is shipped.

 

Personally, I would hold off from going to the 980 from a 780ti. Currently clock for clock, the 780ti is nearly on par and the 980 does need those substantial 1400-1500MHz+ overclocks in order to gain its performance edge on an aggressively overclocked 780ti.

 

I actually had a 780ti as well and the only reason I have switched was because I was able to utilize EVGA's Step Up program. Had Step Up not been available, then the associated purchase cost versus performance increase would not have been in my favor (even factoring in selling the 780ti).

 

Unless there are specific features you really want to utilize, if you are in a situation where you would have to purchase the 980 outright, then it is probably best to wait for the next release from NVIDIA or AMD.

[BadgerladDK]

I remember the 8800GTX. I got so much milleage out of that card

 

They really were very good. My brother is still running my old one that I replaced with a 560Ti (he's not a heavy gamer)

 

Considering offering him an upgrade to my old 560Ti, it's a bit of an expensive space heater to run as a dedicated PhysX card for my 770, considering how few games make use of it. Then again, Witcher 3 will... argh, decisions.

[Enad]

From the circles I travel in, the speculation is that the "Big Maxwell" will be held off until AMD makes their move with their new line and then used to counter. Supposedly AMD will release the R9 300something in the spring of 2015.

 

Or if you go by the release pattern from the NVIDIA's 700 series - specifically the 780ti, then one could expect a fall release.

 

Basically, it seems unlikely that NVIDIA will release something else from Maxwell to consumers before or around DAI is shipped.

 

Personally, I would hold off from going to the 980 from a 780ti. Currently clock for clock, the 780ti is nearly on par and the 980 does need those substantial 1400-1500MHz+ overclocks in order to gain its performance edge on an aggressively overclocked 780ti.

 

I actually had a 780ti as well and the only reason I have switched was because I was able to utilize EVGA's Step Up program. Had Step Up not been available, then the associated purchase cost versus performance increase would not have been in my favor (even factoring in selling the 780ti).

 

Unless there are specific features you really want to utilize, if you are in a situation where you would have to purchase the 980 outright, then it is probably best to wait for the next release from NVIDIA or AMD.

 

I hear ya, and I understand getting a 980 is not exactly a 'worthwhile' upgrade for me. It's more of a habit. I've bought every new lineup of GPUs since the 400 series. 

 

I'm still making up my mind. On one hand, I want to wait till there's a more serious upgrade option out there, but I'll likely be waiting till the end of 2015 like you said. Money isn't really an issue, I make enough to afford these GPUs yearly, but it goes against my sense of practicality haha. 

I guess I have to think about it more.

[Revan Reborn]

I do, I'm also a part of overclock.net, so that means I know what I'm talking about right? 

 

Maybe you were trying to say no GAME uses as much VRAM as these GPUs have? In that case, you're mostly correct. Other than gaming at 1440p or above, you're likely not going to need more than 2-3GB of VRAM. 

VRAM recommendations have been getting out of hand lately, but that doesn't stop VRAM from helping out in specific games. I understand most don't need it, but very few huge games with very high texture resolutions definitely benefit, such as ArmA 3 and heavily modded Skyrim. DA:I may too since it too is large scale and has good graphics.

 

Perhaps you misread OCN guys post, he's not saying VRAM will bottleneck your GPU, he's saying by the time the average game truly needs 4GB of VRAM, our GPUs will be the bottleneck. Which is basically false at this point, considering some of the games coming out lately. Not to say those games rightfully need 4GB+ of VRAM but we're not exactly in an era of great ports. So more VRAM will definitely help with the games of today.

The point is, much like Crossfire and SLI, it's a waste of money. You are over-proofing for few games if any that actually support it.

 

Considering DAI has exact system requirements to BF4 and they only recommended 2GB of VRAM, it's likely DAI will actually be less demanding on one's system than BF4 since there aren't 64 player battles with levolution, mass destruction, lots of vehicles, and lots of explosions happening simultaneously.

 

Modded Skyrim is really more of a look at what games could be for the majority of PC gamers in five years if we are lucky. ENB, every 4K texture pack you can find to replace everything in-game, increasing the npc density of cities and battles, etc. Sadly, most developers build their games for consoles, so even with the occasional game that might offer an optional 4k texture pack, such as Shadow of Mordor, likely isn't actually replacing that much at all.

 

If you already have a rig that can run BF4 and Crysis 3 alone on ultra without any problems, you are likely fine for anything coming out in the foreseeable future without needing a GPU with 4GB of VRAM. Unless you just want to spend more money and don't care how much bang you are getting for your buck...

[Fidite Nemini]

What really matters is how much RAM you have as that will determine your overall performance.

 

 

Also not true. At least for games more than 4GB RAM is hardly giving you better performance. RAM is important for massive data crunching application, but just as with VRAM vs faster GPU, you are better off having faster RAM vs more RAM with lower data throughput.

 

Here a nice little comparision.

 

Faster is always better than more in regards to PC gaming.

[Revan Reborn]

 

 

Also not true. At least for games more than 4GB RAM is hardly giving you better performance. RAM is important for massive data crunching application, but just as with VRAM vs faster GPU, you are better off having faster RAM vs more RAM with lower data throughput.

 

Here a nice little comparision.

 

Faster is always better than more in regards to PC gaming.

I don't believe I ever stated cheap RAM would be better than anything...? The quote you are referring to is my assumption that others realize you need quality RAM and not something you pick up for cheap at Wal-Mart. Also, just try playing Battlefield 3 with 4GB of RAM. Try playing it with 6GB of RAM. The game will not be playable. Trust me, I've tested it. If you don't have at least 8GB of quality RAM, you won't be able to play most games on ultra settings. It should also be stated that running Windows and various other processes requires part of your RAM, so that needs to be factored into the equation.

 

As I stated above, RAM can substitute VRAM, which is why it's not necessary to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a GPU just to get additional VRAM. You are more than welcome to, but it's by no means required to play a game with smooth performance. As you even stated yourself, it's the speed of the GPU that matters much more than how much VRAM it has. Anyone who is investing into 4GB VRAM cards is just giving their money away as most games do not support it.

[rekkaman]

I have

i7 860 @ 2.8 Ghz

8GB DDR3

GTX 750 Ti FTW 2GB

1600x900 moniter (900p)

 

I get about 45 to 50 Fps in BF4 with max settings on 900p

 

I am hopping to get atleast 40 Fps on ultra at 900p with this rig as well

[Revan Reborn]

I have

i7 860 @ 2.8 Ghz

8GB DDR3

GTX 750 Ti FTW 2GB

1600x900 moniter (900p)

 

I get about 45 to 50 Fps in BF4 with max settings on 900p

 

I am hopping to get atleast 40 Fps on ultra at 900p with this rig as well

It's likely you may actually get more performance considering DAI will be less taxing than BF4 solely because of levolution, 64 players, massive destruction and vehicles, etc.