1427 réponses à ce sujet

[Brogan]

 

Was it equally clocked?

 

I only have a German test about that, but between a GTX 780 Ti @1200MHz and a GTX 980 @ 1200MHz, the former was around 5-10% faster in every tested game, even at a resolution that's more into the GTX 980's homefiald (1600p).

 

The Maxwell cores have 35% more performance than the Kepler ones, but the GTX 780 Ti has more than 35% more cores than a GTX 980 for example. The GTX 980 is better at most synthetic benchmarks though.

 

5-10% more performance isn't much, but going out of EOL I found the GTX 780 Ti can be found as cheap as a hundred bucks less than a GTX 980 and that's certainly a bargain if the higher efficiency isn't a big selling point for you.

 

No, you definitely make a good point.  I've had some bad experiences with oc'ing in the past, so I like to keep reviews that deal with subjectively "successful" OC'd test candidates in a separate column when I go to make my decisions.  I def don't rule it out, however I know I'd never achieve similar results.  So grain of salt

 

But really, it's about the future-proofing for me.  Yes, I want to max out DA:I and Witcher3 this Feb, but I also want to be able to max out the next wave of games (which is why I'm considering a 980 and not a 970).  And who knows, we may all be rocking Windows10 by this time next year.  Would rather already have the card that's going to be fully capable with dx12.

[Fidite Nemini]

Fair enough, your money after all.

 

Was just giving you my honest recommendation. You are free to have other priorities than me (which are admittedly a tad more stringent since I have very little disposable income).

[Brogan]

Having said that, once the drivers mature I think the performance figures for the GM204 cards will improve. Currently DSR is only available with Maxwell, and I believe the new MFAA feature will be Maxwell only. There is also something to be said about having 3 Display Port I/O on one card as well.

 

I think the HDMI 2.0 and the new ShadowPlay software is even more exciting.

 

We just decided on a 70 inch 4k ultra HDTV, which should be pretty interesting to at least watch a playthrough or 2 of DA:I

[Brogan]

Fair enough, your money after all.

 

Was just giving you my honest recommendation. You are free to have other priorities than me (which are admittedly a tad more stringent since I have very little disposable income).

 

Understood and definitely agreed with.

[Captain Obvious]

How much would it cost to have a computer with the recommended specs?

[Fidite Nemini]

How much would it cost to have a computer with the recommended specs?

 

Just the rig: around 800-900 bucks.

 

A whole system with monitor, OS, peripherals and the rig: around 1100-1200 bucks.

[amaltheaelanor]

My OS is Windows 8.1 64-bit

6 GB of RAM

AMD Radeon R7 M260 video card

Intel-Core i3-4005U CPU@ 1.70GHz

 

Any chance I can get away with minimum settings?

[Osena109]

My OS is Windows 8.1 64-bit

6 GB of RAM

AMD Radeon R7 M260 video card

Intel-Core i3-4005U CPU@ 1.70GHz

 

Any chance I can get away with minimum settings?

i don't know if  you can at  1.7GHZ    i have a  i3 4130  mine is clocked at 3.4 GHZ i don't understand why yours is clocked so low?

[amaltheaelanor]

i don't know if  you can at  1.7GHZ    i have a  i3 4130  mine is clocked at 3.4 GHZ i don't understand why yours is clocked so low?

 

Unfortunately it was the only one available when I purchased without forking out an extra $100 or so.

[Osena109]

Unfortunately it was the only one available when I purchased without forking out an extra $100 or so.

That is why i don't like Laptops  overpriced 

[Hyperion]

i don't know if  you can at  1.7GHZ    i have a  i3 4130  mine is clocked at 3.4 GHZ i don't understand why yours is clocked so low?

He has an i3-4005U, the U on the end stands for "Ultra-Low Voltage" and denotes specific low power/low clock speed chips specifically created for ultrabooks and smaller form factor laptops. I have a Core i5-4200U, and it's also clocked very low, at only 1.6GHz stock. When running the laptop on "High performance mode" however, it sits at around 2.6GHz without any user overclock at all, so the stock Clock speed doesn't really tell the whole story.

 

[amaltheaelanor]

He has an i3-4005U, the U on the end stands for "Ultra-Low Voltage" and denotes specific low power/low clock speed chips specifically created for ultrabooks and smaller form factor laptops. I have a Core i5-4200U, and it's also clocked very low, at only 1.6GHz stock. When running the laptop on "High performance mode" however, it sits at around 2.6GHz without any user overclock at all, so the stock Clock speed doesn't really tell the whole story.

So does that mean I might be able to get away with it on my computer?

[Azjurai]

So, for people that know more about these things than I (will stick to medical-systems not electronic ones), I'm upgrading now and going for a choice between two systems and curious if folks in the know can steer me towards the better option. Not DA:I specific, but would be nice to play games for the next couple of years decently, only needs to play on 1 screen since I travel too much on deployment to take more than my desktop and need to make-do with that.

 

Anyway, looking at the following;

 

AMD FX9370 Vishera 4.4/4.7Ghz Black Edition 16MB Cache

Vengeance Pro 16GB RAM

Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 290 Tri-X OC 4GB GDDR5

 

or

 

Intel Devil's Canyon Core i7 4790K 4.0GHz 8MB

Same RAM

Gigabyte GV-N980D5-4GD-B GeForce GTX980 4GB GDDR5

[Deathangel008]

He has an i3-4005U, the U on the end stands for "Ultra-Low Voltage" and denotes specific low power/low clock speed chips specifically created for ultrabooks and smaller form factor laptops. I have a Core i5-4200U, and it's also clocked very low, at only 1.6GHz stock. When running the laptop on "High performance mode" however, it sits at around 2.6GHz without any user overclock at all, so the stock Clock speed doesn't really tell the whole story.

the i3 CPUs dont have the turbo boost feature.
 

 

So, for people that know more about these things than I (will stick to medical-systems not electronic ones), I'm upgrading now and going for a choice between two systems and curious if folks in the know can steer me towards the better option. Not DA:I specific, but would be nice to play games for the next couple of years decently, only needs to play on 1 screen since I travel too much on deployment to take more than my desktop and need to make-do with that.

 

Anyway, looking at the following;

 

AMD FX9370 Vishera 4.4/4.7Ghz Black Edition 16MB Cache

Vengeance Pro 16GB RAM

Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 290 Tri-X OC 4GB GDDR5

 

or

 

Intel Devil's Canyon Core i7 4790K 4.0GHz 8MB

Same RAM

Gigabyte GV-N980D5-4GD-B GeForce GTX980 4GB GDDR5

definitely the second build. the FX9370 is far worse than the i7, less power and much more energy consumption. why exactly this RAM? the big (and useless) heatspreader on it can block custom CPU-coolers (and you dont want to use the boxed cooler). ignore that if you´re going to use a watercooling for the CPU.
why the GTX980 and not the 970? maybe 10% "slower" but far less expensive, or take the R9 290X (but i would go for the 970). mainboard and PSU?

[Azjurai]

Going to cannibalize the watercooling from my current rig mostly, although I'm not overly attached to any specific brands/parts so feel free to recommend anything that would work better As for the 980 vs 970, mostly because I'm lazy and tend to only upgrade every couple years since I don't get a lot of downtime between things, saves having to upgrade again sooner, as such price isn't too much of an issue on most parts.

[Gill Kaiser]

Going to cannibalize the watercooling from my current rig mostly, although I'm not overly attached to any specific brands/parts so feel free to recommend anything that would work better As for the 980 vs 970, mostly because I'm lazy and tend to only upgrade every couple years since I don't get a lot of downtime between things, saves having to upgrade again sooner, as such price isn't too much of an issue on most parts.

Have you thought about getting two 970s instead? It wouldn't be that much more expensive than one 980, but the performance increase would be much higher.

[Azjurai]

Have you thought about getting two 970s instead? It wouldn't be that much more expensive than one 980, but the performance increase would be much higher.

Joys of not being in the US - it's a lot more pricy for 2x 970's than one 980. Like +50% more, so while not out of budget I'm not really sure the increase is worth is, 'specially since I only use a single screen for gaming while away.

[Gill Kaiser]

Joys of not being in the US - it's a lot more pricy for 2x 970's than one 980. Like +50% more, so while not out of budget I'm not really sure the increase is worth is, 'specially since I only use a single screen for gaming while away.

I see. If the 970's price to performance ratio is reduced in your country, I guess the 980 is best. Here the 970 goes for ~£280 and the 980 is something like ~£470.

[Deathangel008]

Joys of not being in the US - it's a lot more pricy for 2x 970's than one 980. Like +50% more, so while not out of budget I'm not really sure the increase is worth is, 'specially since I only use a single screen for gaming while away.

where do you live? here in germany the prices for the 970 are about 350€, and for the 980 ~530€. of course 2 970 are more expensive than a single 980, but, if the game supports SLI, they are at least 50% faster than the 980. anyways, i wouldnt recommend SLI due to the typical multi-gpu problems, but i also wouldnt pay 50% more for ~15% more power.
btw which resolution do you use?

[Azjurai]

where do you live? here in germany the prices for the 970 are about 350€, and for the 980 ~530€. of course 2 970 are more expensive than a single 980, but, if the game supports SLI, they are at least 50% faster than the 980. anyways, i wouldnt recommend SLI due to the typical multi-gpu problems, but i also wouldnt pay 50% more for ~15% more power.
btw which resolution do you use?

New Zealand, most of the time. Here a 970 is 650-700$ while a 980 runs 850-950$. Stupidly priced by a huge margin. But then, we happily (or not) pay $100+ routinely for games, hell, the DAI inquis box here is like, $320 - even factoring in exchange rates is crazy priced for no reason. So yeah, the 980 is a much better deal considering prices.

[Elevon]

I decided to buy a Sapphire 280X  dual X OC  3GB card of ebay UK for £127 inc delivery ,should keep me happy for awhile and should be a  nice upgrade from my old MSI 560 Ti  2GB card,I can wait now for  R390s next year .

 

My PC Specs below,

 

i5 2500k  CPU  quad core overcloced to 4.4GHz

8GB RAM

Win8.1 Pro x64.

Asus Xonar DX sound card

1080P gaming.

Corsair TX850W PSU version 2.

[Elevon]

New Zealand, most of the time. Here a 970 is 650-700$ while a 980 runs 850-950$. Stupidly priced by a huge margin. But then, we happily (or not) pay $100+ routinely for games, hell, the DAI inquis box here is like, $320 - even factoring in exchange rates is crazy priced for no reason. So yeah, the 980 is a much better deal considering prices.

 

 

I also believe the 980s don't  suffer from the coil whine issue  that a lot of 970s have,it does seem pot luck and what PSU you  have as well.

 

More info  here http://forums.overcl....php?t=18630402

[Gill Kaiser]

Bah, coil whine eh? Oh well, I guess I'll wait and see how mine fares.

[Barrett Rodych]

This is interesting news. How will it work? In the games I've seen it in (Eidos games, mostly, like Just Cause 2 or Hitman Absolution), it's been some custom designed in-game cutscene with a bunch of special effects. Is that how it will be, or something else?

Yeah basically. It'll run a scene at a fixed timestep (I think every frame will try process a 30Hz frame), then just go as fast as it can. So maybe a bit more like Street Fighter 4's benchmarker?