Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leeluvv
Polarized
49
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 23:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Next summer I hope to pick up an Oculus Rift and upgrade to a second 390 to run in crossfire for FPS heaven at an affordable price.
Oculus Rift is only 1080 x 1200 per eye, so you won't need an expensive card for it. |
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
168
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 00:28:31 -
[32] - Quote
Leeluvv wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Next summer I hope to pick up an Oculus Rift and upgrade to a second 390 to run in crossfire for FPS heaven at an affordable price. Oculus Rift is only 1080 x 1200 per eye, so you won't need an expensive card for it.
That's just shy of 2 screens of 1080p, combine that with the fact that most games have reported looking MUCH better when using VSR which essentially doubles the workload. Besides, who's gonna play EvE with Oculus? What would be the point? The oculus is much more for games like Elite and Star citizen which will certainly need expensive cards (emphasis on plural) to run at consistant 60fps or higher while using VSR/DSR.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
1105
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 00:32:33 -
[33] - Quote
My 970 doesn't break a sweat.
Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.
I invented Tiericide
|
Hopfrogg
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 00:42:57 -
[34] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:My 970 doesn't break a sweat.
Need that in context. What resolution and FPS?
My 750 doesn't break a sweat either, but it's all relative. I'm just in 1080p 60hz. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 03:38:04 -
[35] - Quote
Leeluvv wrote:A 2560 x 1440 monitor has 3.7 million Pixels. At 32 bit colour, it uses 118 Million bits of memory. This equates to 14 MBytes of memory.
i.e You only need a 14MB card to display 2560 x 1440 at 32 bit colour.
The large amounts of RAM modern graphics cards have is for processing and handling the textures, etc, but Eve does not require much memory (graphics or CPU) to run. If you think otherwise, use Task Manager and see how much RAM Eve is actually using, mine is currently using 700MB. Second hint, the installed game is only 300MB and texture compression won't be huge.
Using GPU-Z on my PC (i5 4670K, 16GB RAM and a 3GB R9 280X), Windows is using 600MB of Video memory and each Eve client running at 1920 x 1200 and full details uses an additional 400MB.
Minor correction.. well actually not so minor. EVE online stock folder may be 300ish MB... however the game itself is around 15gb. Shared caching.. Cool stuff huh? Also CCP themselves have referenced the absurd size of EVEs texture base. It's one of the major reasons we don't have access to truly 2k band textures yet.
Also, simply because knowledge is power, lets correct a few myths being expressed in this thread about GFX card needs.
Memory.. More is better.. but not. You need X memory to use Y resolution myths. Yes its weird but 1gb vs 2gb actually means nothing beyond a critical point. If the card is operated in a way that allows its buffer of RAM to contain everything it needs to do you will see no performance gain with more memory. The catch here is everyone uses different settings and has different needs. This applies to application choice as well as OS choice. Its fairly common sense though. If you use a 2k(1920x1080) monitor and don't use AA then you don't really need monster amounts of memory. Conversely a 4k monitor used in the same fashion will use less overhead than a 2k with all the bells and whistles turned on and AA janked to extremes. Think of memory like a bucket.. You can move an ocean of water.. the only question is how fast and how much the bucket can hold per throw.
Quick example of how things like AA eat ram however. On a typical AAA title FPS game with moderate background calculations going on using 2k resolution you will only see ~40% increase in memory going from no AA to 8xMSAA. Scale this up to 4k and the increase in memory usage is closer to 100%. Depending on application however this can even be as high as 300% peak usage.
Also as to buses.. Yes a larger bus is better.. to a point. If the ram itself is a bucket the bus is the pipe feeding the bucket. Just having a bigger pipe isnt always better.. in fact in many cases it can be a bad thing. In practical usage a bus needs to complement the amount of memory its using for the average application needs. If it exceeds this then it can result in thrashing. One of the main reasons you DONT see giant buses on smaller older cards. Engineers arnt ******** ya know... well most of them arnt. You usually have to check their math regularly though. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2348
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 20:06:28 -
[36] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Also as to buses.. Yes a larger bus is better.. to a point. ... I should have qualified this by saying high end cards. The processing and RAM is usually more than sufficient, has been for multiple generations. The bus is usually the only thing you really want to keep an eye on and not only the card thrashing you can also run into motherboard problems if that bus speed is too slow to handle the graphics bus speed.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Herzyr
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 20:15:28 -
[37] - Quote
Honestly, I think upgrading to a 970 was a waste for me, I tend to play eve between a 23'' at 1920x1080, totally smooth, so smooth I can feel the lag ticks. I also run it with a 40'' TV but it doesn't look as pretty (hurr durr TV resolution) but I love it because of the inmersion and sound.
|
Chief Serious
Solo Miner's Association
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:14:58 -
[38] - Quote
Hopfrogg wrote:I'm torn between these two cards and wonder what the FPS performance is for them at 1080p and 1440p. Can current owners of these cards give me some figures?.
Can't help you with 1440p, however I have been using my trusty 1080p monitor for quite some time with 144Hz and my GTX 970 easily hits 144 FPS however, not all the time. Will frequently drop below 100 FPS in asteroid belts, when lots of other players are around and a few other circumstances. Currently I am sitting at 109 FPS at low settings while writing this, but to be fair, I have 5 EVE game windows open and running 2 screens (1 for netflix :) )
I think it's also important to note, with the same GPU (GTX 970) I had an "newer" AMD CPU and never hit 144 FPS even with a single screen and single game window open at low settings, I recently upgraded to an Intel i5 4690k (OC'd 4.0 GHz) and it runs smooth as can be at 1080p often at 144 FPS. |
Haleuth
The Conference Elite CODE.
18
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 19:15:59 -
[39] - Quote
Hiya
Just to give you another reference point, i just took delivery of a new gaming rig that has the latest top end skylake chip+nvidia 980 ti+1 gig ssd+2 hard drives in raid 0+windows 10.
Eve runs at light speed, there are no loading times at all. I am getting 850 FPS (yes 850) on a 27 inch BenQ monitor.
Using a max trained alt with full implants it is impossible to lock my pod after ganking someone even if his stiletto has all mid and low slots full of scan res mods.
However, graphically, it is overkill. The graphics look no different to a pals 960.
Hope this offers some help in your choice of system.
Hal |
Hopfrogg
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:17:01 -
[40] - Quote
Haleuth wrote:Hiya
Eve runs at light speed, there are no loading times at all. I am getting 850 FPS (yes 850) on a 27 inch BenQ monitor.
However, graphically, it is overkill. The graphics look no different to a pals 960.
Hope this offers some help in your choice of system.
Hal
Thanks... it does. Seems the 970 is all I need if I want 120fps, and the 960 if I just want 60fps.
Haleuth wrote:Hiya
Using a max trained alt with full implants it is impossible to lock my pod after ganking someone even if his stiletto has all mid and low slots full of scan res mods.
Hal
I look forward with anticipation to the day when I can understand what that means |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2353
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:21:53 -
[41] - Quote
Radeon R9 390 is 2x the card that the 970 Nvidiot card is. Additionally, it has new technology. All at the same price.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Mag's
the united
20661
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:40:09 -
[42] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Radeon R9 390 is 2x the card that the 970 Nvidiot card is. Additionally, it has new technology. All at the same price. The three times I moved to Radeon, I regretted it. Sure they look great on paper, but it always ended with issue after issue concerning drivers.
As far as your statement is concerned, yes again the rad looks better. But a large issue for me with that card is it's power usage. Plus I'd be back to guaranteed driver problems.
While I'm no graphics card fan boy, (which you quite obviously are) I simply want an easy life. For the vast majority of the time I get that with NVidia. It's always been the other way for me with Radeon. Even if I get drawn to them every now and then.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2353
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:55:29 -
[43] - Quote
Mag's wrote:...While I'm no graphics card fan boy, (which you quite obviously are) ... You always have to throw a little back hander in there. I have been looking into this at quite some depth. Initially, I was going to go for the 760 Nvidiot for the ease of use with Linux but I have decided to go with the longer term approach and chew on the bugs in the mean time. The drivers will be superior.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
168
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 22:05:36 -
[44] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Radeon R9 390 is 2x the card that the 970 Nvidiot card is. Additionally, it has new technology. All at the same price. The three times I moved to Radeon, I regretted it. Sure they look great on paper, but it always ended with issue after issue concerning drivers. As far as your statement is concerned, yes again the rad looks better. But a large issue for me with that card is it's power usage. Plus I'd be back to guaranteed driver problems. While I'm no graphics card fan boy, (which you quite obviously are) I simply want an easy life. For the vast majority of the time I get that with NVidia. It's always been the other way for me with Radeon. Even if I get drawn to them every now and then.
Have used radeon cards since, well forever. Way before they were even owned by AMD and still using a R9 390 now and have never had a driver issue. Most problems I've ever seen with an AMD card are down to failure to follow directions (other than dell selling me an AMD crossfire setup on an invidia mobo that wasn't compatible back in 04'-05'.) Years ago you HAD to do a full wipe of the drivers off of your system before installing updated drivers or you risked problems. That said I haven't had to go through the trouble of doing that in a long time. Current installation software is much better than windows XP (and older) days.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Mag's
the united
20663
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 22:29:38 -
[45] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Mag's wrote:...While I'm no graphics card fan boy, (which you quite obviously are) ... You always have to throw a little back hander in there. Well you are using the term NVidiot. Kinda points that way tbh.
Daemun Khanid wrote:Have used radeon cards since, well forever. Way before they were even owned by AMD and still using a R9 390 now and have never had a driver issue. Most problems I've ever seen with an AMD card are down to failure to follow directions (other than dell selling me an AMD crossfire setup on an invidia mobo that wasn't compatible back in 04'-05'.) Years ago you HAD to do a full wipe of the drivers off of your system before installing updated drivers or you risked problems. That said I haven't had to go through the trouble of doing that in a long time. Current installation software is much better than windows XP (and older) days.
(For the record, when I recently upgraded to a new PC my choice of going w AMD was pure based on the stats. Price wise, performance wise and future wise the R9's are simply a better choice than invidia's offering's) And I'm sure there are people out there that have always had issues with NVidia cards. Doesn't change what happened to me. These were most always on a fresh install of windows and whenever not, the system had been cleaned.
I've been involved in PC's since Windows 3.1. So I too, have had my share of tech from different companies over the years. I just seems that Radeon have been more of a pain with drivers. Especially the first Radeon card the 7500 IIRC, I remember that being an absolute nightmare.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Hopfrogg
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 22:36:18 -
[46] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Radeon R9 390 is 2x the card that the 970 Nvidiot card is. Additionally, it has new technology. All at the same price.
It appears to be... literally... 2x the card with double the memory and bits. So I am a bit baffled as to why the 970 appears to outperform it according to this:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Curious as to why this is and what is the "new technology". I would certainly consider a 390, but ruled it out based on similarly priced Nvidia cards outperforming them in tests I have read. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2354
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 23:43:40 -
[47] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Well you are using the term NVidiot. Kinda points that way tbh. I've been involved in PC's since Windows 3.1. . Only Win 3.1?! You are a kid! Nvidiot comes from when they changed from plain fast drivers that you installed manually into a directory or selected from a Windows install wizard; to a pile of ever bloating software. I also use it now because they had a fault, which was covered up by a Direct X work around. That work around caused tearing and other problems in AMD cards, which were perfectly fine. Benchmark websites are like your news channel, full of bias.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1019-radeon-r9-390x-390-380/page3.html
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-GeForce-GTX-970
(To be on the kind side, your link probably has results from Radeons that had problems. Their drivers are still in development.)
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
168
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 01:08:42 -
[48] - Quote
Hopfrogg wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Radeon R9 390 is 2x the card that the 970 Nvidiot card is. Additionally, it has new technology. All at the same price. It appears to be... literally... 2x the card with double the memory and bits. So I am a bit baffled as to why the 970 appears to outperform it according to this: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Curious as to why this is and what is the "new technology". I would certainly consider a 390, but ruled it out based on similarly priced Nvidia cards outperforming them in tests I have read.
That does appear to be a pretty poorly performed set of marks. The fact that they simply lumped the 290 and 390 and the 290x and the 390x together as having the exact same performance is a pretty good indicator they didn't actually test all the cards in question but instead posted numbers based on what they believed to be the same chip sets. I can quite certainly assure you that an R9 Fury x out performs a GTX 970 which according that page it does not. Either poor testing or bias/faked results.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Hopfrogg
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 01:20:24 -
[49] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:The fact that they simply lumped the 290 and 390 and the 290x and the 390x together as having the exact same performance is a pretty good indicator they didn't actually test all the cards in question but instead posted numbers based on what they believed to be the same chip sets.
Good point. Checked out a bunch of other sites and general consensus is that the 390 does slightly outperform the 970. For so much more on paper I'm surprised the difference is so small. Practically an RCH of difference. Seems just go with the better price or stick with personal preference. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2354
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 02:37:14 -
[50] - Quote
Except that in many cases the 390 isn't fully tapped yet. Driver updates may well increase performance further. Then you need to look at what they are weighing. Are they sending instructions to the cards, saying, "Calculate this and give us the gigaflops result," which would mean that memory and bus speed aren't tested?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
|
Hopfrogg
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 02:54:22 -
[51] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Except that in many cases the 390 isn't fully tapped yet. Driver updates may well increase performance further. Then you need to look at what they are weighing. Are they sending instructions to the cards, saying, "Calculate this and give us the gigaflops result," which would mean that memory and bus speed aren't tested?
I'm admittedly not a tech guru, but it has been 4 months since release. I don't have high hopes for future driver updates doing anything significant.
As far as the specifics and gigaflops, bus speeds, etc... To be honest I just want the bottom line, how many fps and at what resolution does GPU A get and GPU B get. They're both close.
But yes, based on everything I've read there is no reason to go with the 980 over the 390. Slightly cheaper, slightly faster... better is still better even when it's slightly better.
DX12 also seems to be working much better on AMD and Freesynch won't require special hardware like G-synch does in the monitor. Obviously providing more flexibility for the future and a slightly cheaper monitor price now. Still, it feels like splitting hairs. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 03:53:36 -
[52] - Quote
Since we are throwing out old crap for credentials.. Remember Edlin? Know what TWAIN means? Yeah.. still pointless even today.
To drop a bit of "lack of bias" into this though... There are functional differences between NVIDIA driver consistency and AMD driver consistency. AMD does, on average, have more driver related issues when related to new games. Especially those with gameworks. To balance this however they typically have very quick patch times to correct these issues. Conversely NVIDIA may release more functional drivers but whenever they have an issue its often ignored until the next driver release window. AMD drivers also consistently improve performance over time and they typically do not obsolete cards as quickly. Nvidia cards come with near maximum performance at release but older cards tend to have performance degradation when the drivers advance to the next API generation.
As to hardware.. NVIDIA has generally held the technology crown even though they often fail to utilize it(kinda like intel). Though occasionally AMD surprises with their typical left field innovations.
TLDR: Both GFX solutions have pros and cons and come out relatively equal over their performance lifespans. You just have to pick and choose your headaches according to what pisses you off the most.
/edit DX12 currently doesn't functionally exist with much of NVIDIAs lineup. This will be changed soon but in atypical fashion nvidia has some serious issues with win10 and dx12 right now in certain configurations. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2354
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 04:16:25 -
[53] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:... As to hardware.. NVIDIA has generally held the technology crown even though they often fail to utilize it(kinda like intel). .... Good post, however, just have a quick check on this. I often found that people would say Nvidia is better and yet, I would look into it and find that AMD had not released a top card on par with Nvidia's top card. Thus in many cases it was like doing a blouse up with the buttons in the wrong holes, Nvidia would look better all the way down, even on a lot of benchmark web sites but it was because the #2 Nvidia needed to be compared to the #1 ...
That is a mess, basically:
How it was
Nvidia - AMD #1 Latest release - Not released yet #2 - #1 #3 - #2 etc
How they were compared:
Nv - AMD #1 - #1 #2 - #2 etc
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 04:42:01 -
[54] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:... As to hardware.. NVIDIA has generally held the technology crown even though they often fail to utilize it(kinda like intel). .... Good post, however, just have a quick check on this. I often found that people would say Nvidia is better and yet, I would look into it and find that AMD had not released a top card on par with Nvidia's top card. Thus in many cases it was like doing a blouse up with the buttons in the wrong holes, Nvidia would look better all the way down, even on a lot of benchmark web sites but it was because the #2 Nvidia needed to be compared to the #1 ... That is a mess, basically: How it wasNvidia - AMD #1 Latest release - Not released yet #2 - #1 #3 - #2 etc How they were compared: Nv - AMD #1 - #1 #2 - #2 etc
I was more referring to NVIDIAs stockpile of tech they dole out as needed to give a competitive edge. Adaptive Vsync, CUDA, etc. Typically they will have the tech first by either buying it, borrowing it, or stealing it. AMD on the other hand tends to in house stuff more with innovative results(like their claim they can use Gsync features with some small changes to their software) Nvidia takes several pages from intel in this regard much like intel withholding things such as hyperthreading until there was a competitive need for it. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2354
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 05:49:53 -
[55] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:...much like intel withholding things such as hyperthreading until there was a competitive need for it. That was annoying. Xeon had multi-cores and threads for ages before the regular processors got it. Then there was the 1GB RAM 386 machines dropping to 128 MB on Pentium 1s.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Mag's
the united
20663
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 16:48:17 -
[56] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Mag's wrote:I've been involved in PC's since Windows 3.1. . Only Win 3.1?! You are a kid! If you say so, fan boy.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
168
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 18:10:07 -
[57] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Mag's wrote:I've been involved in PC's since Windows 3.1. . Only Win 3.1?! You are a kid! If you say so, fan boy. The hypocricy is astounding.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Mag's
the united
20663
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 18:46:46 -
[58] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Mag's wrote:If you say so, fan boy. The hypocricy is astounding. Jen may have that issue, sure. But seeing as I have been drawn to Radeon cards 3 times, due to spec and price, hypocrisy is hardly applicable to myself. (Actually 4 now I think about it. I forgot about the card in my daughters PC a couple of years back.)
But can you say the same regarding NVidia? Or does your Have used radeon cards since, well forever. statement, exclude them completely? I buy what works for me, atm that seems to be NVidia. If that changes, I'll be sure to let you know.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2366
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 18:49:24 -
[59] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Mag's wrote:I've been involved in PC's since Windows 3.1. . Only Win 3.1?! You are a kid! If you say so, fan boy. I prefer air conditioners. I still think of myself as a kid and I started with XT desktops using two floppy drives and no hard drive. My dad started with computers that resembled musical organ instruments. The drive was as big as a tumble dryer.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Yourmoney Mywallet
Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation
671
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 08:47:16 -
[60] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I started with XT desktops using two floppy drives Two floppy drives! *swoon*
My first box was an Atari 800XL. Loved it but game companies ignored it so I went with Commodore next: Amiga ftw! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |