Stress FX on Gtx 680

[LOST TALE]

How's the performance? is it worth it?

geforce experience recommends it, but they're like fake AI.

 

meant tressFX

 

/Optimising games

[Fred Castellum]

Stress FX?

[Recon-UK]

Stress FX?

 

Stress FX?

[TheSLSAMG]

???

 

TressFX is the closest thing to what you're saying and it is optimized for AMD cards. If you like nice hair/fur/grass animation, go for it, but it's kind of useless if you don't care. It will impact performance, but not too harshly.

[Fred Castellum]

OP where'd you go?!

 

*makes thread 26 minutes ago....*

*last active 26 minutes ago*

[seiny]

gtx 680. Haven't heard that for long time

[Clarkey]

In my opinion it was worth it. didnt drop my fps to much and it does look fantastic

[Inkz]

gtx 680. Haven't heard that for long time

A 770 is basically a slightly OC 680, and come on the 680 isn't that old.

[kaneandtaker]

Reading OP's post gave me a headache. What exactly are you asking?

 

Fake AI? Huh?

Geforce Experience recommends TressFX (an AMD product)? HUH??

[xAcid9]

[LOST TALE]

A 770 is basically a slightly OC 680, and come on the 680 isn't that old.

It's actually a 670 but because it so oced out of the box and is of a prallel universe when it comes to benchmarks. I call it 770 or 680 occasionaly.

[LOST TALE]

???

 

TressFX is the closest thing to what you're saying and it is optimized for AMD cards. If you like nice hair/fur/grass animation, go for it, but it's kind of useless if you don't care. It will impact performance, but not too harshly.

I congratulate your distinct communication skillz.

Can you be more precise about the performance impact?

Does it rely on cpu or gpu?

Say I run 1080p with ultra settings.

[TheSLSAMG]

I congratulate your distinct communication skillz.

Can you be more precise about the performance impact?

Does it rely on cpu or gpu?

Say I run 1080p with ultra settings.

It is more reliant on GPU, hence it's optimization on AMD GPUs. The following graph is representitive of the performance hit a system with a GTX 680 would take:

 

 

This is at 1080p with only FXAA used for filtering. As you can see, with TressFX on, around 10% performance is lost in terms of average FPS.

[Osmium]

It's actually a 670 but because it so oced out of the box and is of a prallel universe when it comes to benchmarks. I call it 770 or 680 occasionaly.

 

No that is wrong. It is a fully unlocked GK104 core (a 680 not a 670) with 1536 CUDA cores. the 770=OCed 680. It also has much much faster VRAM speeds that I don't even think the 680 can be OCed to.

[xAcid9]

I congratulate your distinct communication skillz.

Can you be more precise about the performance impact?

Does it rely on cpu or gpu?

Say I run 1080p with ultra settings.

 

It use DirectCompute so that mean 100% on GPU. Performance impact varies, if you zoom close in FPS will drop like crazy. 

 

It is more reliant on GPU, hence it's optimization on AMD GPUs. The following graph is representitive of the performance hit a system with a GTX 680 would take:

 

 

This is at 1080p with only FXAA used for filtering. As you can see, with TressFX on, around 10% performance is lost in terms of average FPS.

 

That's an old benchmark, Nvidia constantly optimized TressFX performance and it is far better now compare to a year ago.

#thankamdgoditsnotproprietary

[TheSLSAMG]

It use DirectCompute so that mean 100% on GPU. Performance impact varies, if you zoom close in FPS will drop like crazy. 

 

 

That's an old benchmark, Nvidia constantly optimized TressFX performance and it is far better now compare to a year ago.

#thankamdgoditsnotproprietary

From what I saw on HardOCP, the benches I pulled were from after Nvidia's driver fix. I could be wrong though.