1 Gig GTX460's Still worth it??

[Giac]

That's an unrealistic scenario.

really? The whole point of a high end PC is seamless multitasking. I shouldnt have to close a bunch of tabs just to make a game playable.

[Morfy]

why would anyone want to do that?

 

 

That's an unrealistic scenario.

Because this way you fill up the memory, and if the game would not use more than 1 gb, it should not be dragged down so much, but i can assure you, Tomb Raider will see a difference when the Vram is missing, it uses 1.5 gb on my 660, with nothing in the background.

[Giac]

Ya Tomb Raider uses about 980mb for me on 1680x1050.

wat? Tomb Raider uses atleast 1.5GB at 1080P. Either you have your texture resolution/AA down or you are lying.

 

 

in the 40s if I remember correctly. sans TressFX and maybe AA turned down otherwise maxed out.

 

Well I am back and so the game tuns maxed out minus SSAA and tressFX off and it completely smooth with over 35 to 40fps.

 

LOL 35-40fps =! smooth gameplay. Especially on this particular engine.

[Morfy]

wat? Tomb Raider uses atleast 1.5GB at 1080P. Either you have your texture resolution/AA down or you are lying.

 

 

 

LOL 35-40fps =! smooth gameplay. Especially on this particular engine.

I must agree but disagree, he is gaming low, forget that, but for example 45 is damn playable in Crysis 3, but you need atleast 60 fps in BF3, dsepends on the game, i find 45 ok in Tomb, but i hate when it dips, also last time i played was with my old CPU so things surely changed.

[Giac]

I must agree but disagree, he is gaming low, forget that, but for example 45 is damn playable in Crysis 3, but you need atleast 60 fps in BF3, dsepends on the game, i find 45 ok in Tomb, but i hate when it dips, also last time i played was with my old CPU so things surely changed.

Right, depending on the engine different frame rates can be percieved as either smooth or laggy. Personally I find tomb raider a little laggy at that fps. Nowhere near as bad as say...playing a source game at 45fps. Frostbite 2 is another engine that suffers a bit at lower than 60fps frame rates, but Crysis 1 felt playable at 30-35fps for me.

[Tr3vor]

wat? Tomb Raider uses atleast 1.5GB at 1080P. Either you have your texture resolution/AA down or you are lying.

 

 

 

LOL 35-40fps =! smooth gameplay. Especially on this particular engine.

Remember that not everyone runs a 680 and has MSAA up to x8 or whatever. Also some people don't like  it because it introduces latency.

 

And once again with the "smooth gameplay", that is an opinion, it may not be smooth enough for you, but it might be to others.

 

really? The whole point of a high end PC is seamless multitasking. I shouldnt have to close a bunch of tabs just to make a game playable.

When was the last time that you had more than 2 youtube videos running behind a game? 

[Giac]

Remember that not everyone runs a 680 and has MSAA up to x8 or whatever. Also some people don't like  it because it introduces latency.

 

And once again with the "smooth gameplay", that is an opinion, it may not be smooth enough for you, but it might be to others.

 

When was the last time that you had more than 2 youtube videos running behind a game? 

I agree on your point about AA. I notice the additional latency as well. Especially in BF3.

 

 

Last time I had 2 videos running in the background was yesterday...well not youtube. I had Mad Men on netflix paused and a youtube video as well.

[Tr3vor]

I agree on your point about AA. I notice the additional latency as well. Especially in BF3.

 

 

Last time I had 2 videos running in the background was yesterday...well not youtube. I had Mad Men on netflix paused and a youtube video as well.

What I should have said is more than 2. The most I've used was two. when you get more than 2 (which for me is usually a voiced over video and the other one is music) it becomes a clusterf*ck of sound.

[Theo]

It's hard to play extra nice when some people are continually spreading misinformation even when facts are displayed that they are in correct.

You mean what you are doing?

And that card is still fine if you aren't playing in 1080p or if you don't mind turning down the graphics settings!

[Giac]

You mean what you are doing?

And that card is still fine if you aren't playing in 1080p or if you don't mind turning down the graphics settings!

...Exactly what he's doing.

 

I tried playing BF3 with my GTX280 at 1080P. Even on lowest settings my Vram usage was near 100%. Looking at a wide open area would kill the fps...rendering the game almost unplayable.

[Chivpcgamer]

Because this way you fill up the memory, and if the game would not use more than 1 gb, it should not be dragged down so much, but i can assure you, Tomb Raider will see a difference when the Vram is missing, it uses 1.5 gb on my 660, with nothing in the background.

i know lets fill up the memory for no reason at all when we could just enjoy gaming and watch youtube videos afterwards

[HemiPhenom955]

Hi all just a little topic of conversation,,

 

The Birthday gods were good to me this year, the Wife got Me the MSI Twinfrozer 2Gig GTX680!!!

So i thought i would see Just how much better it was compared to my SLI'd 460's.

 

Well in Retrospect,, the SLI'd 1Gig GTX460 is Still Quite the Performer.

 

In 3DMark Vantage at 1920X1080 with Extreme setting the Results were:

 

Evga GTX460 EE's In SLI~ X14316 Score.

 

MSI GTX680 Twin Frozer 2Gig~  (Get This)  X17980.

 

So You be the Judge,, Are they Still a Stout card to SLI??

 

I say Yes.

I have somewhat excting news,,

 

I ran all my Benchmarks with and with out the 460 in my system.

 

With the GTX460 handeling PhysX Duties,,  I did see an improvement in performance accross the board.

 

When i Ran Through "Last Light",,Mafia II,,and Farcry 3. My FPS were pegged at 60,,  and my 460 was running at an average of 35% of the load, IMO Taking care of PhysX.

 

I am running 1920X1080 on everything.

[G.Freeman]

I have somewhat excting news,,

 

I ran all my Benchmarks with and with out the 460 in my system.

 

With the GTX460 handeling PhysX Duties,,  I did see an improvement in performance accross the board.

 

When i Ran Through "Last Light",,Mafia II,,and Farcry 3. My FPS were pegged at 60,,  and my 460 was running at an average of 35% of the load, IMO Taking care of PhysX.

 

I am running 1920X1080 on everything.

I don't think a GTX 460 will max out those games like you claim.

[Godlygamer23]

really? The whole point of a high end PC is seamless multitasking. I shouldnt have to close a bunch of tabs just to make a game playable.

So you're gonna have a video play in the background while you play a video game on a single monitor? Didn't think so. Hell, even on a dual monitor, why would you play a video while playing a video game? It would take away from the experience of the video game. So yeah, it's unrealistic. Not something I would imagine people would encounter most likely.

[Chivpcgamer]

I don't think a GTX 460 will max out those games like you claim.

not a single 460 surely? He must mean using it as a physx card.... Surely

[HemiPhenom955]

I don't think a GTX 460 will max out those games like you claim.

Your rite,,, the 680 is doing all the hard work,, the 460 is set to PhysX.

[Chivpcgamer]

Your rite,,, the 680 is doing all the hard work,, the 460 is set to PhysX.

thats a very good setup imo

[Chivpcgamer]

Your rite,,, the 680 is doing all the hard work,, the 460 is set to PhysX.

thats a very good setup imo

[Chivpcgamer]

Your rite,,, the 680 is doing all the hard work,, the 460 is set to PhysX.

thats a very good setup imo

[Chivpcgamer]

Your rite,,, the 680 is doing all the hard work,, the 460 is set to PhysX.

thats a very good setup imo

[HemiPhenom955]

Says who ? I got the links to professional sources plus my own experience that says there is no tangible detrimental performance impact to cards that are running a single 1080P monitor or lower rez on 1GB Vram.

I'm just assuming with the Gaming engines and designer programs getting better at rendering textures and things,, i might be wrong,,, but who's to say.

[Chivpcgamer]

Everyones got the links to proffesional sources lol

[Godlygamer23]

Everyones got the links to proffesional sources lol

Not me. I'm just using MSI Afterburner. Well, I did mention the 560 Ti 1GB vs 2GB in Battlefield 3.

[Chivpcgamer]

I have detriment in performance at 1080p with my 1.5gb gtx 580. I run all settings on ultra but get held back be msaa, because of vram............

[HemiPhenom955]

Its been confirmed that the PS4 will have 8gb GDDR5 shared between the GPU and CPU, which means that the devs can use hover much they want for GPU, and however much they want for CPU. So Theoretically the PS4's GPU could use 6gb or more if they wanted it to, even though it won't be pretty at all.

 

Yeah, in the future the 1gb cards will probably be too weak to run 1080p games, but I'm saying that eventually 1080p will use more than 1gb of vram and eventually 1080p won't be a resolution that you'd want to game at.

 

 

The problem is that the GPU on the Ps4 will be very weak and not able to even use the graphical fidelity that the massive Vram buffer would otherwise enabled if the GPU could keep the framerate up without plummeting. In other words it imbalanced and not cost effective. Also it's not the 1GB Vram that makes the card fast or slow it's the GPU core that makes it fast or slow.

 

 

If the official specs released by sony are true, the PS4's GPU will be able to output 1.8TFLOPS, which is around the same as a GeForce GTX 660, so its not quite a weak GPU, but its definitely no high end GPU. Most of the ram on the PS4 is gonna be used by CPU anyway.

 

I know that the GPU will be far too weak to keep up with a game that uses 6gb of vram, but its theoretical. I get what you're trying to say about the vram, its like how its stupid to put 2gb of vram on a GT 630 or something wimpy like that, it doesn't have the GPU power to run a game that takes 2gb of vram at playable framerates, it might not even work at all.

 

 

Exactly what I am saying. But I still do not think that Sony could get that much ram in the system without it having to be really overpriced. Besides properly developed and coded games do not need to use much Vram but that's an optimization thing.

This post is NOT about the PS4.