People excusing GPU performance for "poorly made games"

[kipper]

Let's go back a bit...

 

GTX 480/580

 

Battlefield 3, neither of these GPU's could max this game with MSAA at 1080p with 60+FPS, even after overclocking, yet the 480/580 were pretty much dominant for a long time.

Never once heard anyone blaming the game for being made badly, yet most people soon upgraded to GTX 680/ HD 7970 just to run BF3 at it's full prowess at 1080p.

 

Now the reason i made this thread.

 

People seem to think that 1440p is the only resolution you should use a 980Ti... it is totally ridiculous considering with each passing new game coming out, framerates are going down, and GPU's need to become more powerful even at 1920x1080...

 

Yet this card is for 1440p/4k?

 

 

All i see are people defending purchases, maybe i am wrong, but it seems that way.

 

A 980Ti is the only starting point you will max Witcher 3 with all whistles at 1080p.

Crysis 3 still dips to like 52FPS with 8xMSAA.

 

 

[vorticalbox]

I agree 1080 is still the dominate resolution. Nothing wrong with going a bit over kill to make your GPU last longer. I know jay2cents said his friend was running years old GPU running newer games because his monitor was 720p and didn't want to part from it.

 

I would rather have to much power now and still beable to run games a few more years down the line. 

[werto165]

Well with witcher 3, hairworks is an FPS killer, it's practically halves my frame rate, max settings 1080p i get consistent 60FPS, but with hair works I get like 36FPS. 980ti is more than fine for 1440p, not all the eye candy makes the game look that much better. Hairworks is just especially demanding as I think it does something crazy like 8xMSAA on each strand of hair.

Also you do realise that 8x MSAA is rediculously hard to do.

[kipper]

Well with witcher 3, hairworks is an FPS killer, it's practically halves my frame rate, max settings 1080p i get consistent 60FPS, but with hair works I get like 36FPS. 980ti is more than fine for 1440p, not all the eye candy makes the game look that much better. Hairworks is just especially demanding as I think it does something crazy like 8xMSAA on each strand of hair.

I would much rather have that sexy hair than the whatever the hell that is attached to the damn horse o.0

[You_are_a_cunt]

Totally agreed.

 

It's the same with CPUs; I've been seeing ALOT of hate towards AMD and I've personally been on the receiving end of people saying "OMG your CPU sucks why don't you get a $1000 intel instead" (when I've made myself clear that I can't afford the best, expensive chips out there) and as long as my purchases serve their purpose I'm not even going to bother explaining them. -> edit: IRL <-

Yes, I have an FX CPU. Yes, I know Intel performs better in certain tasks. Yes, I know it's an old(er) CPU. Yes, it does what I need it to do. No, I don't care about benchmarks. No, I won't blindly buy something way over my budget just because X or Y said I should. Yes, I value your opinion. No, I'm not a sheep or a fanboy.

 

#dealwithit

[kipper]

Well with witcher 3, hairworks is an FPS killer, it's practically halves my frame rate, max settings 1080p i get consistent 60FPS, but with hair works I get like 36FPS. 980ti is more than fine for 1440p, not all the eye candy makes the game look that much better. Hairworks is just especially demanding as I think it does something crazy like 8xMSAA on each strand of hair.

Also you do realise that 8x MSAA is rediculously hard to do.

I was pulling off 32xCSAA in Crysis and Bad Company 2 on Fermi GTX 480...

[werto165]

I would much rather have that sexy hair than the whatever the hell that is attached to the damn horse o.0

Well if it didn't affect the performance that much I would. I would take a smooth 60FPS frame rate over some hair that looks a little janky at times .

[PineappleHolidays]

Disagree,

you should be getting the 980 ti for 1440 or above,

at 1080p you could spend a bit less ( R9 390 or 970 ) and get good performance, and upgrade in a year's time when better cards come out ( or get a better overall build ).

 

It's the same reason 980 SLI is stupid for 1080p, you're spending so much when just turning down the settings and getting a single card would be best.

 

( I can't find a proper way to illustrate this )

 

( although you can still buy a 980ti if you have money just pouring out of your pockets )

[Guest]

I would have to agree that 1080p is still the preferred resolution, but most people in the community want to try something new, or they just plain want a higher resolution in gaming and/or rendering. Technology is derived as one of the biggest platforms for consumerism so I'm not entirely surprised with how fast people buy products.

[kipper]

See games like this you just downsample...

 

[werto165]

I was pulling off 32xCSAA in Crysis and Bad Company 2 on Fermi GTX 480...

Well my understanding would be that there is much much more going on screen, the more vertices you add with shrubbery and just general higher poly models the more samples the GPU has to do per frame. I could be chatting shit however. You get deminishing returns after 4x MSAA IMO. Also higher resolutions negate the need for crazy AA.

[Speaker1264]

Totally agreed.

 

It's the same with CPUs; I've been seeing ALOT of hate towards AMD and I've personally been on the receiving end of people saying "OMG your CPU sucks why don't you get a $1000 intel instead" (when I've made myself clear that I can't afford the best, expensive chips out there) and as long as my purchases serve their purpose I'm not even going to bother explaining them. -> edit: IRL <-

Yes, I have an FX CPU. Yes, I know Intel performs better in certain tasks. Yes, I know it's an old(er) CPU. Yes, it does what I need it to do. No, I don't care about benchmarks. No, I won't blindly buy something way over my budget just because X or Y said I should. Yes, I value your opinion. No, I'm not a sheep or a fanboy.

 

#dealwithit

 

Not trying to hate but no one suggests getting a $1000 intel cpu (sarcasm I know), but an i5-4460 is only $167 bucks here in the US and it performs significantly faster.  But if the 4300 is still providing all that you require than I don't see a reason to upgrade either.

[kipper]

Well my understanding would be that there is much much more going on screen, the more vertices you add with shrubbery and just general higher poly models the more samples the GPU has to do per frame. I could be chatting shit however. You get deminishing returns after 4x MSAA IMO. Also higher resolutions negate the need for crazy AA.

Games such as Bad Company 2 really need high amounts of AA due to the scene complexity, so many buildings with straight edges and big maps, things look bad from a distance, and there is a huge difference between 8xMSAA and 32xCSAA in that game.

[werto165]

Games such as Bad Company 2 really need high amounts of AA due to the scene complexity, so many buildings with straight edges and big maps, things look bad from a distance, and there is a huge difference between 8xMSAA and 32xCSAA in that game.

What does CS before AA mean, I really can't remember. I'm sure that battlefield 3/4 don't even have those settings for AA anymore. I sure AA is not on their priorties for making games look better as the latest games I have seen less and less options for AA.

[Speaker1264]

Well my understanding would be that there is much much more going on screen, the more vertices you add with shrubbery and just general higher poly models the more samples the GPU has to do per frame. I could be chatting shit however. You get deminishing returns after 4x MSAA IMO. Also higher resolutions negate the need for crazy AA.

 

+1

[kipper]

What does CS before AA mean, I really can't remember. I'm sure that battlefield 3/4 don't even have those settings for AA anymore.

The engine used for 3/4 are deferred, so limited in what they can do with AA, and AA is massively harder to run deferred.

 

CSAA is Coverage Sampled AA.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Not trying to hate but no one suggests getting a $1000 intel cpu (sarcasm I know), but an i5-4460 is only $167 bucks here in the US and it performs significantly faster.  But if the 4300 is still providing all that you require than I don't see a reason to upgrade either.

The cheapest i5 here is at least twice the price of the 4300, so yeah. and no, I wasn't even near sarcasm's postcode when I said $1000. 4930K is $950 and I've had at least 5 people saying anything below that is shit. They are no longer friends of mine.

[kipper]

Introduction

CSAA (Coverage Sampling Antialiasing) is one of the key new features of the GeForce 8 Series GPU.

In summary, CSAA produces antialiased images that rival the quality of 8x or 16x MSAA, while introducing only a minimal performance hit over standard (typically 4x) MSAA. It works by introducing the concept of a new sample type: a sample that represents coverage. This differs from previous AA techniques where coverage was always inherently tied to another sample type. In supersampling for example, each sample represents shaded color, stored color/z/stencil, and coverage, which essentially amounts to rendering to an oversized buffer and downfiltering. MSAA reduces the shader overhead of this operation by decoupling shaded samples from stored color and coverage; this allows applications using antialiasing to operate with fewer shaded samples while maintaining the same quality color/z/stencil and coverage sampling. CSAA further optimizes this process by decoupling coverage from color/z/stencil, thus reducing bandwidth and storage costs.

[werto165]

The engine used for 3/4 are deferred, so limited in what they can do with AA, and AA is massively harder to run deferred.

 

CSAA is Coverage Sampled AA.

What do you mean by deffered? Does it just calculate it once the frame is in the buffer or something along those lines?

[kipper]

What do you mean by deffered? Does it just calculate it once the frame is in the buffer or something along those lines?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1189461/bf3-deferred-anti-aliasing-vs-anti-aliasing-post-comparison-or-why-you-should-stop-using-msaa

[Shally]

Why spend 600 on a gpu and have a 200 monitor...people don't buy the 980ti to max out on 1080, some people, like jayz, hate seeing single pixels. Games look much nicer high setting at 1440p then games at ultra on 1080p.

[kipper]

Why spend 600 on a gpu and have a 200 monitor...people don't buy the 980ti to max out on 1080, some people, like jayz, hate seeing single pixels. Games look much nicer high setting at 1440p then games at ultra on 1080p.

1080p 144hz>>> 60hz

[Shally]

1080p 144hz>>> 60hz

G-sync, free sync at 1440-p.

[kipper]

G-sync, free sync at 1440-p.

420 pounds for freesync and 600+ for G-Sync, or 220 for 1080p 144...

[Speaker1264]

Why spend 600 on a gpu and have a 200 monitor...people don't buy the 980ti to max out on 1080, some people, like jayz, hate seeing single pixels. Games look much nicer high setting at 1440p then games at ultra on 1080p.

 

Personally I would rather have my games at ultra and 1080p.