|
Phuzun posted:I'm gonna get one in a week, going from a 285. The 285 will then go into physx and 24/7 folding duty. Don't do this unless you enjoy paying higher electric bills for no reason. quote:Hopefully I can get a water block that aligns nicely with the one on the 285 as well, which is koolance. Don't do this either. Water cooling is generally a giant money hole and you'll see far more benefit from putting that money into better GPU hardware (not that you need better GPU hardware if you already have a GTX 580 unless you're running some crazy dual-2560x1600 monitor setup or something.) Zedd posted:I don't get this; most games look good enough that 8x or 16x on AA barely matters and poo poo. Actually, I'd go so far as to suggest that - monitor pixel density being what it is these days - anything over 4x AA is just e-peen stroking. Seriously, I can't tell the difference between 4x and 8x on my 1080p monitor at all. Generally speaking you should always go for the extra frames over whatever miniscule extra effect you get from 8x AA. Devil Wears Wings fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Aug 3, 2011 |
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Man it feels like I just got a new gtx460 and already the standard has shifted again. I chose the worst possible time to upgrade everything
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:Man it feels like I just got a new gtx460 and already the standard has shifted again. I chose the worst possible time to upgrade everything Nope, because the 460 is still awesome. Seriously, as long as DX:HR runs as well as people in here have said then I'm sticking with my 5770, and the 460 beats that handily, so you're good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:Man it feels like I just got a new gtx460 and already the standard has shifted again. I chose the worst possible time to upgrade everything Nah, you're still good. Your GTX 460 can still run pretty much everything at 1080p. The next big shift won't come until either the next generation of consoles come out or 1600p gaming becomes affordable - and both of those are still years away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Well, it depends on what you consider adequate performance. I consider 1080p, most settings high, ~45 average FPS good, though 30 FPS is fine too. I'm happy with my 4850 in that regard. If you want everything maxed, higher than 1080p, 60 FPS minimum though, the standard is gonna shift every new series of cards released. If your 460 runs everything at a level that's acceptable to you, stick with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
I'm perfectly fine with 1080P and 2x AA but from what I've heard Witcher 2 can't play at max. Admittedly I haven't tried yet  I was expecting the next shift to come with the new consoles as well but with games like BF3 it looks like they're starting to shift already doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:I'm perfectly fine with 1080P and 2x AA but from what I've heard Witcher 2 can't play at max. Admittedly I haven't tried yet Sort of, but developers giving PC versions of games all that extra attention seems to be the exception to the rule. e: and I'm willing to be that you'll be running BF3 with pretty settings just fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Witcher 2 max is pointless. There are a few settings that add no real visual fidelity and only run well on brand new cards. You won't be able to tell the difference if you aren't doing a side by side comparison, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Witcher 2 max is pointless. There are a few settings that add no real visual fidelity and only run well on brand new cards. You won't be able to tell the difference if you aren't doing a side by side comparison, honestly. Isn't there a button that tells the game to render every frame multiple times or something? It's the computer gaming equivalent of getting a new private jet with more cargo space to transport your yacht.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:PC gaming is like an RPG in reverse: the later you buy an upgrade the better. Haha, this is awesome and so true. A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Yeah, it's the only big name game in my "poo poo" category on Steam. I still wish Steam would make some kind of "get rid of your lovely games for a minuscule amount of store credit" option. I don't know why and I don't know how they would make money off of it, but I just don't want Speedball 2 on my list anymore OKAY?  /ocd
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Zedd posted:I don't get this; most games look good enough that 8x or 16x on AA barely matters and poo poo. On my current setup I get like 25-35 fps on medium @ 1920x1200. That might be enough for some but for fps games anything less than 40fps sucks. As for AA, you don't really need AA at all if you're at that res, but if you're an arms length from the screen you sure do and will be able to tell the difference between that supersampling thing nvidia has (sxssaa or whatever the gently caress that things called) and no AA. If you went back from the screen though, like 3 feet or more it's really hard to tell if there's jaggies at all. GreenBuckanneer fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Aug 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Charles Martel posted:Haha, this is awesome and so true. I love that quote so much I added it to the OP. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Isn't there a button that tells the game to render every frame multiple times or something? It's the computer gaming equivalent of getting a new private jet with more cargo space to transport your yacht. That's the ubersampling thing which you will never actually notice ingame because it's hard to spot even when comparing screenshots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Isn't there a button that tells the game to render every frame multiple times or something? It's the computer gaming equivalent of getting a new private jet with more cargo space to transport your yacht. Yeah, it's ridiculous: quote:"The whole scene is rendered multiple times to give best possible texture and object details and antialiasing (better than antialias and anisotropy even on highest settings)." Here's a side-by-side comparison: http://www.overclock.net/graphics-cards-general/1023752-witcher-ubersampling-vs-off.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
I guess The Witcher 2 saw a market in guys with 4 6970s in their machine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Devil Wears Wings posted:Don't do this unless you enjoy paying higher electric bills for no reason. I didn't ask for advice, I was acknowledging another persons decision and stating that I was planning to pick one up as well. I honestly don't know why I wouldn't continue to contribute to folding@home, with hardware that would be doing nothing. And I've been water cooling for over a decade. I much rather have a whisper quiet high performance computer, which is worth the added cost to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Hell, I water-cooled my current machine's CPU out of sheer boredom. It was fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:On my current setup I get like 25-35 fps on medium @ 1920x1200. That might be enough for some but for fps games anything less than 40fps sucks. I can't do without 4x AA to be honest. I could tell the difference between 2x and 4x on Saints Row 2 sat 6 feet from a 32" 1080p screen. Also I have a big screenshot collection which I love watching on random and AA makes a big difference to screenshots. 8x is near-impossible to detect even on a screenshot, though. I don't think it has a big impact on performance these days anyway. But I'm happy to play a game at 20-25FPS as long as its steady whereas some people won't make do with less than a steady 60.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
There are people on that link saying the difference between those shots is night and day.  What the hell, all I can notice is slightly more defined shadows on the face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Watercooling is a bunch of hassle and, for this generation, not even worth it. With an i5 and a hyper 212, you can run 4 cores at 4ghz, and nobody needs more than that. e: yeah, the Witcher thing - like, it looks a little better, especially the detail on the textures, but I'm not paying $4000 for that
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:Watercooling is a bunch of hassle and, for this generation, not even worth it. With an i5 and a hyper 212, you can run 4 cores at 4ghz, and nobody needs more than that. This is true. It was still pretty fun to build though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Yeah, that's all I get from it, the shadows on the wood are a little neater with US on but not worth halving (or worse) your framerate. It's something you might sling on in 2018 because it's running at 100+ FPS anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:There are people on that link saying the difference between those shots is night and day. This is like the HBAO setting in Bad Company 2...It's almost impossible to tell whether its on or not unless you took screenshots and compare them side by side, but you definitely see a large increase in frame rate with it off. This begs the question of why are we using so much GPU power nowadays to render stuff that is so indiscernible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:This is like the HBAO setting in Bad Company 2...It's almost impossible to tell whether its on or not unless you took screenshots and compare them side by side, but you definitely see a large increase in frame rate with it off. Probably because it's the easiest way to satisfy "Numbers, numbers, numbers!" PC performance guys. I mean, PCs are way more powerful than the current console gen, but it's much easier to write a single shader that maxes out the current PC hardware then it is to rewrite the engine to take advantage of PC advances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:This is like the HBAO setting in Bad Company 2...It's almost impossible to tell whether its on or not unless you took screenshots and compare them side by side, but you definitely see a large increase in frame rate with it off. Because art assets are being limited by consoles, so crappy post-processing effects that have minimal effect and eat up a ton of GPU power is the only thing that can get people to buy new cards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:This begs the question of why are we using so much GPU power nowadays to render stuff that is so indiscernible? If the end result of ever-better graphics is eventually getting to true photo-realism, the effects needed to do so with become ever subtler as time goes on. We're virtually at the point where a game can have a 3D model of a person that exactly replicates the physical structure of a person in perfect detail. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't mastered the subtle shaders and lighting (in real-time at least) needed to make that model look completely photorealistic. When effects such as realistic sub-surface scattering and lighting models that actually provide truly realistic lighting become available in real time, they won't be huge leaps in effects quality, but they'll still do wonders in imparting realism. It's a small step from the uncanny valley to true photorealism, but getting their is a huge effort and will involve effects that seem almost invisible, but add up to a sum greater than it's individual parts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:If the end result of ever-better graphics is eventually getting to true photo-realism, the effects needed to do so with become ever subtler as time goes on. We're virtually at the point where a game can have a 3D model of a person that exactly replicates the physical structure of a person in perfect detail. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't mastered the subtle shaders and lighting (in real-time at least) needed to make that model look completely photorealistic. Yeah, but the stuff we're complaining about doesn't do that. It's more hardware intensive, but it doesn't look different. It's not that it's not obvious, but it brings the game to life. It's not obvious and it fails to bring the game to life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:This is like the HBAO setting in Bad Company 2...It's almost impossible to tell whether its on or not unless you took screenshots and compare them side by side, but you definitely see a large increase in frame rate with it off. We're getting to the point where the best graphical effects don't look like graphical effects. When they work right, the change is subtle, but it somehow just makes the game look awesome. SSAO and other occlusion techniques are supposed to do that. Unfortunately, the only games to do it right are called Crysis. There are things like the subtle motion blur in Left 4 Dead 2 that makes the game feel smooth without being blurry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
Would a game that is made to remove all kinds of clipping require some mythological graphics card or does that go under a different kind of process entirely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:If the end result of ever-better graphics is eventually getting to true photo-realism, the effects needed to do so with become ever subtler as time goes on. We're virtually at the point where a game can have a 3D model of a person that exactly replicates the physical structure of a person in perfect detail. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't mastered the subtle shaders and lighting (in real-time at least) needed to make that model look completely photorealistic. Great post summing up my thoughts on this as well. I don't see how we can reach that real-time quality without a parallel leap in technology and not just this trodding forward with more polygons and vram, etc... I've played Witcher 2 on my friends tri-fire with three top of the line ATI cards (I think 6950's) and it looked nice, but ran pretty slow with everything maxed on 1600p. He refuses to go to lower res because of his 30" monitor and has fallen into this benchmarking trap. The textures of Geralt's muscles and scars still looked like crap though and that's a hardware and software issue. Some parts of people are approaching realism, but never the whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:23
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Scalding Coffee posted:Would a game that is made to remove all kinds of clipping require some mythological graphics card or does that go under a different kind of process entirely? Clipping is more a physics issue. It would have to compute physics on almost all points of a mesh at once. Until we have the power to do that, devs will just use simplified bounding boxes which are good enough in most cases and way less power intensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Clipping is more a physics issue. It would have to compute physics on almost all points of a mesh at once. Until we have the power to do that, devs will just use simplified bounding boxes which are good enough in most cases and way less power intensive. Well, with PhysX and the whole GPGPU whatsit, isn't it likely that a graphics card will handle clipping at some point in the future?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Well, with PhysX and the whole GPGPU whatsit, isn't it likely that a graphics card will handle clipping at some point in the future? I guess, but to me it seems like something that would be secondary to improvements that would only be able to made on the GPU, especially since there's nothing terribly wrong with the current system besides implementation by devs, and no system is immune to "The devs got lazy or felt other things were more important.".
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Well, with PhysX and the whole GPGPU whatsit, isn't it likely that a graphics card will handle clipping at some point in the future? Unlikely. Highly sophisticated physics like you're describing can require several orders of magnitude more processing power and memory than the simplified systems that are in use today, and noticeable clipping isn't really that common anymore. Never mind the fact that creating a system to "remove clipping" (as if it were a post-processing effect) would demand building the physics engine from scratch focused around that concept. Instead, in the near future we'll see stuff like increased cloth physics on the player characters (so clothing bunches up as it moves), a larger amount of physics objects acting at once and probably enhanced versions of the object destruction systems seen in Red Faction: Guerrilla, Battlefield: BC2, etc with stuff like real-time tension and torsion distortion effects. That is, broader application of the kinds of physics we already have. One-to-one bounding meshes on everything are way down on the list of what to do with extra horsepower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:I went from a GTX 280 to a GTX 580 and since I can't do SLI (have a PCI audio interface that I can't replace), I am really enjoying the pretty things I see at 2560x1600. I went from a GTS7200 straight to a 560TI with no middle ground. I know 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
MX440, Pentium 3 and 10gb HDD space to C2D 3.0, 8800GT and 1TB back in the days
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
whiteshark12 posted:I went from a GTS7200 straight to a 560TI with no middle ground. If you're not playing at 2560x1600, you will not be part of the Ascension 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:If you're not playing at 2560x1600, you will not be part of the Ascension Gimme $1200 or a well paying job and I'll make the upgrade!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Gimme $1200 or a well paying job and I'll make the upgrade! I got my 3007WFP-HC for $700 3 years ago  Also this is pretty exciting: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4572/kepler-gpus-shipping-this-year-nvidia-says-yes Strong Female fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Amrosorma posted:If you're not playing at 2560x1600, you will not be part of the Ascension Good lord, I figured this resolution was the result of an Eyefinity or multi-monitor setup, but there are single Dell monitors that can achieve this?  How many games even support that resolution, and even more importantly, how many legacy games would support that resolution without everything looking like a stretched-out blurry mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 00:24
|
|