|
Agreed posted:Or, let UNIGINE Heaven 3.0 go on its merry loop and you'll find out real quick what kind of stability your overclock has. Heaven is my favorite, both because they've consistently sorta one-upped Futuremark for relevance despite it being a freeware product; because there's no manual dicking around required, it auto-loops through a scene where every camera hard change is testing/showing off something new and DX11, so if you want to, feel free to just let it run for awhile and if you come back to a driver crash you know to reduce clocks; and you can monitor it to see if you've got shader artifacts, geometry issues, etc. and help narrow down what isn't working right. Heaven is also the first benchmark for OS X since the Radeon 9600 days! 
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
How much quieter are the 2-fan/3-fan full PCI board configurations of the GTX 670 compared to the baseline ones? Been waiting 2 weeks for one of the custom ones. They seem to be in really short supply. I just don't want another jet engine solution like my GTX470 or Radeon4890 before that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
New WHQL Nvidia drivers dropped today. http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/44967
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:New WHQL Nvidia drivers dropped today. Speak of the devil... This is for Fermi, not Kepler, an architecture that's getting mildly long in the tooth at this point and yet: "GTX 570/580: ... Up to 21% in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim ..." So adding that to the previous WHQL drivers' improvement, that's, what, 60% cumulative performance improvement compared to the drivers that were out when Skyrim launched? Something was going on between the engine and the architecture of the card that was costing somewhere around half of its possible performance, and they've now got that lined out, what, half a year later? Neither company can say a word about driver superiority, both are just doing the best they can to keep up with the engine antics that accompany new AAA game launches. Drivers are one part features, hundreds of parts individual per-game hacks to improve compatibility. Edit: I checked, and yeah, drivers 295.73 WHQL boasted "Game-changing performance boost of up to 45% in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, “the fastest selling title in Steam’s history"". Welp!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
I've been using beta/dev drivers for a while, but if this is the first WHQL version with adaptive vsync I highly recommend it. I get more tearing than I did with regular ol' vsync but the performance overall is much better and on games where my GPU is vastly overpowering it doesn't waste as much juice.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
I've just bought a replacement motherboard for my old desktop PC and need a new GPU. What would be a good match with an Intel Q6600, 4GB Ram (800mhz) machine. I had a 8800GT back in the day but I sold it. Is that a decent GPU for this level of stuff? My budget is <£50 (70-80USD) and I've no quams buying used. Just looking an indication of where to look (i.e. ATI/NVideo and possibly a range to look at)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
System building/parts picking thread is ^^^^ thataway.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
ToG posted:I've just bought a replacement motherboard for my old desktop PC and need a new GPU. What would be a good match with an Intel Q6600, 4GB Ram (800mhz) machine. I had a 8800GT back in the day but I sold it. Is that a decent GPU for this level of stuff? This is probably the most GPU you'll get for that money: http://www.ebuyer.com/280038-powercolor-hd-6670-1gb-ddr3-dvi-vga-hdmi-pci-e-graphics-card-ax6670-1gbk3-h Yes, there's an MSI for a couple of quid less, but this just pushes you over the £50 needed for free 5 day delivery. Had a look on ebay for you, and I didn't see anything that stood out in that price range. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 23:04 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Yeah there's some decent ones on ebay but they're ALL auctions. What's the equivalent Nvidia card to that thing?
ToG fucked around with this message at 23:24 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
There is none; low-end Nvidia cards are terrible values. And this still isn't the parts-picking thread.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:This is probably the most GPU you'll get for that money: I found this which gave the the sort of anchor I was looking for. That 6670 looks like the one to be, I might spend a few more quid on a better make though. Cheers for the help. edit: Looks like ebuyer want £10 for delivery. I'll look elsewhere. ToG fucked around with this message at 00:26 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:How much quieter are the 2-fan/3-fan full PCI board configurations of the GTX 670 compared to the baseline ones? My GTX 670 is completely silent, although some people complain of a motor noise I don't hear anything. Now that may just be my extremely loud PC but the reference model seems very quiet to me (I'm using an EVGA one).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
brettlaf posted:My GTX 670 is completely silent, although some people complain of a motor noise I don't hear anything. Now that may just be my extremely loud PC but the reference model seems very quiet to me (I'm using an EVGA one). I'm not a computer Wizard (not anymore anyway,) but wouldn't that all depend on the manufacturer and if they put a noisy fan on it?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Quick question. Can I run BF3 at ultra on a 27" monitor with a GTX670, or do I need to step up to a GTX680?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
EvilCoolAidMan posted:Quick question. Can I run BF3 at ultra on a 27" monitor with a GTX670, or do I need to step up to a GTX680? You did not list a resolution. But yes the 670 will run it fine on any 27" regardless of resolution.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
EvilCoolAidMan posted:Quick question. Can I run BF3 at ultra on a 27" monitor with a GTX670, or do I need to step up to a GTX680? Hardly any difference between them, especially with the better 670 cards.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Animal posted:You did not list a resolution. But yes the 670 will run it fine on any 27" regardless of resolution. Sorry it's 2560x1440, but thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Yeah, GTX670 will own balls at that resolution, should be really really pretty. Also, RizieN kindly made some graphics for this OP just like the monitor megathread, they look loving awesome. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:New WHQL Nvidia drivers dropped today.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a driver sweeper? A bunch come up when I google the term but I don't want to just install any random one without knowing if its good or not.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
ToG posted:I found this which gave the the sort of anchor I was looking for. That 6670 looks like the one to be, I might spend a few more quid on a better make though. it's free is you select 5 day delivery, as long as the order is over 50 quid. did say that.. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 08:04 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:Can anyone recommend a driver sweeper? A bunch come up when I google the term but I don't want to just install any random one without knowing if its good or not.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
Dogen posted:I've been using beta/dev drivers for a while, but if this is the first WHQL version with adaptive vsync I highly recommend it. I get more tearing than I did with regular ol' vsync but the performance overall is much better and on games where my GPU is vastly overpowering it doesn't waste as much juice. I can't be arsed to read the loving manual because I am almost literally a babby, could you share some experience-based insight as to which adaptive vsync I ought to go with since we're using the same usually-drastically-overpowered card? I'm using a 60hz Samsung 1080p monitor, appears to be roughly, ah... 24" or so. Regular adaptive, or Half? Framerate limits have been available for some time through nVidiaInspector, but I am interested in the Framerate Target feature... Not quite sure what that's going to do, though. I should probably rtfm after all. But any insight you can offer as someone who has been using beta drivers with the same card would be very much appreciated. Edit: Also, if I get a 670/680 ($100 for a 10% improvement? ... we'll see) I'll sell you my GTX 580 at around half price, promise. Put that Cadillac of power supplies to use.  But I'm a little concerned at Kepler's apparently rather mediocre DX9 performance thus far... Still enough games using DX9 (e.g. The Witcher 2) that I really don't want to spend a bunch of money to downgrade my performance there. Anyone know if more has come of that since initial reports of the peculiar behavior?
Agreed fucked around with this message at 11:02 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
I overclocked my HD7850 to 1GHz and ran the Heaven Benchmark 3.0 on it for about an hour without issues. The GPU only got to 61C under load at 1GHz too.  
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I can't be arsed to read the loving manual because I am almost literally a babby, could you share some experience-based insight as to which adaptive vsync I ought to go with since we're using the same usually-drastically-overpowered card? I'm using a 60hz Samsung 1080p monitor, appears to be roughly, ah... 24" or so. Regular adaptive, or Half? Regular, half limits it to 30fps, which I don't really know why that option is in there. You might not like it, I still get tearing occasionally (I guess when frames drastically shoot up and it has trouble compensating? not sure).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
To me its well worth it. The tearing is minimal and well worth the gain in fps stability.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Regular, half limits it to 30fps, which I don't really know why that option is in there. I can put up with some tearing if it means I get more consistent FPS. High end cards are in a weird spot when it comes to that "well it'd do 50+fps but it won't lock in at 60" with high graphics. Especially with Triple Buffering. I am very interested in seeing FXAA just plain enable-able across the board, as FXinjector (the most configurable one, anyway) is limited to DX9 games. I'll be testing how FXAA works on games I've already enabled FXAA on via the injector
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Yeah that's the beauty of it, you don't get *BOOM* down to 30 when frames drop below 60 anymore. I have been enjoying playing with FXAA on titles that don't support it already.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Regular, half limits it to 30fps, which I don't really know why that option is in there.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
A few modern games, too, like LA Noire. The facial animation system is a 30FPS video normal map, basically, so the engine locks in sync with that. Also, this is neither here nor there, but every time I type "LA Noire" I very nearly typo "LA Norse," and I imagine the most wonderful Skyrim mashup.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:A few modern games, too, like LA Noire. The facial animation system is a 30FPS video normal map, basically, so the engine locks in sync with that. I think they came up with some kind of workaround patch before last, but don't quote me on that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:A few modern games, too, like LA Noire. The facial animation system is a 30FPS video normal map, basically, so the engine locks in sync with that. LA Noire is actually running really well on my GTX 460 @ 2560x1600, shockingly enough. Even without AA, it's a pretty looking game.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
FXAA on top of FXAA looks... pretty good, little soft on some things but a quick CSAA pass takes care of that. Niiiiiice.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Just for shits and giggles I fired up Half-Life last night with 32x CSAA + FXAA with transparency super sampling. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Just for shits and giggles I fired up Half-Life last night with 32x CSAA + FXAA with transparency super sampling. Source or the original?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Any idea why adaptive vsync is not working with Diablo3 fullscreen windowed mode? It only works in fullscreen mode for some reason and i'd prefer to use adaptive mode instead of Diablo3 ingame vsync.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:Source or the original?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Why not go for full SSAA then? Render internally at 10x resolution and then downscale. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
It looks like the Asus 670 GTX is now available. I ordered one from Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121638) earlier today, although it's currently OOS. I think they restock pretty frequently, so it's worthwhile to keep an eye out. The reviews for the Asus 670 has been phenomenal, especially the virtually silent fans, which will be a drastic improvement over my EVGA 580 and its awful blower. Also I look forward to plugging my Apple display directly instead of routing through Lucid Virtu (no displayport on the reference 580 for some reason). Has anyone tried overclocking the 670? With a good custom cooler it seems the only limitation is voltage and stability rather than noise/heat. It seems insane to me that in some reviews factory OC'ed 670 is within single digit percentage performance of the 590. Also with the option of custom cooled 670 SLI for ~$850, I can't imagine 690 to have much of a place anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Socialism posted:Has anyone tried overclocking the 670? With a good custom cooler it seems the only limitation is voltage and stability rather than noise/heat. It seems insane to me that in some reviews factory OC'ed 670 is within single digit percentage performance of the 590. Also with the option of custom cooled 670 SLI for ~$850, I can't imagine 690 to have much of a place anymore. Info gathered 'round the net suggests that its overclocking capability is pretty much the same as the GTX 680's, and since they perform extraordinarily close to one another in most tasks with the stock clock discrepancy, the fact that some people get bummed out if they can't get their GTX 670 to at least 1200mhz core is pretty funny. Here's a wrinkle - from what I can tell, the 7970 has better clock-for-clock performance at most tasks than the GTX 680, around 5% to 7% depending. And you can overclock the poo poo out of it. But, I do feel nVidia is a clear features leader right now, regardless of the potential performance discrepancy there, and driver support for nVidia's lineup has resulted in what seems to me to be a more thorough performance improvement over previous generations in most titles. Not all, most, though. And the basically-free FXAA and capability to do PhysX acceleration as a bonus. AMD/ATI is working on MLAA, I know, and the latest I saw there suggested that their image quality was getting more and more impressive (an area where their tech probably has a slight edge over FXAA as development continues, though the quirky and proprietary nature of it compared to nVidia's usage of it as a general post-processor for any game still hinders it a bit). What's really vexing me is that the GTX 580 is still holding on. It's virtually clock-for-clock even with the 7970, which means a heavily overclocked GTX 580 performs kinda similarly to a (stupidly) not overclocked 680. While it is fun to be able to say "wow, an overclocked GTX 670/680 sometimes outperforms a GTX 590 and has smoother gameplay!!" you can very nearly say the same thing about a heavily overclocked GTX 580. Just because GF110 was never the right chip to slap together for a two-GPU card in the first place and performs like poo poo Basically, if you've got a GTX 580 right now, your best bet is to just accept it for what it is, get the highest clock you can, and wait for the next cards to land and push the performance envelope farther - assuming rough overclocking performance percentage parity, which is a pretty safe bet since as mentioned you get at least a 5% head start per megahertz on a 580, you're stuck at around 25-35% better performance in most games, up to 40% in some with a 680... And pretty much the same story, just with virtually identical clock-for-clock per-frame rendering performance with a 7970. Even overclocking the poo poo out of them, that's not going to make the difference between "can't turn everything up" and "CAN turn everything up!" in the most demanding titles that nutjobs like me enjoy punishing our graphics cards to try to get lookin' good. Edit: Reason that bums me out instead of making me go  is because I really want to turn stuff up all the way, I've got cash in hand to get a card, but performance just isn't there yet except for the 690 and there's no way in hell I'm paying a grand for a god damned graphics card 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 05:41
|
|