|
There are browser extensions that will check for changes in (parts of) a page. I used Check4Change in firefox for a web game's market: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/check4change/.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
in the event I cant find a bstock 970, what is the best price/performance gpu to buy in the 200-300 USD range for gaming at 1920x1200 60hz
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 12:41
|
|
Fauxtool posted:in the event I cant find a bstock 970, what is the best price/performance gpu to buy in the 200-300 USD range for gaming at 1920x1200 60hz I'd get this MSI 970 while it's on sale for so cheap at NCIX-US: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-gtx9704gd5toc
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
That being said, the 960 Ti, while still not a good option, will likely drive down 970 prices a touch more, probably to ~$275 before rebates, plus whatever you can sell the game code for. Right now the lowest prices are retailers blowing out stock of launch day 970s from makers like ZOTAC - there was a deal on eBay for those for ~$235 recently, but they're all sold now, and I think the low price was *because* they were launch-day models and didn't come with a game code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
GTX 970 looks like it could be better value and a more futureproof choice compared to the GTX 660 (according to some, the 660 4GB version won't really improve it), but what's this about possible VRAM issues on the 970?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:GTX 970 looks like it could be better value and a more futureproof choice compared to the GTX 660 (according to some, the 660 4GB version won't really improve it), but what's this about possible VRAM issues on the 970? basically only worry about it if you've got one of those monitors
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I'm in that weird space where I can't even imagine upgrading from my 970 for a very long time, unless maybe I go way higher res or framerate (also probably not any time soon).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Going above 3.5 GB of memory used is bad because then the card has to split its time between the first 3.5 and the last .5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Oh Nvidia and their wacky bus and memory configurations. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:framebuffer shits itself and causes hilarious framerate drops at high textures and resolution settings ie 2560x1440 with ultra settings Uh, I am planning on upgrading to a 1440p or 1600p monitor because my current 1200p is starting to develop yellow spots. When I upgrade my GPU now I'd like to have it last for at least 2-3 years. What card should I be looking at instead? xthetenth posted:Going above 3.5 GB of memory used is bad because then the card has to split its time between the first 3.5 and the last .5. You're talking about an issue specific to the GTX 970 (and 960 4gb?) ? Panty Saluter posted:I'm in that weird space where I can't even imagine upgrading from my 970 for a very long time, unless maybe I go way higher res or framerate (also probably not any time soon). How do you like it? What's the most demanding game that you play and do you have to compromise on any settings? PirateBob fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
I ran 3440x1440 on my 970 without much of anything turned down but AA, but my most demanding game was probably Armored Warfare or Battlefront, and the latter is mainly notable for running really efficiently. I'm cool with 45+ frames though (although going to top arctic islands and a 75 Hz Freesync will be nice).
xthetenth fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:How do you like it? What's the most demanding game that you play and do you have to compromise on any settings? I love it so much I bought one for my wife as well  I'm only running 2560 x 1080 at 60 FPS so nothing all that extreme by modern standards. I think the only game I had to compromise on was Arkham Knight, and even then that amounted to turning off some of the Gameworks stuff and not much more. The rest of the games I play (Skyrim, Dark Souls 1 & 2, Wolfenstein New Order) all run at or very near top settings at 60 FPS. I think I had to turn down a couple of the fancier options in New Order to keep it at 60 FPS but nothing obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Those have a fair bit of latency between when the price goes live and when the email goes out - something on the order of an hour to two hours usually. Depending on the model a 970 may stick around long enough for it to trigger, but the really super deals are done in 5-15 minutes. Except the 970 (and many of their other products) have been delisted from the page entirely so you can't set auto-notify at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
So even though my 7 year old GTX295 holds up just fine on all sorts of games I play, I just got Fallout 4 for Xmas, and it's the fourth game I've received this year that I really wanted to play, but can't because my card is dx10, and they want 11 or higher, and it's really starting to jangle my chain. What are my affordable options for upgrading that will let me play these new games, but not lose anything from what the 295 is already doing with my other games? I run a pair of 1920x1200 screens, and I'm in Australia. I know I could pick any card and be in dx12 land, but I'm not sure which cards aren't a backwards step in other areas. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:So even though my 7 year old GTX295 holds up just fine on all sorts of games I play, I just got Fallout 4 for Xmas, and it's the fourth game I've received this year that I really wanted to play, but can't because my card is dx10, and they want 11 or higher, and it's really starting to jangle my chain. The common pick at AUD 300-350 would be a 4GB GTX 960 or a 4GB R9 380. PirateBob posted:Uh, I am planning on upgrading to a 1440p or 1600p monitor because my current 1200p is starting to develop yellow spots. When I upgrade my GPU now I'd like to have it last for at least 2-3 years. What card should I be looking at instead? If you really want a 3-year card, the 980ti is pretty much the only game in town, but will likely be priced at fire sales if Nvidia's Pascal turns out to be an actual upgrade. Anime Schoolgirl fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:So even though my 7 year old GTX295 holds up just fine on all sorts of games I play, I just got Fallout 4 for Xmas, and it's the fourth game I've received this year that I really wanted to play, but can't because my card is dx10, and they want 11 or higher, and it's really starting to jangle my chain. Something like a Geforce GTX 960 will be faster in every way, and is pretty affordable. Anime Schoolgirl posted:Basically anything you could buy that's a 750ti or better would fit that category. I wouldn't be so sure that a 750 Ti will beat it in DX10 performance, as long as SLI is working correctly. I've been looking at benchmarks where a GTX 295 can match a GTX 480, and it isn't a clear win for the 750 Ti vs a 480 every time. The GTX 950 will of course sweep past both, but the step up to a 960 or a Radeon 380 will be worth it in every way, as you've pointed out. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Ok cool, thanks. I can get a Gainward 960 for $299 or a Sapphire R9 380 for $319, worth the extra $20? The other brands of 960 and 380 are all in the $330 range
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Make absolutely sure you're buying a 4GB model for either a 960 or 380, but as far as I know both companies are pretty good especially Sapphire. The choice between a 960 and 380 is down to preference and PSU IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
I have an Antec Signature 650w, so it should be fine with either, and yeah I was looking at the 4gb prices
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Can someone explain the pro/cons of a 290/390 vs the 970, or should I just get a 970? I use 1080 resolution. I've been shopping for a gfx card for a while and I'm about 99% certain I should just go with a 970. I'd love a 980ti but it's out of my price range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Whale Cancer posted:Can someone explain the pro/cons of a 290/390 vs the 970, or should I just get a 970? I use 1080 resolution. Lucky you http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/12/22/asus_r9_390_strix_directcu_iii_video_card_review#.Vn8VQOgrL-g The 390 and 970 trade blows when overclocked with the 970 using less power and producing less heat dont forget jet.com has 20% off new customers + 10% more off if you use androidpay/applepay with the app
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
For me it was as simple as the 970 would work fine with my current 450W PSU, the 390 would have required an upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Lucky you I'm totally going to get that cheap/tiny Zotac 970 with this deal the next time I get paid
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Whale Cancer posted:Can someone explain the pro/cons of a 290/390 vs the 970, or should I just get a 970? I use 1080 resolution. If you're running 1080 a 980ti is way overkill. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:17
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:If you're running 1080 a 980ti is way overkill. Not that there's anything wrong with that. A 980 Ti is not necessarily overkill if you are aiming for very high frame rates to go with a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Whale Cancer posted:Can someone explain the pro/cons of a 290/390 vs the 970, or should I just get a 970? I use 1080 resolution. The 970 is basically the ideal 1080p card for TYOOL 2015. Hawaii (290/x and 390/x) doesn't compete so well at 1080p. But as you step up the resolution it competes better and better. And historically resolutions and framerate requirements have gone nowhere but up (which is the problem with the HardwareCanucks retrospective on the 290X vs the 780 Ti - the amount of people running 1440p/4K and high frame rate monitors is exponentially higher in 2016 than 2012). There's no reason to expect that trend to stop. IF you overclock the 290 it performs the same as the 390 unless you're up against the VRAM limit (which is not typically a problem). The 390 on the other hand is basically factory OC'd and you're not going to get any appreciable OC out of it (particularly without nuking the power/heat). On the other hand Maxwell overclocks like crazy and that basically more than makes up the difference. Like 25% overclocks are pretty normal. A used/refurb/B-stock 970 (~$250-275) is a solid bet right now on performance. At stock clocks a refurb 290 ($175-200) is a bit slower, older, and a lot louder but it's a better value and can match up to the 390 if you OC. If you're going to run stock clocks the 390 makes sense, if you're willing to overclock then the 970 makes up the difference. The 390 is kinda competitive but only when comparing apples to apples - refurb 390s aren't available whereas you CAN get refurb 970s and they are priced the same as the new 390. And yeah if you need to drive 144hz 1080p/1440p then the 980 Ti is not overkill. Benchmark summaries from TPU: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:If you're running 1080 a 980ti is way overkill. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If anything, it gives you the ability to crank up DSR something fierce if you're running 60Hz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I actually run at 1600x900 so i can turn my dsr up to 4k
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Simulated pixels are better than real pixels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Simulated pixels are better than real pixels. On the off chance that you are, in fact, snarking, just what do you think anti-aliasing actually is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:On the off chance that you are, in fact, snarking, just what do you think anti-aliasing actually is? Sometimes it's super-sampled, but sometimes there are other techniques used. But if pixels are small enough in terms of DPI, you shouldn't see a difference between 1440 shrunk to 1080 or 1440 native.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Ok I have a weird problem where a new card is performing worse than the old one. I upgraded from an EVGA 560 ti to a gigabyte GT 740. I don't see a possible conflict with other hardware, the power supply is more than enough, and I'm using the latest nvidia drivers. But the 740 is getting much worse FPS on the same settings as the 560, when of course it should be doing better. I wasn't sure if the old drivers cleaned up properly when I uninstalled them (because windows kept furiously trying to reinstall graphics drivers on its own) and I wanted to reformat anyway, so I went ahead and did that. But even after doing a clean install of windows 7 and installing the latest drivers, the problem is still there. None of the other hardware changed so I have no idea what the problem is (If it matters--windows 7 64-bit, 8 GB RAM, intel i5 3.3 GHz quad core). I couldn't find anything specific about this problem online. Seems like it would normally work entirely or not at all, I wouldn't expect this weird functioning-but-bad situation. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
The 560ti is part of the same chip family as the 570 and 580 (high performance cards of the era) so the baseline performance is probably more than a tier higher than what you would expect from a 740. Basically you downgraded. You should have gotten a 750ti or better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:Ok I have a weird problem where a new card is performing worse than the old one. I upgraded from an EVGA 560 ti to a gigabyte GT 740. I don't see a possible conflict with other hardware, the power supply is more than enough, and I'm using the latest nvidia drivers. But the 740 is getting much worse FPS on the same settings as the 560, when of course it should be doing better. I wasn't sure if the old drivers cleaned up properly when I uninstalled them (because windows kept furiously trying to reinstall graphics drivers on its own) and I wanted to reformat anyway, so I went ahead and did that. But even after doing a clean install of windows 7 and installing the latest drivers, the problem is still there. You got a card that is actually worse than your current card. Grab a 950 ti if you want an actual upgrade. E: fb
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:46
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Well thats pretty weird because the 740's specifications were better in every way except memory interface bus size (128 bit vs 256 bit) but I can return it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:52
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:Well thats pretty weird because the 740's specifications were better in every way except memory interface bus size (128 bit vs 256 bit) but I can return it. No, it's specs are not better, they are worse: GT 740: Shaders: 384 TMUs: 32 ROPs: 16 Pixel Rate: 7.94 GPixel/s Texture Rate: 31.8 GTexel/s Floating-point: 762.6 GFLOPS GTX 560 Ti: Shaders: 384 TMUs: 64 ROPs: 32 Pixel Rate: 13.2 GPixel/s Texture Rate: 52.7 GTexel/s Floating-point performance: 1,263 GFLOPS
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:Well thats pretty weird because the 740's specifications were better in every way except memory interface bus size (128 bit vs 256 bit) but I can return it. Let me guess. You looked at the memory size and frequencies, and that was it? =P Subjunctive posted:Sometimes it's super-sampled, but sometimes there are other techniques used. But if pixels are small enough in terms of DPI, you shouldn't see a difference between 1440 shrunk to 1080 or 1440 native. That's true, but in the end, that's what anti-aliasing is, drawing them in along edges where previously there were none. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:If anything, it gives you the ability to crank up DSR something fierce if you're running 60Hz. Now that you mention it, running everything at 5120 x 2160 at 60+ FPS sounds pretty good.... e: maybe this is just me showing my age but I forget about things like DSR and super hi-def textures and post processing. Yeah, we have ridiculous amounts of graphics power these days but we have more ways than ever to use it
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:That's true, but in the end, that's what anti-aliasing is, drawing them in along edges where previously there were none. Or changing pixels that are already lit to be different (lower alpha, f.e., or changing color to take advantage of subpixel layout), in order to distinguish the edge from its aliases. If you only light additional pixels, you don't get a very good result (each edge abuts two faces, after all). Anti-aliasing is just making the image distinct from the aliases it shares due to sampling limits; an edge is continuous, but rasterization is discrete. It doesn't have to add pixels to the coverage area at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Is it fair to assume nVidia's Pascal will allow for 4k gaming at 60fps, or not by a long shot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 17:50
|
|
