GPU Megat[H]read - the cores of wrath grew heavy on the die that day

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > GPU Megat[H]read - the cores of wrath grew heavy on the die that day

«‹›13 »

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Is it normal for the Geforce Experience optimization tool to randomly switch around its "optimal" configuration without any changes to the system? Last week it was telling me to play AC4 with high shadows, no SSAO and FXAA, now it's saying medium shadows with HBAO 2x and MSAA, neither of which seem to play any better or worse than the settings I was using initially.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2014 14:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 12:31

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Phuzun posted:

Maybe check the setting that auto-updates the game configurations. Never used that myself, but that sounds like what it says it does.

I looked around online and I think part of the weirdness had to do with AC4 forcing 30fps with VSync on if your card can't put out a continuous 60fps. I knew something was weird when I'd turn shadows from low to high with no framerate difference at all. Turning VSync off also isn't an option due to excessive screen tearing. I ended up having to download RivaTuner to force triple buffering and now the game runs on high settings at 45fps in open areas and 60fps everywhere else, this is with a GTX 760.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 11:26

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I'm not an expert but from what I read, AC4 has a built in frame cap at 63fps and no native triple buffering option, so with VSync on it'll automatically drop to 30 if your framerate dips even a little. Is there a benefit to setting your framecap to 60 in this scenario?

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 14:49

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I had noticeable tearing with only Adaptive VSync despite the higher 50+ framerates, while with D3DOverrider I would average about 40fps in open areas with no tearing. I haven't tried to cap framerates though or try a combination of force triple buffering + Adaptive. I mean the game looks beautiful on every setting but the little fraps number going down to 30 really bums me out!

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 15:58

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

craig588 posted:

How does Vsync work with odd refresh rates? I remember a long time ago I used a monitor with an 85 Hz refresh rate. When I wasn't getting 85FPS how was it syncing "42.5" frames? Did it throw out alternate frames or would there be tearing from exactly half the screen updating? It doesn't really matter now, it's just something I was wondering about and couldn't find the answer by searching.

As I've recently discovered, some programs won't force triple buffering by default with VSync enabled and so will immediately downshift to double buffering (42.5fps on your monitor) when the framerate dips below maximum. You can solve this by downloading a program like D3DOverrider to force triple buffering or using NVidia Inspector / Radeon Pro to set the framerate limit with Adaptive VSync enabled.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2014 13:00

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Are any of you stalking some cyber monday deals? I have a GTX 760 that's not quite a year old but I could always snag an upgrade there if the price is right.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 15:51

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Is everyone expecting some kind of Black Friday sale for GTX 970s? Was thinking of buying one around that time but I also see a few Columbus Day sales in the $300 range.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 20:54

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

THE DOG HOUSE posted:

They might have very minor sales but the chances of something like a non clearance GPU getting doorbuster style pricing seems to be about 0.

So what I'm getting from y'all is "don't count on any big deals, just grab a 970 when you see it go below your target purchase price." Sounds reasonable.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 15:51

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

On the subject of the GTX 970, is it still the best price:performance investment for current-gen if all I wanna do is play at max settings @ 1080 with minimal overclock finagling?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 11:58

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

HalloKitty posted:

The 390 is arguably the better card for the near future, but the 970 is also a solid choice if you prefer NVIDIA or have a weaker CPU (AMD's dx11 driver overhead being a possible concern).

I'm on an i5-4570 and probably will be until I put together an entirely new system. I've favored nvidia in the past just for the convenience and shadowplay features, although I don't have some crazy allegiance.

How does the 980ti compare at the top end, if I wanted to pay a little extra?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 14:23

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Truga posted:

980Ti is 970 SLI in both price and performance, but without all the SLI bullshit that comes with it.

What I'm saying is, it's a really good deal. e: And unlike some other nvidia products with just enough ram to run current games, it might actually perform a bit longer than most at max details due to 6gb ram.

I ante'd up and bought the 980ti because a) I'm rich, why not and b) this is pretty much gonna be my last upgrade on this system before I build a new one anyway, might as well go all in.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 21:44

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

What do you think would give me the best opportunity cost for better visuals at this point: Getting a 1080 GTX and sticking with my 1080p monitor, or staying with my 980ti and investing in a GSync monitor at 1440p?

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 15:00

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Thanks for the advance. Without trying to get into one of those FPS flamewars the internet loves to have, my eyes tend to be really sensitive to frame drops, especially below 45ish. Does GSync really help to smooth out that curve so that even if my 980ti did drop frames down to below 45 in visually dense areas, I wouldn't notice it as much? I guess what I'm asking is if anybody who has a GSync monitor is like me and how much it helped them for a smoother gaming experience.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 15:14

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

xthetenth posted:

What *sync does is even out the latency between a frame being made and it being displayed. So frames are displayed at the right time relative to each other and the movement doesn't jitter between too fast and too slow.

It's real noticeable.

So theoretically with a G-Sync monitor I could grind any old GPU down to N64-level framerates and it would still look pretty smooth because there wouldn't be any stuttering as it oscillated between different frame rates? Sorry if these come off as truly stupid questions. I don't have any technical knowledge, just money.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 16:35

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Peanut3141 posted:

I just started Witcher III for the first time on my 1070 (thank you Steam Summer sale). Everything is maxed on 1920x1200, including the ridiculous Hairworks, and I've never seen it drop below 60 FPS during gameplay. For some reason some pre-rendered cutscenes are at ~30-33 FPS. No idea what that's all about. The in-engine cutscenes are a constant 60.

A lot of games that have concurrent console releases limit FPS on cutscenes to 30. I think there's a startup command you can use to force it to 60, which is what I ended up doing for Dragon Age: Inquisition.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2016 19:02

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Forgive my ignorance! So if I'm running a game that's currently maxed out at 60fps to avoid tearing but occasionally drops to 45ish in effect-heavy areas, then upgrade to a 144hz GSync monitor, would those effect-heavy areas see improvements in the actual FPS output since the GPU wouldn't be limited by the monitor's refresh rate? Or is it simply the illusion of smoother rendering due to GSync that makes those areas look better, and the actual framerate wouldn't change?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 14:24

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Lockback posted:

Gsynce is more valuable the LOWER your average frames are. If you are on a high end card that is getting 100+ FPS (even on a 144HZ monitor) the effect of GSync is going to be pretty minimal. If you are running a card that frequently drops below 60FPS, GSync makes a huge difference.

Wouldn't you also want a GSync monitor for high performing cards to cut down on screen tearing above 60 fps?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 16:22

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Gwaihir posted:

Yea, but anecdotally people tend to find tearing less noticeable/objectionable than the juddering that happens below 60 fps I think.

Really it's just up to how annoyed you are by either type of display artifact.

If I had to only pick 144hz or gsync, I'd take a 144hz monitor, but really that's not a hard choice to make since the only monitors that are IPS/144hz have *sync anyhow.
TN never even enters in to the picture at all for anything larger than 24", too.

Frame drops I can handle down to 45ish, but tearing is just too annoying for me personally to ever go without VSync. Let's hear it for spending $700 so that I can play shootman games really smooth like. :toot:

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 16:33

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

THE DOG HOUSE posted:

Vsync sucks, use Fast Sync. Its in the global nvidia control panel in the drop down menu under vsync

Oh word, I had no idea. I use adaptive for most games, is this just that but better?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 16:43

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

So as long as the game you're playing caps under 144 FPS, you should just leave VSync off with a GSync monitor?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 20:09

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Craptacular! posted:

While it's cool that you have a 1080, you could probably reign in the humble storytelling about how you've landed into megamillions.

Why the hell is Tomb Raider (is this the sequel?) so problematic? A 970 isn't exactly a slouch, 20 frames just seems unreasonable.

Set textures to High instead of Very High on 4GB cards and below.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2016 03:22

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Seeing Tomb Raider on my 980ti gave the same sensation I had reading previews for Quake 3 Arena in Game Informer and thinking, "graphics cannot possibly get much better than this."

# ¿ Jul 2, 2016 11:54

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

For TR it's actually textures that will destroy your card as I think setting them to Very High renders at like 4096x4096. Anything less than 6GB VRAM will get owned on the open areas, and my 980ti still drops frames in some areas of Geothermal Valley and Soviet Installation. But what can I say, beautiful flowing locks of hair are worth it at any price.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2016 12:08

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I enabled FastSync using NV Inspector last night and I wasn't all that impressed by it, at least in the two games I tried it out with (DA:I and the new Tomb Raider). It seemed way more juttery than regular old VSync and prone to frame drops even though the on-screen display kept telling me I was running at a smooth 60fps. Did I miss something, or are there still quite a few kinks to work out? I turned off native VSync in-game and set the VSync setting in NV Inspector to that 1x18888888 thing in global.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2016 09:38

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I saw people extolling the virtues of FastSync for stuff like, The Witcher 3 and it didn't seem right because who is running these games at super high FPS.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2016 14:38

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

xthetenth posted:

That price point didn't suck in the past, the x60 cards used to be great. Now they're gutted and overpriced, and the x70 and x80 are on a steady march to the stratosphere. If they were actually a $200 card like they had been they'd be the price/performance sweet spot.

The 760 GTX was a drat fine card and before I replaced it could still chug out TW3 on an acceptable framerate with High settings.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2016 20:55

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Anime Schoolgirl posted:

The only thing that could be better is a $300 980ti!

Would it be a really stupid idea to try to pick up a used 980ti cheap and run them in SLI for this generation? Would the power draw alone explode my PC?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2016 09:19

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

FaustianQ posted:

Not unless you have a really bad PSU, in which case I'd doubt you'd be able to run a single 980ti; aim for a ~800W PSU for SLI 980tis. Also SLI is bad (so is XCF) due to very limited support.

Yeah, everything I hear about SLI is "more trouble than it's worth" and it seems like many modern games overlook it completely.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2016 13:36

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

From personal experience I can say that Blizzard's in-game solutions for VSync are usually pretty bad so you should override whatever they're using with NVidia's own options. I force Adaptive on in Overwatch from NVInspector and it's buttery smooth on a 980ti.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 09:55

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I got some pretty significant performance improvements for Tomb Raider on my 980ti with the new Steam update + most recent Nvidia drivers. Typical performance drop areas like Geothermal Valley don't seem to hit my framerate as hard running DX12.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2016 08:55

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

SwissArmyDruid posted:

Variable refresh is not compatible with DVI.

Freesync and G-sync can both work through HDMI and DP.

Can't get above 60hz on HDMI though.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2016 13:38

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Yeah I think you'll definitely want to run TR in DX12 mode now when before it was iffy how much of a performance boost it gave, if any.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2016 15:07

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

What is a reasonable overclock goal to shoot for with a 980ti? I have an MSI that's pre-OC'ed to ~1150 and so far I haven't encountered any problems with a conservative 100/500 on the clock/memory in Afterburner, although it's dubious what kind of performance gain I'm actually getting. I have a 650w PSU and have more than enough wattage to support the extra power draw. Don't want to mess around with voltage.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2016 15:41

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

wolrah posted:

Anyone else having GeForce Experience refuse to even try to optimize with a config that should work?

Did they stop supporting SLI with this? Obviously I wouldn't blame 'em, but it would be nice to get some notice if that's the case rather than having things just stop working.

I think that GFE's optimization tool is all over the place and inaccurate more often than not. For instance it suggested that I only run DA: Inquisition, a two-year old game, on High settings, yet recommends maxed out Ultra + VXAO for Tomb Raider on a 980ti. Reading the in-depth performance guides that Nvidia puts out for more graphically demanding titles gives you a much clearer picture of what you can and should adjust.

I've been reading that lot of current gen games just flat out aren't utilizing SLI at all and that it's probably no longer worth it.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 16:11

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I forget but is forcing a resolution something you can do with NV Inspector?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 16:59

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I know it doesn't look pretty but I'm happy to have an ATX case. It's good for my dumb clumsy fingers and I never have to worry about cable management or cooling around these school bus-sized cards.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 17:06

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Anime Schoolgirl posted:

But cutting yourself and leaving tablespoons of blood on the inside of your PC case is part of the experience

When I was putting together my last PC it was 90 degrees in our apartment and a drop of sweat landed square on the CPU as I was applying the thermal paste. A tense moment in computer lore.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 17:34

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Raskolnikov posted:

So I got a 1070 (first time buying a $200+ card in my life) and all my games run wonderfully. Now, I have to ask, besides GTA5 and Doom what will really show this off? The new Tomb Raider is too expensive for me to spring for at the moment.

Tomb Raider is under $38 bux right now on some sites: https://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/info?plain=riseoftombraider
The Witcher 3 is around $30: https://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/info?plain=witcheriiiwildhunt
Shadow of Mordor GOTY is mega cheap these days and runs phenomenally on PC: https://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/info?plain=middleearthshadowofmordorgameofyearedition

I'm replaying Dragon Age: Inquisition as well, which looks stellar with all the settings cranked up. Of those you'll eventually HAVE to get the new Tomb Raider though. Playing it on my 980ti gave me the same feeling I had looking at previews for Quake 3 Arena in Game Informer and thinking, "graphics will never get any better."

# ¿ Jul 16, 2016 09:57

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

If you liked TR2013 then the new Tomb Raider is just all of that, except more of it and better. The main story is much weaker, but who can even pay attention to things like plot when TressFX are in play.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2016 19:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 12:31

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

Yeah, I got a lot of extra hours out of the Endurance Mode DLC. I think all the other season pass stuff is totally skippable, though.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2016 20:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > GPU Megat[H]read - the cores of wrath grew heavy on the die that day

«‹›13 »