Nvidia graphics cards
- Thread starter Kmce
- Start date
Wolvo7
Bright Spark
Really? I thought it would be for word processing lol :death: Seriously as everyone said the GTX 680 is the best GPU out there atm
Really? I thought it would be for word processing lol :death: Seriously as everyone said the GTX 680 is the best GPU out there atm
Not anymore, they apparently just announced a 690
Wolvo7
Bright Spark
Not anymore, they apparently just announced a 690
Just checked out Nvidia's site, all I have to say is :tt1: me wants lol
Edit: Just saw the price => :gun_bandana::helpsmilie: => :hang:
Last edited:
baron75mk2
Banned
Go with GTX 680 , a fair bit faster than a single GTX 580 - BUT , if you have the case , power supply , cooling & cash to do it , Get Two GTX 580s & SLI them , Lots better minimum & maximum fps than a single GTX 680 can deliver - but also a lot more heat generated & a higher power requirement to boot , but with two of them in SLI theres no game you wont be able to max out & achieve 60fps at all times ( exept a few cpu bound poorly optimized games out there ) - but as far as real high spec games like battlefield 3 & witcher 2 (two of the most high spec games i can think of at the moment) , youll stamp all over them , where a Single GTX 680 will be struggling to get an absolute 60fps at all times at max/ultra settings ( exept ubersampling on witcher 2 , just kills the game in terms of fps & does not really add anything to the visuals to justiy the FPS hit at all)
PS; would not worry about the 690 , it is another dual chip fiasco like the 590 was , the most overpriced , problematic & overheating card i ever had - stay with the 680 is my advice , if you want SLI go with the above set up :yes:
Possibly the only game that wont run at max settings & full 60fps at all times on a GTX 580 SLI setup would be crysis 2 with the DX11 & extra texture pack installed , but his just means the single GTX 680 will only be worse anyway , cant comment on the texture pack as i have not seen it , but as far as DX11 , hardly any difference (unless your going around the game actually looking for it) & just kills performance (maybe more noticable with the texture pack installed) , but for me the DX9 is very nice on its own & runs perfectly :yes:
PS; would not worry about the 690 , it is another dual chip fiasco like the 590 was , the most overpriced , problematic & overheating card i ever had
- stay with the 680 is my advice , if you want SLI go with the above set up :yes:Possibly the only game that wont run at max settings & full 60fps at all times on a GTX 580 SLI setup would be crysis 2 with the DX11 & extra texture pack installed , but his just means the single GTX 680 will only be worse anyway , cant comment on the texture pack as i have not seen it , but as far as DX11 , hardly any difference (unless your going around the game actually looking for it) & just kills performance (maybe more noticable with the texture pack installed) , but for me the DX9 is very nice on its own & runs perfectly :yes:
Last edited:
Go with GTX 680 , a fair bit faster than a single GTX 580 - BUT , if you have the case , power supply , cooling & cash to do it , Get Two GTX 580s & SLI them , Lots better minimum & maximum fps than a single GTX 680 can deliver - but also a lot more heat generated & a higher power requirement to boot , but with two of them in SLI theres no game you wont be able to max out & achieve 60fps at all times ( exept a few cpu bound poorly optimized games out there ) - but as far as real high spec games like battlefield 3 & witcher 2 (two of the most high spec games i can think of at the moment) , youll stamp all over them , where a Single GTX 680 will be struggling to get an absolute 60fps at all times at max/ultra settings ( exept ubersampling on witcher 2 , just kills the game in terms of fps & does not really add anything to the visuals to justiy the FPS hit at all)
PS; would not worry about the 690 , it is another dual chip fiasco like the 590 was , the most overpriced , problematic & overheating card i ever had
Possibly the only game that wont run at max settings & full 60fps at all times on a GTX 580 SLI setup would be crysis 2 with the DX11 & extra texture pack installed , but his just means the single GTX 680 will only be worse anyway , cant comment on the texture pack as i have not seen it , but as far as DX11 , hardly any difference (unless your going around the game actually looking for it) & just kills performance (maybe more noticable with the texture pack installed) , but for me the DX9 is very nice on its own & runs perfectly :yes:
Im pretty sure i single 680 would wipe any game and will give him the option to get a second later, I have a 570 (no OC) and I have yet to move a game below maximum settings, that includes bf3 on the largest maps, although this ubersampling may not work very well, but i will see
baron75mk2
Banned
Yes definately a gtx 570 will play any game in ultra / max settings ( so will most cards these days ) , but battlefield 3 at ultra is all very well - but what fps are we talking about here ? im talking about 60fps solid at all times , no way a GTX 570s going to do that , a GTX680 cant even do it , multiplayer aside , in the benchmarks of campaighn it pulls a max of 53 fps in the very first lvl where they get out of the hummer ( my single GTX 580 3gb would pull about 46 fps on this bit) - compaired to 60fps all the way On gtx 580 sli (could even be more , but i use v-synch so it cant go any higher on my tv )
(ubersampling is for witcher 2 - not battlefield 3 )
just depends on what Fps you want i suppose 30fps = console gaming , - 60fps looks smoother & can even feel more smoother , all personal taste i suppose :yes:
Last edited:
baron75mk2
Banned
Again this is all personal opinions , pan a camera from left to right at 30fps , you will see tons of microstutter & even blurring in some cases , do it a 60fps & the turning will look the same as if you turned in real life (unless you only see in 30fps that is i suppose )
The old 30fps vs 60fps & cant tell the difference its a very old debate & the only way i can look at it these days is everyones eyes must see at different fps , as i definately notice it & i dont have to look for it , it slapps me right in the face & yes dipping will produce a noticable difference , but this is the case (for me at leased) at 60fps as well , it only has to dip to 57fps & i notice it all over the place.
Its not to say you are wrong when you say that the eye cant tell the difference between 30fps & 60fps , it means you / your eyes cant tell the difference , where as if i were sat watching the same thing i would notice it big time.
& i surely cant be the only one as most hardcore gamers are always trying to achieve a minimum of 60 fps at all times to eliminate microstuttering & gain smooth movement (& that isnt for bragging rights as if you were after this you would turn off v-synch & let the fps go as high as your equipment can do it - most typical benchmarks are done this way - but this results in spliup / screen tear , but it doesnt matter if your only doing a benchmark just to see how high fps your gear an deliver)
Last edited:
Finn
Enthusiast
Given the popularity of fast paced games on console @ 60fps (eg wipeout and similar) its fairly clear that in general, most gamers can see the difference between 30 and 60 (or 25/50).
24fps is generally accepted as the minimum required for motion to appear continuous, but the popularity of 120hz TV's shows that even 60 is not an upper limit.
24fps is generally accepted as the minimum required for motion to appear continuous, but the popularity of 120hz TV's shows that even 60 is not an upper limit.
baron75mk2
Banned
Thank you finn , i was starting to think i was the only one who could tell the difference ( ive always been a bit different , but not that different i hope - lol) - i would like to see some games on a 120hz monitor , as my tv ( with v-synch enabled can only do a max of 60fps , would be interesting to see if i could notice any difference , i probably could not , but someone else might be able to. - maybe with 120hz & the jump in fps this would give you , it could possibly have a better "feel" to it even if you couldnt see any difference ? - has to be a reason to make them go to that high range i suppose :yes:
Last edited:
well i cant tell the difference
And i probably get at least 30fps at all times (although like anything it has its occasional moments where it lags quite a bit (even on the smallest maps) but any map i play runs fine and i always play 64p servers too (mainly 64p metro which has about 100 explosions going off every 5 seconds)
Is there actually a frame counter on bf3? If so I may try it and see what i could get
I could never tell the difference between bf and cod framerates on console as bf is locked to 30 and cod is locked to 60
And i probably get at least 30fps at all times (although like anything it has its occasional moments where it lags quite a bit (even on the smallest maps) but any map i play runs fine and i always play 64p servers too (mainly 64p metro which has about 100 explosions going off every 5 seconds)
Is there actually a frame counter on bf3? If so I may try it and see what i could get
I could never tell the difference between bf and cod framerates on console as bf is locked to 30 and cod is locked to 60
Nope but I use fraps, its free and easy to use
baron75mk2
Banned
Dont think battlefield has a frame counter . i just use a program called FRAPS , but im sure rivatuner has a fps counter also (as well as other handy benchmark overlays as well , like gpu usage , proocessor usage etc)
the main thing really is what fps your satisfied with , if the player cant tell the difference between 30fps & 60fps , then 30fps is the way to go , less expensive to start with & possibly a more enjoyable game experience as opposed to as soon as it drops out of 60fps with me (& others im sure) then its time for an upgrade or an overclock.
The statement about battlefield 3 & cod framerates on console is fairly self explanitory , a lot of players on console lean towards cod , not because its a better game than battlefield (far from it) , but it has the higher framerate (& this is only my personal preferance & opinion - i find aiming & general precision a lot better in 60fps as well as collision dectection . but thats a whole other thread to be getting in to :yes