Author Topic: Too much power?  (Read 3962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mikes

  • 29
only 2.0 speakers and 1 year warranty? You can drive that price still higher!!! :)

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
I'm quite partial to, on sites like these, ticking EVERY high option and comparing the price :lol:

 

Offline Commander Zane

  • 212
  • Spoot Knight of Anvils
That's always amusing to do.

 

Offline Fineus

  • ...But you *have* heard of me.
  • Administrator
  • 212
    • Hard Light Productions
Also, screw 9800GTX. If he's going to upgrade, he probably should look at Radeon 6850/6870 or GeForce 460/560 (non-Ti). Personally I don't recommend SLI or CrossFire, it's way too game and driver dependent and also has microstutter among other small issues.

Why not go for the Ti versions of the GeForce cards? That's a genuine question by the way - I was lead to believe the Ti's are more powerful but don't know if they're that much more expensive etc?

I'm in the market for an upgrade to my graphics card as well - currently on an nVidia 8800GT. I'm looking at either the 560Ti or equivalent ATI card (don't really mind whether it's ATI or nVidia - whatever is better bang-for-buck)...

 

Offline LHN91

  • 27
A quick look over of benchmarks claims that the 560 Ti is slightly more powerful than a Radeon 6870, and the 560 is just slightly slower. On newegg, 560 Ti is ~50 dollars more than a 560 (non-Ti) or a 6870. I'd argue it's more a matter of brand loyalty at that point.

Only other consideration I can think of is that Nvidia is historically better at openGL. Personally, I would go 560 (non-Ti) or a 6870. Honestly, I would go 6870 as being just a hair faster than a 560 at roughly the same price. But I am a bit of an AMD fanboy, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
I've got the 560ti, in my machine, and I'm pretty damned happy with it.

I just wish it had a bit more VRAM.

 

Offline Fineus

  • ...But you *have* heard of me.
  • Administrator
  • 212
    • Hard Light Productions
Hmm, this is still a pretty tricky one for me I must admit...

GeForce 560
http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/gpu-nvidia/geforce-gtx-560-pci-e-%28336-cores%29
Prices between £130 and £200 for 1GB and 2GB models.

GeForce 560 Ti
http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/gpu-nvidia/geforce-gtx-560-ti-pci-e-%28384-cores%29
Prices between £160 and £300 for 1GB and 2GB models.

ATI 6870
http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/gpu-amd/radeon-hd6870-pci-e-%281120-cores%29
Prices between £140 and £180 for 1GB and 2GB models.

BloodEagle you mentioned VRAM - I presume that's the 1/2GB I've been mentioning? Does it make that large a difference? My current card has 512MB so I guess 1GB is doubling that whilst 2GB would almost certainly future-proof it?

My price ceiling is around £170 but that really is stretching it (although let me put it this way: if £10 gets me a drastically better card, given I've not updated my GPU since I put the 8800GT in, it'd be worth it in the long run). However I really don't want to get up to £190/£200 as I just can't afford it.

In terms of games I'll be looking to run Skyrim, TF2, Mass Effect 2 / 3 etc. etc. as they come out. Also I'll be using PhotoShop, Lightroom and so on but I shouldn't think there's a huge difference one way or the other there...

I really appreciate the help by the way folks - thank you :)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
2GB should provide a nice little security buffer. 1 GB is usually enough, especially for games that are released cross-platform (I did some checking on ME2 once. It never allocated more than 256 MB of VRAM, presumably because that's the maximum for the console versions).

That said, other applications, like PS, may profit a lot more from big VRAM sizes, as that allows the storage of more layers in VRAM.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline LHN91

  • 27
512 MB cards are just starting to show their age (I know, I'm running a 4870 512MB), and 1GB cards are starting to be recommended for things.

The main issue is with texture sizes. Providing the memory technology is the same, i.e. GDDR5, the 1 and 2 GB cards *should* perform more or less the same as long as the textures fit within the onboard VRAM. Once you get past that it starts to get into swapping issues which may cause some speed reductions. The 2GB cards may give you a bit more longevity, but only if the processing power of the chip can keep up. If the prices are significantly different, I would stick with the 1GB. I can live with slightly reduced texture details 2 or 3 years down the road. However, YMMV.

EDIT: Ooops. Ninja'd

 

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
I've got a 1GB model.  Hang on, let me find it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121424

Note that I'm pretty sure it was a cheaper when I bought it.

It stays cool like you wouldn't believe.

--------

Anywho, I can play Metro2033 (didn't care for it) on High w/DX11 without any real problems (one or two glitchy areas cause a significant FPS drop, if you look in a very specific direction).  I didn't see that there was a 'Very High' option until I finished the game though, so I haven't checked that out.

It's not that I'm running into walls, I'd just like to have that buffer for later on.

Then again, I can always SLI two of these things, if it becomes a problem.

 

Offline Fury

  • The Curmudgeon
  • 213
Why not go for the Ti versions of the GeForce cards? That's a genuine question by the way - I was lead to believe the Ti's are more powerful but don't know if they're that much more expensive etc?
Simple price/performance. You get better performance out of a Ti card, but you have to pay more for it. If you're on budget and especially for upgrades, non-Ti version is still real good choice.

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
:bump:

What's a Ti card?

Aaaand,

I'm due an influx of combined inheritance and army pay soooooo, Assuming i am a complete duffer at this sort of thing. I need to buy 2 GB more ram, and 2 x 9800GTX cards?

 

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
'Ti' stands for Titanium, apparently (1 sec of Google, ftw  :P).  Basically the same as having a 'Platinum Edition' of anything else, I guess.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-amp-edition-gtx-560-directcu-ii-top,2944.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-amp-edition-gtx-560-directcu-ii-top,2944-8.html

I'm running this, and I've noticed no visible slowdown on Ultra in Skyrim, so far.  Excluding loading stuttering and that weird, random drop that sometimes occurs when entering interiors, that is.


 

Offline newman

  • 211
I agree with Fury, getting a 9800 GT at this time would be pointless. Not much of an upgrade if it won't last him a while, and 9800 series is getting rather old. I replaced mine almost a year ago, it was old then - an upgrade is pointless if it doesn't offer some future proofing. SLI also makes little sense as a single 560 series would probably outperform dual 9800's. Plus, a single card takes less space in the case, doesn't require a SLI motherboard, needs a lot less power, and will always be usable up to it's full potential. SLI is a marketing gimmick for kids to empty their parent's wallets. Very few situations where it would actually be useful.
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 
Actually, there was a time that two older SLI cards were cheaper and provided the same if not more performance then one new card. However, this has changed the last few years.

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
i updated from a 260 to a 560 with my new rig and ive yet to find a game where ive had any kind of slowdowns at all. i even started turning on aa.

were kind of at this point where games are being crippled to keep it portable with consoles. were actually going to need to see new consoles released before we can get any kinds of graphics enhancements. there are a few pc only games, not that i can name any, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
I still have my ancient (3.5 years old) GTX 280 because I simply haven't seen any reason to get something better, even though I could easily afford it. All the console ports these days don't need anything faster at 1600x1200, and the few token DX11 features the PC versions have tacked on don't make enough of a difference to justify an upgrade.

In fact, the only reason I might upgrade soon is to get a card with a displayport. I want a large (26"+) 120hz display and there are only 3 or 4 of them out there, and the only one that doesn't have major flaws lacks a DVI port and needs a DP connection. :p The converters out there are expensive and have various issues of their own.