Widescreen Gaming Forum

Not responding.. just thinking..
Stick with your cards its the best ever, but you cant do dx11 or nvidia surround or use large textures because of memory limitations.
You wont need it in your Pong game.

_________________
| i7 6850K Broadwell-e @4.2Ghz | DDR4 32GB @3200Mhz| 2x Msi 1080 X | Asus X99 Deluxe II /H110i/AX1200iw |
| 3x Dell P2314H @ 5760x1080 + Philips 43" 4K IPS BDM4350UC Monitor + Oculus Rift CV1 |
| 1*Samsung EVO 960 500GB NVMe x4 gen.3 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x 2TB SSHD Seagate SATA III Raid 0 |
| Logitech G810 - G502 - G240 - G27 - G940 - | TrackIR 5 Pro | Saitek RHINO X55 HOTAS | Xbox One Elite Gpad |
Asus Vulcan Pro | Asus Xonar U7 | Sony STR-DE495P External Surround Home Cinema Reciever |

wow you're bitter if someone asks questions
like i said... imagined slights.

Believe it or not, i appreciated the time taken to reply...
...I just wanted to know the reasoning for your advice ... But you're right i could've just dismissed your advice out of hand



also, nvidia have only recently stopped supporting the 8000-series... That's 2 generations older..

also, i can run
- cs:go with 100+fps,
- Arma3 with 40+ fps...
- Arma2 used to run the same but with 5k view distance, textures on high with some minimal texture popping but it looked gorgeous.


Now that might not be ultra, i dont have 16x aa on or anything... but it works and it's at 5040*1050 res.

Hardly pong.


And yes, i can do dx11... yet again something else you're wrong about mate...
You dont get hardware support, but the cards still support it via drivers... I'd be happy to provide a screenshot of my dxdiag where it clearly shows what version i'm running on Vista.. Yea.. Vista...

..But you're clearly one of these guys who would rather just upgrade because you're seeing bigger numbers.

I like you .. yes im grumpy, but thats me when hanged over. Sorry for that.
And i like to stick with stuff that works, se my sig.. its 4y old stuff m8.

I upgraded from 4 years ago and mainly because of memory limitations (had about 800 if i remember correctly) and the limitations of the gpu performance of the games at that time. That Sli setup did not keep up at 5560*1080 resolution back then.
Also keep in mind that a powerful sli setup needs a powerful cpu.. so a potential bottleneck is your cpu even if upgrading your gpu.

_________________
| i7 6850K Broadwell-e @4.2Ghz | DDR4 32GB @3200Mhz| 2x Msi 1080 X | Asus X99 Deluxe II /H110i/AX1200iw |
| 3x Dell P2314H @ 5760x1080 + Philips 43" 4K IPS BDM4350UC Monitor + Oculus Rift CV1 |
| 1*Samsung EVO 960 500GB NVMe x4 gen.3 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x 2TB SSHD Seagate SATA III Raid 0 |
| Logitech G810 - G502 - G240 - G27 - G940 - | TrackIR 5 Pro | Saitek RHINO X55 HOTAS | Xbox One Elite Gpad |
Asus Vulcan Pro | Asus Xonar U7 | Sony STR-DE495P External Surround Home Cinema Reciever |

thank god for that i felt this conversation was deteriorating rapidly and i couldnt see where i was going wrong...
Again, i appreciate the replies, i am not bashing you...


I'm just very reluctant to waste money and time testing out new setups for marginal increases in pixel pushing power...
Especially when my only main concern is, keeping the res, maybe upping the texture details... some more fps's.

The reason i postulated your advice was 'bad' in the first post was because i have never, in my experience... seen a good 'value' card from nvidia...
When i got the 2-series... The 250 was shite... the 9800 beat it..
When i got a 9800... the 8500 was probably shite and beaten by the 7950... Infact, i dont even know if there was an 8500 but i know i only upgraded when i had enough for the 8800 because that series 'value' card was shite...
[when i say beat it, i mean.. 'beat it for my specific purposes', as in.. high resolution gaming without too much pp]


So i had assumed that it had continued in that fashion...
So i imagine, the 450 is shite, the 550 is shite, the 650 is shite... all the way up to the 950...

Soo.... using that logic i realise somewhere in here, the 'shite value card' will eclipse my cards on the basis that they have made rendering optimizations, etc ... But when the new series comes out, the previous series drops in price. You know, basic graphics card/market economics... When that happens, usually you can get the 'next version up' of the previous series which actually performs better for less.. But doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles on it (that most games probably wont support anyway and if the optimizations pertain to antialiasing or post-processing then it's not a concern for me)

That was my basis on dismissing your advice mate, not just 'oh i'm going to act like a dick today'
Like i said.. believe it or not, i'd be happy to find out i'm horribly wrong and can save myself some money...

..failing that i'm looking at AMD cards (r9 280/290 to be specific) as they seem to be the best value for performance in my price range...
I guess i should try and find a comparison of them to your suggestion... But reviews are kind of inconsistant because for it to be relevant to me personally, i need it to be aroound my desired resolution and not negatively affected by either developers implementation of their releveant triple-monitor technology... (such as it is with something called micro-stuttering with ATI? [no personal experience with ATI in years, just what ive read], and i'm sure there are kinks with nvidia surround that affect performance... )

I'm pissed drunk right now, but will reply with a more sober mind later on.

But yes, nvidia range of cards have always been.. < x50 Low End, >x60 Middle >x80 High End.
You cant compare a high end card with a low end.. its not fair.

_________________
| i7 6850K Broadwell-e @4.2Ghz | DDR4 32GB @3200Mhz| 2x Msi 1080 X | Asus X99 Deluxe II /H110i/AX1200iw |
| 3x Dell P2314H @ 5760x1080 + Philips 43" 4K IPS BDM4350UC Monitor + Oculus Rift CV1 |
| 1*Samsung EVO 960 500GB NVMe x4 gen.3 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x Intel SSD SATA III Raid 0 | 2x 2TB SSHD Seagate SATA III Raid 0 |
| Logitech G810 - G502 - G240 - G27 - G940 - | TrackIR 5 Pro | Saitek RHINO X55 HOTAS | Xbox One Elite Gpad |
Asus Vulcan Pro | Asus Xonar U7 | Sony STR-DE495P External Surround Home Cinema Reciever |

Actually you can, on the basis they're both graphics cards... and reviewers often do, when they advise people to not buy the value cards
If they're both anywhere near the same price.. it would be silly not to compare them... from a consumer standpoint.

I understand what you're saying but i agree maybe the alcohol is actually making you overthink it...
...this isn't a boxing-match [weight classes], i'm asking for consumer advice It's not helpful to me to compare two equally shite or equally expensive cards that hold no relevance to my setup or question


But it might explain why i maybe come across as a 'techo-hipster' with my old 275's...
Really it comes down to the fact that yes, i am still happy with them, they still perform. There's no point in getting something new if it doesn't really improve my current setup...
Which yea, handles Arma3.. battlefield 4... etc.. etc... And you can pick a 275 up for what... starting price a tenner on ebay?

Now you can ridicule and say 'Oh you're only spending £200' but *shakes fist* there was a time when that was considered a lot of money... i still think it's a fairly decent amount.. and just because nvidia decide that '£500 is now our opening price for enthusiasts even though we've not actually improved much except slapped a bigger number on it' doesn't mean i'm going to buy into it...
Nvidia can procreate with themselves ..which is why i'm reluctantly considering ATI, dispite nightmarish memories of their first CCC.


..call me old, but I'm also of the mind that, if i'm spending £500 on a card, it should be a shit-ton of an improvement on what i spent £500 on back in 2008.
2-series to 9-series... and there's not a remarkable increase in performance, in terms of pixel-pushing power... But i'm taking that from benchmarks (so id LOVE if someone said 'your wrong' and showed me otherwise )

Quite funny really considering how old the 275's are now... (and how unoptimized that game is)

Sorry bro, but if you think there have been no performance improvements since the GTX 275 you are DEAD WRONG. Hell, it wasn't even the top dog in it's day.


http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

That's over an 8 fold increase in performance going from the 275 to a 980.

Also, the 200 series did NOT support DirectX 11. Dx11 came with the 400 series. While you might be able in install the Dx11 software on your computer, games cannot take advantage of any newer Dx11 features. They use what are called "feature levels" to support older cards but will be missing newer, cooler stuff.

Honestly, almost anything modern you buy will be better. I'd recommend to just get the most expensive GPU you can afford, that is the one to buy (always my advice).

_________________
check my blog: cybereality.com

I got a 780...
..and it is an increase in performance...

Not astonishing, considering its 4 series' up... [ 50 fps increase on average ]
But i guess it is replacing 2 cards, and at least it didn't go down in performance.



Finally not trying to one-up you but...
I did not say anywhere that the 200 series, or more specifically my card, supported directx11 on a hardware level.. I said [ i could get ] dx11, countering what was originally stated [ you cant do dx11 ].
You can do dx11, clearly.. the games run in directX 11 mode..

Not supporting it on a hardware level is different to not being capable of producing it at all, because my directx dialog and games clearly shows otherwise...

Actually i'm going to say i'm possibly wrong on the directX stuff...
..Because i'm not even sure if i was using the directx11 option in total war shogun2...
Maybe it was directx10.


Although i'm pretty certain i had the option in other games too, like bf4.. and assassins creed 2 i think and... some others.

But to be fair, i can't be sure (as i didnt have something to test against) whether i was seeing different running games in my 'pseudo-dx11' mode, compared to people who apparently had 'real dx11 mode'.




Still i am amazed that in games where i was obviously being bottlenecked by the GPU.. such as batman arkham city... I'm getting, without changing graphics settings, only 50 fps increase -- and that's the most impressive increase...


...I got an 8fps increase in arma3. But then that's not really that surprising...