|
Ozz81 posted:Should work fine regardless of going for a 900 series or upcoming 1000 series card. For the most part a lot of newer cards draw way less power nowadays than they did even 3-4 years ago - just a quick search online shows the 7950 draws 200W while the stock 970 draws 145W - even with a mild overclock the 970 would still chew less power while performing way better. If you're thinking about TDPs, those are not that useful at determining the card's actual power draw. It appears a 970 and 7950 draw pretty much the same amount of power.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Incidentally, peanut, what I've seen of cryorig parts is pretty good, and it looks like prices are quite good from looking at newegg. Do make sure you aren't using the top pci slot with a card that has a backplate (that slot is usually an x4 or similarly unimportant though).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:If you're thinking about TDPs, those are not that useful at determining the card's actual power draw. It appears a 970 and 7950 draw pretty much the same amount of power. Do bear in mind that that is total system power, which does tend to understate the difference between cards. It's only 7W different, but it's probably the difference between say 150 and 157 watts, not 293 and 300. That said - yeah especially if you overclock Maxwell it's not really that efficient. They sold Maxwell way underclocked, which produces a lower TDP than a chip pushed to the limit. Once you clock it up 20% it's not any better than GCN power-wise. Makes for nice yields and great TDP numbers for the box, while the plebs pat themselves on the back about their sick overclock. Of course when pushed hard it's drastically faster than GCN but if AMD were actually competitive then NVIDIA would be forced to guarantee higher clocks out of the box. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Incidentally, peanut, what I've seen of cryorig parts is pretty good, and it looks like prices are quite good from looking at newegg. Do make sure you aren't using the top pci slot with a card that has a backplate (that slot is usually an x4 or similarly unimportant though). I'm not. The 7950 is the only expansion card and it's in the yellow x16 slot. I was going to print out and fold up their little origami size checker to see if I can mount the H5 Ultimate instead of the H5 Universal. They appear to be the same price, but the Ultimate migrates heat a bit better while being a bit too large for some cases/motherboards. Edit: Does anybody already know if the Ultimate will fit in my 200R w/Z87-A? Peanut3141 fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Do bear in mind that that is total system power, which does tend to understate the difference between cards. It's only 7W different, but it's probably the difference between say 150 and 157 watts, not 293 and 500. I think this goes to show that really, for 28nm AMD may have been able to refine their decoder and scheduler to reduce driver overhead, but without literally lopping parts off in the design 28nm was fairly mature at Kepler/Southern Islands. EmpyreanFlux fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
I uh....is that an option? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I uh....is that an option? Of course. Just be sure to remove the side panel on your case before you click it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
fletcher posted:Of course. Just be sure to remove the side panel on your case before you click it. eject GPU
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I uh....is that an option? They added support for Thunderbolt 3 GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Falcon Northwest appears to have gotten their hands on a dual-Fiji card, as it was used to power an HTC Vive. As no shots of the actual product itself are shown, I can only assume that some kind of custom water loop was involved. As far as I know, there is no room for anything other than one 120/140mm radiator in that case. http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Shows-Dual-Fiji-Graphics-Card-Falcon-Northwest-PC-VRLA
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Hahahaha holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:They added support for Thunderbolt 3 GPUs. kinda what I figured kinda what I expect
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
I scanned the last few pages, and it seems like there's going to be a new generation of much(?) better cards coming out this summer. However, I'm still using a 680GTX , it's been fine for most games but it's really showing its age now and I'd like to upgrade, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a waste of money considering the next generation. I'm probably gonna spend most of my gaming time on XCOM 2 until summer, but right now with Rise of the Tomb Raider the 680 just isn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Vodos posted:I scanned the last few pages, and it seems like there's going to be a new generation of much(?) better cards coming out this summer. However, I'm still using a 680GTX , it's been fine for most games but it's really showing its age now and I'd like to upgrade, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a waste of money considering the next generation. I'm probably gonna spend most of my gaming time on XCOM 2 until summer, but right now with Rise of the Tomb Raider the 680 just isn't good enough. I'd hang in there; Xcom Enemy Unknown was able to run on a toaster the graphics were so basic. I'm sure Xcom 2 will be the same way; Firaxis seems to target for modern integrated graphics. Is your 680 overclocked? Anyway, I'd table Tomb Raider for now. Go play some indie games like Nuclear Throne.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Yes, the Unreal engine that XCOM 2 uses can survive pretty easily with lower end cards - especially if you don't mind turning down the pretty a bit. I'm sticking it out with my 670 (and 1680x1050 monitor) until Pascal comes out, at which point I am going to spend way too much money. It's going to be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
anyone thinking about picking up the new tomb raider should be mindful of how absurdly demanding it is, a 970/390 is pretty much the minimum card you'd need to hit 1080p60, and even then that's with a lot of stuff turned down and that 60 is by no means a lock I'm not gonna say it's badly optimised because what do I know, but I wouldn't say it's well optimised either
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Nahh, it's poorly optimized. I've heard people talking about a big hit from anisotropic filtering, and of course it's got an NV logo on it and surprise, AMD users see a big benefit from manually capping the tesselation factor (and suddenly TressFX isn't called that anymore). It is pretty though even if you don't blindly max everything (seriously what is with talking about the card needed to max a resolution as if it were required to run it at all).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Nahh, it's poorly optimized. I've heard people talking about a big hit from anisotropic filtering, and of course it's got an NV logo on it and surprise, AMD users see a big benefit from manually capping the tesselation factor (and suddenly TressFX isn't called that anymore). It is pretty though even if you don't blindly max everything (seriously what is with talking about the card needed to max a resolution as if it were required to run it at all). well that's why I was being specific with the resolution/frame rate and the fact that you still won't be "maxxxxxxxing out" I mean, I run a 970 overclocked to 1400mhz, and to get what I would call acceptable performance I've got a bunch of options turned down, and it fluctuates between 50-60fps, though it does stay in the 60fps range sorta consistently you can definitely max out everything if you're ok with capping at 30fps if you've got a 970
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Idk what you guys are doing but I have almost everything maxed on a 970 oced to 1450 and it runs 45-60 just fine. I even have fancy hair turned on. I suspect if I turned shadows down a tad I could get 50-60
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Idk what you guys are doing but I have almost everything maxed on a 970 oced to 1450 and it runs 45-60 just fine. I even have fancy hair turned on. I suspect if I turned shadows down a tad I could get 50-60 yeah if you've got shadows on very high I'd turn them down to high, very high shadows seems to be the single most demanding setting apart from HBAO+
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Got a link or setting handy on manually setting tessellation for AMD cards? Thought Tomb Raider would be the start of my 7970 @ 1440p making the wait for the next Nvidia cards really hurt, but after tinkering with settings there does seem to be some jank. Turning down some of the major hitters got me from 30->40fps pretty easy, but cranking things down more with the in-game menu I had a real hard time getting any more frames out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
teh_Broseph posted:Got a link or setting handy on manually setting tessellation for AMD cards? Thought Tomb Raider would be the start of my 7970 @ 1440p making the wait for the next Nvidia cards really hurt, but after tinkering with settings there does seem to be some jank. Turning down some of the major hitters got me from 30->40fps pretty easy, but cranking things down more with the in-game menu I had a real hard time getting any more frames out of it. it should just be in the CCC, the tesselation setting ranges from 8x to 64x, 16x seems to be a good sweet spot between performance and fidelity
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Idk what you guys are doing but I have almost everything maxed on a 970 oced to 1450 and it runs 45-60 just fine. I even have fancy hair turned on. I suspect if I turned shadows down a tad I could get 50-60 I'm running a 290 with a 3440x1440, so it's dialed back to high with medium shadows, 8x tesselation factor cap, and boosted up to HBAO+. I'm tempted to see if I can max the hair, I'm pretty sure maxing that will look a good bit better for pretty cheap. I might take a look at 16x tesselation but I think I could get more with other settings. teh_Broseph posted:Got a link or setting handy on manually setting tessellation for AMD cards? Thought Tomb Raider would be the start of my 7970 @ 1440p making the wait for the next Nvidia cards really hurt, but after tinkering with settings there does seem to be some jank. Turning down some of the major hitters got me from 30->40fps pretty easy, but cranking things down more with the in-game menu I had a real hard time getting any more frames out of it. I'll put up a walkthrough if you don't get it fixed by the time I get home, but you go into the amd control panel (you're running post-crimson drivers with the new control panel, right?, go to the individual settings, pick the game you're looking for, and go into custom settings for that game, where you should see Tesselation Mode. Try 8x maximum as a starting point, it should be a small IQ change but might make a big difference for performance. What I've seen before indicates 4x will probably be low enough to make a noticeable difference, but you might find it's worth it. Also things like shadows are worth a look. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Nahh, it's poorly optimized. I've heard people talking about a big hit from anisotropic filtering, and of course it's got an NV logo on it and surprise, AMD users see a big benefit from manually capping the tesselation factor (and suddenly TressFX isn't called that anymore). It is pretty though even if you don't blindly max everything (seriously what is with talking about the card needed to max a resolution as if it were required to run it at all). It seems like whenever a game is part of AMD's games program, it is optimised well for AMD and NVIDIA, but if it has Gameworks poo poo in it, all bets are off. Saw this video about Gameworks recently, had some fairly interesting content. This part with Fallout 4 benchmarks was quite interesting indeed. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:It seems like whenever a game is part of AMD's games program, it is optimised well for AMD and NVIDIA, but if it has Gameworks poo poo in it, all bets are off. I wan to say this is more of an artifact of GCN needing better drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I wan to say this is more of an artifact of GCN needing better drivers. NVIDIA cards better at tesselations than AMD cards are, and they know it. What was the Gameworks game with an invisible, highly tesselated sea constantly being rendered under the ground? Oh, those terrible AMD drivers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Crysis 2, no? Didn't they also have some lovely concrete barricades that were visually flat but near solid in wireframe?FaustianQ posted:I wan to say this is more of an artifact of GCN needing better drivers. They also tend to do poorly on Kepler and merely decently on Maxwell, and some of the worst messes on release have carried the Gameworks logo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I wan to say this is more of an artifact of GCN needing better drivers. It's a bit of column A and a bit of column B I think. Gameworks isn't completely innocent but it's fallen into a snowball of confirmation bias where people find any excuse to blame it when AMD underperforms on release, making it even easier to believe next time. The pinnacle was when people blamed Gameworks for AMDs poor performance in Project Cars, a game which while affiliated with Nvidia doesn't actually use any Gameworks effects. repiv fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Crysis 2, no? Didn't they also have some lovely concrete barricades that were visually flat but near solid in wireframe? Lol yah it was crysis 2. I used to have a bookmark to an article I think MAYBE Eurogamer wrote about the whole débâcle that I used to read and laugh about from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Dang, turned tess down to 8x in the AMD control panel, even disabled it, still only got me a few frames and am hanging around 40fps in Rise. 7970 @ 1075mhz at 1440p, FXAA, no VSYNC, High textures, 8x Ansio (wtf), Medium shadows, Ambient Occ to "on", Level of detail "Medium", Tessellation off, Dynamic Foliage "Medium", Fancy Hair off, spin the camera around and I'm at 33-40fps. Settings down to rear end Ugly (lowest) only bumps it to 50-60, and Low is 45-50. I'm just gonna have to pretend it's Dark Souls 1 or Halo and play closer to 30fps and hope the next cards don't come too far after the Rift ships.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
teh_Broseph posted:Dang, turned tess down to 8x in the AMD control panel, even disabled it, still only got me a few frames and am hanging around 40fps in Rise. 7970 @ 1075mhz at 1440p, FXAA, no VSYNC, High textures, 8x Ansio (wtf), Medium shadows, Ambient Occ to "on", Level of detail "Medium", Tessellation off, Dynamic Foliage "Medium", Fancy Hair off, spin the camera around and I'm at 33-40fps. It's just very hard on hardware, so 30 FPS in this case is a reasonable target. Watch a poor 750 Ti (overclocked!) with an i3 struggle to deliver even playable framerates at low settings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Sucks that it doesnt seem to scale well with settings. 1440p is a good bit to push with a 7970 these days though, even if it did age well. Still it's only one game, and when you get a Polaris/Pascal, that'll be one you can revisit and really quantify how much you gained, which is great for making a card feel worthwhile. And yeah, it does seem brutal to low/old hardware, doesn't it? Kepler's not looking great with it holding even with a 970 in some scenes but dropping 20% behind in others. Also I think Fury owners will want updated drivers, the Furies are getting light stuttering at least in computerbase.de's review at otherwise non-punitive settings, and underperforming their specs. repiv posted:It's a bit of column A and a bit of column B I think. Gameworks isn't completely innocent but it's fallen into a snowball of confirmation bias where people find any excuse to blame it when AMD underperforms on release, making it even easier to believe next time. Yeah, it's hard to separate out what's purposely trying to screw other cards, what's screwing them because it's optimizing big chunks of the game for one architecture, and what's just the inevitable result of devs who can't be bothered to make their whole game. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
teh_Broseph posted:Dang, turned tess down to 8x in the AMD control panel, even disabled it, still only got me a few frames and am hanging around 40fps in Rise. 7970 @ 1075mhz at 1440p, FXAA, no VSYNC, High textures, 8x Ansio (wtf), Medium shadows, Ambient Occ to "on", Level of detail "Medium", Tessellation off, Dynamic Foliage "Medium", Fancy Hair off, spin the camera around and I'm at 33-40fps. Capping tessellation to 8x in the control panel is probably not doing much for your frames if it's already disabled in game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Blorange posted:Capping tessellation to 8x in the control panel is probably not doing much for your frames if it's already disabled in game. The in-game setting controls the extra tessellation they added in the PC version, you still get the stuff they had on the XB1 version with it off. XB1 had tessellated snow in cherry picked areas, PC uses tess snow everywhere and also tessellates the world geometry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
This is what I get for assuming that the graphics options on a console port are honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:It's just very hard on hardware, so 30 FPS in this case is a reasonable target. Watch a poor 750 Ti (overclocked!) with an i3 struggle to deliver even playable framerates at low settings. That's odd, I can get a solidish 30FPS@1080p at very low settings with my 960m which is baaaaaasically a 750ti. OTOH it has the best implementation of nonexclusive fullscreen I've ever seen - you can actually run it below your monitor's native resolution! Still a brutal game to run though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 20:39
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Nvidia card fire sales when new generations release are the best thing because I don't give my own money to Nvidia 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:Nvidia card fire sales when new generations release are the best thing because I don't give my own money to Nvidia Where's that going on? EVGA's b-stock sales have been dogshit lately. Like prices have actually been going up while retail prices have dropped, and they've also cranked their shipping from $5 to $20. I've pretty much given up hope on finding another 780 Ti for SLI and the used market on them is stupid (like in between a 970 and a 980 from what I remember, for a card that ties the 970). Wonder if the compute crowd are keeping the prices high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Where's that going on? wrt Kepler, it's slowed down because (large) Kepler is no longer in production though, except for maybe the quadros
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:20
|
|