|
Craptacular! posted:So you’re telling me I should have bought that 27” 1080p Gsync Dell that was on sale the other week? FHD (1920x1080) is almost 2.1 MP, QHD (2560x1440) is almost 3.7 MP. The latter resolution approaches double the former, so yeah, all other settings being the same the GPU is going to have to work almost twice as hard when jumping from one resolution to the other! (I'm not saying the load increases linearly with resolution, but it's a reasonable approximation.) That being said, you can certainly adjust a wide range of settings to get a playable experience in any game, so don't make too much of a fuss about this.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
You will be surprised just how well even uber-demanding games can run if you drop them a notch below the max vanity screenshot mode settings
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:So you’re telling me I should have bought that 27” 1080p Gsync Dell that was on sale the other week? 70-100 fps at high settings. That's anything but hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Palladium posted:You will be surprised just how well even uber-demanding games can run if you drop them a notch below the max vanity screenshot mode settings Yeah it varies by the game but in some cases it's almost comical, for example Ghost Recon: Wildlands. You get a massive performance boost going from Ultra to Very High and most people can't even tell the difference at all. I feel like some of the disconnect seen with card recommendations is between the people who max everything out and the people who just run high settings, I'm usually a max out person but with games coming out where maxed out means huge performance drops for basically no difference in visual fidelity I have no problem going down a notch. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
As a matter of disinterest in settings, I let Geforce Experience set detail levels for me in most games. I assume if I take the Nvidia options and have a Gsync monitor that most games will look impressive for a couple years even if they're not at Dust Particulate 100% mode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Palladium posted:You will be surprised just how well even uber-demanding games can run if you drop them a notch below the max vanity screenshot mode settings I’d rather die
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:As a matter of disinterest in settings, I let Geforce Experience set detail levels for me in most games. I assume if I take the Nvidia options and have a Gsync monitor that most games will look impressive for a couple years even if they're not at Dust Particulate 100% mode. This, tbh. GFE makes reasonable decisions for the most part. I don't care about the telemetry, in the end it's getting used to fix bugs. Only thing is GFE always aims for 60 fps by default... It would be nice if it could be set to aim higher by default (for those of us with 100-165 Hz monitors) or even depending on the type of game (eg multiplayer/esports vs single-player RPGs). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
I am a total slave to Nvidia I responded to their non-announcement by buying even more Pascal 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I am a total slave to Nvidia I responded to their non-announcement by buying even more Pascal 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
gently caress GFE for locking frame-limiting features behind a login.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Wouldn't they have the incentive to tell you they are not launching anything so you will buy the existing stuff even if they are coming out with something in a few months? They are probably smart enough to not osborne themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
Palladium posted:You will be surprised just how well even uber-demanding games can run if you drop them a notch below the max vanity screenshot mode settings What would be cool though is if all games would tell you how much impact on performance vs prettyness each setting has so it's easy to home in on the one setting you need to take down a notch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
Geemer posted:What would be cool though is if all games would tell you how much impact on performance vs prettyness each setting has so it's easy to home in on the one setting you need to take down a notch. Some hardware websites test the performance impact of a new popular game's settings occasionally, it would be nice if that was more common for modern games, with a database or something to add to. Maybe someone should start a wiki  What helps is games which come with a built in benchmark, it's not always useful for comparative testing (of eg. video cards) but it should allow you to see if a certain setting has an effect (on both quality and performance) on your computer. In general, high shadow settings are usually a huge resource hog for a quality increase you can barely see even in static screenshots. Anti-aliasing also plays a role, depending on the options present in a game - FXAA looks like poo poo but it's almost free, other post-processing AA and temporal AA often costs a bunch more, and MSAA is the worst. And then there are options with vendor-specific implementations like HairWorks (you can crush AMD cards and with high settings even Nvidia cards with that) and ambient occlusion. The latter also depends very much on the game - sometimes AO looks good and doesn't cost a lot of performance, but it can make a different game run slow while not being very noticeable (or it even looks wrong in places). Also, motion blur and depth of field effect are completely stupid so if a game lets me turn those off, that's another small performance gain (  if you absolutely want them on, though).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:gently caress GFE for locking frame-limiting features behind a login. Still works on a per-profile and/or global profile basis through Nvidia Inspector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
orcane posted:Also, motion blur and depth of field effect are completely stupid so if a game lets me turn those off, that's another small performance gain ( Ah yes, the make everything look like poo poo settings that are popular for no good reason, just like Scanline filter for emulators. I sure love when DoF decides that what I'm looking at should be rendered in ultra blur mode. Just like I love how in real life people and objects turn into blurry messes when they start moving. Thanks for the write-up though. Most of the times games nowadays detect your card and try to load a decent profile, but with a 1070 at 1080p60 I just tend to put it all on ultra and hope for the best. I really hate incrementally testing settings until I get good looks/performance ratios. I just wanna play the games, dammit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I really hate incrementally testing settings until I get good looks/performance ratios. That's what Geforce Experience is for, from what I understand they have a dedicated team testing games with various hardware configurations to find the best performance/image quality ratio for their various GPUs. If you don't mind the software/account/telemetry it's a pretty neat idea, though I don't know how well it works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Heck, I think even for modern FPS games dropping down to medium is barely noticeable from high / ultra. I know I started playing BF1 at medium over high to keep laptop temps down (limit CPU speed and underclock/volt the GPU), and I only notice it on far off smoke effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
eames posted:That's what Geforce Experience is for, from what I understand they have a dedicated team testing games with various hardware configurations to find the best performance/image quality ratio for their various GPUs. If you don't mind the software/account/telemetry it's a pretty neat idea, though I don't know how well it works. I do mind the account stuff though. And even then, before you needed an account, the settings it'd set were way lower than what my computer could handle, because it saw my 3rd gen i5 and gave up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
TweakTown: NVIDIA launching its next-gen GeForce GTX 1180 on July 30 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
the 1080ti will be the first four year flagship gpu in a long time
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
repiv posted:
new thread title
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Yeah, until there's some official confirmation on that date, I'm just assuming that guy wants his rumor broadcast across the web for clickbait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
quote:July 30 isn't too far away, and while we were wrong about the GTC 2018 launch, my sources were very clear about July 30. I asked multiple people and more than one confirmed it was less than two months away, with July 30 specifically being mentioned by multiple of my sources. Sorry for being wrong with our last guess, here's our new one!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Fun Times! posted:Sorry for being wrong with our last guess, here's our new one! People now have the attention span of a ADHD cat so I guess facts don't matter anymore as long as there's news
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Lol *frantically shifting gears again* sell sell sell sell
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Palladium posted:People now have the attention span of a ADHD cat so I guess facts don't matter anymore as long as there's news Welcome to GPU Megathread, where the release date's made up and the facts don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
The only reasonable explanation is that Jensen Huang dumped the entire inventory of 1180/1170 into the ocean because they weren't good enough for Nvidia's number 1 and beloved market of loyal gamers. The successor, which I'm told will be named 'Boole', will likely be announced at dollar taco night on July 28.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Is it safe to make a custom 21:9 ultra-wide resolution for my 4K TV via the Nvidia control panel? I ask because when I go to make a custom resolution I get this warning/disclaimer that tells me making custom resolutions could damage the display. I think you'll be OK, I ran some custom refresh rates on previous monitors without issues. Worst I had happen was NVidia giving an "unsupported" error and dumping me back to previous settings if the custom ones failed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Ah yes, the make everything look like poo poo settings that are popular for no good reason, just like Scanline filter for emulators. Do you think that photos and movies should also have neither of these things? They do constantly, intentionally. These effects are both ways to make image quality more like real life, or art. Done correctly both of these features enhance the experience. Whether or not it is worth the performance hit in a given scenario is open to opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Used market prices in Vancouver BC: 780Ti: $275 GTX 970: $300 GTX 980: $400 980Ti: $600 Keep in mind these are all nearly / over half a decade old now. 
Bob Ross Nuke Test fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:Do you think that photos and movies should also have neither of these things? They do constantly, intentionally. These effects are both ways to make image quality more like real life, or art. Done correctly both of these features enhance the experience. Whether or not it is worth the performance hit in a given scenario is open to opinion. "If done right" "look like art" etc. leaves a lot of space to gently caress things up. It also depends on what the intent is. If I'm playing a moody game where the atmosphere and visual aesthetics are a major part of the game, and the visuals basically are intended as art, then sure, DoF and such can be nice. If I'm playing a FPS, on the other hand, gently caress the loving gently caress off with that poo poo, I want everything to be as crisp out to infinity as possible, because that's a competitive advantage: the visuals are no longer art so much as they are the vehicle by which I am interacting with things, and I don't want anything interfering with that needlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:Do you think that photos and movies should also have neither of these things? They do constantly, intentionally. These effects are both ways to make image quality more like real life, or art. Done correctly both of these features enhance the experience. Whether or not it is worth the performance hit in a given scenario is open to opinion. It has nothing to do with trying to be "like real life". Movies/photos have motion blur, depth of field and bokeh due to lens and film properties. The human eye is not a camera though, so DoF effects and motion blur are 100% about games trying to be movies. So yeah, art. But they cost performance and can actually detract from the experience to some people, no matter how "correct" they are. The worst games are those that throw all of them into a single "post processing" setting together with stuff you'd want to have on. See also blood splatter or water drop effects on the "lens" (ie. in your face obscuring your view).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:Highly skeptical about whether those are actually selling at that price. I actually talked to those guys and what you see was what they were asking for. No special "buy a mobo and CPU and we'll sell you a card at MSRP" discounts, either. Yeah, I'll just file this away in the "bullshit bin" for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
orcane posted:It has nothing to do with trying to be "like real life". Movies/photos have motion blur, depth of field and bokeh due to lens and film properties. The human eye is not a camera though, so DoF effects and motion blur are 100% about games trying to be movies. So yeah, art. Sometimes its' art, sometimes it is realism. Like looking through a sniper scope, or focusing on something up close. These have real DOF effects in real human beings. Try it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Fun Times! posted:High/Ultra settings above 100fps at 1440p would be worlds better than what my PC does now (1080p ~40fps on high settings). I currently have an R9 280 from 3 years ago. I plan on getting a 1440p monitor with this GPU upgrade so I'd be bummed out if the GPU performance was worse than I anticipate. I had a r9 280x, so mostly what you had. Witcher 3 was playable but wow frame rate was rough (i5 6500?, 32gb ram, 1440p 60mhz). Got a 1070, significantly smoother with almost everything turned up (except for hairworks, gently caress that thing) and it runs nearly capped off frame wise (60). I'll try to capture my spread later. It has a hitch every so often, been trying to figure out what's up with that. I might have it on the platter drive rather than the ssd which could be doing that (raw loads from disk).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
orcane posted:See also blood splatter or water drop effects on the "lens" (ie. in your face obscuring your view). It's me, I'm the guy who can't tell how much I'm getting shot at if I don't have blood, red filters, and vignette all over the screen. There's some actual gameplay value in making it obvious you're about to die instead of just a blinking life bar in the corner, so that specific example isn't purely for aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
My 290x died and i am now using intel gpu for basic things like web browsing and roguelikes. i was looking for a replacement for 290x and the cheapest card that is barely better than 290x is 1060 (6 gb version). The absolute cheapest one costs 370$
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
orcane posted:The human eye is not a camera though, so DoF effects and motion blur are 100% about games trying to be movies. So yeah, art. There are good reasons to have motion blur in video that are unrelated to movies: it's arguably less correct to treat each pixel as a point sample in the temporal dimension, and conventional 180 degree shutter angle is a good compromise between sharpness and coverage. Movies have the option to reduce motion blur too, but they don't because less blur looks unnaturally jerky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Llamadeus posted:Movies have the option to reduce motion blur too, but they don't because less blur looks unnaturally jerky. More like because everyone is conditioned to how movies at 24fps look, so anything higher "looks wrong" despite the higher rates actually being closer to how the eye would normally perceive and register moving scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:07
|
|