The GT300/Fermi Thread - Part 2!

**jmke** · 02-25-2010, 10:54 PM

what games, besides Crysis&CrysisWH, don't run at 60+ at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF with HD 5970 ?

**Blacky** · 02-25-2010, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

I don't fully agree here. This is a very subjective thing to say as it depends on your framerate demands, image quality settings and last but not surely not least, resolution. At 1920x1200, I find myself wanting more than what a single 5870 can offer (I like to have above 60fps at all times if possible with 4x AA / 16AF for single player games, and even more online ; again subjective and NO a 5870 cannot do this let alone a 5970 in some cases ). If a GTX 480 can meet that demand, I am all for it ( given a reasonable cooling solution ) I'd sooner pay $700 for a single card that is 10-15% slower than a 5970 but that is just me. Multi gpu solutions should be a last resort in my opinion ( an educated opinion at that as I've personally used 5 different multi gpu configs / cards in the past few years ; I'm speaking of the pitfuls and issues that have always plauged these solutions ; driver problems, power usage , noise, heat, low performance increase relative to price )

I don't expect everyone agrees with some of my assumptions or subjective statements, but a single 5870 runs most all games (except crysis of course

) above 60++ fps in 1920x1xxx with all settings cranked up, even in some games runs decently at 2560x1600... and could be like this for a while since there isn't a mayor demanding game this year besides Crysis 2 and Metro 2033, and maybe Bad Company 2...

**annihilat0r** · 02-25-2010, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

At 1920x1200, I find myself wanting more than what a single 5870 can offer (I like to have above 60fps at all times if possible with 4x AA / 16AF for single player games, and even more online ; again subjective

Meh. Which card, EVER, was able to give that? On all modern games? We're talking about a med/high resolution with 4xaa and 16AF. And a MINIMUM of 60 fps?

Then I guess you have been limiting yourself to playing Doom 3 or so for eternity. I mean, current games are all console ports so they are light for the PC and all, but a minimum of 60 fps for high IQ is too much to demand.

It's just people seeing that there has been absolutely NO increase in graphics quality (except for Crysis) in like 3 years, while PC graphics capability has increased five fold; seeing the regular FPS numbers on the roof and then trying to find & justify the meaning for buying an expensive graphics card.

I am on 1920x1200 and I find that even a 5870 can be overkill most of the cases. Just think, I haven't overclocked the card even 1 mhz, and I didn't even install the 10.1 drivers (current is 10.3) because the system doesn't break a sweat on 4xAA and 16xAF in all games, except Crysis.

I am fine with not having min 60 fps in games. It's impossible to generalize it anyway. On Crysis 30-40fps average is perfectly fine whereas on some games the FPS changes from 50 to 200 in a matter of seconds, so you do want 60 fps. It's more like a matter of having constant FPS rather than a high one. If your avg Crysis FPS is 35, chances are it hardly ever goes below 30 and above 40. You get used to it and play the game perfectly.

**trinibwoy** · 02-26-2010, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by LordEC911

neliz doesn't count?

Nope and you should know why.

**Behemot** · 02-26-2010, 12:51 AM

It's OK for now, but think about DX11 games to come...

**Rock&Roll** · 02-26-2010, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Meh. Which card, EVER, was able to give that? On all modern games? We're talking about a med/high resolution with 4xaa and 16AF. And a MINIMUM of 60 fps?

Then I guess you have been limiting yourself to playing Doom 3 or so for eternity. I mean, current games are all console ports so they are light for the PC and all, but a minimum of 60 fps for high IQ is too much to demand.

It's just people seeing that there has been absolutely NO increase in graphics quality (except for Crysis) in like 3 years, while PC graphics capability has increased five fold; seeing the regular FPS numbers on the roof and then trying to find & justify the meaning for buying an expensive graphics card.

I am on 1920x1200 and I find that even a 5870 can be overkill most of the cases. Just think, I haven't overclocked the card even 1 mhz, and I didn't even install the 10.1 drivers (current is 10.3) because the system doesn't break a sweat on 4xAA and 16xAF in all games, except Crysis.

I am fine with not having min 60 fps in games. It's impossible to generalize it anyway. On Crysis 30-40fps average is perfectly fine whereas on some games the FPS changes from 50 to 200 in a matter of seconds, so you do want 60 fps. It's more like a matter of having constant FPS rather than a high one. If your avg Crysis FPS is 35, chances are it hardly ever goes below 30 and above 40. You get used to it and play the game perfectly.

It really depends on what your purposes are.

For a high-detail graphically intense race sim, having high FPS and a high refresh rate matter. It makes a big difference in how well you hold your lines.

Competitive FPS is also a place where high FPS is required (though, in these cases you usually keep turning down the graphics to get FPS and give yourself a visual-awareness advantage)

That said, I can usually play single-player FPS games so long as the frames stay above 40. It's not like the AI is going to be so fast or so good that it blurs by you without a supper high frame-rate.

I know everyone's talked eyefinity to death. But I think that it still hasn't sunken in. I think multi-display is looking like the best reason for having a big-time GPU going forward. If the console ported games aren't driving the GPU hard enough, put it to work pushing 3x the pixels.

**saaya** · 02-26-2010, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Blacky

Idk I just have the feeling Fermi is the new R600...even if is faster than GT200 products won't be offering the true performance we expected, and knowing nvidia the prices are going to be sky-high, is not worth releasing a product that would run 10-20 fps faster than competition (lets say GTX480 vs 5870) for $300 more...or yet slower than competition offerings (GTX480 vs 5970) for same price or even more expensive...ending up being hotter and a lot more demanding on watts... idk I just lost hope on nvidia in this generation...I guess is all up on nvidias driver team (they are way much better than ATi by the way) to make Fermi "shine"

well R600 wasnt that much faster compared to their previous parts, but even if you look at a worst case scenario of less than 480sps and lower than 600mhz clocks, its STILL going to be notably faster than a gtx285... so like i said before, i dont think perf is a problem... heat and power and cost, yeah... especially cost...

the thing is, nvidia stumbled with fermi but they were so far in the lead that they didnt really fall behind, at least i dont think so...

and their driver team... im scared of them man

whenever they had perf issues in the past and needed their counterpart to an ati card to perform slightly better, they went for very questionable optimizations... ati too, i know, but nvidia was much worse... the geforce fx spawned SOME ugly image quality for all nvidia cards, not just the fx series...
im worried that fermi underperfoming will result in them lowering the image quality on all cards, including my 260s :S

Originally Posted by jmke

what games, besides Crysis&CrysisWH, don't run at 60+ at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF with HD 5970 ?

exactly!
hence the multi monitor and 3d and physix stuff...
if your hardware is too fast for the software, make the software slower

**saaya** · 02-26-2010, 02:26 AM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...ar_Nvidia.html

It is rather clear that GF100 is an expensive chip and it will not be able to power mainstream solutions. As a result, it is completely expected that Nvidia will tape out and release a new graphics processing unit (GPU) – some call it GF104 – for more affordable accelerators. It is a surprise that Quadro FX 6000-series will not feature the GF100, at least, based on the information provided by the CFO of Nvidia. Nvidia also confirmed that in Q2 – Q3 2010 graphics processors powered by Fermi architecture would become mainstream for the company.

Q3 to Q4 sounds like GF104 on 40nm, definately not 28nm...

**Your_Boss** · 02-26-2010, 02:26 AM

GTX480 = 512SP, 650MHz core/1350 shader, 5870 = -10%~+15% (very low availability. For reviewers and PR) $599.99
GTX470 = 480SP, 675MHz core/1450 shader, 5850 = +15~+20% (Better avail. Most widely sold over GTX480) $449.99

Just guesses!

**jmke** · 02-26-2010, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by saaya

exactly!
hence the multi monitor and 3d and physix stuff...
if your hardware is too fast for the software, make the software slower

or add higher resolution textures, we don't need 32xAA
1920x1200 is nowhere mainstream yet, and those with 2560x1600 screens... I don't know anybody personally who has one.

**ajaidev** · 02-26-2010, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by jmke

or add higher resolution textures, we don't need 32xAA
1920x1200 is nowhere mainstream yet, and those with 2560x1600 screens... I don't know anybody personally who has one.

+1 just some days ago i was talking to a friend of mine who works in india games and discussing about mobile game they were developing. He said the problem is with compatibility even with java you have to guess screen size if you have a specified resolution and how well can the phone handle the game the solution he said was a unified game.

A single big jar file that had high resolution support as well as low resolution. This would install the proper game pack out of the choices and give better flexibility. But there is a catch he says the total size would well exceed the bar of 2MB and then phones with lower ram/buffer size will not be able to install the game.

A similar thing crops up if high resolution text's are packed along with low resolution ones but in computers case we have the ability to pre-define the correct sequence and put that on the ram piece by piece. There is no real reason why not to include high resolution textures along with the game other than it will take some more space.

**annihilat0r** · 02-26-2010, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Your_Boss

GTX480 = 512SP, 650MHz core/1350 shader, 5870 = -10%~+15% (very low availability. For reviewers and PR) $599.99
GTX470 = 480SP, 675MHz core/1450 shader, 5850 = +15~+20% (Better avail. Most widely sold over GTX480) $449.99

Just guesses!

You're basically saying a GTX 470 will perform on par with a HD5870, but a GTX 480 can be 10 percent slower than that in some cases?