Can Anyone Run MAX Everything?

[guncrasher]

I just want a nuclear powered video card so that I can plug it in and it does everything max'd out....every game, video, pic, web site, etc.  fire and forget...so why isn't that available yet?

talk to td, i am pretty sure he will set you up .


semp

[gyrene81]

I just want a nuclear powered video card so that I can plug it in and it does everything max'd out....every game, video, pic, web site, etc.  fire and forget...so why isn't that available yet?

here ya go...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130790

gonna need this stuff too...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188120

[Skuzzy]

Probably needs this as well. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151105

[guncrasher]

and this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=01M-0002-00031&ParentOnly=1

semp

[Debrody]

Seriously,
there is a certain point when its absolutely unnecessry to increase the resolution: you practically wont notice the difference anyway.

My system is old, wasnt quite high-end back in its day though, still, i can run AH with almost everything enabled, with a steady 55-60fps.
PhenomIIx4 at 3.2 GHz, 8 GB ddr3-1600, HD-5830, 64GB OCZ SSD, 750GB Western Digital HDD, old 790 series Gygabyte mobo, 500W Chieftec PSU. Nothing special at all.
Yet i have the hi-res pack installed, anti-aliasing one notch from the maximum (unnoticable difference), every slider sent to the maximum except the reflection one (its at one notch, i dont like the way it refreshes), shadows at 4096 (8192 is a huge drop, for a very minor difference), every box checked except the smooth shadows (now thats a large frame rate killer, but it has nearly no effect with 4096 shadows). All in 1920x1080...

If youre running this game "maxed out", your screen is as much identical to mine, you probably couldnt really notice the differences.

And yea i dont really like how the landscape looks (cause it look very old indeed), how the grass is rendered (all or nothing). But the (newer) planes and buildings are top notch, and thats what counts for me.

[guncrasher]

Seriously,
there is a certain point when its absolutely unnecessry to increase the resolution: you practically wont notice the difference anyway.

My system is old, wasnt quite high-end back in its day though, still, i can run AH with almost everything enabled, with a steady 55-60fps.
PhenomIIx4 at 3.2 GHz, 8 GB ddr3-1600, HD-5830, 64GB OCZ SSD, 750GB Western Digital HDD, old 790 series Gygabyte mobo, 500W Chieftec PSU. Nothing special at all.
Yet i have the hi-res pack installed, anti-aliasing one notch from the maximum (unnoticable difference), every slider sent to the maximum except the reflection one (its at one notch, i dont like the way it refreshes), shadows at 4096 (8192 is a huge drop, for a very minor difference), every box checked except the smooth shadows (now thats a large frame rate killer, but it has nearly no effect with 4096 shadows). All in 1920x1080...

If youre running this game "maxed out", your screen is as much identical to mine, you probably couldnt really notice the differences.

And yea i dont really like how the landscape looks (cause it look very old indeed), how the grass is rendered (all or nothing). But the (newer) planes and buildings are top notch, and thats what counts for me.

bulding dont look different but it's the little things that make the game look different.  like the shadows on the water/floor of airplanes engaged in a furball, or the shadows of your own airplane on the canopy as you move around that's a big thing for me.  or the reflecting airplanes/mountains as you are close to the water that is awesome.  sometimes I have gotten killed because i was too busy looking at the reflections of nearby planes instead of paying attention to what is happening behind me.

the grass all or nothing is not really any different than wot.  and i hate the painted look of the horizon there.  that looks like something my 3 year old grandaughter can do.  it looks like they got the idea from the impressionism art movement.


semp

[Changeup]

Probably needs this as well. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151105

If its nuke, why do I need this?

[fbEagle]

Detailed terrain, water, reflections, shadows at 1024, smooth shadows, slider in 2nd notch, 2048 textures, solid 59FPS, 256 with Vsync off and on runway.
ibuypower Valkyrie 17" laptop.

[wiskyfog]

That being "said" and shown, these amazing rigs are kewl.but, for those on a laptop and using a cheap twisty is there a performance disparity for those who experience extreme lag and those who don't? Doesn't it give those who have those carte blanche rigs an advantage because of a reduced/lack of lag?I've been in a wirby and shot at a con at 300-400 feet and not one bullet scratched it, my aim is bad but not THAT bad.

[Skuzzy]

That being "said" and shown, these amazing rigs are kewl.but, for those on a laptop and using a cheap twisty is there a performance disparity for those who experience extreme lag and those who don't? Doesn't it give those who have those carte blanche rigs an advantage because of a reduced/lack of lag?I've been in a wirby and shot at a con at 300-400 feet and not one bullet scratched it, my aim is bad but not THAT bad.

Whatever you hit, on your front end, is damaged.  However, you need to film it so you can jump to the vehicle location to see exactly what and where you hit.  Just because you hit it, does not mean it is going to explode.  It all depends on what you hit it with and where you hit it.

Check the armor maps in the game to see the armor layouts for any given vehicle.

[numb1]

I am running 1920/1080 with full AA 2048 textures every thing maxed out with all bump maps on and every thing checked except the disable boxes and i have 8192 shadows.With vsync of in f3 mode in tower i get 87fps.Now i havent got to see the new clouds yet so have no idea what those will do.

i5-3570k
His iceq 7850 2gb
corsair vengence 8 gb at 2133mhz
600 watt corsair psu
gigabyte z77 mb
Liquid cooling for cpu
180GB intel ssd
1tb hd

[Chalenge]

here ya go...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130790

Two 680s in SLI are better. I would get the GTX 680 with the 4GB memory and then get a GTX 680 with 2 GB to SLI with it (fastest clock you can find). Put the 4GB in the primary slot.

[SilverZ06]

Two 680s in SLI are better. I would get the GTX 680 with the 4GB memory and then get a GTX 680 with 2 GB to SLI with it (fastest clock you can find). Put the 4GB in the primary slot.

Wouldn't the 4GB card then only run 2GB as well, thus wasting the extra 2 GB?

[Chalenge]

I would look into that if I were you. If you think about it how much ram does a 690 have onboard?

EDIT: Okay so here is the difference between 680 SLI and 690 all wrapped up.

680 SLI requires the bigger PSU that Skuzzy suggested. You DO NOT need that for the 690. I think he must have calculated that based upon the older Fermi 580s. Kepler is more conservative and a stock 690 requires only 300W. If it uses the 580 365W then it must be substantially overclocked which also means more cooling and drawing more from the PSU. The powerboost target for the 690 is actually 263W but in Aces High you will not see that because the game is designed to use everything your system has (that is a good thing).

As to memory size the first thing you should note is that the 690 is using only 2GB per GPU. With that card you will still run into system resource issues with everything in AH maxed out. Now as to the reason I chose a 4GB and a 2GB memory frame.

Scaling issues! If you want the better scaling of two cards working together the Crossfire system is currently the way to go. While a 680 compared to a 7970 is an obvious winner the Crossfire method delivers more power in the end. Scaling actually works better on a single card but the 690s top performance comes in overclocking (not overvolting!) although power consumption can climb to 375W! At 375W usage the memory bandwidth climbs from 6GHz to 7GHz!

Nvidia no longer builds bridges. Am I still talking computers? Yes. For the 690 Nvidia reached out to a company called PLX to build a PCIe 3.0 bridge. The problem is that can be a problem on Sandy Bridge-E systems since Nvidia specifically excluded them. PLX did not however and so far I have not heard of any problems but that is also why I dont recommend the 690 to just anyone (you never know and I cant test systems I dont have).

Reason #2! Pipeline issues. Memory pipes are specifically limited on the Kepler cards. I have no idea why and it doesnt make sense to me. However if you plan on using two 4GB cards you will discover that you cannot match the performance of two 2GB cards. I chose a 4GB and a 2GB because you can then still use a single card (turn SLI off) and have a 4GB memory frame. When you mix memory sizes like this you must use Coolbits. If that makes you nervous then use the exact same cards. Using two 4GB cards and then maxing out the shadow sizes will hit the pipe issue on the majority of systems. The one time I got beyond that was using an Extreme CPU (Sandy Bridge-E interestingly enough) but the system was still experiencing frame jitters every few seconds. Turning the shadow textures down eliminated the problem. I normally do not use shadows as I have said on previous occasions and this was just a test.

Having said everything that I have to this point I will add that having two GPUs on a single card also leaves sorely needed space in a computer case. Adding a second card only increases power consumption and decreases airflow.

Back in September I ran benchmarks with FRAPS and tested the 690 compared with two 680s (matched/unmatched) and the 4GB/2GB model won out on AH and Portal 2 and Metro 2033 which were the only programs I used.

[Gman]

I agree with Challenge 100%, as I just built a 3930k system that had a 690 in it for a few days, then I went to 4gb 680 in SLI.  What he describes is exactly my experience.

Now, that system is on 3 screens, so it's hard for me to judge the question the OP asks, but I just had a new box built for my bro in law that is staying with us for a little bit.  Specs and results as follows:

X79 Sabertooth 2011 MB
i7 3820 CPU@4.6ghz, h100i cooler
16 gb Corsair Vengeance Ram
128gb SSD drive w/1tb data drive
680 GTX FTW+ eVGA GPU
Win7 64bit
Asus 24" 1080P LED

With this system, with the entry screen video setting set at 2048 texture, one notch from the top anti aliasing, and everything MAXED in the control panel in game, the avg FPS is under 50 I would say.  Taking off from a base with some friendlies and smoke is around 47-52.  Flying low over tanks at your town with some cons, as low as 35, but around mid 40's avg.  Up high, so long as no clouds are around, you CAN see 59/60, but this isn't the performance I see often.

Now before you say it's the settings or something not set up right, this PC has the full black viper treatment, and I tried it in AH both before and after this, and with the current nvidia drivers AND the ones most people say are the best, from a few months ago.  Same result in Aces High.  The system also has been through the 3d Mark vantage and dx11 tests, and scores right around where similar systems do on that site, even slightly higher when I've overclocked it to 4.6ghz.  Guys in the game that have these 3 and 4 year old systems that claim to have "60 constant" at full settings are dreaming I think.  I can post lots of screen shots to verify this.  In order for me to get 60 fps semi constant with his system I have to turn down the shadows to 4096 from 8192 or whatever, turn off the cloud bump mapping, and move the updates slider down several notches to where it is only a couple from being completely off.  Even then i see drops to 50fps at times.

I'd love to see screen shots of guys with these older systems with cons and smoke and clouds around, at 1920 res with max settings, with the needle pegged at 60 fps, as I can't see it happening without a LOT of stuff turned down or off.

I'll be happy to send anyone dxdiag and screen shots if they want to see them, but this is how AH performs on this system with everything TRULY maxed and at 1920 resolution with vsync on, and the other settings as I mentioned.  It is playable at absolute max, but when looking around when at low altitude with lots going on, you do see a noticeable "chugging" going on when it drops into the 30's.  As I said though, this system really performs well in the 3dmark tests, and in games like BF3 and the like, they can be played at ultra and see 55-60fps most of the time.  AH can really challenge a system, even a new one, with everything absolutely maxed.  My system on 3 monitors is a bit more powerful than this 3820 1 GPU machine, but not my leaps and bounds.  I may try it on one screen with the same settings and see how much of a difference there is in performance from a 3930k sli box to a 3820 single 680 box.

edit: I just ran 3dmark11 for kicks, here is the result.

ScoreP10154 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680(1x) and Intel Core i7-3820 Processor

Graphics Score
    10243

Physics Score
    11196

Combined Score
    8433

Like I said, very common performance numbers when I compare it to other testers on the 3dmark site, the scores are actually slightly better than the average 3820 with a 680 from what I've seen there.  I've tried messing around with the settings for the video card in nvidia's control panel, trying Aces high with various things both on and off, and with the card overclocked with MSI afterburner utility as well, and still, there are drops into the mid to high 30's when around gv's at a town, and some other activity in the air happening.  It's kind of disappointing when a 2200$ system can't max out a game that is 10 years old almost, lol. Oh well, he'll have to be happy at 4092 shadows and 2 notches of environment.  One thing that is odd I find is that we can go offline with these settings and the fps do stay pegged at 60fps, flying through the ack and low over the town etc.  I wonder why it drops so much in game...is it just having other players around, and the smoke from burning hangars and the like when at low altitude?  I'd love nothing more than somebody to come on here and say "hey moron, you have x setting wrong, fix this and poof, you'll have the constant 60 fps in game that all these guys with 3 year old systems are claiming".