Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Dragon Tamer on June 27, 2015, 10:42:10 PM
-
I know that threads like this have been posted before, but I'm curious what everyone has, and I didn't want to necro-post.
This is my system, all the parts and pictures. It's a very old system that has tried to die on me several times. It will never die on my watch! :police:
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/TQsJ7P
As much work as I've put into this system, I've been branching out into other games and it's starting to struggle with a lot of them. I'm now planning on upgrading in the near future to something a little more powerful. This is what I'm looking at:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/YgQFnQ
-
DT, I would consider waiting perhaps for a couple more months until the new Skylake platform is out from Intel. It isn't going to cost a whole lot more than that 4690k setup, and give you the most current MB and so on for future upgrades. There are a few advantages coming as well, DDR4 mem, better pipelines for some stuff, and so on. Overall it might not be a huge increase in performance that what you listed, but it'll be more future proof and current, and shouldn't cost much more either.
That said, that certainly isn't a bad built, pretty good for sub 1000$ for sure, it's incredible what you can get for 1$k now in PC gaming, and that'll run pretty well IMO. A 970 may not hurt, but the 960 sure won't cripple you or anything in a large swath of games, especially at 1080p.
I'm waiting to build 2 new gaming boxes to replace 2 of the 4 PCs in the house myself. I have one 5960x box w/a single Titan and m2 240gb that I use for DCS and other things, play AH mostly on either of my x79s, either a 3820 or 4930k setup with the usual SSD/HD setup and both running single 980s. The missus usually uses her 4690k setup, very similar to my x79s.
I plan on going with the fastest Skylake chip, a decent MSI or Asus MB, probably 980ti x2 or maybe just a single, I doubt I'll buy another Titan as the $/fps with the 980ti blows it away IMO. Probably another m2 PCIe drive of some king, Kingston this time, unsure yet, and probably a 500 Samsung SSD and a 2gb Cav Black I have sitting here still.
Monitors - Asus has a really great IMO monitor coming out, the MG279Q, I have their Swift 1440p/144hz now, but it's TN, and they have an IPS variant coming soon, so I'll be grabbing that for sure, and I may sell/trade/give away my 4k Acer Gsync and replace it with the new Asus IPS as well.
-
if your interested i can sell you a MB like this for the $100 your spending .
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130770
-
ColClark
I have coolmaster sniper2 case
Asus p6t MB
Intel i7 extreme
12g ram
2 120gb SSD
2 x 1 th hdd @ raid 1
Gtx 280 graphics card
Use onboard sound from MB
Controllers.
Saitek X55 rhino HOTAS
SAITEK CYBORG PRO gamer command unit
SAITK PRO FLIGHT RUDDER PEDALS
2X SAITEK PRO FLIGHT THROTTLE QUADRANTS
TRACK IR 4 W CLIP PRO
my system is configured as a pure gaming system with the OS for the game only and all programs (none that are not game related ) are kept on the SSD
FRAPS records to the 1tb raid for large storage
There is also in the 1tb a second instance of Windows and one of Linux for other things that I do such as CAD and programming
Monitors Samsung syncmaster 27 inch
I am going to upgrade the monitor and graphics and go with an HDMI connection with 32 inch monitor when I find one that the price is right .
With the SAITEK software I only have to use the keyboard when I type a message and I hardly ever touch the mouse at all
Sent from my K01A using Tapatalk
-
Windows 7 64
Antec 1200 case
I5 4670
Asrock MB (I believe )
8gb ram
750 psu corsair
Gtx 770 nvidia
Corsair keyboard, mouse,headphones
benq 27 inch x2
Logitech 3d joy
Chair that heats,vibrates ect
Oh and little USB fan :D
-
I do not have a problem with the Z87 MB, but if you did upgrade to the Z97 you could also make use of the M.2 SSD and perhaps a slightly larger drive at that. There are also LGA 1150 processors in the 4.0 GHz range now, so 3.5 GHz (while acceptable) does fall behind the X99 offerings a bit more. You could extend the life of your purchase with the faster processor.
There really is no reason to go X99, as the benefit of doing so is one of diminishing returns (5-10% over the Z97). Now that the 980 Ti is available I would recommend that if at all possible. And 8 GB is not enough ram anymore, as 16 GB seems to be the sweet spot.
-
Rig #1
AMD 8350 4.0
ASRPCK 970 AM3+ MB
16 gig Corsair Dominator Memory
128 gig Corsair SSD
1 tb WD caviar black HD
1300 watt PSU
EVGA 970 vid card
240 MM dual water cooling loop on both vid card and PSU
all styuffed in a NZXT 810 Switch case
Rig #2
I7 4790 4.0
ASUS z97 MB
16 gig Corsair Vengance Memory
248 gig SSD
1TB WD Black
2 GTX 960 vid cards in sli config (for triple screen)
Corsair H110 water cooler for the CPU
All stuffed in a H540 case from corsair
Love both rigs ..
LawnDart
850 Corsair
-
Hey LD, what can you tell us about the AMD cpu rig, in terms of how it performs compared to an Intel similarly priced CPU in your opinion. Really nice pair of rigs, great $/performance set ups. What do you think about your 960SLI cards as compared to your single 970 as well, I'd be interested in your experiences and opinions on that one. As well as the water cooling setup on the SLI rig - worth the $ and effort setting that up? I've always just gone with the Corsair factory closed liquid coolers like the 110 and so on, but I'm thinking of doing what you've done perhaps with my Skylake system(s) I'm planning on building once they come out in the fall/winter.
-
In sig below........................ .........
:salute
-
Twitch link in signature has links as well, usually to where I bought it, but sometimes to manufacturer's page instead.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K Processor
Heatsink & Fan: Noctua NH-U12S
GPU: GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 980 G1 Gaming
RAM: G.SKILL Trident X Series 32GB 4 x 8GB
Motherboard: Asus ROG Maximus VI Hero
Power Supply: SeaSonic X-1250 1250W
Case: Silverstone Fortress FT01-BW
Monitor: BenQ XL2420T
Keyboard: Corsair Vengeance K90 Mechanical
Mouse: Logitech G9X Call of Duty: MW3 Edition
Headphones: Razer Tiamat 7.1 Analog
Microphone: Logitech Desktop USB
Hard Drives:
Plextor M5P Series 256GB PX-256M5P
Western Digital WD Black 4TB WD4003FZEX
HGST Deskstar 4TB HDS724040ALE640
Western Digital WD Black 1TB WD1001FALS
Joysticks:
Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog
CH Pro Pedals USB
Other:
TrackIR 4:Pro w/ TrackClip Pro
LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe
APC Smart-UPS 1500
Cisco Catalyst 3560CG-8TC-S Compact Switch
Ratpadz XT
-
"It's a very old system..."
CPU: Intel Core2Duo E8500 @3.8 GHz
Heatsink & Fan: Titan Skalli
GPU: XFX Radeon HD 6970
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 8GB kit 4x2GB PC2 6400
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3
PSU: Nexus RX-7000 700W 80+ Bronze
Monitor: HP LP3065
HDD: WD Blue 500 GB WD5000AAKX
ODD: Yes
Mouse, keyboard: Yes
Headphones: SpeedLink Medusa NX 5.1
Win7 64
-
Getting old but think I can get another year or so out of her with a video card upgrade.
Win7 64
I5 3570K @ 4.6Ghz
Water cooling , 240mm radiator , EK block , pump and res.
Asus P8p67 Pro
8gb pc2133 Gskill
Sapphire 280X OC
Corsair HX 750W Psu
128gb OCZ vertex 4 SSD
WD Raptor 150
2X lite-on DVD burners
Antec 1080 Amg W/ window (13 years old , and been threw at least 8 different setups lol)
BenQ 2720Z 144hrz
Rat7 mouse
x52 throttle w/ microsoft precision pro2
(X55 sitting in box ....trying to get used to it lol)
-
Hey LD, what can you tell us about the AMD cpu rig, in terms of how it performs compared to an Intel similarly priced CPU in your opinion. Really nice pair of rigs, great $/performance set ups. What do you think about your 960SLI cards as compared to your single 970 as well, I'd be interested in your experiences and opinions on that one. As well as the water cooling setup on the SLI rig - worth the $ and effort setting that up? I've always just gone with the Corsair factory closed liquid coolers like the 110 and so on, but I'm thinking of doing what you've done perhaps with my Skylake system(s) I'm planning on building once they come out in the fall/winter.
Well here is the 810
(http://cdn.overclock.net/7/7b/500x1000px-LL-7b22ed63_Rig2.jpeg)
Temps stay in the low 40's for the CPU and mid 40's for the GPU. The 970 is a cool card even with out the water cooling but I wanted to go cool looking...LOL.This one has the AMD 8350 and the 970. She runs at a steady 60FPS on a 27" IPS monitor with most eye candy turned on... I cant find any problems with it, but i am sure someone will..
My I7 rig has a corsair h110 closed loop to just the CPU and it keeps it cool and I get 60 FPS with most eye candy turned on even in fur balls..
Now the reason why I went with dual 960's on my rig in SLI is the fact I run triple monitors and it is easier to set up that than run a single card and not get the maximum preformance out of it.
Comparing the CPUS i went here and got my stats.. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
I will be posting pics of the i7 rig if you want them.
LawnDart
My
-
LD, what kind of scores do you get when you run this?
https://unigine.com/products/valley/
It only tests the GPU but it does a hell of a good job of pushing it to it's limit. I scored over 800 (don't know the exact number) with my 760. I could have probably gotten a better score but I was hitting the temp limit set on the GPU. I didn't want to turn it off and risk damaging it.
-
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn263/mrthant/firstpc.jpg
-
A few steps back from the "bleeding edge": Intel i7-4770K running at 4.3 GHz and a GTX 980 video card...
http://kenshelby.us/docs/pc-parts (http://kenshelby.us/docs/pc-parts)
-
Getting old but think I can get another year or so out of her with a video card upgrade.
I5 3570K @ 4.6Ghz (...)
I wish I had anything powerful like that. :rofl
I3-2120
12 GB Ram
cheap socket 1155 board with on board sound
HD 6850, 1GB
2 TB Maxtor Hard disk
Flatron W2361V 23" screen
X-52pro
TrackIr3Pro
-
LD, what kind of scores do you get when you run this?
https://unigine.com/products/valley/
It only tests the GPU but it does a hell of a good job of pushing it to it's limit. I scored over 800 (don't know the exact number) with my 760. I could have probably gotten a better score but I was hitting the temp limit set on the GPU. I didn't want to turn it off and risk damaging it.
What settings are you running? I ran it in basic 5300 so im assuming its not at that setting lol.
Edit: at extreme HD it only did 1110 @1920X1080
-
(http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad258/DragonTamer1X/Capture.png)
1600x900 full screen
x8 Anti-aliasing
Ultra quality
Was going great at 30 FPS most of the time. Dropped down to about 10 FPS on scene transitions. Program crashed several times when the lightning started on scene... 15?...
-
I wish I had anything powerful like that. :rofl
I3-2120
12 GB Ram
cheap socket 1155 board with on board sound
HD 6850, 1GB
2 TB Maxtor Hard disk
Flatron W2361V 23" screen
X-52pro
TrackIr3Pro
lol thx . I can run 4.8Ghz stable but at a 1.35 vcore which would kill it after awhile. At 4.6 it only needs 1.23v and stays nice and cool. At least you have an upgrade path cpu wise.... im kinda stuck here :bhead
-
1600x900 full screen
x8 Anti-aliasing
Ultra quality
Was going great at 30 FPS most of the time. Dropped down to about 10 FPS on scene transitions. Program crashed several times when the lightning started on scene... 15?...
Didnt have any crashes but fps were pretty close to what you were seeing . It's weird that it doesnt show the overclock on my cpu but even windows 7 shows it as only running at 3.4 ghz.
(http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/members/rukkee-9713/albums/garage-1151/un-19366.jpg)
-
for those who are interested this is the result from the gtx 980 ti.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff115/MAVADAKIN_2007/Untitled_1.jpg)[/URL]
-
for those who are interested this is the result from the gtx 980 ti.
This is what I get at your settings. You should try the extremeHD setting , it would be interesting to see how the 980 chews through it at that level .
(http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/members/rukkee-9713/albums/garage-1151/unt-19367.jpg)
-
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ae25/phjf43wuj1ybff66g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?phjf43wuj1ybff6)
-
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ae25/phjf43wuj1ybff66g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?phjf43wuj1ybff6)
This shows well what a waste of money an i7 is for a gaming rig.
-
Across all three screens, score 1074:
http://kenshelby.us/docs/Unigine_Valley_Benchmark_1.0_20150703_0828.html (http://kenshelby.us/docs/Unigine_Valley_Benchmark_1.0_20150703_0828.html)
One 1920 x 1080 screen, score 2980:
http://kenshelby.us/docs/Unigine_Valley_Benchmark_1.0_20150703_0818.html (http://kenshelby.us/docs/Unigine_Valley_Benchmark_1.0_20150703_0818.html)
-
I'm amazed! With the highest settings my old rig does this good a job:
(http://www.telemail.fi/petrin.atk-apu/unigine.PNG)
Here's the test run with similar settings mikev used, they seem to be the lowest settings shown here:
(http://www.telemail.fi/petrin.atk-apu/UnigineHD.PNG)
-
Across all three screens, score 1074
One 1920 x 1080 screen, score 2980:
That is impressive..... I'm thinking a 980 might be in my future.
-
I'm amazed! With the highest settings my old rig does this good a job:
Here's the test run with similar settings mikev used, they seem to be the lowest settings shown here:
That is awesome .... you should feel like a proud papa lol
-
I did mine in custom/high like most, but also in Ext HD just to see, and I didn't lose much when bumping up the detail.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/high_bench_zpsxnc4ncoa.jpg) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/maddogjoe_photos/media/high_bench_zpsxnc4ncoa.jpg.html)
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/Ext_bench_zpsaanbjvnh.jpg) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/maddogjoe_photos/media/Ext_bench_zpsaanbjvnh.jpg.html)
-
980 ti at ultra settings
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff115/MAVADAKIN_2007/test.jpg)[/URL]
-
I did mine in custom/high like most, but also in Ext HD just to see, and I didn't lose much when bumping up the detail.
Thats interesting , there is usually a decent hit between custom high and extreme hd. Didnt seem to phase your 670 thou 8)
-
With my AH rig w/3820@3.8 and an eVGA SuperClock 980 (not ti), with monitor set to 1980 x 1080, ultra detail, it did 124.6 fps and 5103 score with min fps 36.5 max 165.4. Not bad for a 3 year old MB/CPU and a 10 month old GPU now. Still a GPU world, I bet with a ti this platform would be very close to the 4790k CPU even oc'd.
I'll try the 5960x box with our Titan in it and see how it compares, I'll bet the ti box here and it are neck and neck. The 980ti is a very good deal, I'd not have bought the Titan in retrospect had I known it was as fast as it was going to be for the $.
-
With my AH rig w/3820@3.8 and an eVGA SuperClock 980 (not ti), with monitor set to 1980 x 1080, ultra detail, it did 124.6 fps and 5103 score with min fps 36.5 max 165.4. Not bad for a 3 year old MB/CPU and a 10 month old GPU now. Still a GPU world, I bet with a ti this platform would be very close to the 4790k CPU even oc'd.
I'll try the 5960x box with our Titan in it and see how it compares, I'll bet the ti box here and it are neck and neck. The 980ti is a very good deal, I'd not have bought the Titan in retrospect had I known it was as fast as it was going to be for the $.
i was wondering what the 980 would do . now the ti is only $100 more looks like the difference is small but enough for some to change later . i was going to go with the titan originally but when i saw this come out was sold on it from the beginning. and the $400 savings did not hurt . most of the test i have seen rank the titan and the ti neck and neck . just watch out for your video card temps this test really heats it up . my guess is the titan and mine will both be around 83 C which is why i wont run this test again.
-
This shows well what a waste of money an i7 is for a gaming rig.
Uhhh that's your opinion ... and we know what opinions are like....
LawnDart
-
Uhhh that's your opinion ... and we know what opinions are like....
LawnDart
It's not an opinion it's a measureable fact.
-
This shows well what a waste of money an i7 is for a gaming rig.
No it shows how much a dog the 960 is. The i7 run very nicely on mine.
-
You're not likely to find the Unigine system to be bound to any one CPU over another anyway.
-
OK i am on my AMD rig and will post as soon as I get the results..
LawnDart
Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0
FPS:
54.1
Score:
2265
Min FPS:
18.4
Max FPS:
107.6
System
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor (4334MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.18.13.4475 (4095MB) x1
Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen
Preset
Extreme HD
Powered by UNIGINE Engine
Unigine Corp. © 2005-2013
Just as a FYI this is a water cooled system too
-
Score:
2265
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.18.13.4475 (4095MB) x1
Thanks for the 970 results . That card has been on my radar for a replacement for my 280X ...and it basically doubled my 1110 extreme score. I almost pulled the trigger on a 290x but ive been kinda let down by AMD's lack of support for the 280x . I'm thinking the 970 is pretty hard to beat for the money ...3.5GB or not .
-
(http://s9.postimg.org/wu2odz5zf/GTX_780_Ti_7_4_15.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/wu2odz5zf/)
-
(http://s16.postimg.org/anprk2nm9/R9_290_X_1920x1080_Ex_HD_7_4_15.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/anprk2nm9/)
-
No it shows how much a dog the 960 is. The i7 run very nicely on mine.
LOL! This comment shows you understood nothing of what I wrote.
The point was exactly that you don't gain more speed to games by paying half of the computer price for a super expensive cpu.
-
LOL! This comment shows you understood nothing of what I wrote.
The point was exactly that you don't gain more speed to games by paying half of the computer price for a super expensive cpu.
Actually, the results you commented on concern a system that is using 1952x1080 resolution, yet also has surround active (multi-monitors). Duplicating this on your own system (if you can) will demonstrate that it is not ideal for the best benchmark scores regardless which CPU is used.
I have a slower i7 CPU and yet I get more than 600% better results on the same LGA 1150 platform. but with the GTX 980. Where what you say is somewhat true concerns SLI where a faster CPU will allow greater scaling.
-
Actually, the results you commented on concern a system that is using 1952x1080 resolution, yet also has surround active (multi-monitors). Duplicating this on your own system (if you can) will demonstrate that it is not ideal for the best benchmark scores regardless which CPU is used.
I have a slower i7 CPU and yet I get more than 600% better results on the same LGA 1150 platform. but with the GTX 980. Where what you say is somewhat true concerns SLI where a faster CPU will allow greater scaling.
Can it be, a second one in a row? For the second time: I said an expensive CPU does _not_ bring you a sizeable benefit in gaming performance. Very poor bang for buck.
-
Challenge is right I know where my choke point is persay ... the video cards but it does run the game real well and in other games I do run most in ultra and high def. Ripley I understand where you are coming from too, but I also know that I looked at the whole machine not just the CPU. Please remember that everyone makes their decisions based upon what they want, not what you want for them.
LawnDart
-
4770K w/ H80i and 2 LEPA fans
ASROCK Z97 Extreme 4
16GB Venegence Pro
EVGA Supernova G2 750w
EVGA 780Ti SC Reference
256GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Boot Drive only)
Multiple WD Platters
Creative Zx
Corsair 750D with 4 - Prolimatech Blue Vortex 140's
(3) 22" Acer monitors.
My PC is ice cold all around, but a steaming pile of chit. One day I aspire to be able to build a decent PC.
-
One day I aspire to be able to build a decent PC.
Do you mean something that can run e-mail and WordPad with ease, instead of tempting you to waste numerous hours playing some virtual flying game?
-
Do you mean something that can run e-mail and WordPad with ease, instead of tempting you to waste numerous hours playing some virtual flying game?
Nah, I'll leave pc building to the experts.
-
Nah, I'll leave pc building to the experts.
' naaaaaaaaa its not as hard as you think
-
I don't know. We're all talking about how much energy we can get out of a can of Spam while Ripley talks about why T-bone is a waste of money. Lawndart has a CPU that costs just $339, so "big expensive" is not a good descriptor (which is also not getting 4.0GHz for some reason).
What I see in this thread is that the 2011 system can be beaten by a well built 1150, and the 980 Ti is clearly a great purchase.
-
Challenge is right I know where my choke point is persay ... the video cards but it does run the game real well and in other games I do run most in ultra and high def. Ripley I understand where you are coming from too, but I also know that I looked at the whole machine not just the CPU. Please remember that everyone makes their decisions based upon what they want, not what you want for them.
LawnDart
You might look to see if your RAM is set to run at the proper speed. Your CPU is below specs, which makes me think your memory clock has your system held back. Loading the proper profile could get you to 4.0 GHz, but it still won't fix the GPU issue.
-
' naaaaaaaaa its not as hard as you think
For some it is, some need to have their hands held.
-
an expensive CPU does _not_ bring you a sizeable benefit in gaming performance. Very poor bang for buck.
Versus what? An i5, a quad without hyperthreading? You're right, except if you want to do something like stream your gaming on Twitch or record it to your hard drive with OBS. In that case, an i7 is essential, the hyperthreading has a benefit that far exceeds the cost to go from an i5 to an i7.
I think the i7 is worth the extra cost compared to what else I could spend the extra $100 on. But its true that if I'm playing a benchmark instead of playing (and simultaneously recording/streaming) a game, it won't show any benefit there.
If you're talking about the Extreme series i7s though, then I agree with fewer reservations. They really are only for those who can afford it because they want to. They aren't needed, and the eight core (16 with hyperthreading) version will actually run games measurably slower, all else equal, due to lower clockspeed.
-
BoilerDown, you've opened my eyes to an entirely new way of gaming. I belong to the generation who wanted to minimize all background activity for the best gaming performance. Instead/alongside that you deliberately want to run other tasks in the background. Tasks that make sense as both a marketing device and a social media event. Both are things that either don't interest me or are otherwise not my business, but I can comprehend that your way makes sense, too.
-
Versus what? An i5, a quad without hyperthreading? You're right, except if you want to do something like stream your gaming on Twitch or record it to your hard drive with OBS. In that case, an i7 is essential, the hyperthreading has a benefit that far exceeds the cost to go from an i5 to an i7.
I think the i7 is worth the extra cost compared to what else I could spend the extra $100 on. But its true that if I'm playing a benchmark instead of playing (and simultaneously recording/streaming) a game, it won't show any benefit there.
If you're talking about the Extreme series i7s though, then I agree with fewer reservations. They really are only for those who can afford it because they want to. They aren't needed, and the eight core (16 with hyperthreading) version will actually run games measurably slower, all else equal, due to lower clockspeed.
No I'm talking about a Pentium G3558 or i3 vs the 5-10 times more expensive i7. You gain maybe 0.5 fps by paying 5 times the price. Not smart.
-
Its 20% slower by clock speed alone, ignoring all IPC deficits. So as long as you're not GPU-bound, you should get a significantly better than .5 fps advantage with an i7 (or i5 for that matter) (most likely, its 20% faster). Is it worth $230 (i5) or $330 (i7) instead of $70? For me, yes. If all you do on that computer is play Aces High, I could understand someone saying "no".
-
Its 20% slower by clock speed alone, ignoring all IPC deficits. So as long as you're not GPU-bound, you should get a significantly better than .5 fps advantage with an i7 (or i5 for that matter) (most likely, its 20% faster). Is it worth $230 (i5) or $330 (i7) instead of $70? For me, yes. If all you do on that computer is play Aces High, I could understand someone saying "no".
You're always going to be GPU bound unless you run triple 980ti's. Countless benchmarks have shown this and the issue has been discussed on this bulletin board previously multiple times. Have you been living in the woods perhaps?
-
Uh, not precisely true (and no need to get nasty). Your GPU is A limiting factor, but in the world of SLI (or any level of multiple GPU) the scaling is CPU bound. The faster the CPU the greater the scaling. There are other issues, such as the non-native resolution issue pointed out in this thread already or parallelism. You could also just build a terrible system that chokes the CPU, so that even a superior CPU cannot deliver better FPS.
-
Uh, not precisely true (and no need to get nasty). Your GPU is A limiting factor, but in the world of SLI (or any level of multiple GPU) the scaling is CPU bound. The faster the CPU the greater the scaling. There are other issues, such as the non-native resolution issue pointed out in this thread already or parallelism. You could also just build a terrible system that chokes the CPU, so that even a superior CPU cannot deliver better FPS.
Listen folks it's really simple. A 70 dollar CPU combined to a 500 dollar GPU will give you, say, 250fps. A 350 dollar CPU combined to the same 500 dollar GPU will give you probably 252-255 fps. Is that worth the difference? To me it's insanity to pay for that.
Things of course change if you do CPU intensive work on the computer but most really, do not.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pentium_20th_anniversary_series_g3258_processor_review,14.html
-
i will say this . my old $70 cpu ran this game at 75 percent. but to the people who are building a new pc i will say look into the future not what gets you by now. tomorrows systems will demand more not for just gaming . i spent over $1500 just in constant upgrades for my old system. my latest build is ready for tomorrow. its a simple matter of choice pay less now and pay for the upgrades later. ripley is right in what he means now, but that is today not tomorrow
-
i will say this . my old $70 cpu ran this game at 75 percent. but to the people who are building a new pc i will say look into the future not what gets you by now. tomorrows systems will demand more not for just gaming . i spent over $1500 just in constant upgrades for my old system. my latest build is ready for tomorrow. its a simple matter of choice pay less now and pay for the upgrades later. ripley is right in what he means now, but that is today not tomorrow
Most people have limited funds. So they have to consider what they get for their hard earned dollars. Do they choose to spend a lot on a CPU or a lot on GPU - most of the times they can't afford to spend a lot on both. By spending a lot on GPU and getting the price/performance miracle of G3258 they get an awesome gaming machine now. In the future if they get the money to buy more GPU then they can upgrade the CPU if it's not enough anymore.
To buy an expensive CPU now and skimp on the GPU - will give you a great slideshow game experience.
-
Most people have limited funds. So they have to consider what they get for their hard earned dollars. Do they choose to spend a lot on a CPU or a lot on GPU - most of the times they can't afford to spend a lot on both. By spending a lot on GPU and getting the price/performance miracle of G3258 they get an awesome gaming machine now. In the future if they get the money to buy more GPU then they can upgrade the CPU if it's not enough anymore.
To buy an expensive CPU now and skimp on the GPU - will give you a great slideshow game experience.
what exactly is you definition of an expensive cpu? because at 350 bucks I think it's not too bad. on the other hand I will never spend over 500 bucks on an ssd like you have.
semp
-
Most people have limited funds. So they have to consider what they get for their hard earned dollars. Do they choose to spend a lot on a CPU or a lot on GPU - most of the times they can't afford to spend a lot on both. By spending a lot on GPU and getting the price/performance miracle of G3258 they get an awesome gaming machine now. In the future if they get the money to buy more GPU then they can upgrade the CPU if it's not enough anymore.
To buy an expensive CPU now and skimp on the GPU - will give you a great slideshow game experience.
very true people do have limited funds available . and you can get by with the cheap cpu and again your right about the gpu . thats where your money should go for " gaming ".the key word is GAMING. take my new build , i could of got a Intel Celeron G1840 for $39.99 and just upgraded it later. my point being IF you are just building for GAMING get the absolute BEST gpu you can afford now. if you can get a better gpu in 4 months wait till you can afford it. the big waste is money spent on upgrading every year or so. for me i had the cash so i got the $325.00 cpu . the Intel Celeron G1840 would of been a small cost at $39.99 for a temp usage if i did not have the cash.
-
what exactly is you definition of an expensive cpu? because at 350 bucks I think it's not too bad. on the other hand I will never spend over 500 bucks on an ssd like you have.
semp
Every i7 falls into the expensive category to me. I really regreted even getting the i5 to my gaming box because the G3258 build was just as fast. Wasted money.
-
very true people do have limited funds available . and you can get by with the cheap cpu and again your right about the gpu . thats where your money should go for " gaming ".the key word is GAMING. take my new build , i could of got a Intel Celeron G1840 for $39.99 and just upgraded it later. my point being IF you are just building for GAMING get the absolute BEST gpu you can afford now. if you can get a better gpu in 4 months wait till you can afford it. the big waste is money spent on upgrading every year or so. for me i had the cash so i got the $325.00 cpu . the Intel Celeron G1840 would of been a small cost at $39.99 for a temp usage if i did not have the cash.
The Celerons are totally worthless. I wouldn't get one for free. You're missing the point. A G3258 gives incredible value for money.
-
Every i7 falls into the expensive category to me. I really regreted even getting the i5 to my gaming box because the G3258 build was just as fast. Wasted money.
so is getting an ssd.
semp
-
The Celerons are totally worthless. I wouldn't get one for free. You're missing the point. A G3258 gives incredible value for money.
actually you missed my point Rip . if all your trying to do is sell everyone the G3258 so be it. but your hijacking this thread with your sales pitch on your mistake getting an i5 instead of the G3258. but it is a valuable lesson to all builders. plan out your build, listen to the successful builders advice. keep your builds priorities straight so you dont have any regrets later.
just curious RIP would like to see how your system scores on this
https://unigine.com/products/valley/
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
I did a compromise and got the i5 processor. This computer does everything. Fair gaming performance and versatility too. Benchmark with everything set default clocking.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zekump.jpg)
-
I did a compromise and got the i5 processor. This computer does everything. Fair gaming performance and versatility too. Benchmark with everything set default clocking.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zekump.jpg)
If you would have saved more on CPU and bought a better GPU with the money you'd be now sporting twice the points in that benchmark. That's the difference I'm talking about.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
If you would have saved more on CPU and bought a better GPU with the money you'd be now sporting twice the points in that benchmark. That's the difference I'm talking about.
Didn't buy them at the same time. Purchased the video card last year and the MB/CPU this year. Better video card coming later.
Need to stay under the radar budget wise with my wife.
-
See Rule #2
-
Every i7 falls into the expensive category to me. I really regreted even getting the i5 to my gaming box because the G3258 build was just as fast. Wasted money.
you buy that cpu and you are just wasting money. buy a better cpu and it will save you money in the future as you wont have to upgrade for a few years longer. with the new update in ah and more stuff being handled by the cpu a better cpu will serve you better.
btw what is the point of getting a cheap cpu when you have to spend 500 bucks on an ssd to make it faster.
semp
-
My results with the Benchmark.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/UnigineResults_zps9knvupaj.jpg)
From upper left result is 1080 High SLI On, 1080 Ultra SLI On, then Extreme HD SLI On.
From Lower left result is with non-native Surround (three screens with a 3240x1920 setup as 1080x1920) to demonstrate how Lawndart might have messed up his benchmark. Lower center results are Low settings at 4k with SLI Off (turned off with GPU still present). Lower right results is high settings, 4k with SLI on.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Ripley, I don't know anyone that thinks like you do. I have proven you wrong every time on this BBS.
Post your Unigine Valley Benchmark results.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Youtube. Okay. You said an i3 will triple the results Lawndart had, but you cannot prove it.
Look, it's real easy. an i3 CPU is an i7 CPU with some of the cores defeated. There is nothing about an i3 system that inherently says it will beat an i7. Nothing. If a program uses the same number of cores the two processors will get about the same results. There will be moderate discrepancies as you may have noted in the results posted at Anandtech. The difference comes in when the CPU is able to gear up and use the extra cores. In those cases the i3 will be left behind.
AH2 uses a single core, I believe. Neither you, nor I, can say if AH3 will use, one, two, or more cores. I do not think that the HTC team is willing to say yet, but when they do it is probably that the game will use two cores (I'm guessing), but I believe that clock speed will continue to be more important. So, probably an i3 will be fine for AH3, but we still do not know. Until we do know I suggest you stop telling people that an i3 is all they need.
For me, I need more than two cores.
-
. . . and now for the missing i3 Benchmark results!
Drum roll please. . .
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/i3Benchmark_zpsyuzm6yow.jpg)
Not quite as good as expected. Bummer!
-
See Rule #4
-
Youtube. Okay. You said an i3 will triple the results Lawndart had, but you cannot prove it.
Look, it's real easy. an i3 CPU is an i7 CPU with some of the cores defeated. There is nothing about an i3 system that inherently says it will beat an i7. Nothing.
Nobody talked about i3 or triple scores. Although it's true that a G3258 or an i3 combined to 980ti will most likely double or triple lawndarts scores. It has nothing to do with the cpu but the money spent on GPU. Money that, you know, save from buying the CPU smart.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
It's already been proven you are wrong Ripley. Remember this?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1265?vs=836
Yeah, the results prove everything I said, and disprove everything you said.
I want me some of that 3DMark Ice Storm Ultimate!
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
not even the same resolution on your monitor.
semp
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Well it looks like the last four pages or so took the fun out of posting specs on players rigs.
-
Well it looks like the last four pages or so took the fun out of posting specs on players rigs.
amen to that :aok
-
OK I will reiterate this again... and speak slowly to certain people... I........ am.......... running.....T....R....I....P. ...L....E.....S.....C.....R.. ..E.....E...N......
I understand there is a slight choke point in my rig... the GPU's but having a budget when I built this rig I went with what i could afford at the time for the job I needed. They are more than enough to handle the job I need. I did not want to over tax 1 high end GPU running 3 monitors... as the resolution is different.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+980
OK I looked at the price when i bought the 2 cards ... vs my budget and what I wanted to do with them... so all in all I got a system where I am happy with the possibility in the future to upgrade allot as I need it..
LawnDart
-
I run three screens on a lone 780ti and have zero issues.
-
you buy that cpu and you are just wasting money. buy a better cpu and it will save you money in the future as you wont have to upgrade for a few years longer. with the new update in ah and more stuff being handled by the cpu a better cpu will serve you better.
btw what is the point of getting a cheap cpu when you have to spend 500 bucks on an ssd to make it faster.
semp
This is not accurate. The new version makes more use of the GPU, not the CPU. The CPU still has a lot to do, but the GPU is the one handling a bigger load.
Youtube. Okay. You said an i3 will triple the results Lawndart had, but you cannot prove it.
Look, it's real easy. an i3 CPU is an i7 CPU with some of the cores defeated. There is nothing about an i3 system that inherently says it will beat an i7. Nothing. If a program uses the same number of cores the two processors will get about the same results. There will be moderate discrepancies as you may have noted in the results posted at Anandtech. The difference comes in when the CPU is able to gear up and use the extra cores. In those cases the i3 will be left behind.
AH2 uses a single core, I believe. Neither you, nor I, can say if AH3 will use, one, two, or more cores. I do not think that the HTC team is willing to say yet, but when they do it is probably that the game will use two cores (I'm guessing), but I believe that clock speed will continue to be more important. So, probably an i3 will be fine for AH3, but we still do not know. Until we do know I suggest you stop telling people that an i3 is all they need.
For me, I need more than two cores.
The current release of AH2 uses two cores, natively. The new version may use 3 cores, or may not. Still not certain if it buys any performance.
Aside from the application itself, Windows will make use of the other available free cores when it needs to do its own housekeeping. No application can assume it has exclusive use of the hardware in a computer. We all have to get along.
Speaking of which. This thread has all but been destroyed by people who cannot stop making personal comments about the individuals making posts. We have little tolerance for that in a forum which is supposed to provide help for people in making choices about the hardware they would like to use. Personal attacks, in any form, take away from the intent of this forum. Please remember that in the future.
-
OK I will reiterate this again... and speak slowly to certain people... I........ am.......... running.....T....R....I....P. ...L....E.....S.....C.....R.. ..E.....E...N......
LawnDart
I would swing those monitors into portrait configuration and use them at native resolution. Your card is about the same as my old GTX 680, and even though I was using two of them I believe it should work as well as what you have now. So, unless you are saying the monitors all have different resolutions it should be better for you. You do not have to run at native resolution they just need to running at the same resolution, but if one monitor has a different aspect ratio then it will be a problem.
-
1920 X5890 with bezel correction...
LAwnDart
-
Portrait mode. Something closer to 3240 x 1920. What you have now is landscape. Portrait mode *should* give you better performance.
-
1920 X5890 with bezel correction...
LAwnDart
There must be a typo somewhere, my calculations show that a single monitor runs at 1920 x 1963 in your system which means the screens were totally square instead of 16/9 rectangular.
-
Yes, of course this is the orientation I am talking about:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/portraitmonitor_zps3qxqnjnt.jpg)
Most monitors don't come with the ability to pivot like that, so you may have to make accommodations. You don't have to actually do the pivot to test it though. Just use the Nvidia Control Panel to rotate the display (which can get frustrating) in software and run the benchmark. If you get better results then you can decide from there.
I had planned for this when I designed my desk (4' x 7') and so I then just created a bookshelf to suit the situation (and with allowances for rack mount audio equipment and stereo tuner).
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/BookShelf_zpsgbe2pabg.png)
From there it is just a matter of finding VESA mounts that can pivot and you can even change orientation on the fly.
http://www.amazon.com/Cheetah-Monitor-Displays-Includes-Magnetic/dp/B0088RIV1W/ref=pd_sim_229_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0P4YBNDZEYES3SBK1SR9
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/GamingDeskLarge_zpsa915dc1b.jpg)
-
So wait... having 3 different sized monitors takes away more performance than having 3 equal size monitors?
-
The odd resolution Lawndart is reporting is probably because of bezel correction. If the monitors are not the same model they may not support similar resolutions and may suffer from the synch polarity issue. There is a way to force your way past the issue by forcing the same driver onto all three monitors, but it's a hack and not supported for that reason.
Landscape Surround modes create aspect ratios that are higher than the standard single screen ratios, while portrait modes more closely approach standard modes. This is one reason why in some games (AH for example) that setting the aspect ratio even ideally will result in stretching of the rendered scene. This is a known problem with surround and you can verify these facts by reading the Nvidia Whitepaper on Surround Best Practices.
That is why I recommend sticking closer to standard aspect ratios. It is not going to be a miracle cure, but it should offer some small percentage improvement.
-
Yees I have Bezel correction in it... and yes I do have a nice triple arm mount ... i will try the portrait and see how that look... never thought about it...
LawnDart
-
Thought my score of 1110 was low , so i saw that amd released new drivers 15.7 sometime in the last week or so, and tried them. So far so good . They also enabled VSR for a bunch of different series cards. Might be worth checking out if you have an amd card
(http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/members/rukkee-9713/albums/garage-1151/2074-19414.jpg)
-
here is my rig. Almost everything is over 3 years old. But it still keeping up with this game.
Antec 900 gaming case
ThermTake 750 watt PSU
Gygabyte GA 990-FXA-UD3
AMD 4.2 Ghz quad
16 GB DDR3 Ram
10,000 rpm Raptor HD
2-660GTX Video cards
CH Products Throttle, Combat Stick, Rudder pedals
Trac IR5
24 inch Samsung Monitor.
-
Geforce GTX 750ti
Gigabyte 970A-D3P
EVGA 600B
AMD Core Fx-6300
Kingston 120gb SSD
G.Skill 8gb x2
1 TB HD
Corsair Spec-01 case
2x Corsair 120mm Red LED fans (plus a third a friend gave me for free that I have as a back vent)
For fighting tools,
Thrustmaster stick and throttle
Aula LED backlit keyboard
Turtle Beach X12
Logitech G502
-
Here is the new 390 non X 8 gb card from MSI
(http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/members/rukkee-9713/albums/garage-1151/299-19453.jpg)
-
I know this thread is old but so is my current system. And it gives me a good comparison. This is what I play AH3 with right now.
That's actually windows 10.
(http://www.baileyarabians.com/AH3/KanthOriginal_Benchmark.png)
-
Kanth, I have had the same processor running at 3.8 GHz for a year or so now. The temperature stays low, below 50 celsius/120 F. The only thing I did was to raise the bus speed to 400. I'm not quite sure about the motherboard automatically raising the voltage though, it's currently 1.6 V. At this point I don't care about longevity, if it dies prematurely a new one costs next to nothing.
-
Hot-hardware was running 4.3 Ghz on air with a 1.336 Vcore so i would think it has too much Vcore in it . Have you tried to bump it up anymore ? Your already running alot of vcore , might as well hehe.
http://hothardware.com/reviews/wolfdale?page=2
-
No, there were some stability issues at first until I let the motherboard take care of the voltage. 400 MHz is a standard bus speed so I thought I'd better stay there. It's close enough to 4 GHz anyway, the performance gain would not be noticeable.
4.3 GHz... Tempting! But no, my bottlenecks are elsewhere. Which reminds me that my glass is empty, I'd better grab a bottleneck to fill it. :cheers:
-
I just purchased some mini upgrades for my PC that should be here by the 20th so I'll take another benchmark then.
I haven't tried overclocking.
It's such an old machine I'm not going to do too much to it. But it just needs to hold out till early next year.
meanwhiile reading:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/03/18/xfx_nforce_790i_ultra_motherboard_preview/6#.V9MFsFQrJhE (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/03/18/xfx_nforce_790i_ultra_motherboard_preview/6#.V9MFsFQrJhE)
-
It was just because of its age I mentioned overclocking.
In my philosophy for a new computer you should get a system you need out of the box. It may not be top of the notch, but it should do the job. Then, after a certain time, the high end components will become obsolete to some people and your rig can be upgraded for zilch. At that point getting spare parts will not be an economic issue so playing with extremities won't do any serious damage.
-
Yep makes sense, no parts of what I have now are expensive anymore. But I wouldn't do a 1:1 replacement unless I'm in a bind.
(like blew it up overclocking) :devil
-
Yes, of course this is the orientation I am talking about:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/portraitmonitor_zps3qxqnjnt.jpg)
Most monitors don't come with the ability to pivot like that, so you may have to make accommodations. You don't have to actually do the pivot to test it though. Just use the Nvidia Control Panel to rotate the display (which can get frustrating) in software and run the benchmark. If you get better results then you can decide from there.
I had planned for this when I designed my desk (4' x 7') and so I then just created a bookshelf to suit the situation (and with allowances for rack mount audio equipment and stereo tuner).
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/BookShelf_zpsgbe2pabg.png)
From there it is just a matter of finding VESA mounts that can pivot and you can even change orientation on the fly.
http://www.amazon.com/Cheetah-Monitor-Displays-Includes-Magnetic/dp/B0088RIV1W/ref=pd_sim_229_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0P4YBNDZEYES3SBK1SR9
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/GamingDeskLarge_zpsa915dc1b.jpg)
Sweet looking setup! What's the big controller beneath the center monitor?
-
my card came VERY fast...
(http://www.baileyarabians.com/AH3/KanthUpgrade_Benchmark.png)
And then in AH3 this meant Before I had (edit: actually that was at defaults settings)
(http://www.baileyarabians.com/AH3/tunisiamap.bmp)
And AFTER the card upgrade I get
(http://www.baileyarabians.com/AH3/tunisiamap_After.bmp)
that was a $279.00 purchase. Good to go. Hope that might help anyone looking for stuff.
Btw in the second screenshot EVERYTHING is on and vsync is off.
-
THANKS, Kanth! That proves I can still use my Old Reliable by just upgrading the video card.
-
you're welcome :cheers:
-
Just to throw it out there.....................
What you're seeing w\ Kanth's set up is a PCI-E 3.0 x16-compliant vid card being run on a mobo using a PCI-E 2.0 x16-compliant PCI-E slot..............
Seems to not be hindering the vid card's performance none being used in this PCI-E slot......................... ......
Also seems to not be "bottlenecked" by the Intel E8500 C2D CPU per se either...................
FYI.......................... .................
:salute
-
The video card should not be held back by a PCIe 2.0 slot, but the 1080 series may change that. Perhaps I should have bought one to do testing on. . .
I just had to run that benchmark again. You know, for old times sake. I would be interested in seeing what yours is doing Pudgie! Or someone with a top-of-the-line 1080.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/HeavenBenchmark_zpsjxsaadeo.jpg)
-
Yes, this is absolutely correct. From what I read you could see a 5-10fps drop in some games.
the motherboard is a EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI Motherboard.
Just to throw it out there.....................
What you're seeing w\ Kanth's set up is a PCI-E 3.0 x16-compliant vid card being run on a mobo using a PCI-E 2.0 x16-compliant PCI-E slot..............
Seems to not be hindering the vid card's performance none being used in this PCI-E slot......................... ......
Also seems to not be "bottlenecked" by the Intel E8500 C2D CPU per se either...................
FYI.......................... .................
:salute
-
There are many published benchmarks where PCIe 2.0 game out ahead of PCIe 3.0, for whatever reason.
-
The video card should not be held back by a PCIe 2.0 slot, but the 1080 series may change that. Perhaps I should have bought one to do testing on. . .
I just had to run that benchmark again. You know, for old times sake. I would be interested in seeing what yours is doing Pudgie! Or someone with a top-of-the-line 1080.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/HeavenBenchmark_zpsjxsaadeo.jpg)
Here ya go, Chalenge.................
I tried to mimic the settings that you had set up in the benchmark to make the results more relative. I assumed that you had AA turned off so I turned this off for my run as well. If you had AA on then let me know the level and I'll rerun it.
:salute
PS---Using AMD Crimson 16.9.1 drivers (latest vers).
-
I don't actually know. I just installed the benchmark, ran it, and then deleted it.
For some reason I expected your results to be much higher?
-
Hmmm pudgie , surprised my 390 scored a little better than yours cause it shouldn't. Mine came in a bit over 3800, wonder why. My 980ti just came so i figured id run the 390 threw with the settings above just to compare . Your Min FPS seems a bit low , im thinking you must be running a higher setting somewhere that we aren't .
-
Here is the 980ti
-
That's more in keeping with what I had as a result. I would really like to see how the 1080s bench by comparison.
BTW, I think the low frames may be because of a slower HDD, and I notice this Heaven benchmark does not seem to respond well to SLI.
-
Hmmm pudgie , surprised my 390 scored a little better than yours cause it shouldn't. Mine came in a bit over 3800, wonder why. My 980ti just came so i figured id run the 390 threw with the settings above just to compare . Your Min FPS seems a bit low , im thinking you must be running a higher setting somewhere that we aren't .
Hi 38ruk,
The 1st benchmark is from using the latest Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0 which is far more GPU intensive than Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0.
Here is my Fury x under the Valley Benchmark 1.0 using the same settings as in the Heaven Benchmark 4.0:
Note the difference.
Also note that the Fury X actually ran faster avg FPS under the Heaven Benchmark 4.0 than Valley Benchmark 1.0 but scored higher under Valley Benchmark 1.0 than Heaven Benchmark 4.0.
This tells me that these benchmarks score more towards the GPU's ability to actually render quality graphics frames, especially concerning the polygon counts, fill rates, etc within them, and less on how fast they do it.
:salute
-
Just got a couple of the new Titans, and moved out a couple 1080s in SLI for them. I don't have plans to run them SLI long term, just to do some fooling around and some tests, and then run them as single cards for our PCs we're using for the Rift and Vive, as VR is pretty much a single GPU deal still right now.
-
Hi 38ruk,
The 1st benchmark is from using the latest Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0 which is far more GPU intensive than Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0.
Here is my Fury x under the Valley Benchmark 1.0 using the same settings as in the Heaven Benchmark 4.0:
Note the difference.
Also note that the Fury X actually ran faster avg FPS under the Heaven Benchmark 4.0 than Valley Benchmark 1.0 but scored higher under Valley Benchmark 1.0 than Heaven Benchmark 4.0.
This tells me that these benchmarks score more towards the GPU's ability to actually render quality graphics frames, especially concerning the polygon counts, fill rates, etc within them, and less on how fast they do it.
:salute
Drrrr... im an idiot haha .... didnt even notice the 1.0 VS 4.0 difference . No wonder ive been looking at scores and wondering whats going on lol. Thanks for the info ! <S>