which is the best Graphics cards/chips

[guncrasher]

what rippley fails to understand is that while new cards can handle 3 monitors easily, most guys are still using older cards that need 2 cards in sli to handle 3 monitors.

I personally think that 1/3 of players dont use triple screens. but at the same time I think a lot of them do.  when I switched from sli evga 465 to a single evga 770 I really saw no improvement in ah or other games.

but what do I know except what I can see.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Remember in the other thread when you brought up that Skuzzy had said SLI was useless - which isn't what he had said at all IMO, but that's ok.  Why don't you ask Skuzzy how many of HTC's customers are using or have used triple screen setups recently?  Hint - your hardware equipment is updated and sent into HTC as part of the TOS, so they know what their customers systems specs are in great detail.  They number Skuzzy recently gave was astonishingly high for triple screen users, over a third as I recall, I'll search for the exact thread/post.  So, that being said, your "mainstream" users even here at HTC are greatly represented by triple screen users, something that, while not important here in AH, IS very important for other games where SLI/triple screen is effective.

AH runs just fine using a enthusiast level single graphics card even on triple screen. That's because AH doesn't utilize the GPU much at all especially when SLI is in the picture where the second GPU sits mostly unused due to AHs profile problems. Only with AAA profiles you get good returns on SLI (and even then you need to have a correctly set up high end computer with many high speed PCI-E lanes as Chalenge pointed out).

Triple screen users with older hardware may have been forced to make a SLI setup because Nvidia had a poor multi monitor support in the past. Doing so has brought them little to no gains in actual speed though so they'd be far better off just selling the old card away and getting a modern version instead.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

what rippley fails to understand is that while new cards can handle 3 monitors easily, most guys are still using older cards that need 2 cards in sli to handle 3 monitors.

I personally think that 1/3 of players dont use triple screens. but at the same time I think a lot of them do.  when I switched from sli evga 465 to a single evga 770 I really saw no improvement in ah or other games.

but what do I know except what I can see.


semp

If you saw no improvement it's most likely the rest of your computer is not up to the task to run the 770 at max speed. Since AH doesn't use SLI practically speaking, getting no increase in FPS after the card change indicates that your bottleneck was not the graphics card but some other component in your computer. Most likely the CPU. Which cpu/mobo are you using?

Edit: I just checked and the SLI 465 does not get more than 70% of performance of one 770 even if SLI profile worked perfectly. So my suggestion for you would be to increase your CPU speed in order to utilize your new card fully.

[Gman]

I don't know what CPU semp has, but Anandtech did a recent test with every most gaming common CPUs from the 2500k up to the 5930k with the 780 video card, 780ti, and 780ti in SLI.  Guess what the performance difference was between CPUs?  Almost zilch in the 95 percent of the games tested.   4770k, 3570k, 3820k, 3930k, 4930k, 4790k - there was less than 10%, and often less than 3% difference in performance with all 3 video card setups used.  You can google the article if you like.

The points you continue to bring up Ripley only apply to AH regarding triple monitor and SLI.  Back when the 680gtx was brand new, I ran triple monitors on a single, and going to SLI the next week made huge differences in many, many games, such as Far Cry, Crysis, and so on, even back then 2 years ago.  Now, since over 1/3 of HTC's customers use triple monitors according to Skuzzy and their data, it would be safe to assume that many of those players play other games than AH as well.  In the majority of these games, say the top 25 out there, SLI continues to provide huge performance leaps, especially on the triple monitor setups.  Now, with the 970 SLI/$ performance compared to the 980, there is no question at all.

[guncrasher]

If you saw no improvement it's most likely the rest of your computer is not up to the task to run the 770 at max speed. Since AH doesn't use SLI practically speaking, getting no increase in FPS after the card change indicates that your bottleneck was not the graphics card but some other component in your computer. Most likely the CPU. Which cpu/mobo are you using?

Edit: I just checked and the SLI 465 does not get more than 70% of performance of one 770 even if SLI profile worked perfectly. So my suggestion for you would be to increase your CPU speed in order to utilize your new card fully.

I saw no improvement because I maxed out all graphics in both games I play.



semp

[Chalenge]

Maybe this discussion on x16 by x16 versus x4 by x4 will be of some interest to you (with GTX 480s, but still. . .):

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/25/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x4x4/

EDIT:

This article will answer nearly anyone's questions concerning CPU/GPU bottlenecks with SLI, versus scaling. This article was written around the GTX 480 (just as the previous article I cited), but is relevant precisely because of the lane comparisons versus CPU efficiencies. In my previous tests I found AH to more closely follow the results of CoD: MW2 than the other games cited. I am still waiting to see if that still holds true with the 980s in SLI and, of course, how the upcoming version will compare also.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pcie-geforce-gtx-480-x16-x8-x4,2696.html

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I saw no improvement because I maxed out all graphics in both games I play.



semp

Eh? So you're saying that you were able to increase your quality settings keeping your old fps and you think that's no improvement? Maybe you should think a little before posting.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I don't know what CPU semp has, but Anandtech did a recent test with every most gaming common CPUs from the 2500k up to the 5930k with the 780 video card, 780ti, and 780ti in SLI.  Guess what the performance difference was between CPUs?  Almost zilch in the 95 percent of the games tested.   4770k, 3570k, 3820k, 3930k, 4930k, 4790k - there was less than 10%, and often less than 3% difference in performance with all 3 video card setups used.  You can google the article if you like.

The points you continue to bring up Ripley only apply to AH regarding triple monitor and SLI.  Back when the 680gtx was brand new, I ran triple monitors on a single, and going to SLI the next week made huge differences in many, many games, such as Far Cry, Crysis, and so on, even back then 2 years ago.  Now, since over 1/3 of HTC's customers use triple monitors according to Skuzzy and their data, it would be safe to assume that many of those players play other games than AH as well.  In the majority of these games, say the top 25 out there, SLI continues to provide huge performance leaps, especially on the triple monitor setups.  Now, with the 970 SLI/$ performance compared to the 980, there is no question at all.

The points I continue to bring up is that if someone already has a 970 and it's not enough, by all means get a second one. But if the poster is asking a replacement for an ancient single card setup (meaning he probably can't even afford the latest and the greatest) chances are he's best served with a single mid-tier card as a replacement.

As for the Anandtech article I'm not surprised if the i7 cpus had less than 10% difference lol. The thing is, someone upgrading from X1240 or the likes probably runs a Core2Duo computer. Guess what happens to SLI performance at that point? Picture this:

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Maybe this discussion on x16 by x16 versus x4 by x4 will be of some interest to you (with GTX 480s, but still. . .):

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/25/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x4x4/

I wonder why you didn't link this article when you were arguing with me hell bent that it's necessary to have a PCI-E 3.0 capable motherboard LOL! You just showed your own arguments wrong by posting the article which shows little to no difference between even PCI-E 2.0 x4 vs PCI-E 2.0 x16. Well done!

[Chalenge]

Typical misrepresentation of what I said Ripley, and not at all what I said. I was talking about PCIe and bandwidth saturation, which if you recall I said these cards are designed to work. If they saturated the PCIe lanes then the system would probably lockup and crash. Instead, they are designed to work even at x4. What I said is that these cards are limited by PCIe of either flavor. The entire idea that you will only need PCIe 3.0 once you begin to saturate PCIe 2.0 is a fallacious point, which is why the point you made in that thread was wrong.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Typical misrepresentation of what I said Ripley, and not at all what I said. I was talking about PCIe and bandwidth saturation, which if you recall I said these cards are designed to work. If they saturated the PCIe lanes then the system would probably lockup and crash. Instead, they are designed to work even at x4. What I said is that these cards are limited by PCIe of either flavor. The entire idea that you will only need PCIe 3.0 once you begin to saturate PCIe 2.0 is a fallacious point, which is why the point you made in that thread was wrong.

You're the one who fails to see the real needs. It has absolutely no relevance to this discussion if a graphics card would theoretically saturate the PCI-E if it was channeling everything through it. As it doesn't and uses offloading, it's TOTALLY pointless to distract the discussion to that. In fact the whole thing is a smoke screen you were using to hide your own mistake. You went all over from quad-sli to imaginary direct feed graphics to hide the fact that I proved you wrong.

You seem to be mentally unable to admit you're wrong even when proven so. That makes me lol a bit. Or chuckle. 

[guncrasher]

Eh? So you're saying that you were able to increase your quality settings keeping your old fps and you think that's no improvement? Maybe you should think a little before posting.

No what I said is that I had already maxed out the graphics with my old card and saw no improvement with the new one.  perhaps the new one runs a bit quieter  and saw a 5 to 10 fps increase in wot from 50 to 55 or 60.  that's why I said I saw no improvement in the games that I could see.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No what I said is that I had already maxed out the graphics with my old card and saw no improvement with the new one.  perhaps the new one runs a bit quieter  and saw a 5 to 10 fps increase in wot from 50 to 55 or 60.  that's why I said I saw no improvement in the games that I could see.


semp

That doesn't mean there wasn't improvement. If you run with vsync on and your old card was already capped by it, of course you see no change.

[Gman]

Speaking of sync, what do you all think about this new G-sync technology?  Lots of sites are raving about it, I want to see it myself.  I've been considering either going back to triple screen 1080p, 4k, or 1440p 144hz ROG Swift for my monitor situation.  The new Asus ROG Swift has that G sync tech, which is supposed to be the cat's PJs, but I want to see it first myself, or at least talk to others who have it, and see if it's worth a 900$ per monitor price, or if I should just stick to 1080p 144hz 24" for now.  4k - I dunno, I had one ordered but changed my mind, and still haven't decided what I should do once the 980s get back in stock and get shipped out.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Speaking of sync, what do you all think about this new G-sync technology?  Lots of sites are raving about it, I want to see it myself.  I've been considering either going back to triple screen 1080p, 4k, or 1440p 144hz ROG Swift for my monitor situation.  The new Asus ROG Swift has that G sync tech, which is supposed to be the cat's PJs, but I want to see it first myself, or at least talk to others who have it, and see if it's worth a 900$ per monitor price, or if I should just stick to 1080p 144hz 24" for now.  4k - I dunno, I had one ordered but changed my mind, and still haven't decided what I should do once the 980s get back in stock and get shipped out.

I haven't seen G-sync in action but as far as I understand it it creates a smoother viewing experience by 'unlocking' the vsync but still keeping the frame sync intact. So normally when you drop below 60hz directly to 30hz on normal vsync, G-sync can drop dynamically to 55hz, 43hz or whatever your card can push at that time without getting any sort of tearing. It sort of pairs your monitor with your display card so that the card can keep track of the refresh states.

Those who have used it say that it brings much more smoothness to situations where your computer would visibly choke using regular vsync.