But I strongly doubt how many such games require more than a single GTX560 Ti to reach 60 fps.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
What Do You want from the Next Generation?
- Thread starter smogsy
- Start date
But I strongly doubt how many such games require more than a single GTX560 Ti to reach 60 fps.
A lot of them do. Thats why I have two of them. And 40 FPS is completely fine for me.
Most games I play run at 40-60 FPS constantly. The rest run far higher.
Hopefully I wont have to because as I already said, there might be 2 Gb mid range cards. I probably wont even buy any 28 nm cards because my current 1 Gb GTX 560s are absolutely fantastic.
Last edited:
Which games?
Over 500. What a daft question.
Witcher 2 max everything without ubersampling - 40+ FPS everywhere. Age of Conan fully maxed, 40-60 FPS everywhere. Civ V fully maxed - 40+ FPS in most of the game, absolutely no slowdown between turns that a lot of other people complain about.
I dont need any better for 1200p.
Last edited:
Good. I wish you could keep them
Mind sharing some titles? Or you take it as your privacy?
Harmony, do feel free to buy me a pair 3 Gb GTX 580s since you are so bothered about how bad my GTX 560s are.
Just so you know, if you did do that then I still wouldnt install them in my PC. I would list them on ebay and carry on using my bloody fantastic 1 Gb GTX 560s.
Just so you know, if you did do that then I still wouldnt install them in my PC. I would list them on ebay and carry on using my bloody fantastic 1 Gb GTX 560s.
Witcher 2 - lying about "maxed out".
Age of Conan - by simple googling, people are telling that a single GTX560 Ti can get 50+ fps. Your system is freaky.
Civ V - I've seen screenshots of vram usage greatly above 1GB. You only play with small maps / short campaigns / small cities / few armies? By the way, anandtech says a single GTX 560 Ti gets 49.9 fps so obviously you are lying again.
Am I not clear that I want to find out in what games you need more than a single GTX560 Ti 1GB to get playable fps? I have a feeling that you only play games where a single GTX560 Ti 1GB is more than capable.
Last edited:
I'm not saying your GTX560 Ti 1GB is bad. I'm saying it is no longer a good idea to put 1GB cards into SLI/CF as of today. When you need more GPU power, you typically need more vram to avoid lag spikes due to vram shortage.
If I buy you a pair of GTX580 3GB, I don't think you'll upgrade your PSU and airflow of case for that. If I were you I would also sell them on ebay because I hate them that much.
yes I have picked just one part of what you were blathering on about, but it just made me laugh so much.
anyone who knows what FPS stands for can probably understand that its all to do with frame timing hence the term "frames per second" i really don't think you need A level maths for that.
SLI doesnt work in Age of conan, and I've never compared it on and off in Civ V.
Why do you think I am lying? Witcher 2 is maxed out by my definition of maxed out - every slider set to the highest. Ubersampling is not 'maxed out', its just a silly on / off feature that no one in their right mind cares about. Having ubersampling off doesnt bring the game down to 'high' or 'medium'. Every slider is still set to the highest it will go, therefore 'Maxed out'.
I have posted screenshots of my FPS in Witcher 2, Civ V and Age of Conan when they were released between this forum and the fan forums for those games.
Witcher 2 and Civ V are the highest req games I play, I dont get why you are still so obsessed over me, my PC, or how bloody fantastic all my games are running on my PC.
Maybe you are just envious that I can get so much performance out of spending far less on my graphics cards than you did, and that 1 Gb Vram has never yet let me down.
Why do you think I am lying? Witcher 2 is maxed out by my definition of maxed out - every slider set to the highest. Ubersampling is not 'maxed out', its just a silly on / off feature that no one in their right mind cares about. Having ubersampling off doesnt bring the game down to 'high' or 'medium'. Every slider is still set to the highest it will go, therefore 'Maxed out'.
I have posted screenshots of my FPS in Witcher 2, Civ V and Age of Conan when they were released between this forum and the fan forums for those games.
Witcher 2 and Civ V are the highest req games I play, I dont get why you are still so obsessed over me, my PC, or how bloody fantastic all my games are running on my PC.
Maybe you are just envious that I can get so much performance out of spending far less on my graphics cards than you did, and that 1 Gb Vram has never yet let me down.
Last edited:
So you just purchased a second GTX560 1GB into SLI, only to play a single game called "The Witcher 2" at non-max settings? And meanwhile you avoid playing games like Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Shogun 2, Dragon Age 2, Napoleon Total War, WOW (dual instance sometimes) etc?
Oh no, my second GTX 560 ti is for 4-8x transparent supersample AA in all of those games as well. SLI GTX 560 tis is also the current best price / performance setup, thats why I bought it.
In the exception of Shogun 2, every game on that list is pure crap. Shogun 2 is not a game that is worth full price for me because I will hardly play it, I can wait until it is cheap before I buy it.
The next games I will getting on release are all good games that will actually keep me entertained for many days - From Dust, Guild Wars 2, and Diablo 3. I am very confident that they will all run bloody fantastic on my SLI GTX 560s with as much AA as I can squeeze into them.
Last edited:
But I assume you do need A-Level math to understand what's the difference between instantaneous fps and average fps? I might be wrong. If I underestimated the education system here then I'm truly sorry but I just picked a random word unintentionally.
Trololololololololol.
So you are recommending people to spend £200 for merely a difference between your AA and a standard 4AA?
I know. Games you don't play = crap. Games with lag spikes = you can't feel.
Ok, I was agreeing with you until that point. Most of those are considered pretty good actually.
I havnt recommended to anyone else to buy exactly what I have. Since when does buying something that I want mean that I am recommending it to everyone else? Recommendations depend on a persons budget. If their budget is £400, then yes I recommend nothing other than a pair of GTX 560tis in SLI.
Every game you listed with the possible exception of Shogun 2 was crap to me. I've tried them all and didnt enjoy anything about them. FPS games are about as boring to me as watching paint dry.
I dont enjoy any of them, it was my personal opinion that I played and found those games rubbish.
Crysis, Metro, Dragon Age 2, and Napoleon Total War were all terrible games to me. WoW was average and not as good as other MMOs, plus its the single worst looking one out there and I cant take anyone that uses it as an example in a graphics thread seriously. Most of them run like crap because they are terribly coded, not because they are graphically demanding.
Last edited:
*READS HARMONY'S POSTS*
*BANGS HEAD AGAINST DESK*
wHERE DO i START, (turns caps lock off) The vast majority of us play at 1080p/1200p or somewhere around there. At that res, 1GB is more than fine. By the time we'll need so much more VRAM, we'll need more powerful GPU's aswell. I spend a lot of time using my 8800GTX with 768mb VRAM, it is fine! It can still play games on medium settings with 30fps+. Why medium? Because the GPU isn't powerful enough!!! If I add another card (or two) then I'm sure I can put all the settings, bar AA up to max and still have it at over 30 FPS. It's ridiculous that you expect someone to spend £1200 to max out 3 games at 1600p (which only few have).
It is more than fine to get two+ 1GB cards now because, as I said, by the time the games require the 3GB VRA that you want us all to have, he GPU won't be capable of playing it at over 30FPS anyway. Nobody cares if they can't max out Metro, shogun, Crysis with BS like ubersampling, superduperamazingultraAAAFblahblahblah on three 9000p monitors because the majority play at <1200p and they are happy with most of the things on high settings as long as they get 30FPS.
I have no idea why you are bringing nvidia's CEO into this? The reason we don't have 2TB VRAm in every card is because it's bloody expensive and NOT needed. I will not phone up the CEO and tell him to put 1GB VRAM in the flagship. Why? because the people who buy the flagships are ****ING LOADED (or really bad with money) and they can afford the 1600p screens and they pay the premium to get upersampling and the rest of that BS. I seriously recommend that you stop screwing around with other people's decisions when they are asking for help choosing a card by telling them that they need 3GB to run any game, when it's only the extreme minority of games that use that.
*BANGS HEAD AGAINST DESK*
wHERE DO i START, (turns caps lock off) The vast majority of us play at 1080p/1200p or somewhere around there. At that res, 1GB is more than fine. By the time we'll need so much more VRAM, we'll need more powerful GPU's aswell. I spend a lot of time using my 8800GTX with 768mb VRAM, it is fine! It can still play games on medium settings with 30fps+. Why medium? Because the GPU isn't powerful enough!!! If I add another card (or two) then I'm sure I can put all the settings, bar AA up to max and still have it at over 30 FPS. It's ridiculous that you expect someone to spend £1200 to max out 3 games at 1600p (which only few have).
It is more than fine to get two+ 1GB cards now because, as I said, by the time the games require the 3GB VRA that you want us all to have, he GPU won't be capable of playing it at over 30FPS anyway. Nobody cares if they can't max out Metro, shogun, Crysis with BS like ubersampling, superduperamazingultraAAAFblahblahblah on three 9000p monitors because the majority play at <1200p and they are happy with most of the things on high settings as long as they get 30FPS.
I have no idea why you are bringing nvidia's CEO into this? The reason we don't have 2TB VRAm in every card is because it's bloody expensive and NOT needed. I will not phone up the CEO and tell him to put 1GB VRAM in the flagship. Why? because the people who buy the flagships are ****ING LOADED (or really bad with money) and they can afford the 1600p screens and they pay the premium to get upersampling and the rest of that BS. I seriously recommend that you stop screwing around with other people's decisions when they are asking for help choosing a card by telling them that they need 3GB to run any game, when it's only the extreme minority of games that use that.
Laughing out loud so hes wrong to suggest that, but your right to say spend the money just so you don't get these tiny lag spikes that you will probably never notice anyway.....yeah OK
anyway what would you like to see in the next generation of cards.
