• 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 more expensive cards offer other than an FPS boost??

markymoo

markymoo

markymoo

Associate
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Posts
414
I was just wondering in regards to graphics cards, what is achieved by having a more expensive card?
Is it mainly higher fps?

For example. I have an i5 2500k running at stock, with 8gb memory and a MSI GTX460. I run BF3 on the programmed high settings, apart from textures and effects at Ultra and turn motion blur off and get around 50fps.
If I have preset Ultra it is between 20-35fps.

So I wondered, if I was to have exactly the same settings selected but changed my graphics card to say a 7850 or GTX470 or even the 'daddy' GTX680, apart from the obvious fps boost, would the image actually appear any better or will it be EXACTLY the same just a higher fps so run smoothly?
Obviously it would let me then run ultra at a smooth rate but I want to know about the exact same settings!?

See I am quite happy with the settings I have to achieve 50fps and I game at 1680x1050 so apart from BF3 all other games I have tried have been max settings so can unconvince myself on yet another upgrade if all I will get is an increase in fps?

I know to some it may sound like a basic question but it's important to me when money don't come as easy as some so have to make sure I don't just spend for the sake of it.

Thanks in advance and hope you guys n gals can offer some input :D
 
I too have a stock I5 2500K, 8Gb 1600 memory and an Msi 470Gtx and whilst I dont play BF3, my setup does me very nicely at 1920 X 1080 for the games I do play ie Skyrim and Fallout 3 and NV. I would love to be able to buy one of the top cards, 680 or 7970 but I cannot justify it to myself, not worth the money in my opinion, take the new 7870 for instance, it doesn't perform much better than my 470 but costs a helluva lot more. In my opinion Amd and Nvidia are taking liberties with there current new cards which for the most part are poor value for the money.:)
 
well if you play games in 3d like me and you see: 6950ocd as hell - 25/30fps 7970ocd 40+fps. Well its a good jump.
TBH those cards are 50% faster in stuff like that.
But for normal 1080 gaming 6950 is enough in my opinion :)
 
markymoo said:
If I have preset Ultra it is between 20-35fps.

So I wondered, if I was to have exactly the same settings selected but changed my graphics card to say a 7850 or GTX470 or even the 'daddy' GTX680, apart from the obvious fps boost, would the image actually appear any better
Click to expand...

No
 
Bigger epeen.

Higher fps = smoother gameplay. Playable 3d.

More power for folding if you're a folder. (Well.. not sure about 680 on that front yet)
 
Primarily higher fps, though I do think you can see an improvement in IQ when upgrading after a long time, or simply see a difference in image style if you like. AMD tends to have more vibrant colours, and excellent contrasts between colours imo. Nvidia looks a little crisper, but these things tend to be more subjective.
 
A new GFX Card makes me more attractive to the opposite sex. I do get fed up with Women treating me like a piece of meat though. I have feelings girls :(













:D :D :D
 
chris-82 said:
Simply no it wouldn't jeez how much power do u think they use!!
Click to expand...

+1

the 480's, worst case will cost you around £50-60 per year in gaming use, and the GTX680 around £25 on the same basis

you would need to have your PC on and gaming / folding / benchmarking for 6+ hours EVERY day before the cost saving would pay for itself within 1 year (assuming you sell the 480's for £150 each and buy a single 680 for around £400)
 
markymoo said:
I was just wondering in regards to graphics cards, what is achieved by having a more expensive card?
Is it mainly higher fps?

For example. I have an i5 2500k running at stock, with 8gb memory and a MSI GTX460. I run BF3 on the programmed high settings, apart from textures and effects at Ultra and turn motion blur off and get around 50fps.
If I have preset Ultra it is between 20-35fps.

So I wondered, if I was to have exactly the same settings selected but changed my graphics card to say a 7850 or GTX470 or even the 'daddy' GTX680, apart from the obvious fps boost, would the image actually appear any better or will it be EXACTLY the same just a higher fps so run smoothly?
Obviously it would let me then run ultra at a smooth rate but I want to know about the exact same settings!?

See I am quite happy with the settings I have to achieve 50fps and I game at 1680x1050 so apart from BF3 all other games I have tried have been max settings so can unconvince myself on yet another upgrade if all I will get is an increase in fps?

I know to some it may sound like a basic question but it's important to me when money don't come as easy as some so have to make sure I don't just spend for the sake of it.

Thanks in advance and hope you guys n gals can offer some input :D
Click to expand...

well, what you would get is the ability to run ultra with 4xAA, so that would be your IQ improvement
if that isn't important to you then wait for newer games (e.g. that support TXAA) to come out that tax your 460 before you upgrade

the longer you can manage to hold off on upgrading the cheaper a new card will be and the longer it will probably last you before the next upgrade

if you are happy with what you've got then there's no reason for you to upgrade
 
@OP in your situation you won't see anything drastic in terms of image quality improvement because both cards are DX11, so you're already using the latest and greatest in terms of features.

What you may see (if you're not already using it) is turning on 4xMSAA will make things look much smoother.

For me, going to a GTX680 from a GTX260, I saw a pretty drastic improvment for two reasons:
1. DX10 > DX11
2. Low settings with everything off > Ultra + 4xMSAA settings with everything on

I game at 1920x1200, and I went from ~45FPS with the GTX260 to a rock-steady 60FPS with the GTX680.

Since your resolution is lower, I don't think there's much for you to gain with an upgrade. You're already using DX11, you're already getting decent FPS with settings on decent levels.
 
Theres more to Gaming than FPS surely..? Seems both AMD & NVIDIA are investing a lot of money into the EXPERIENCE also, NVIDIA have been banging the 3D drum massively for years now, but does it really effect Gaming.. most people cant use it, or be bothered to wear dark glasses at night looking a complete knob, and does it really add to your gaming experience, where AMD have gone the other way and said look gaming on 3 screens is better than just 1... and i can see the benefit of this, for all gamers if your into first person shooters, then having the ability to see the other guy before they see you is a great advantage, driving and flight sims are made to more life like, other than just staring through a screen at the front of you, its easy to see that the experience is just better with 3 screens, which is why NVIDIA have decided to jump on this gravy train with the 680... Only the 680 is rubbish at 5760 X 1080...

so to me the added feature set on a newer and more expensive card can be worth it.
 
Muppett said:
Theres more to Gaming than FPS surely..? Seems both AMD & NVIDIA are investing a lot of money into the EXPERIENCE also, NVIDIA have been banging the 3D drum massively for years now, but does it really effect Gaming.. most people cant use it, or be bothered to wear dark glasses at night looking a complete knob, and does it really add to your gaming experience, where AMD have gone the other way and said look gaming on 3 screens is better than just 1... and i can see the benefit of this, for all gamers if your into first person shooters, then having the ability to see the other guy before they see you is a great advantage, driving and flight sims are made to more life like, other than just staring through a screen at the front of you, its easy to see that the experience is just better with 3 screens, which is why NVIDIA have decided to jump on this gravy train with the 680... Only the 680 is rubbish at 5760 X 1080...

so to me the added feature set on a newer and more expensive card can be worth it.
Click to expand...

You come across as an AMD fanboy...

As games developers begin to embrace some of the features and functions that the hardware is able to deliver we'll see more and more implementations of 3D and multiscreen gaming. It will also drive innovation and allow people to do things that weren't possible before (although for something truly different we'll have to lose the keyboard/mouse/display User Interface and replace it with something virtual, or at least non-physical), but the same hardware principles will be the engine behind it all.

Yes, multi-screen gaming does deliver an advantage (but it's mostly a gimmick right now). I agree that 3D doesn't deliver and advantage, but it does make things look better, or maybe "nicer" is more accurate, but once someone really embraces a truly 3D user interface that will be a game changer. 3D is also a gimmick at the moment (IMO), but it quickly becoming an important one as a differentiator - just look what's happening with movies today.

The advent of larger autostereoscopic 3D displays (displays that deliver the 3D effect without the need for the viewer to wear glasses) will also be a game changer because (again, my opinion) screens do look rubbish through a pair of dark glasses.

Final point....the GTX680 is hardly "rubbish" at 5760x1080. Granted, it's not as good as the 7970 at very high resolutions and settings however this is likely not an architectural flaw, but down to memory bandwidth (256-bit vs 384-bit) and maybe to a lesser extent capacity. Please don't spout such unfounded nonsense!
 
I guess the obvious answer is a higher minimum FPS.

If your FPS dips down to numbers you're unhappy with then a better graphics card would improve your experience. The big question is whether or not the additional FPS is worth the cost of upgrading.

E-peen is there too, but that's a bit silly in my opinion because it's not like you wear the cards out on the town.
 
Once you have played with using 120fps minimum frame rate at 1080p and 60fps locked at 2560x1440, with everything switched on, you won't want to go back.

That is what the expensive cards give you, in all games.

The difference in quality and fluidity between my old 5850/Q6850/1080p/60hz setup is night and day.
 
Havana_UK said:
You come across as an AMD fanboy...

As games developers begin to embrace some of the features and functions that the hardware is able to deliver we'll see more and more implementations of 3D and multiscreen gaming. It will also drive innovation and allow people to do things that weren't possible before (although for something truly different we'll have to lose the keyboard/mouse/display User Interface and replace it with something virtual, or at least non-physical), but the same hardware principles will be the engine behind it all.

Yes, multi-screen gaming does deliver an advantage (but it's mostly a gimmick right now). I agree that 3D doesn't deliver and advantage, but it does make things look better, or maybe "nicer" is more accurate, but once someone really embraces a truly 3D user interface that will be a game changer. 3D is also a gimmick at the moment (IMO), but it quickly becoming an important one as a differentiator - just look what's happening with movies today.

The advent of larger autostereoscopic 3D displays (displays that deliver the 3D effect without the need for the viewer to wear glasses) will also be a game changer because (again, my opinion) screens do look rubbish through a pair of dark glasses.

Final point....the GTX680 is hardly "rubbish" at 5760x1080. Granted, it's not as good as the 7970 at very high resolutions and settings however this is likely not an architectural flaw, but down to memory bandwidth (256-bit vs 384-bit) and maybe to a lesser extent capacity. Please don't spout such unfounded nonsense!
Click to expand...

Equally You come across as an NVIDIA fan boy - although im not saying this is a bad thing, all i am saying is that rather than a war of FPS, both AMD and NVIDIA are adding extra feature sets to product to enhance gaming experience, NVIDIA have championed 3D for a while, but with the necessicity of having to wear (and fund glasses and suitable screens) for making a game look 'nicer', seems to be backlashing, as does the 3D market in total at the moment, until as you say, autostereoscopic 3D displays are made available, however i am a fanboy of EYEFINITY and multimonitor set ups as they simply work and look better than single screen Gaming... the benefits are plain to see, in 5760 and yes whilst the 680 isnt rubbish in 5760 x 1080 - it isnt as good as it is on the 7970, so does this make me an AMD fanboy... well yes, whilst they continue to drive technology feature sets like EF and lead performance in higher res gaming... so rounding back to the original subject, FPS does matter, but so do game enhancing technologies..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom