• 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.

Games performances & hardware costs

loco

loco

loco

Associate
Joined
31 Jan 2006
Posts
339
Hi i was just curious as to ask.
does anybody here with a new rig or graphics card 980TI feel underwhelmed
by certain game performances.?
i myself have spent best part of 3k on my new pc 3-4 months ago
and as some games run quite well on my setup with a panel of 3440x1440
i feel with games like tomb raider & the new division game
the performance of a pc with 6700k cpu at 4.5ghz
a hof edition 980TI graphics card,
16gig of ram 3000mhz,
top of the range cooling,
and you boot these games up your hitting ridiculous temps around 80%
you max out the settings the games cant even run on a single card
the cpu is bottle necking at 100% ? (with the division)
then it just drops to normal after part of the level loads.
i really find for all that investment on hardware
i feel kind of disappointed and not that enthusiastic as to the future of games
i had a first gen i7 with a 120hz acer panel and i felt i had just a good as an experience with that, and it is almost a 10 year old system running a 470 gtx card.
does anyone else get frustrated with the money spent and the performance on the hardware you have invested in.
even people with 2x 980TI cards and cant get a game to run max settings at 60+fps
also this whole thing with drivers, the latest Nvidia flavor that have borked
peoples hardware due to buggy released drivers?
i just find it ludicrous.
and maybe it's time people wise up to what there paying for these small incremental performance jumps in the future.
or are we being ripped off with the amount of improvement per cost
on kit enthusiasts spend on there gear?
 
but lets say for example you want to run the latest games of 2016
and you now have to re invest another £700+ on a next gen graphics card
so you can run your new games at 100fps
when 6mnths before you spent that on a 980TI or a titan card?
i mean your not talking pocket money here these cards
cost a substantial amount.
 
loco said:
but lets say for example you want to run the latest games of 2016
and you now have to re invest another £700+ on a next gen graphics card
so you can run your new games at 100fps
when 6mnths before you spent that on a 980TI or a titan card?
i mean your not talking pocket money here these cards
cost a substantial amount.
Click to expand...

PC hardware isn't cheap, but who's to say you have to upgrade to the latest and greatest every 6 months? A mid range card will run games at 1440p with most of the bells and whistles. If you like to run with 256xmsaaomg!!11 and spend more time looking at the reflections and shadows than playing the game, then you have to accept that your hobby costs money, though I'll agree that the Titans are stupidly expensive.

The thing with PC gaming that you're missing is that you can buy a mid range machine that will play even the latest games pretty well and if you don't have to get that AAA title on the day of release you can pick it up for a fiver in a few months. Unlike a console where you pay less for the hardware but far more per game.
 
to be fair, you are running an unusually high resolution and at a higher refresh rate than the vast majority of people... even at 2560x1440, to get 100hz+ I have to tweak some settings when running a single card

check the nvidia website as they tend to have some very good game optimisation guides that talk about each setting individually, have screenshots of the difference each setting makes and then the performance difference each setting makes, so you can trim off the most "expensive" effects without losing a lot of image quality, poorly implemented AA options are usually the biggest killers, particularly at higher resolutions like yours

and, well, you shouldn't really be paying £700+ for a 980ti when most of the £500-550 one will perform within 99% given the proper persuasion

and yes, basically if you want to drive 3440x1440 and maintain 100fps, you either need a two card setup, or you need to tone done some settings

I mean, I run SLI for regular 1440p, so at 3440 you should really be aware that any current single card will struggle if you just whack everything up to full all the time
and then throw Ubisoft in to the mix and I doubt the game even supports SLI
 
Last edited:
You do have to pay a lot for diminishing returns.

Having said that, the last year since I've had TitanX Sli has been the most hassle-free year of PC gaming since I started out with a PC in 1994...I don't even think I've even had to post about a single issue other than the odd game with no SLI profile.

And then I just play it on my 1440p desktop instead of my 4k TV.
 
and in terms of games
what is the best option really?
sacrifice resolution so drop it say from 3440 x1440 to a lower res?
or sacrifice settings in the games
what is going to give the best user experience?
and what would most users sacrifice to get there games running as good as they can?
 
I always go for max possible graphics settings with only basic MSAA 2x or SMAA, at higher resolutions they are less important.

Occasionally there will be a visual setting that has a huge impact on performance and yet is visually indistinguishable from a lesser settings (Far Cry 4 God Rays above medium for instance)
 
I feel pretty underwhelmed by my 980Ti, but I've felt pretty underwhelmed by technology improvements for the last couple of years.

I think we're just hitting a plateau where we aren't going to see large jumps in performance anymore.
 
drakioned said:
I feel pretty underwhelmed by my 980Ti, but I've felt pretty underwhelmed by technology improvements for the last couple of years.

I think we're just hitting a plateau where we aren't going to see large jumps in performance anymore.
Click to expand...

I think the fact we've been stuck with 28nm nodes for nearly 5 years and both AMD and Nvidia are about to move to 16nm will change your mind.
 
As long as i don't have hundreds of jaggies everywhere, i'm happy to turn some things down to keep stable frames in game.
 
loco said:
maybe it's time people wise up to what there paying for these small incremental performance jumps in the future. or are we being ripped off with the amount of improvement per cost
on kit enthusiasts spend on there gear?
Click to expand...
I have overclocked and I play games, but don't really regard myself as an 'enthusiast' per se... I have a 780 on 3570K, playing in 1080 and everything is pretty good. I'd buy something better if I had the money.
To me an enthusiast is someone who buys 8 Titans just to see how far they can overclock them.
But outside of that, it's always been a balance of budget and diminishing returns - That's the difference between being enthusiastic and just being stupid... I'd never shell out an extra £1,000 for a 5% increase and I'd enthusiastically read loads of reviews before deciding for myself where my best balance point is.

But then, everything is like that.
I could pay £500 for a bike that does 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, but for only £9,000 more I could get one that does it in 2.6 seconds..... ooh yay, how can I curb my enthusiasm... a whole 0.2 seconds... that's really gonna make a difference during the daily commute.... Nah, I'll stick with the 2.8 and wait until Yamaha bring out their Quantum™ NanoDrive™ system that does it in 0.6 seconds.
 
loco said:
and in terms of games
what is the best option really?
sacrifice resolution so drop it say from 3440 x1440 to a lower res?
or sacrifice settings in the games
what is going to give the best user experience?
and what would most users sacrifice to get there games running as good as they can?
Click to expand...

I think you need to lower your expectations, that's a blood resolution your running and you expecting a 980Ti to drive that at 100hz. One thing you could do is turn off all that Gameswork nonsense that should given you nice boost.
 
A 980TI at 1440p with new games you should be aiming for 60FPS rather than 100. Its quite a demanding resolution on newer games. The division runs at ultra at 1440p for me at 60FPS cap however i do see every so often about once every 5 minutes the FPS dips down to 57ish FPS, so it shows the game is hovering around the 60-70FPS area but i cap my FPS because i prefer smoother gameplay that FPS jumping all over. If i could drive games at 1440p and hit my refresh rate of 120hz (120fps) id get a massive boner lol.

You can't drive games today at 1440p at 100FPS on a single 980Ti that's way too optimistic.
 
r7slayer with a £600+ graphics card is it really optimistic
you would have thought for that kind of cash you should get this type of
performance?
if current cards cant max out current gen games,
then why are we paying such a premium for them?
and when i look at gta v
and other games im getting quite good performance
i dont see much stunning about the division at all tbh.
ok it looks ok but it is just a scaled up city?
back in the day when you bought a voodoo gcard and then bumped up to a voodoo 2
the jump was a whole lot more impressive then what your getting for your money Now days.
that is how i feel about it tbh a £3k pc and i cant run 2016 gen games on a single card at over £500 quid...
i feel the pc race is being screwed more and more with incremental upgrades
rather then proper hardware upgrades
with a few extra mhz on the core clock speed.
 
loco said:
r7slayer with a £600+ graphics card is it really optimistic
you would have thought for that kind of cash you should get this type of
performance?
if current cards cant max out current gen games,
then why are we paying such a premium for them?
and when i look at gta v
and other games im getting quite good performance
i dont see much stunning about the division at all tbh.
ok it looks ok but it is just a scaled up city?
back in the day when you bought a voodoo gcard and then bumped up to a voodoo 2
the jump was a whole lot more impressive then what your getting for your money Now days.
that is how i feel about it tbh a £3k pc and i cant run 2016 gen games on a single card at over £500 quid...
i feel the pc race is being screwed more and more with incremental upgrades
rather then proper hardware upgrades
with a few extra mhz on the core clock speed.
Click to expand...

This is the new Tomb Raider game maxed @2160p.

4Qtpe5h.jpg

You need 4 TXs to do it.

Ask yourself is it worth it, most people would say no.

PC gaming is always about having to make some compromises.

The other thing that springs to mind is if you are worrying more about the eye candy than the actual gameplay it is probably not a very good game.
 
i think the main point i am trying to make is
when i built my last pc it lasted 7-8 yrs on a gtx 470
i could run all games and get good fps, and a 120hz 1080p panel and they looked great to be honest.
but when i think of people spending 3k on systems and you cant run these games maxed out.
are we being ripped off by hardware vendors
i mean kaap you say 4 cards to run a game at max settings,
it is borderline ridiculous.
i mean that kind of performance should be there on a £500-600 gcard
in my view anyway.
maybe people nowdays are happy to pay £500-600 quid for a budget gcard.
but in the earlier generations of pc gaming, and ive been gaming and building pc's since the 90's
when you spent £2000 you had an elite system that was going to last you best part of 5 years with not having to go out 1-2yrs later to buy new graphics cards...
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom