• 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.

I dont get it?

speeduk

speeduk

speeduk

Soldato
Joined
3 Mar 2003
Posts
7,826
Location
Canterbury
I see all these super fast new graphics cards and I just dont get it? What game needs a GTX 560 or 580? I ask because I am still using a 260 (216 core) overclocked to 700/1400/1150. I can play battlefield 3 at 1920x1080 2xAA 8xAF Ultra textures with rest of the settings on high and get 40fps+.

Crysis 2 plays even better (45fps+ maxed). Skyrim which looks amazing maxed out but runs 60fps+.

So whats the deal? My card is 3 years old lol and can play the best looking game on high/ultra settings. :confused:
 
Last edited:
a lot of what you say is true but some games that are out do make it worth having those extra little details on

also bf3 .
 
A lot of people like to run games with the highest settings possible, yet retain decent fps. Yes, it can be pretty expensive though.
 
I'd be slightly surprised at your FPS...

But equally not everyone runs at your peasant resolutions :cool:

2560*1440 :D
 
Some people arent happy unless they are getting a solid 60fps maxed out in all game scenario situations.

Then when you bring extra monitors/ bigger screen resolutions into the equation, you need a bigger gpu.

Some of the newer gen graphics cards also generate less heat/less power and are quieter.
 
I can remember when 1920x1200/1280 were considered high res, seems to be a pretty mainstream res nowadays.
 
speeduk said:
I see all these super fast new graphics cards and I just dont get it? What game needs a GTX 560 or 580? I ask because I am still using a 260 (216 core) overclocked to 700/1400/1150. I can play battlefield 3 at 1920x1080 2xAA 8xAF Ultra textures with rest of the settings on high and get 40fps+.

Crysis 2 plays even better (45fps+ maxed). Skyrim which looks amazing maxed out but runs 60fps+.

So whats the deal? My card is 3 years old lol and can play the best looking game on high/ultra settings. :confused:
Click to expand...

I find your claims hard to believe. There's no way you're running BF3 at your settings and consistently getting above 40fps. Plus your Crysis 2 claims are nonsense. These benchmarks tell me otherwise:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-3.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti_448_Cores/12.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-6.html

So essentially your GTX260 is as good as a GTX560. Even with mammoth overclocks, that's not going to happen.

Have you actually benchmarked your games and checked fps properly, or are you just guessing based on how "smooth" it feels to you?
 
I remember getting an 8800 gts for crysis and getting like 25fps at 1280x1024 with some AA and AF. I couldnt quite afford the GTX 280 so went for the 260 216 and clocked it big style. Not only did it play any game out at stupid fps but 3 years on its still more than up to the job.

Just amazes me how things have changed.
 
titaniumx3 said:
I find your claims hard to believe. There's no way you're running BF3 at your settings and consistently getting above 40fps. Plus your Crysis 2 claims are nonsense. These benchmarks tell me otherwise:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-3.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti_448_Cores/12.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-6.html

So essentially your GTX260 is as good as a GTX560. Even with mammoth overclocks, that's not going to happen.

Have you actually benchmarked your games and checked fps properly, or are you just guessing based on how "smooth" it feels to you?
Click to expand...

Oh wow someone calling me a liar lol :D.

Do not forget i am running a 260 - DX10! so some features will be disabled hence me getting more fps. But yeah tried BF3 earlier with fraps and was getting solid 40fps+. :)
 
i tend to agree though. Not calling you a liar but having looked at the benchmarks between a 260 and a 285 and then a 285 with the newer cards.....it does seem rather odd.

Be happy is all I can say, that's not the norm. For BF3 anyway, I don't know Skyrim yet.
 
[WU-TANG]GZA;20692939 said:
i tend to agree though. Not calling you a liar but having looked at the benchmarks between a 260 and a 285 and then a 285 with the newer cards.....it does seem rather odd.

Be happy is all I can say, that's not the norm. For BF3 anyway, I don't know Skyrim yet.
Click to expand...

Maybe they benched on different map. I am using some tweaks so wont be no where near to the paramaters they use. As for skyrim it runs super smooth (54fps average 45 min 72 max) with everything maxed and high res texture packs and FXAA injecter.

I was thinking of upgrading for skyrim but no need at all.

Oh and I am running a core i7 @ 3.9ghz maybe that helps?
 
Also for BF3!

the 200-series boards are limited to DirectX 10. This is an important distinction because, even though the 200s throw up some reasonable performance numbers (especially the GTX 295), they’re not doing as much work. The game automatically dials Terrain Quality down from High to Low, yielding some pretty nasty artifacts as shadows interact with the environment.
Click to expand...
 
Crysis 2 will probably be dx9 aswell then. I haven't played that myself but I guess if the graphics are equivalent to high/gamer settings like in the original games, then you'd probably get decent fps.
 
speeduk said:
I see all these super fast new graphics cards and I just dont get it? What game needs a GTX 560 or 580? I ask because I am still using a 260 (216 core) overclocked to 700/1400/1150. I can play battlefield 3 at 1920x1080 2xAA 8xAF Ultra textures with rest of the settings on high and get 40fps+.

Crysis 2 plays even better (45fps+ maxed). Skyrim which looks amazing maxed out but runs 60fps+.

So whats the deal? My card is 3 years old lol and can play the best looking game on high/ultra settings. :confused:
Click to expand...

Several things you should consider, all the games mentioned features effects your card isn't capable of, so its not a like for like comparison.

Crysis 2 or BF3 in DX11 with all the features on simply won't run on your card, if they did, your framerate would be a lot lower.

However, you bought a card that at the time was the same price as the cards you're now complaining about, and someone that day was probably posting on a forum saying, I don't get the 260gtx, I've got a 8800gt and it still plays fine.

Guess what, if there were no 8880gtx, there wouldn't be a 260gtx, nor a 560ti, nor a 860gtx in the future.

You move forward, by making faster cards, and graphics catch up. You can't make games for a level of power that is unavailable.

likewise, a 260gtx, costs the same as a 560ti.

Do you think you would now, having either never had a gpu before and buying new upgrading some Dell from an IGP, or if you had a 1900xt....... would you buy a 260gtx for £150, or a 560ti for £150?
 
You are not getting me lol. I'm just amazed a 3 year old card can play the latest games at good fps. I remember when crysis came out and the latest cards (yes top of the range) would get 25fps.

Seems like things have slowed down a lot. Maybe consoles are holding things back? :confused:

I remember me overclocking my 9800pro with a cpu heatsink stuck on it just to play farcry at 30fps (top card at time) lol. :)
 
I think consoles are massively holding back PC gaming.

But as both you and drunkenmaster have said, there are graphical features that are simply not enabled on your card. I can't say whether those features would = a noticeable visual difference to most people or not but yeah BF3 looks amazing for me on Ultra and it's the closest thing to Crysis1 which I still think is top dog but BF3 looks better in some ways so they are very close.

Once the PS4 Xbox3 are ready, it should allow for further improvements.

Games haven't moved on that much in the past 4 years (just look at the textures used in Rage LMAO!!)
 
I remember the hype created when amd came to market first with dx11 cards especially with dirt 2 being used to highlight the amazing dx11 effects. Here we are 2 years on with crysis2 having an afterthought dx11 patch and more recently batman arkham city owners told to play in dx9 until they can be arsed to fix dx11 :rolleyes:

Pc gamers by there very nature tend to be tech enthusiasts, benchmarking games to get the best visuals/fps even if the game they benchmark is not the kind of game they would play. This enthusiasm for mooarr powerrrr is exploited by manufacturers releasing tech which is miles ahead of what consoles can do but ultimately is impotent as no sod develops for it properly.

Saying that I love my new gtx560ti and I cant wait to get the gtx 580 when my wallet allows :)
 
I bought the MSi Twin Frozr III Power Edition for around £200, it's nice to know I'm not going to need to buy a second for a few years, buy an expensive card now to save you buying 3 cheap ones in the future
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom