Looks stunning that frosty, how do I get the sexy green text at the top? Always thought it was a Mantle thing...
You got mail
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.
Looks stunning that frosty, how do I get the sexy green text at the top? Always thought it was a Mantle thing...
So:
1080 200% is 3840x2160 (4K)
1440 200% is 5120x2880
1440 150% is 3840x2160 (4K)
Running out of VRam on all 3!
Matts doing some testing now.
@Matt
DX 200% x4AA link no good
Whoops, did I start something with this resolution scaling.![]()
I find it's a lot better not using BF4's scaler. I get much better frames.
Really small point, but remember that a 290 stock is 947/1250, the clocks you've given as stock are your stock factory-OC clocks. So compared to 'absolute' stock it's a 5.6% OC.
I know someone said it had been proven, but to get an idea how the scaling affects VRAM usage, etc. could someone at 1440p run at 720p and 200% scaling?
Mate, set a custom resolution in the NV control panel. I'm not running out of VRAM over three cards. Well, I say I'm not, it's not turning into a slide show.
Downsampling? I might have to try this now that its possible to do it on AMD cards. A reduced performance hit is always welcome.
Done both at ultra
1440p 100% = 2085mb
720p 200% = 1945mb
1280 x 2 = 2560
720 x 2 = 1440
200% of something is x 2.0 as the starting point of 1.0 is 100%, I think, I had a brain fart with this last night too, now I'm just going by what the 'internal resolution' in the drawscreeninfo thing to stop confusing my self
I think its the pixel increase thats the most confusing, 720p = 921,000 pixels, 1440p = 3.6 million pixels, so while resolution increase is only by 100%, the pixel area increase is around 350%
I resized it for you, was like 15mb so people were bound to kick off
as above render.drawscreeninfo 1
full size here : http://imageshack.com/a/img845/4614/5wlo.png
100 fps with stock clocks with a physical horizontal pixel count over 4K isn't bad
Siege of Shanghai 4K (100% scaling) Ultra 4X MSAA
Runs absoloutely fine but the frame times are no where near as flat as Mantle. Note I am not using the BF4 resolution scaling, so I'm not sure how comparable it is in truth. But looks as though I'm roughly getting the same performance in most instances as Mantle over two cards (maybe ever so slightly better). Good times for AMD crowd
![]()
Titans in full swing there Kaap! Might not be a fully unlocked Kepler but would put my Ti's to shame![]()
Done both at ultra
1440p 100% = 2085mb
720p 200% = 1945mb
Its already running the 1440 from NVCP then upscaled further via BF4 which may be why...either way the highest resolution I can get from NVCP downsampling is something like 1620x2880.
Interesting, when doing 1080p @ 200% or 1440p @ 150%, we might not be seeing true 4K VRAM usage numbers...