PC Gaming Society

Original post by Fango_Jett

4k gaming at 30FPS is possible right now if you are willing to drop the money for it. You will have to spend around 10-15,000 pounds for a full rig, but for some people its worth it.

And why would anybody choose 4k over 60+fps?
And a fraction of a percent doing it does not make it standard, a few percent of people doesn't make it standard either.

Reply 582

Original post by Jimbo1234

why do you need more than 1080p? How close are you sitting to your monitor? Do your research and work out pixel density for the human eye...

Did you know that some people have better than 20/20 vision?
Did you know that the quoted figures for best is for 20/20 vision?
Did you know that the logical deducation to be made from that is that some people can see better than the average?
Did you know that even if you can't see every last pixel you can still reap visual benefits from those extra pixels?
Did you know that the pixel densities of 1440p monitors tend to be about the same as for 1080p displays because they're a few inches larger?
Have you even done your own research?

Rome 2 is a ****ing terrible engine. The only reason is fails to achieve 60+ is due to little to no optimization.
Hitman - **** port, CoH, again, crap optimisation, and Metro - same story there. The fact that SC can run at 60 fps and is the most groundbreaking graphics says it all.

Do you work on the simple philosophy of "if I can't drive a game at 1440p maxed settings at 60fps it's badly optimised"? because that's waht it sounds like. And unless you're thinking of a completely different SC to me I would hardly call the graphics groundbreaking, they don't appear to be that much greater than the original CoH that came out, what, 4 years before SC2.

As for multiple monitors/large monitors, this is the UK - how many people have homes big enough to have these things? Very few, ergo why would it take off?

Because it's a well known fact that you need a big house to be able to have large or multiple monitors...most desks can accommodate a surround 1440p setup or one or two large displays, or are you living in a shed? Not to mention that if you can afford all the hardware for a good surround/high res setup you probably have a room big enough for it. After all, for a good surround/4k set up you're probably putting a good few thousand into it. So actually most people have enough space for it, especially those with the money to do so.

What it comes down to is devs being lazy and consoles, yet again, holding back the potential of engines.

And the devs that make games either exclusive to PC or port from PC to console? What's holding them back? Your ignorance?

Reply 583

Original post by Jammy Duel

Did you know that some people have better than 20/20 vision?
Did you know that the quoted figures for best is for 20/20 vision?
Did you know that the logical deducation to be made from that is that some people can see better than the average?
Did you know that even if you can't see every last pixel you can still reap visual benefits from those extra pixels?
Did you know that the pixel densities of 1440p monitors tend to be about the same as for 1080p displays because they're a few inches larger?
Have you even done your own research?

What tiny market share have better than 20/20 vision?
Now how many people have LESS than 20/20? Yup, Your points were shot down in 2 sentences :rofl:

As for size, as I said, how many people have room for huge monitors. This is the UK - we have tiny houses were you can't even fit cars into garages.

Do you work on the simple philosophy of "if I can't drive a game at 1440p maxed settings at 60fps it's badly optimised"? because that's waht it sounds like. And unless you're thinking of a completely different SC to me I would hardly call the graphics groundbreaking, they don't appear to be that much greater than the original CoH that came out, what, 4 years before SC2.

So what game engines have you used? Do you know how these engines function?
Though I'm talking about Star Citizen, not Starcraft.

Because it's a well known fact that you need a big house to be able to have large or multiple monitors...most desks can accommodate a surround 1440p setup or one or two large displays, or are you living in a shed? Not to mention that if you can afford all the hardware for a good surround/high res setup you probably have a room big enough for it. After all, for a good surround/4k set up you're probably putting a good few thousand into it. So actually most people have enough space for it, especially those with the money to do so.

Erm, a few grand for a PC setup =/= a few hundred grand for a good sized house.

And the devs that make games either exclusive to PC or port from PC to console? What's holding them back? Your ignorance?

Ah didums. Time to learn something about game engines. Just look at any engine that supports PBR and how that feature is only used in one game at the moment....which is exclusively for the PC made by competent devs who don't want to port the game due to lack of power from the consoles.
Also from that comment I'm assuming you don't work do you? If you did, you would realise why your comment is trash.

Original post by Fango_Jett

Unless you're absolutely blind, the difference between 4k and 1080p is very clear. Yes there is a limit, but 1080p isn't it.

You should probably go and get some glasses.

How though? Look above about pixel density.
Don't assume that replacing an old 1080p monitor with a 4k means only the resolution is improved (as you will be getting a far more modern panel e.g. better colour reproduction, clarity etc).

Reply 584

Original post by Jimbo1234

What tiny market share have better than 20/20 vision?
Now how many people have LESS than 20/20? Yup, Your points were shot down in 2 sentences :rofl:

Well, actually having some the research 20/20 isn't even average, it's worse than average. The expected result for a "young human" however that is defined, but is probably the majority of gamers, is 20/12 or 20/16. As for how many do better, well, it depends on the exact distribution but you can assume a rather large proportion getting on for half. So how large is the market? very. Try doing some actual research next time.

As for size, as I said, how many people have room for huge monitors. This is the UK - we have tiny houses were you can't even fit cars into garages.

If you think this maybe you should stop living with the poor and actually go and look at where the middle class live. For a 7680x1440 setup how much space are you going to need? Well, crunch the numbers and for width you're looking at something around about 65" and depth, considering the stand you should be using somewhere around about 15". Wait? What's that? It doesn't require a dedicated one million square foot room? And if you position the side monitors at strange angles for actual use you could even fit it into a corner needing as little as about 40" on each wall. You don't need a lot of space.
Again, use your brain rather than saying "I'm right because I'm right".

So what game engines have you used? Do you know how these engines function?
Though I'm talking about Star Citizen, not Starcraft.

Well, since SC is more conventionally used for Starcraft it might have been worth saying that, and if you think that it runs at 60 either you haven't cranked the settings up enough of the benchmarks I've been looking at are lying, or they have massively improved improved performance in the last 3 months. Let's see, only at 1080p and with an OC'd 4960x, a Titan Black only pulls 48 fps, and a R9 295X2 (with one core disabled) gets a measely 30 (and if you bump it up to to 4k they both drop to 20). But then a couple of other benchmarks I looked at (although they weren't as detailed) were getting slightly higher frame rates, but not much higher. At higher resolutions you would still not be able to drive it at 60fps on a single GPU.

Erm, a few grand for a PC setup =/= a few hundred grand for a good sized house.

Again, your poor logic is showing again. Beyond the whole "you don't actually need a big house" bit, who exactly is it who can really afford to casually spend the amount that is needed? The people that can afford a large enough residence (not that you need one). I play in one of the spare bedrooms and there would be more than enough room for a 3+1 surround setup even with 27" displays and there is still enough room for bookshelves, boxes and an ironing board. My Dad's study downstairs would also have room, and that's with a load of bookshelves and the likes taking up spare room. And I'm yet to meet anybody who would reasonably spend the amount of money they would need to without having enough space, and I know plenty of people who couldn't easily justify spending thousands on a high spec surround rig who still have the room for one.

Ah didums. Time to learn something about game engines. Just look at any engine that supports PBR and how that feature is only used in one game at the moment....which is exclusively for the PC made by competent devs who don't want to port the game due to lack of power from the consoles.
Also from that comment I'm assuming you don't work do you? If you did, you would realise why your comment is trash.

Hmmm, how exactly is work relevant?

Reply 585

Original post by Jammy Duel

Well, actually having some the research 20/20 isn't even average, it's worse than average. The expected result for a "young human" however that is defined, but is probably the majority of gamers, is 20/12 or 20/16. As for how many do better, well, it depends on the exact distribution but you can assume a rather large proportion getting on for half. So how large is the market? very. Try doing some actual research next time.

If you think this maybe you should stop living with the poor and actually go and look at where the middle class live. For a 7680x1440 setup how much space are you going to need? Well, crunch the numbers and for width you're looking at something around about 65" and depth, considering the stand you should be using somewhere around about 15". Wait? What's that? It doesn't require a dedicated one million square foot room? And if you position the side monitors at strange angles for actual use you could even fit it into a corner needing as little as about 40" on each wall. You don't need a lot of space.
Again, use your brain rather than saying "I'm right because I'm right".

It is not a case of living with poor, but the market share of the UK. The UK is a pretty poor western nation in terms of spending power, and most people here don't have the room or money for huge monitors. The harsh reality is most peoples offices are box rooms, and they don't have the space for these setups.

Well, since SC is more conventionally used for Starcraft it might have been worth saying that, and if you think that it runs at 60 either you haven't cranked the settings up enough of the benchmarks I've been looking at are lying, or they have massively improved improved performance in the last 3 months. Let's see, only at 1080p and with an OC'd 4960x, a Titan Black only pulls 48 fps, and a R9 295X2 (with one core disabled) gets a measely 30 (and if you bump it up to to 4k they both drop to 20). But then a couple of other benchmarks I looked at (although they weren't as detailed) were getting slightly higher frame rates, but not much higher. At higher resolutions you would still not be able to drive it at 60fps on a single GPU.

Erm, which game are you talking about? Starcraft is piss easy to run, and SC runs far better than the figures you pull - I know because I play it (unless they are talking about day one pre alpha build which was stated to have no optimisation on rendering).

But as I said, to only struggle if you up to 4k is pointless as most people don't run 4k and won't.

Again, your poor logic is showing again. Beyond the whole "you don't actually need a big house" bit, who exactly is it who can really afford to casually spend the amount that is needed? The people that can afford a large enough residence (not that you need one). I play in one of the spare bedrooms and there would be more than enough room for a 3+1 surround setup even with 27" displays and there is still enough room for bookshelves, boxes and an ironing board. My Dad's study downstairs would also have room, and that's with a load of bookshelves and the likes taking up spare room. And I'm yet to meet anybody who would reasonably spend the amount of money they would need to without having enough space, and I know plenty of people who couldn't easily justify spending thousands on a high spec surround rig who still have the room for one.

Ah yes, because your limited experience of people is the whole basis of why 4k should be the new standard for benchmarking :facepalm:

So youre saying your house has spare room. Now where is it, what is its value, and how many people own houses of that size or greater?

Hmmm, how exactly is work relevant?

Everything. If you did, then you would realise why companies don't utilise a lot of aspects of game engines and why they are lazy. New features requires either more training of staff or a very competent workforce. Most companies hate paying for training and avoid having good staff as they cost more due to retention issues. The result is they get basic staff who can do the basics and churn out simple products, hence why most games are utterly uninspired rehashes.

Reply 586

LtCommanderData

OP

13

I started this thread over three years ago and I never post in it any more! I hope you guys are taking good care of it.

Reply 587

Original post by Jimbo1234

It is not a case of living with poor, but the market share of the UK. The UK is a pretty poor western nation in terms of spending power, and most people here don't have the room or money for huge monitors. The harsh reality is most peoples offices are box rooms, and they don't have the space for these setups.

And since when were PC gamers with the money to buy such a rig the majority? The entire basis of you argument is "nobody needs an extreme setup because most people can't have one".

Erm, which game are you talking about? Starcraft is piss easy to run, and SC runs far better than the figures you pull - I know because I play it (unless they are talking about day one pre alpha build which was stated to have no optimisation on rendering).

Well, point me to somebody benchmarking Star Citizen in the last few months, because the newest I can find is from June and they all point to potential difficulty if you want to go much further than 1080p

But as I said, to only struggle if you up to 4k is pointless as most people don't run 4k and won't.

All I need is ONE person who will be doing it at 4k and then you're statement is strictly false.

Ah yes, because your limited experience of people is the whole basis of why 4k should be the new standard for benchmarking :facepalm:

So youre saying your house has spare room. Now where is it, what is its value, and how many people own houses of that size or greater?

Please point out EXACTLY where I said we should be using 4k as standard benchmarks? And if you haven't noticed games tend to be benchamarkes at 1440p as well as 1080p most of the time these days, and in fact, I've noticed trends to completely omit 1080p because new cards are expected to run just fine there and look purely at 1440p, 4k and surround setups since, you know, the people who are looking at those expensive cards are probably running at those higher resolutions.

Everything. If you did, then you would realise why companies don't utilise a lot of aspects of game engines and why they are lazy. New features requires either more training of staff or a very competent workforce. Most companies hate paying for training and avoid having good staff as they cost more due to retention issues. The result is they get basic staff who can do the basics and churn out simple products, hence why most games are utterly uninspired rehashes.

And you seem to have gone on a complete tangent that is completely unrelated to the original argument to try to prove that NOBODY IN THE WORLD needs has or will ever have a setup that consists of anything greater than a single, 1080p 60Hz monitor. Hell, even when presented with cases where 1 flagship card isn't even enough to pull that off you still dismiss it as irrelevant, even though it CLEARLY shows that even with only 1080p60 if you really want to max your games you may still need more than one card.
Hey, it's not my fault if you are incapable of understanding that your standards aren't sufficient for those with the money to go further, and it's hardly my fault that you are incapable of accepting that some people want to go further and thus go against your world view. Is it this sort of stuff that got you so much negative rep in the first place?

I hope some time you manage to get over your ignorance and realise that maybe there is more to gaming that 1080p60, good day.

Reply 588

Original post by Jammy Duel

And since when were PC gamers with the money to buy such a rig the majority? The entire basis of you argument is "nobody needs an extreme setup because most people can't have one".

My basis is "no one needs an extreme setup as it is not needed. Adding more screens as the only challenge to the gpu rather than harsh game engines is proof of this.....but apparently you think otherwise.

Well, point me to somebody benchmarking Star Citizen in the last few months, because the newest I can find is from June and they all point to potential difficulty if you want to go much further than 1080p.

Link it.
Also as I have said - it is prealpha build ergo not optimised, and when it is released, we will be on the next set of gpus.

All I need is ONE person who will be doing it at 4k and then you're statement is strictly false.

Yet I said "most"..... :rofl:

Stop trying to be pedantic and failing. You know most people think 4k is a waste of time so stop arguing the point.

Please point out EXACTLY where I said we should be using 4k as standard benchmarks? And if you haven't noticed games tend to be benchamarkes at 1440p as well as 1080p most of the time these days, and in fact, I've noticed trends to completely omit 1080p because new cards are expected to run just fine there and look purely at 1440p, 4k and surround setups since, you know, the people who are looking at those expensive cards are probably running at those higher resolutions.

They benchmark at 1080p + simply because 1080p guarantees 60fps or more with mid ranged cards nowadays, ergo it would be impossible to tell the difference between a r9 280/gtx 760 upto dual gpu cards. If games pushed cards like in the past, then they would most likely stick with just 1080p.

And you seem to have gone on a complete tangent that is completely unrelated to the original argument to try to prove that NOBODY IN THE WORLD needs has or will ever have a setup that consists of anything greater than a single, 1080p 60Hz monitor. Hell, even when presented with cases where 1 flagship card isn't even enough to pull that off you still dismiss it as irrelevant, even though it CLEARLY shows that even with only 1080p60 if you really want to max your games you may still need more than one card.
Hey, it's not my fault if you are incapable of understanding that your standards aren't sufficient for those with the money to go further, and it's hardly my fault that you are incapable of accepting that some people want to go further and thus go against your world view. Is it this sort of stuff that got you so much negative rep in the first place?

I hope some time you manage to get over your ignorance and realise that maybe there is more to gaming that 1080p60, good day.

Derp, your argument is that we need better cards and you need to spend £1000+ on gpus simply because you can not always achieve 144 fps at absurd resolutions. Why not just go as far as saying you can't run a 100k x 56k monitor at 500 fps ergo we need better gpus? :rolleyes:

Sure, people can go further, but that does not warrant a huge product release for some tiny niche market. My point still stands, new gpus are not needed for current games on current setups, bar people like yourself who don't want to accept that some setups are a waste of money as graphical fidelity HAS NOT IMPROVED for years :giggle:

I also love the fact that you utterly dodged the part about game companies showing that you really have no idea how devs function.

Reply 589

Original post by Jimbo1234

My basis is "no one needs an extreme setup as it is not needed. Adding more screens as the only challenge to the gpu rather than harsh game engines is proof of this.....but apparently you think otherwise.

I'm not quite sure what your baiss is since you failed to indicate the end of the statement :wink:

And since now you're kind enough to bring in the word need (although it probably has been used many times before) does anybody need a computer? No? Then omg nobody should have a computer!

Link it.
Also as I have said - it is prealpha build ergo not optimised, and when it is released, we will be on the next set of gpus.

take your pick

Yet I said "most"..... :rofl:

Stop trying to be pedantic and failing. You know most people think 4k is a waste of time so stop arguing the point.

And most people think that gaming is a waste, your point?
Also, what's your time scale? I'm willing to bet a substantial sum of money that we will be having at least 4k as fairly standard in a decade or so.

They benchmark at 1080p + simply because 1080p guarantees 60fps or more with mid ranged cards nowadays, ergo it would be impossible to tell the difference between a r9 280/gtx 760 upto dual gpu cards. If games pushed cards like in the past, then they would most likely stick with just 1080p.

Except they wouldn't just stick with 1080p unless in tehis hypothetical universe far fewer people run higher resolutions, and since the hardware is largely targeted at the enthusiast market what logic would there be to not benchmark for them? It's a bit like saying "this car is designed for those who go to track days, so I shall only review it driving at 5mph in the middle of London".

Derp, your argument is that we need better cards and you need to spend £1000+ on gpus simply because you can not always achieve 144 fps at absurd resolutions. Why not just go as far as saying you can't run a 100k x 56k monitor at 500 fps ergo we need better gpus? :rolleyes:

Hmmm, an "absurd" resolution, eh? You see not need for it so it's absurd? I guess you're the sort of person that also said that 1080p was absurd to benchamrk at back in the day? If you care so little about higher resolutions and higher frame rates then what are you even doing on this thread? This thread seems much more up your street.

Sure, people can go further, but that does not warrant a huge product release for some tiny niche market. My point still stands, new gpus are not needed for current games on current setups, bar people like yourself who don't want to accept that some setups are a waste of money as graphical fidelity HAS NOT IMPROVED for years :giggle:

Oh, does everything look like a potato on your screen? I guess you need some new stuff then. Actually, scratch that, given your earlier comments I imagine your eye sight isn't too good as that's where your problem lies.
And what of, you know, those examples where clearly it isn't enough?
What of the people who need a new GPU but want to "futureproof" their system?
What about those who are part of that niche market? And when you look at the figures (based upon the steam hardware survey) an approximation of the size of that "niche" relative to the number of cards would imply that the demand is there. How many people have these cards? A few percent. How many have more than one? We haven't a clue. How many people are running at >1080p? about 1%. How many people are running multi monitor setups? We don't know, they don't seem to want to furnish us with that. How many of those running multiple displays won't hit 60 fps on the more demanding games with 1 flagship card? Most of them. How many of those are likely to be playing such games? probably a fair few.

I also love the fact that you utterly dodged the part about game companies showing that you really have no idea how devs function.

And I love how you ignore the objective facts (or choose to waste your time trolling). I also like how you have almost completely deviated away from your original arguments as the amount to bogus.

And actually, your argument as it stands now can be boiled down into the simple statement that "new better hardware shouldn't be being developed because the niche market it targets is a nice market". Additionally that the only gains are better speeds at the top end and not better efficiencies and better performance at the lower ends.

I have no interest in talking to people who do 1+1 and generate 12. Good day.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 590

Original post by Jammy Duel

I'm not quite sure what your baiss is since you failed to indicate the end of the statement :wink:

And since now you're kind enough to bring in the word need (although it probably has been used many times before) does anybody need a computer? No? Then omg nobody should have a computer!

You avoided my point...and also my statement is quite clear in that :rolleyes:

Do you even remember the days when game engines were actually taxing due to new techniques being used? I presume not.

take your pick

Derp, no **** I have already done that. You have one, from a small german site which bm the first release. Because that is useful :rofl:

Also do you even know what prealpha means?

And most people think that gaming is a waste, your point?
Also, what's your time scale? I'm willing to bet a substantial sum of money that we will be having at least 4k as fairly standard in a decade or so.

Actually they don't when you look at the figures, but stop side tracking after being cornered yet again. Most PC gamers think 4k is a waste of time for a good reason.
Why will it be standard besides industry merely pushing it as a new product to sell and a reason to upgrade. Remember how 3D was the big thing that flopped....yet still is sold with most new tv's?

Except they wouldn't just stick with 1080p unless in tehis hypothetical universe far fewer people run higher resolutions, and since the hardware is largely targeted at the enthusiast market what logic would there be to not benchmark for them? It's a bit like saying "this car is designed for those who go to track days, so I shall only review it driving at 5mph in the middle of London".

Back in the day, enthusiasts merely wanted to hit 60 fps at HD on the hardest games to run e.g. Crysis. This makes sense as this makes the game more enjoyable to play as is now stated as the goal every PC wants to aim for. But since BF3, cards overtook games and now these guys have to come up with some imaginary goal to aim at eg. 4k at 60 fps. It is akin to having a car that can reach 70 mph...and then when you hit that, you aim for 100 mph, then 150mph etc.....but you are still bound to using a motorway.

Hmmm, an "absurd" resolution, eh? You see not need for it so it's absurd? I guess you're the sort of person that also said that 1080p was absurd to benchamrk at back in the day? If you care so little about higher resolutions and higher frame rates then what are you even doing on this thread? This thread seems much more up your street.

So now you ignore what I have said that 1080p is about pixel density for the eye of most people etc? :congrats:

Great memory there son.

Oh, does everything look like a potato on your screen? I guess you need some new stuff then. Actually, scratch that, given your earlier comments I imagine your eye sight isn't too good as that's where your problem lies.
And what of, you know, those examples where clearly it isn't enough?
What of the people who need a new GPU but want to "futureproof" their system?
What about those who are part of that niche market? And when you look at the figures (based upon the steam hardware survey) an approximation of the size of that "niche" relative to the number of cards would imply that the demand is there. How many people have these cards? A few percent. How many have more than one? We haven't a clue. How many people are running at >1080p? about 1%. How many people are running multi monitor setups? We don't know, they don't seem to want to furnish us with that. How many of those running multiple displays won't hit 60 fps on the more demanding games with 1 flagship card? Most of them. How many of those are likely to be playing such games? probably a fair few.

Actually my eye sight is very good :rolleyes:

Future proofing is the only reason for getting op cards, but for the last 8 years, it has been a bit of a waste of time, be it that games have barely ****ing progressed or that gpus have such huge power leaps you will now struggle to compete with top end new cards (although that is merely numbers, you won't see a difference in performance). 1% of the steam market is **** all and can't recoop the cost of making a new gpu :facepalm2:

They make money back by people replacing old systems etc.
You also seem to ignore that some people buy these systems merely because they can, or they want to simply see how far you can push a system. Very few people/only you do so because they actually think a liquid cooled x99 system with 4 flagship cards is actually needed for gaming.

And I love how you ignore the objective facts (or choose to waste your time trolling). I also like how you have almost completely deviated away from your original arguments as the amount to bogus.

And actually, your argument as it stands now can be boiled down into the simple statement that "new better hardware shouldn't be being developed because the niche market it targets is a nice market". Additionally that the only gains are better speeds at the top end and not better efficiencies and better performance at the lower ends.

I have no interest in talking to people who do 1+1 and generate 12. Good day.

You mean your argument has been stumped and you don't want to admit that you want to buy a load of cards to add extra inches :rofl:

If you just said "Yes, no game actually requires 2 x 980's or even 1x 980, but I want to see what I can achieve and I'm running a load of 4k monitors for lulz", then fair enough. I know many people who build top end rigs for fun. But to say they are needed? That is just silly. All games have been capping out with good gpus since 2011.

Reply 591

Potally_Tissed

19

I guess I'll find a different thread, I seem to have accidentally opened the Repetetive Arguing about Resolution and FPS Society.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 592

Original post by Potally_Tissed

I guess I'll find a different thread, I seem to have accidentally opened the Repetetive Arguing about Resolution and FPS Society.

Posted from TSR Mobile

God forbid you chip in with your 2 cents on new gpus, screens, or any new hardware :colondollar:

Not like either of them are massive parts of PC gaming.

Reply 593

username234673

17

Must admit, I thought about going ultra-wide, but then I just decided to not bother because what I currently have serves me well enough. :yep:

I have little to no interest in 4K gaming though.

Reply 594

Potally_Tissed

19

Original post by Jimbo1234

God forbid you chip in with your 2 cents on new gpus, screens, or any new hardware :colondollar:

Not like either of them are massive parts of PC gaming.

It's all just a passing curiosity in the sense that brand new stuff coming out now might be stuff I end up buying if I'm after some upgrades in a couple of years. The relative pros and cons of something like 4k are pretty moot as far as I'm concerned because upgrading to it at the moment would cost me about three times as much again as my entire PC did, which can already run Far Cry 3 maxed out in 1920x1080 at 60 fps. Unless I had money to burn I'd rather get stuff that's still high end but not cutting edge and costs about a third as much, which is probably about where 4k and the requisite GPUs will be in a couple of years or so when I might start thinking about an upgrade. Right now it's just not worth it. A 4k setup would be my "maybe if I won millions on the lottery" build but that's about it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 595

Well, 970 and 980 were announced, and lots of people will probably be disappointed with the raw power of the 980 being so similr to 780Ti, but when you think about it it's not actually going to be so similar. The new technology announced appears to be just for Maxwell, no indication as given that it will be available on Kepler which will in real terms give it a bit more of an edge. In terms of raw power, 980 is about 60% faster than 680 but has 100% higher frame rates when you throw in the MFAA which implies that 980 may, in real terms, actually be a fair bit faster than 780Ti. Still not sure whether to go for 980 or wait for the inevitable Ti.

980 looks to be stomping pretty much everything in most benches, especially the synthetics, even without MFAA

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 596

The Assassin

18

should i look to upgrade anything in the near future? I got this a few years back but i feel it's somewhat outdated.

Overclocked CPU Overclocked Intel® Core™i5-3570k Quad Core (3.40GHz @ max 4.60GHz)
Motherboard ASUS® P8Z77-V: PCI-E 3.0 READY, WIFI, SLI, CROSSFIREX
Memory (RAM) 8GB KINGSTON HYPER-X GENESIS DUAL-DDR3 1600MHz, X.M.P (2 x 4GB KIT)
Graphics Card 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 670 - 2 DVI, HDMI, DP - 3D Vision Ready
1st Hard Disk 120GB INTEL® 330 SERIES SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s (upto 500MB/sR | 450MB/sW)
2nd Hard Disk 1TB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD1002FAEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE (7200rpm)
RAID NONE
M.2 SSD Drive NONE
1st DVD/BLU-RAY Drive 12x BLU-RAY ROM DRIVE, 16x DVD ±R/±RW (£52)
Memory Card Reader INTERNAL 52 IN 1 CARD READER (XD, MS, CF, SD, etc) + 1 x USB 2.0 PORT
Power Supply CORSAIR 750W ENTHUSIAST SERIES™ TX750 V2-80 PLUS® BRONZE (£86)
Processor Cooling TITAN FENRIR EVO EXTREME HEATPIPE CPU COOLER (£39)
Thermal Paste ARCTIC MX-4 EXTREME THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COMPOUND (£9)
Fan Controller NONE
Sound Card ONBOARD 6 CHANNEL (5.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

Reply 597