Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 133
  1. #101
    Superior Member
    NotoriousBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Near Cincinnati
    Age
    35
    Posts
    768
    Rep Power
    39
    Points
    5,638 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by SupraGaz View Post
    Lots of great info in here but starting to worry if my PC will be capable to run ultra for BF4. It runs BF3 on ultra with ease at roughly 80fps so unsure if a upgrade would be needed. (1920*1080)
    When BF3 came out there wasn't a reasonable means to max out BF3 @ 1080p or above. One year later is was done on mid range cards like the 7870 and 660ti. I suspect the same thing here. A 7990, 690, or Titan should do well but the majority of us with mid level cards will need to run on HIGH and no AA. I can't wait to see what my 7950 can do

  2. #102
    Veteran
    GazzaGSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,110
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    18,774 (0 Banked)
    Items Battlefield 3Assassins Creed EzioCoD: World at War
    Quote Originally Posted by NotoriousBOB View Post
    When BF3 came out there wasn't a reasonable means to max out BF3 @ 1080p or above. One year later is was done on mid range cards like the 7870 and 660ti. I suspect the same thing here. A 7990, 690, or Titan should do well but the majority of us with mid level cards will need to run on HIGH and no AA. I can't wait to see what my 7950 can do
    I see. My brief spec is currently a FX-8350, sli 660's, 8gb ram, will be interesting to see how it performs. Hopefully will be able to gauge abit of its performance from the beta.

  3. #103
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by SupraGaz View Post
    Lots of great info in here but starting to worry if my PC will be capable to run ultra for BF4. It runs BF3 on ultra with ease at roughly 80fps so unsure if a upgrade would be needed. (1920*1080)
    now if you're asking that you can use all the features the game will have and still be at ultra? probably not going to happen. your card was likely not designed for next-gen. I don't know, maybe you bought one that is recent and supports next-gen features.

    i'm guess you will probably get somewhere from 30-60fps depending on how optimized the code is. just a wild guess. DICE are good at what they do so i'm guessing somewhere around 40-60.

  4. #104
    Veteran
    GazzaGSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,110
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    18,774 (0 Banked)
    Items Battlefield 3Assassins Creed EzioCoD: World at War
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    now if you're asking that you can use all the features the game will have and still be at ultra? probably not going to happen. your card was likely not designed for next-gen. I don't know, maybe you bought one that is recent and supports next-gen features.

    i'm guess you will probably get somewhere from 30-60fps depending on how optimized the code is. just a wild guess. DICE are good at what they do so i'm guessing somewhere around 40-60.
    Thanks for the info. Benchmarks put a sli 660 setup just above a single 680, if they do struggle I'll sell the pair for for something

  5. #105
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,683
    Rep Power
    87
    Points
    37,546 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by SupraGaz View Post
    I see. My brief spec is currently a FX-8350, sli 660's, 8gb ram, will be interesting to see how it performs. Hopefully will be able to gauge abit of its performance from the beta.
    It'll give it a good go. Who knows. I'm tempted to buy BF3 Premium just to see how my PC runs the Beta If it doesn't run it Ultra on release it will in December

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    now if you're asking that you can use all the features the game will have and still be at ultra? probably not going to happen. your card was likely not designed for next-gen. I don't know, maybe you bought one that is recent and supports next-gen features.

    i'm guess you will probably get somewhere from 30-60fps depending on how optimized the code is. just a wild guess. DICE are good at what they do so i'm guessing somewhere around 40-60.
    Anything since 2010 has had DX11 support, i'm sure it'll be fine for next gen features.

  6. #106
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    of course. but then you have cards that are better at some features than others. just supporting it doesn't mean it will run it well. your 2010 card isn't going to run BF4 well, not unless it was a top tier card. even then, there's no guarantee that it will be efficient at every feature that is in the game at ultra settings and 1080p + decent frame rate.

    e.g. not all wireless N routers run well, some run worse than wireless G.

  7. #107
    Superior Member
    TEST SUBJECT 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    PSN ID
    TEST SUBJECT 83
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    10
    Points
    4,876 (0 Banked)
    I'm sad my 680 is going to finally go obsolete soon. I new this day would come, at least I got a good year out of it.
    Still a good card though....for now.

  8. #108
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    I'm sad my 680 is going to finally go obsolete soon. I new this day would come, at least I got a good year out of it.
    Still a good card though....for now.
    i'm sure your card is good for a lot of games. probably even a lot of next-gen games. i don't know how powerful 680 is but come next year, you will see much faster cards because of the bump in the industry.

  9. #109
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,683
    Rep Power
    87
    Points
    37,546 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    I'm sad my 680 is going to finally go obsolete soon. I new this day would come, at least I got a good year out of it.
    Still a good card though....for now.
    You're replacing your GTX680 already? It's people like you that make console gamers think you need to upgrade every year. The 680 is still a really good card...

  10. #110
    Superior Member
    TEST SUBJECT 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    PSN ID
    TEST SUBJECT 83
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    10
    Points
    4,876 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    You're replacing your GTX680 already? It's people like you that make console gamers think you need to upgrade every year. The 680 is still a really good card...
    Did you read the post that you quoted?
    Didnt say I was replacing it, just said it was going to become obsolete soon.
    And second, I said it was still a good card, but you instantly heard what you wanted and lashed out with "it's people like you" remark.
    I'm not trying to be rude but your reaction to my post puzzles me.

  11. #111
    Apprentice
    toontoonizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    354
    Rep Power
    61
    Points
    167 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    Did you read the post that you quoted?
    Didnt say I was replacing it, just said it was going to become obsolete soon.
    And second, I said it was still a good card, but you instantly heard what you wanted and lashed out with "it's people like you" remark.
    I'm not trying to be rude but your reaction to my post puzzles me.
    Depends on what you mean by soon to be honest..

    I was preparing to have to buy a second 680 to run Rome 2 at Max settings with playable framerates...but lo and behold first time I booted it up the game automatically set everything to extreme, AA, SSAO, Depth of Field, 8x Aniso (not ideal but hey), 1920x1200 and it actually runs with better performance/framerates than Shogun 2 at the same res.

    I think what you are overlooking is that new games can actually use all the fancy tech in your lovely expensive graphics card that renders it a more efficient device for producing graphics. The fact that I get better performance on Rome 2 than I do in Shogun 2, where Rome 2 is unarguably a far more graphically intensive game than Shogun 2, is some evidence towards this.

    And there will be instances where old games will bring your shiny new card to its knees. Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance with a full complement of armies in a 1v1 skirmish will bring my 680 to its knees at times.

  12. #112
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,683
    Rep Power
    87
    Points
    37,546 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    Did you read the post that you quoted?
    Didnt say I was replacing it, just said it was going to become obsolete soon.
    And second, I said it was still a good card, but you instantly heard what you wanted and lashed out with "it's people like you" remark.
    I'm not trying to be rude but your reaction to my post puzzles me.
    You said it was going to be obsolete soon... which it won't be. Suddenly the best card from last year is now obsolete.

    If my two 5870's from 2009 in my old machine are still playing games maxed out at 1080p how on earth is a 680 going to be obsolete soon?

    edit: I will add, my "people like you" comment wasn't supposed to be a rude comment. Just saying it's when people like yourself that say things like that, it gives weight to the "Oh you need to upgrade your GPU every year" argument which annoys me to no end.
    Last edited by BBK..; 09-05-2013 at 14:23.

  13. #113
    Dedicated Member
    Sajuuk Khar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,390
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    8,651 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by toontoonizer View Post
    And there will be instances where old games will bring your shiny new card to its knees. Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance with a full complement of armies in a 1v1 skirmish will bring my 680 to its knees at times.
    Not wanting to counter your point, as you are technically correct for the rest of the post, and will be absolutely fine with a single 680 for a while by the way.
    Just the slowdowns for supreme command is more related to the cpu and the engine it self being the limiting factor. Even in none AI matches path finding has to be calculated for the units which really bogs down the system when dealing with the large amounts of units you can have

  14. #114
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    You said it was going to be obsolete soon... which it won't be. Suddenly the best card from last year is now obsolete.

    If my two 5870's from 2009 in my old machine are still playing games maxed out at 1080p how on earth is a 680 going to be obsolete soon?

    edit: I will add, my "people like you" comment wasn't supposed to be a rude comment. Just saying it's when people like yourself that say things like that, it gives weight to the "Oh you need to upgrade your GPU every year" argument which annoys me to no end.
    so you need two cards to run it at 1080p?

    it depends which games you're running at 1080p with those two cards.

    it also depends if you're running at full details or not. meaning, all features, not just details.

    you can't tell me that a card (or two) from 2009 can run today's games at 1080p @ 60fps with all the things at maximum.

    Are you claiming this? again, what games are those if true?

  15. #115
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,683
    Rep Power
    87
    Points
    37,546 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    No. I didn't need two cards to run it at 1080p. I got the second card so when i had a 120Hz screen it took full advantage of it.

    And yeah, it maxed out most games at 1080p. The newest release i bought on my old desktop would've probably been either Batman:AC or AC3 and yes, it ran both of those game full settings at a stable 50-60fps. The Pair of them would max out BF3 on ultra at a stable 60fps easy but i turned it down to high so i got around 80-110. I only bought my new PC because i was in a position to do so and also because i was getting annoyed with the amount of noise those two cards were kicking out, sounded like a jet plane.

    So yes I can tell you that. My friend is actually borrowing my desktop now and we are playing through Borderlands 2 together and he is getting well above 60fps on that as well.

    edit: On Farcy 3 a single HD5870 (And i had the factory overclocked Black editions) gets around 30 fps on 1920x1080 on highest settings. Does that sound like a card that is obsolete to you? So how would a 680 be obsolete.
    Last edited by BBK..; 09-05-2013 at 18:02.

  16. #116
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    No. I didn't need two cards to run it at 1080p. I got the second card so when i had a 120Hz screen it took full advantage of it.

    And yeah, it maxed out most games at 1080p. The newest release i bought on my old desktop would've probably been either Batman:AC or AC3 and yes, it ran both of those game full settings at a stable 50-60fps. The Pair of them would max out BF3 on ultra at a stable 60fps easy but i turned it down to high so i got around 80-110. I only bought my new PC because i was in a position to do so and also because i was getting annoyed with the amount of noise those two cards were kicking out, sounded like a jet plane.

    So yes I can tell you that. My friend is actually borrowing my desktop now and we are playing through Borderlands 2 together and he is getting well above 60fps on that as well.

    edit: On Farcy 3 a single HD5870 (And i had the factory overclocked Black editions) gets around 30 fps on 1920x1080 on highest settings. Does that sound like a card that is obsolete to you? So how would a 680 be obsolete.
    Borderlands 2 should not take that much power. It's cel-shaded. Batman:AC is old, your card should be able to run that. AC3, while nice, is not graphically heavy like Far Cry 3.

    So you have an ambitious title like Far Cry 3 running at 30fps at 3 years down the road. That's outdated.

    Going back to GTX 680, you're forgetting that I never said it will definitely be outdated but you're forgetting that we're getting a big bump going next-gen. A GTX 680 might be able to run most games at fairly decent settings, even high ones but it's not going to run all the newest features at optimum levels. Even next-gen smoke can make your slightly older card cough like a granny on COPD. There are going to be many new techniques being used and more will come very soon after. You will survive BF4 with a 680 but I don't think it will even attempt to run the games a year after.

    i'm trying to be fair here, i'm giving you benefit of the doubt that you've tested all these games at the most maximum of settings you can possibly get (which includes full AF/AA/HDR (if applicable), and $#@! ton of other features PCs get) and assuming that your games are running at the exact frame rate that you're telling us.

    i personally don't think that's possible...especially with a game like far cry 3 that is open world and has insane details. not to mention, your two cards are still in there even if you're not using the 120hz feature...just saying man, it's nice to be able to afford all that but i've been there, i've seen how annoying it can be to figure out what works best on your cards. You have to pretty much get the latest ever 2-3 years or you're going to be missing out.

    how many cards have you changed since 2005?

    P.S. Also notice the insane setup that was used to put out those numbers. lol.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-05-2013 at 19:36.

  17. #117
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,683
    Rep Power
    87
    Points
    37,546 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Borderlands 2 should not take that much power. It's cel-shaded. Batman:AC is old, your card should be able to run that. AC3, while nice, is not graphically heavy like Far Cry 3.

    So you have an ambitious title like Far Cry 3 running at 30fps at 3 years down the road. That's outdated.

    Going back to GTX 680, you're forgetting that I never said it will definitely be outdated but you're forgetting that we're getting a big bump going next-gen. A GTX 680 might be able to run most games at fairly decent settings, even high ones but it's not going to run all the newest features at optimum levels. Even next-gen smoke can make your slightly older card cough like a granny on COPD. There are going to be many new techniques being used and more will come very soon after. You will survive BF4 with a 680 but I don't think it will even attempt to run the games a year after.

    i'm trying to be fair here, i'm giving you benefit of the doubt that you've tested all these games at the most maximum of settings you can possibly get (which includes full AF/AA/HDR (if applicable), and $#@! ton of other features PCs get) and assuming that your games are running at the exact frame rate that you're telling us.

    i personally don't think that's possible...especially with a game like far cry 3 that is open world and has insane details. not to mention, your two cards are still in there even if you're not using the 120hz feature...just saying man, it's nice to be able to afford all that but i've been there, i've seen how annoying it can be to figure out what works best on your cards. You have to pretty much get the latest ever 2-3 years or you're going to be missing out.

    how many cards have you changed since 2005?

    P.S. Also notice the insane setup that was used to put out those numbers. lol.
    Have you seen those games running on PC, Batman more specifically. on the highest settings, with the smoke effects, that game looks amazing. you asked if it was still running the latest games on high settings, the answer was yes. OK, they won't max out Crysis 3 but any standard console port they don't have a problem running on high settings at 1080p

    Lol, so a card that runs FC3 on the highest settings at 1080p and gets 30-37 frames per card is outdated? ...Really? C'mon man. An obsolete won't card won't play games on medium settings. This is high settings we are talking about here. Above and beyond anything seen on current generation. I'm going to assume you haven't played FC3 on PC and seen how good it looks because if a card can still max it out with playable framerates, it's a decent card.

    Of course we'll be getting a big bump next generation. Do you remember Epics UE4 tech demo? That was running on a single GTX680 and already looked better than the same tech demo on the PS4/XBO. I think his card will be safer for a bit longer than just a year. I can't really take you seriously if you think the 680 Will be outdated by 2014. I guess the gtx690 is now just a mid-range card too.

    I'm more than aware of what my PC was capable of, I was the one playing with it for 4 years. The only game i've had to fiddle around with to get a decent 60fps experience with was Arma 2. But that game brings most systems to their knees. My friends GTX690 even has difficulty doing it.


    You don't need to believe it. the benchmarks are there for you to see. And yes while it may not be gaming at 120Hz, it's still gaming around 60fps (with both cards) so for obsolete cards they must be doing pretty well.

    I'v e changed my computers 3 times since 2005. But each time i've changed my PC is because I want to and not because i needed to. I could've easy kept my old rig for another year, i would've been putting settings down for sure but to assume it would've just stopped playing games overnight? unlikely.

    Insane set-up? My current PC is higher speced

  18. #118
    Master Guru
    MjW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    PSN ID
    MjW-
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,407
    Rep Power
    96
    Points
    6,101 (44,164 Banked)
    Items VitaiPhone BlackGran Turismo 5PS3 FatTommy Vercetti3DS
    Just for the record. When I still had a gaming PC connected to the TV. I played Batman Arkham Asylum on PS3, and the PC version on max settings on the same TV. My gf commented on how better it looked and it wasn't even side by side.

    This is the same gf that couldn't see a difference between 576p and 720p. I had to put the same movie side by side for her to notice a difference.

    IMO decent AA in a game makes a lot of difference just by itself.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    ~Corporate Media Propaganda - Welcome to your Daily Matrix~

    .

  19. #119
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,573
    Rep Power
    126
    Points
    58,478 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Any DX 9 only card is obsolete because devs are starting to not support it in AAA titles.

    X850XT - Bought in 2005, monster of a card which I still have somewhere dobled my framerate in HL2.
    X1950 pro = $#@!e even the revious card ran Unreal 3 better
    8800GT x 2 (1 broke got free warranty replacement which also broke BFG went under so had to buy...
    5770 - bought due to above reasons
    6870 - still using
    Last edited by keefy; 09-06-2013 at 10:07.

  20. #120
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Have you seen those games running on PC, Batman more specifically. on the highest settings, with the smoke effects, that game looks amazing. you asked if it was still running the latest games on high settings, the answer was yes. OK, they won't max out Crysis 3 but any standard console port they don't have a problem running on high settings at 1080p
    It's only fair to talk about ambitious titles when we're talking about PC and the highest tech you can possibly get. Batman is really not the pinnacle of graphics. It looks amazing no doubt.

    Lol, so a card that runs FC3 on the highest settings at 1080p and gets 30-37 frames per card is outdated? ...Really? C'mon man. An obsolete won't card won't play games on medium settings. This is high settings we are talking about here. Above and beyond anything seen on current generation. I'm going to assume you haven't played FC3 on PC and seen how good it looks because if a card can still max it out with playable framerates, it's a decent card.
    Outdated, not obsolete. The argument we're presenting is very contextual. Under normal circumstances, yes, 30fps is not that bad but if you want to argue that the elite PC gamers always enjoy 1080p @ 60fps at ultra settings then you have to be consistent.

    Of course we'll be getting a big bump next generation. Do you remember Epics UE4 tech demo? That was running on a single GTX680 and already looked better than the same tech demo on the PS4/XBO.
    That doesn't prove anything. GTX680 won't be able to keep up with PS4/XBO in the coming years.

    I think his card will be safer for a bit longer than just a year. I can't really take you seriously if you think the 680 Will be outdated by 2014. I guess the gtx690 is now just a mid-range card too.
    680 can't do more than 30 right now with crysis 3. Look it up. You have to turn off AA in order to achieve somewhere around 40-50. That's a current gen game and looks $#@! compared to next-gen games.

    I think things are going to change as soon as the 64-bit limitation is put up. I reckon these cards are designed for 32-bit machines as well. They might hold up well for the next two years but you're not going to get 60fps in every game.

    I'm more than aware of what my PC was capable of, I was the one playing with it for 4 years. The only game i've had to fiddle around with to get a decent 60fps experience with was Arma 2. But that game brings most systems to their knees. My friends GTX690 even has difficulty doing it.

    You don't need to believe it. the benchmarks are there for you to see. And yes while it may not be gaming at 120Hz, it's still gaming around 60fps (with both cards) so for obsolete cards they must be doing pretty well.
    That's what I was telling you earlier, you have to use two of them to get 60fps for games three years down the road.

    I'v e changed my computers 3 times since 2005. But each time i've changed my PC is because I want to and not because i needed to. I could've easy kept my old rig for another year, i would've been putting settings down for sure but to assume it would've just stopped playing games overnight? unlikely.
    lol yea you could keep it for another year but then you can't bring up the argument that PC gamers play at 60fps with the highest settings possible. Either way you slice it, it's a problem. You have to either buy a new rig every three years to stay on top or you're not a PC enthusiast.

    So if you had kept that card, and the new consoles were to come out in a couple of months, buddy, you're not on top of the food chain anymore. That argument goes out the window. In fact, I'd love for you to tell me how next-gen games look on that card (not BF4 because that's a multi-gen game).

    P.S. You're saying that you wouldn't have needed to change your PC since 2005? lol. I think you must've said that by mistake. Sir, of course you felt the need. That's the idea, PC enthusiasts can't handle being underspec-ed. If you hadn't given that rig to your buddy now, you surely would've done it in the next few months. Remember, next-gen is coming. You're not going to run anything with those dual HD5870 moving forward, so the need would've been created for you. I highly doubt you can even run Crysis 3 with one of those and likely less than 30 with both.
    Insane set-up? My current PC is higher speced
    you've missed my point. 2133Mhz just came out this year, Vertex 3 SSD came out in early 2011 and that specific i7 CPU came out in late 2011. Now granted, you could've upgraded all of this as they came (which would be ridiculous as you'd end up buying an expensive future-proof motherboard that isn't as good as ones now) but you did not have the rig you have now. You weren't playing those games in 2010 with the same rig you have now. So the specs above are ridiculous because showing older video cards on it has no relevance in a discussion speaking about the the top PC gamgers.

    If they showed a 680 three years down the road with the specs of that age, they would probably give you a few more fps.

    So those frame rates are the best they possibly can be and likely no one had them back in 2010 or even 2011. I'd say about 5 frame margin there.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-06-2013 at 13:25.

  21. #121
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,484
    Rep Power
    39
    Points
    19,447 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post

    That doesn't prove anything. GTX680 won't be able to keep up with PS4/XBO in the coming years.
    And you are basing this claim on what exactly? Can you name a single graphical function that the PS4/XBO can do that the 680 cannot?

    680 can't do more than 30 right now with crysis 3. Look it up. You have to turn off AA in order to achieve somewhere around 40-50.













    Care to explain why so many benchmarks say you are horribly wrong? In fact, can you explain why so many benchmarks agree that the 680 gets a MINIMUM frame rate in excess of 30 FPS at high quality WITH 4X AA and 12X or higher AF?

  22. Likes BBK.. likes this post
  23. #122
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    And you are basing this claim on what exactly? Can you name a single graphical function that the PS4/XBO can do that the 680 cannot?
    It's not about what it can and cannot do. It's about how well it can and cannot do.

    For example purposes, you can say that a netbook can do everything that an alienware desktop can. no i'm not saying that a 680 is a netbook compared to next-gen consoles.

    Also the context of the discussion was that if you want the highest settings possible on PC, do you have to upgrade every few years or not? So far you've shown me one benchmark that is using insane specs that no one had back in 2010. Of course that's fair. You do realize benchmarks are marketing tools right? You're getting the best possible fps possible (not to mention, random vague knowledge of what is turned on and what isn't and how much of it).

    Then you're showing me a CPU benchmark I don't know why. Another benchmark with 4xAA, which was pretty much a decent standard on the 360 so I don't get why that's in the discussion. Again, the discussion is about "bells and whistles", not about about a mix of settings. AA is resource-heavy. I guess people shouldn't be touting ultra settings on PCs so much then? Because it seems like 4xAA is going to be the standard moving forward on consoles.

    Another benchmark with vague details. Marketing tool. The only decent one they gave more info about has the lowest of the fps of all. The fps not being more than 30 was taken from a person who had a maxed out rig (likely a year or more ago). There are many variables in actuality that people don't take in account that can lower your game's performance. Things you have no control over.

    These tests are taken on a PC that is built just to do this, nothing else. No extra junk like anti-virus/security, background programs, chat etc. An actual person with these specs will likely never get the same results...that's why they sometimes write that as a disclaimer as well.

    So really what I read am not that far off. The guy was getting 40-50 fps without AA and not more than 30 with it. This one's showing a minimum of 32 with an average of 38.5 under one of the best possible conditions you can be in. Really, we're splitting hairs at this point.

    Now the fps can get even higher if you had today's specs...of course, that's the whole point. You upgrade and get better fps and details. I'm not denying that, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but if you want to argue that you don't need "something" new or that "something" is becoming a bottleneck 2-3 years down the road then you're just pulling my leg. You're bullshitting.

    I don't hate PC gaming, I like it a lot, I get it...I would keep a card for many years myself, that's not the issue...I don't mind turning down some details to play it on PC and not have to put out a thousand dollars to get the latest CPU or GPU. But you guys can't sit here and argue with me that you "don't" have to upgrade something every once in a few years to keep your gaming rig at an optimum level.

    And why argue about something the argument isn't even about? The argument wasn't about 680's power, which I'm sure there's plenty of there, instead you're taking one comment and arguing over trivial things. the argument was about keeping up with the trend or you're not getting the best possible graphics. 680 is great now (and I'm sure people are using SLI x2 and x4 to get better results with certain games) but you're silly if you think it will hold up against next-gen consoles. You guys don't understand the entire argument for me to start on it yet again.

    What's my basis? What is yours? I'm speaking from what has been true in the past, what is your forecast based on? Is the PC environment changing? Are they going closed? SLI crap wouldn't even exist if you didn't need 2 or now 3-4 GPUs to get the best possible experience. Please don't give me that crap that your one video card will display the best possible settings your game allows. You will always have to turn something off or lower...or get a better setup.

    There is a reason why consoles are primarily driving the industry now. There's a reason why the average consumer is fed up with PC gaming and why consoles (hardware/software) are breaking industry/all-time records. Will you be here when they will show BF5 in the next two years? We'll see how well 680 runs that game...pfft even with the best possible specs.

    That's my point.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-06-2013 at 18:35.

  24. #123
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    GTX680 won't be able to keep up with PS4/XBO in the coming years.

  25. #124
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,266
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    103,975 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by reasonable_doubt View Post
    I hope you're here in a couple of years so I can bring this up and post it back to you lol.

  26. #125
    Veteran
    GazzaGSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,110
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    18,774 (0 Banked)
    Items Battlefield 3Assassins Creed EzioCoD: World at War

    Battlefield 4 on PS4 comparable to medium settings on PC

    Minimum & Recommended PC specs are up:



    Not as hungry as I thought, even the recommended spec. I'm quietly confident my rig should be fine thankfully.

    Source:

    http://mp1st.com/2013/09/09/battlefi...ents-revealed/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.