Reply With Quote
I just started playing Assassin's Creed 1. Not bad.
AFAIK, Skylake IGP will do hardware 4k HEVC/H.265 decoding, but not all stream formats (ie: it won't do 10-bit HEVC/H.265, only does 8-bit). A card like the GTX960, as bum recommended, will do 10 (and even 16, IIRC) bit formats on hardware.
So for compatibility, you're probably better off with a dedicated card.
I just started playing Assassin's Creed 1. Not bad.
Though I hate the menu system in AC1. If I want to exit the game I have to
1. Pause and go to Exit
2. Up comes the animus menu. Click Exit Animus.
3. Your character steps out of the animus. Pause and go to Exit Game.
4. Up pops the profile select menu. Select your profile.
5. Finally you can click Exit Game, and then choose yes when it asks if you're really exiting.
It literally takes about 90 seconds to exit the ing game. Man I hate when a game doesn't have a quick Quit to Desktop option.
Alt-F4... works every time...
Some games really don't like Alt+F4 though, like Dying Light, where the savegame gets screwed up.
yeah, it's an automatic kill... but works well 99% of the time...
Yeah, a 1070 sounds nice if they're priced like the 970 was.. I've started conditioning my GF to expect a useless purchase in the next couple of months
Gotta get a 1440p monitor too then tbh, maybe tell her two useless purchases
Hopefully we get some real details and a launch at computex next month.
Naw... Make it the card and two monitors!Gotta get a 1440p monitor too then tbh, maybe tell her two useless purchases
I'd go Ultrawide G-Sync
Phew, GSync 3440x1440 is about $1200 or so. Add in another $600 for a GTX 1080 to drive it. Ouch.
I think I'm going to wait for the end of this year or early 2017 myself. I'm a little pissed at how badly Maxwell is aging in comparison to Hawaii in 2016 (one of the reasons I keep recommending the R9 390 to RandomGuy for best card in that price range), so I might wait to see what Vega 11 and Vega 10 have to offer. Polaris is a complete non-starter though, as Polaris 11 is a 950 compe or and Polaris 10 will probably be around 970 performance (they have been advertising it as VR for the masses since January). Nvidia is really going to put the hurt on AMD this year since team red will have nothing to compete with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 other than perhaps deeply discounted Fury X.
Then again, if Vega sucks and GP104 is disappointing I may just dump a bunch of money into a 1440p GSync panel and keep my 970. Since you have a 680 with GSync, would you say it's still a good experience running an underpowered GPU with gsync in hard to run games like Witcher 3 and GTA V? I mean 40-45 fps feels like 60 fps with it? Also does GSync completely eliminate microstutter? It's like night and day better vs a fixed refresh rate panel, right? Do you even try to hit 60 fps anymore in hard to run games?
Hopefully Computex will bring some new GSync monitor releases too, and some better prices on 1440p GSync IPS panels.
Honestly, no matter the game I play current or not, I run at 60 FPS or higher. Even with a 680 all I really have to adjust is AA and maybe shadows to medium and/or HDAO to SSAO or off depending on the implementation and I get the FPS I want.
Dark Souls for example, has a forced V-Sync, and I turned down shadows and maybe one more option that made little difference with a +100 Mhz overclock on my GPU at it locks at 60 FPS even when panning the camera in large environments.
And yeah, a ultrawide G-Sync is about 1200 atm.. I said that though because I cant see myself buying a non-sync monitor after using one for over a year, and the cost of two G-Sync monitors like Wild Cobra mentioned would be about the cost of a 34" Ultrawide anyway.. I couldn't game on a dual monitor setup, a big ass bezel right in the middle of the viewing space is crap.. It's bad enough with 3 monitor setup and having bezels off center.
That's disappointing, so 40-45 fps still feels like crap even with GSync? So do you feel its real utility is in making occasional drops into the 50s still feel like 60 fps? Or is it just to go above 60 fps without tearing? Damn that kind of turns me off to GSync, the whole reason I'd buy it is to be able to run my 970 at 1440p without having to turn my settings way down. I would never want to turn settings like HBAO+ off, that's the whole reason to even own an Nvidia GPU. If that's the case I'd rather buy a cheaper non GSync 1440p panel and use that $300-$400 savings to go up to a better gpu.
I agree with you on that, I don't understand multiple monitor except for racing games and flight simulators. And for those I'd much rather have the Occulus Rift for my peripheral vision than the three monitors.
Yeah, 40-45 is still noticeably less smooth, even though its not choppy. I do feel that its made for the dips just below 60 that cause technical hiccups without it.
It does depend on the game though. Dark Souls 3 maxed at 45 FPS feels smooth as . To me the G-Sync just makes everything a lot smoother in general, even when the FPS is at 60 without G-Sync, i notice issues that dont necessarily show in the frame counter.. It fixes all that .. I cant play on my HDTV anymore tbh.
So microstutter? Usually I can fix that by putting a 60 fps cap on in addition to vsync. It stops those really annoying bumps up to 61 fps that are then balanced by drops to 59 fps. I guess I'll skip GSync then, it doesn't seem worth it to me.
Well the real selling point is silky smooth high frame rate gaming, if you are cool at 60 FPS with V-Sync then it's not for you. NBA 2k16 at 100 FPS + G-Sync is a way better experience than 60 FPS + V-Sync IMO
The games I enjoy most are open world games that really hit the cpu hard. For instance GTA V 1080p ultra I can really only run about 85 fps on my cpu (I'm usually around 95% gpu usage on my 970 at such settings, so I'm not gpu limited). Witcher 3 I could probably hit 100 fps if I wasn't gpu bound, as that 's always at 99% gpu usage and I'm usually in the high 70s to mid 80s if I uncap the framerate and run at high with a few settings like HBAO+ and water detail maxed out. Fallout 4 is straight cpu bound. And speaking of Fallout 4, Bethesda makes two of my three favorite series of games (Elder Scrolls and Fallout; GTA is the other fav series), and both of those force vsync to 60 fps anyways.
NBA 2k16 is awful using the ingame vsync to 60 fps, massive microstutter, but it's really smooth if you add an external framecap of 60 fps to the ingame vsync. If you're into shooters like Battlefield that are really designed to be run at 120 fps I can see the appeal of GSync, but to get those kind of framerates in the games I like would require ridiculously expensive hardware that I really don't have any intention of spending so much on. I don't want to be buying a $350 unlocked i7 and dual $600 80 series cards plus an $800 GSync monitor to be able to run those crazy high framerates at 1440p. Keeping up with 60 fps is expensive enough.
I use dual monitor with games to have other stuff open at the same time. Not split up the game.
Damn, starting to sound like the GTX 1070 may end up around $500 and the GTX 1080 around $650.
$650 for anything less than the big die GP100 would be nuts. I will definitely wait for AMD's Vega if this is the case.
Looks like GP104 is 320 mm^2 from these images leaked by chip :
Seeing that Polaris 10 is only 232 mm^2, GP104 is going to all over it.
Last edited by baseline bum; 04-22-2016 at 11:00 PM.
Pretty cool to see Nvidia can get a 320 mm^2 die on the GP104 chip after a node shrink. Last time they did this the GK104 chip (GTX 680/670/660Ti) was only 294 mm^2.
OK, even though when it comes to politic, I disagree with most peiople here, but...
If you had $4k to spend, what would your build be?
Required: PCIe 4 lane SSD rather than mSATA and 2011 chip format.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
