Jump to content

Nvidia optimised?


Recommended Posts

No pun intended, i m just curious: How can you tell?

 

I am following the Dev´s and Betatesters posts closely and as far as i can remember, they did not state anything concerning my question.

 

For me, it is interesting to know, because i am using high (1920x1200) resolutions and high AA/AF levels. I have a 8800 GT and i am not able to set Water on Very High in LO-FC due to unplayable FPS (12-22). C2D @ 3,2 Ghz. That is why i think i have a Limitation in the Graphics Card. I am thinking about a 4870x2 and a q9650 for Upgrade.

 

With the ability to use more Monitors (i will do:D) in DCS, Resolution will become even bigger.

 

Thats why i think it is important, that Crossfire is working properly.

 

It would be great, if a Dev or a Betatester could coment on this.

 

THX

 

S~

 

Brati

 

Bad idea dude. You're hitting memory limits, not card limits. If you want to play very high water, turn off FSAA since you're already hitting 1920x1200 memory limits (there's a very easy way to calculate how much memory a card needs based on resolution, i believe in Crysis, the game takes up to 300 memory for 1680x1050, just enough for my 8800gt to run it perfectly, but it lagged like crazy on my older 8800gts 320mb)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
No pun intended, i m just curious: How can you tell?

 

I am following the Dev´s and Betatesters posts closely and as far as i can remember, they did not state anything concerning my question.

 

For me, it is interesting to know, because i am using high (1920x1200) resolutions and high AA/AF levels. I have a 8800 GT and i am not able to set Water on Very High in LO-FC due to unplayable FPS (12-22). C2D @ 3,2 Ghz. That is why i think i have a Limitation in the Graphics Card. I am thinking about a 4870x2 and a q9650 for Upgrade.

 

With the ability to use more Monitors (i will do:D) in DCS, Resolution will become even bigger.

 

Thats why i think it is important, that Crossfire is working properly.

 

It would be great, if a Dev or a Betatester could coment on this.

 

THX

 

S~

 

Brati

 

+1

 

I run a 30" monitor at 2560x1980. I need all the videoprocessing power i can get...but only if DCS supports it.

 

Would be nice to hear if there is any improvement with crossfire expected with DCS:BS or if the Devs have any intention of adding this functionality in future DCS versions?

 

Graphics card are a major investment and its kinda sucky to buy a GTX280 only to find out a 4870X2 is a better option in the longterm.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

 

I run a 30" monitor at 2560x1980. I need all the videoprocessing power i can get...but only if DCS supports it.

 

Would be nice to hear if there is any improvement with crossfire expected with DCS:BS or if the Devs have any intention of adding this functionality in future DCS versions?

 

Graphics card are a major investment and its kinda sucky to buy a GTX280 only to find out a 4870X2 is a better option in the longterm.

 

 

Wait for GTX350. Nvidia is going to release it end of December.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Intel Core i7-6700K, @5GHz | Asus Maximus Hero VIII | 2 x eVGA GTX 970 SLI | Kingston Predator 16GB DDR4-3000Mhz | 2 x Samsung 850 PRO 240GB RAID-0 | AOC G2460PG G-SYNC LCD | OCULUS RIFT CV1 VR | THRUSTMASTER HOTAS WARTHOG | CH PRO PEDALS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait for GTX350. Nvidia is going to release it end of December.

 

Thanks. But source?

 

Also if its a 'single chip' card then we dont need to worry about SLI/Crossfire compatibility. But it looks like it might be 'dual chip' ala 4870 X2 in which case i'd really appreciate it if someone from the testing/dev team could comment on sli/crossfire. we already know Multi-cpu is not supported for BS (but may be added later).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not necessary to have multi-cards,

let alone with the power of multi-GPU's the CPU would be a huge bottleneck especially on 1 core. A HD4850 will run DCS fine, id be more worried about a higher clocked CPU

 

Indeed.

 

If BS is optimized for anything, it's optimized for a fast CPU & RAM. :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we should get the Core i7 then... :)

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wanting to stray to far offtopic: http://en.expreview.com/2008/10/06/intel-core-i7-965-50-more-performance-than-qx9770.html

 

claim up to 50% faster in games compared to a Core 2 Quad. Quite impressive...

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

then again

 

to quote from an article by Anandtech:"Nehalem is about improving HPC, Database, and virtualization performance, and much less about gaming performance.....Why? Most Games are about fast caches and super integer performance. After all, most of the Floating point action is already happening on the GPU. The Core 2 CPUs were a huge step forward in integer performance (not the least because of memory disambiguation) compared to the CPUs of that time (P4 and K8). Nehalem is only a small step forward in integer performance, and the gains due to slightly increased integer performance are mostly negated by the new cache system. In a previous post I told you that most games really like the huge L2 of the Core family. With Nehalem they are getting a 32KB L1 with a 4 cycle latency, next a very small (compared to the older Intel CPUs) 256KB L2 cache with 12 cycle latency, and after that a pretty slow 40 cycle 8MB L3. When running on Penryn, they used to get a 3 cycle L1 and a 14 cycle 6144KB L2. The Penryn L2 is 24 times larger than on Nehalem!"

I am sure this info is a bit old. I understand that Nehalem will come out in different flavors. Maybe one will benefit gaming? We just need more info. Anybody?

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yet another Nehalem link

 

I'm guessing Intel will release a version of Nehalem that will really up the ante for gamers. Here's another link about the i7-940:

http://www.techpowerup.com/73680/Core_i7_940_Review_Shows_SMT_and_Tri-Channel_Memory_Let-down.html

 

it doesn't seem that impressive for gaming. Maybe another version of Nehalem will deliver the goods.

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...