Yes, I did, and based on your lack of knowledge from the source of the OP, I can confidently say - you didn't.
Go back to the thread and re-read the entire topic again. If people believed some of the statements in this thread, sold their 7970 and got a 680, everything would be perfectly fine. You said so yourself. Need a reminder?
Where did that post I quoted responding to another poster say 60 FPS minium? Because, I never once said this game will run 60 or great
ALL the time. It seems again you've gotten backed into a corner and are now trying to throw other's under the bus for your own mistake.
You can certainly max this game out with a single GTX 680 and normal in game settings. The PhysX implementation does get heavy and will cause dips on the card, however, from my experience I've never seen it dip to <30 FPS on her system. I do know another user who is running 1600p + 4xSGSSAA and GTX 580 SLI can't max out PhysX. Well, I guess we can blanket statement and assume that covers all users. Of course we should - you made the same generalization that Radeon + CPU > GeForce at PhysX [ignore the fact that if CPU > GeForce, why not offload GeForce to CPU too...hmmm].
Your last comment follows the other gentlemen as in agreement with them. What did you mean here that 60 fps happens just rarely? usually? at minimum? Based on the discussion you made it sound like 60 fps is a piece of cake even with Max AA + PhysX since you supported the other 2 statements made before you.
I made it seem 60 FPS were easily unattainable minimums? Oh really? Feel free to show me where I said that. It seems you've resorted to trying to pull a win by twisting comments around.
Here is the conversation since you didn't quote the proper person's in order (why would you, have to win - even if resorting to lying of course]
I haven't even got to level 3 yet, but the first few minutes haven't been amazing yet as far as physx goes. Maybe it'll start to show more when you start getting elemental weapons etc. There was a blanket in a doorway and I swiped it and broke it as I saw the blanket effects in the Physx demo. I haven't checked the framerate but the load on the GTX 690 isn't too high. It's smooth as butter and probably doesn't drop too low ever.
I'll try play it more on the weekend.
Can I force some additional settings from the Nvidia driver being the 690 isn't even fazed by the game? There was only one AA related setting in game that I noticed, I can't remember what it was called. Playing at 1980x1200...
With a 690, you should be able to have max AA + Physx and still hit 60fps without an issue.
You can do that with a GTX 680.
Go ahead and show who asked about minimums. Show me where I even hinted 60 FPS minimums. I agreed with the poster who answered the question in bold from the original poster. I never even responded to Johhny Chutz. You want to lie, by all means, however, don't expect to drag my name through the mud.
We just went from AMD cards tanking with PhysX High since the CPU cannot handle it "at all" and that you NEED is an NV GPU for PhysX (please read the entire thread many people including you insinuating an NV GPU fixes performance issues) to showing that even 2 high end NV cards cannot manage high-end minimums either throughout the entire game.
See my post, number #6 in this thread where I said something was fishy. I've been following this thread and all the linked material far closer than you. At this point you are choosing my wording selectively to make a point. Let me disqualify that for you <30 FPS is not acceptable to me after spending >$600 on my setup for PhysX, thus it is not "playable."
As for the bold: that statement is still true. Wand3r's setup got 15 FPS in that instance, what do you think someone running CPU PhysX would have? Think about it. You're going to argue that "25-30 FPS is acceptable" well in such low numbers, 15 FPS > I'd say...5, perhaps even lower. Person just tripled their performance in that rare odd ball situation. Gotcha, Radeon + Modern CPU can run PhysX on High, 30 FPS just shooting the wall is acceptable, forget about 10 (we've had another poster make the comment too) is also acceptable.
Then we are back to the video I posted which shows what gamers will experience with performance drops from 60 fps on a modern system. These drops in framerates will apply to both NV and AMD users since even NV cards will experience them (of course Radeons might be doing 10 fps at that point). That's not being biased, but sharing real world experience. You still considered that useless and missed the entire point I linked it. You kept complaining how your Radeon dropped to 30-43 fps in places but I showed you how even 26-27 fps feels smooth in this game, which means it's not as big of a deal as you made it to be!
30 FPS with the Radeon, try it with a GeForce. Go ahead. Give it a shot. 15 FPS with a GeForce, I promise you the Radeon will be lower, a lot lower, and all points that led to that 15 FPS point. If the GeForce had a time lime of 20, 20, 20, 15, 15, 20, the Radeon probably had 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 5.
But that's acceptable, since you based your whole argument on a guy shooting the walls and then shooting the floor. Pristine logic at work.
Stop telling me I am lying when all I did was posted information on various combinations of hardware and showed real world example of how far frames can drop.
See above where I quoted the proper people. I never once responded to Johnny, that constitutes as a lie. See when you quote people out of order and then make a point based on the order you presented - guess what, you're lying.
How the thread happened:
Wander post #10 > Replied by Exark post #12 > Replied by Railven post #13 . Johnny is post #14.
RS's history of the post implies:
Johhny posted (#14), Exark replied (#12), Railven agreed (#13).
Funny...yep.
Facebook
Twitter