Graphs annoy me and are by no sense sorted logically. Reminds me of [H] whom still try to report full data whilst keeping nV happy. I've noticed this before with this site & they always sort nV cards higher with equal minimums, and completely ignore the next data. Why would you place a card with equal min's & lower avg's higher on the chart than the card with equal min's and higher avg fps?
The only logical sorting to get this result would be first minimum fps, and if equal in min's then second sort by alphabetical order. Ignoring the average fps data, even though the whole graph is fps data. Makes sense...
In other news; maintains the status quo. I'd like to see more finfet cards in there & how this evolves over time.
I was considering it until I read the reviews on steam. Overwhelmingly poor, about 30% positive reviews, and most mentioned how horrible it was running IF they could get it up and running. No thanks. I'll wait/pass. I got suckered with Doom4 prior to the patch and it was unplayable until the patch. I have a feeling NMS would be the same experience.
Last time I checked 4K was 4x the pixels of 1080p. I don't know why people expect these new cards to cruise through 4K as if it was nothing. Granted No Man's Sky looks subpar (not my visual style), but newer titles are going to push the envelope. 4K will become more taxing, so until then I wouldn't lament that the top end cards can't sustain 4K yet, devs mainly focusing on optimizing for consoles and new tech won't allow 4K to be comfortable in the PC gaming space for a long time to come.
There are some decent reviews. The game has always been marketed as 'what you make of it'. Maybe not worth $60, but future updates could really add to the experience. If you are into games where the compass and quests tell you what to do and where to go, a game like this is probably not for you anyways. As always, don't listen to reviewers. It's the same reviewers who give every Call of Duty and Assassins Creed games 8s and 9s out of 10 each year. Reviews aren't the end all be all. That's not to say the NMS is without its flaws.
There are so many little problems with this game that it is hard to take any performance numbers seriously right now. The game is playable on my 7870 card at 1080p. Just upping the fps lock to 60 or 100 improved things, namely major stuttering/hitching in game. In one of the config files it has gsync turned on, that supposedly helps for some.
Game hasn't crashed for me one time in18 hours of play, nor have I experienced any type of stuttering. I've had an issue renaming some planets and systems. Am running this game on a 1070, 4790K @ 1440p and 60 fps.
Sure, an OC aftermarket 980 Ti will outperform an OC 1070 when clocked ~1450MHz and beyond. However, the 980 Ti will use an additional ~110W over the 1070 while doing it. Couple that with better DX12 support from the 10xx series, the 1070 has the better future.
An OC 1070 will struggle to beat a well overclocked 980 Ti in DX11/OpenGL games. They are neck and neck in (OC vs OC) in DX12 currently, but that will change. If you didn't know that before you purchased the 1070, I fail to see how that's NV's fault. 1070 is far from 'crap'