overall not impressed going from gtx260 to gtx470

[luv2increase]

I still see you cant help being a fucking troll. I am sick of your shit and it needs to stop know. I am not clueless and I have already told you that I am well aware of the games that need more cpu power. you are about the only one in the thread that is too stupid to figure out that I preach cpu bottlenecks around here.

for the 100th fucking time all this thread was made for was just to show my real world experience upgrading from a gtx260 to a gtx470 on a fairly realistic pc. it was not a thread about the gtx470 being slow or Nvidia sucking. again if you had a fucking clue you would also know that I prefer Nvidia.

My goodness. What is up with all the immature language? That is pitiful.

I didn't say you were clueless. I inferred that I "didn't" think you were clueless.

 

[toyota]

My goodness. What is up with all the immature language? That is pitiful.

I didn't say you were clueless. I said I "didn't" think you were clueless.

you said "I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one" which is the same as calling me clueless as for as I am concerned. you have been nothing but rude and condescending from your very first post in this thread. it seems that no matter how much I try to explain the overall purpose of this thread you still draw your own conclusions and use them as a reason to insult me.

 

[luv2increase]

you said "I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one" which is the same as calling me clueless as for as I am concerned. you have been nothing but rude and condescending from your very first post in this thread. it seems that no matter how much I try to explain the overall purpose of this thread you still draw your own conclusions and use them as a reason to insult me.

If you would have read the whole post, you'd see the word "deliberate" which infers you are "not" clueless.

btw, it just isn't cool to swear like some unruly child like that. boy oh boy...

 

[taltamir]

Did you publish your results? I'd be interested to see them. But then again, I am not sure I would put much stock in them, especially since you don't regard AA, AF and Shadows as important... If none of those things are enabled, the bottleneck is going to shift to the CPU... Common knowledge.

I don't regard AA and Shadows as important, I regard AF as the single most important thing and will never ever play another game without AF... AF is the single most important quality setting for a game, it takes precedence over ANYTHING else.

AA And shadows DO look nice, but not nice enough to justify several hundreds of dollars worth of extra hardware.

Anyways, feel free not to put much stock in my FRAPS benchmarks, obvious the fact I don't get a stiffy over AA and shadows means I am too stupid to run a benchmark properly...

you said "I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one" which is the same as calling me clueless as for as I am concerned. you have been nothing but rude and condescending from your very first post in this thread. it seems that no matter how much I try to explain the overall purpose of this thread you still draw your own conclusions and use them as a reason to insult me.

pretty much. he is obviously flaming you and he should be ignored.
Keysplayer already warned him to stop with the personal attacks on page 6 of this thread.

 

[luv2increase]

I don't regard AA and Shadows as important, I regard AF as the single most important thing and will never ever play another game without AF... AF is the single most important quality setting for a game, it takes precedence over ANYTHING else.

AA And shadows DO look nice, but not nice enough to justify several hundreds of dollars worth of extra hardware.

Anyways, feel free not to put much stock in my FRAPS benchmarks, obvious the fact I don't get a stiffy over AA and shadows means I am too stupid to run a benchmark properly...

The evolution of PC gaming is all about REALISM. Anything that adds to the REALISM is desired. AA and shadows add to the REALISM factor.

You are basically saying that you don't care if your games look "fake". Then by all means if that is your preference, you should buy a PS3 or XBOX360. I'm serious.

 

[toyota]

I take it on a game by game basis. in most cases I certainly want the best shadows but sometimes it takes a big performance hit without looking any better such as the soft shadows back when I played the original FEAR. as for AA, most games dont bother me unless its crawling or the vegetation looks awful. for instance FEAR, Far Cry 2, and Just Cause 2 certainly needed at least some level of AA to look acceptable for me.

 

[taltamir]

The evolution of PC gaming is all about REALISM. Anything that adds to the REALISM is desired. AA and shadows add to the REALISM factor.

Not 300$ worth of realism. wait sorry...
Not 300$ worth of REALISM

Shadows are pretty damn low on my list of things required for suspension of disbelief, if what you said was true then nobody would ever be able to read a comic book because it looks too "cartoony"

You are basically saying that you don't care if your games look "fake". Then by all means if that is your preference, you should buy a PS3 or XBOX360. I'm serious.

That is the single most insulting thing I have ever been told. Far worse then any racial slur I was ever subject to. I am serious.

 

[luv2increase]

Not 300$ worth of realism. wait sorry...
Not 300$ worth of REALISM

Shadows are pretty damn low on my list of things required for suspension of disbelief, if what you said was true then nobody would ever be able to read a comic book because it looks too "cartoony"


That is the single most insulting thing I have ever been told. Far worse then any racial slur I was ever subject to. I am serious.

Since when are comic books supposed to "look" real? How can you compare something that "isn't" supposed to look real (comic books) with something that "is" supposed to look real (PC games)?

I'm sorry if I've insulted you, but it seriously would be your best option especially since you don't appreciate some of the benefits that PC gaming has over console gaming. Also, you won't break the bank and have to upgrade all the time with a PS3 or XBOX360. You might want to give it some serious thought.

 

[taltamir]

I'm sorry if I've insulted you, but it seriously would be your best option especially since you don't appreciate some of the benefits that PC gaming has over console gaming. Also, you won't break the bank and have to upgrade all the time with a PS3 or XBOX360. You might want to give it some serious thought.

Then stop repeating that insult, please.
And what benefits? 300$ worth of video card gets me MORE then 300$ worth of console... and I DO appreciate higher quality graphics. I am only willing to spend so much money on it, but I do appreciate it.

And that whole "you don't need to upgrade" it a total fucking lie.
1. You don't have to upgrade a PC either, I can use a PC from 2002 running windows XP, 512MB of ram (same as xbox360) and a video card from 2002 and get near identical performance to the xbox360... without having upgraded...
A PC gives me the CHOICE to upgrade for better graphics, not a REQUIREMENT.

2. A console is significantly more expensive then a GPU... Everyone already owns a computer for general use, adding a GPU is just gravy.

3. My PC has an xbox360 controller, a joystick, and for most games, a mouse and keyboard. (mouse+keyboard = most superior form of control of them all)
A console forces me to use their controller, and ONLY their controller, for any game.

Also, how dare you tell me to "give it some serious thought"... I HAVE given it serious thought, I have also tried it. I decided against it based on serious thought AND based on personal hands on experience.

PS. Games are "supposed" to look real then? well, they don't... no game ever did and it will be years before one does. Until then I look at them no different then a comic book.

 

[sticks435]

While I didn't read every single post in the thread, I got through the first 4 pages or so, skimmed through the rest, and was surprised no one has posted the link to the "Building a balanced gaming PC" article over at Tom's Hardware. It takes a bunch of different CPU's and compares them with a bunch of different GPU's and plots them all. While the 470 and 480 aren't on there, the 260, 285, 5970, and 5870 are, so you could at least see the performance gain you would/wouldn't get by going to a C2Q/i5/i7920.

Here are the results for FC2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,2625-9.html

Crysis: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,2625-8.html

 

[luv2increase]

Then stop repeating that insult, please.
And what benefits? 300$ worth of video card gets me MORE then 300$ worth of console... and I DO appreciate higher quality graphics. I am only willing to spend so much money on it, but I do appreciate it.

And that whole "you don't need to upgrade" it a total fucking lie.
1. You don't have to upgrade a PC either, I can use a PC from 2002 running windows XP, 512MB of ram (same as xbox360) and a video card from 2002 and get near identical performance to the xbox360... without having upgraded...
A PC gives me the CHOICE to upgrade for better graphics, not a REQUIREMENT.

2. A console is significantly more expensive then a GPU... Everyone already owns a computer for general use, adding a GPU is just gravy.

3. My PC has an xbox360 controller, a joystick, and for most games, a mouse and keyboard. (mouse+keyboard = most superior form of control of them all)
A console forces me to use their controller, and ONLY their controller, for any game.

Also, how dare you tell me to "give it some serious thought"... I HAVE given it serious thought, I have also tried it. I decided against it based on serious thought AND based on personal hands on experience.

PS. Games are "supposed" to look real then? well, they don't... no game ever did and it will be years before one does. Until then I look at them no different then a comic book.

If case you haven't realized, that is the whole goal of PC gaming which developers are trying to accomplish --> REALISM... With each release of OpenGL and DirectX, we are getting closer and closer to reaching that goal.

I can't believe you didn't know this.


Also, a PC bought in 2002 would either have a DX8 or DX9 GPU. The release of the first version of DX9 was in December of 2002 so chances are if you bought a computer in 2002, you would have had a DX8 GPU and therefore wouldn't be able to play the games of today very well or if at all.

The Playstation 3 was released towards the end of 2006. Guess what. The games released in 2010 for the PS3 still obviously work for the PS3.

The XBOX360 was released towards the end of 2005. Again, the 360 games released today obvioulsy still work for the XBOX360.

The graphics of the XBOX360 and PS3 are just as good as a super cheap PC of 2010 with integrated graphics. In some cases, the PC will still win due to them being DX10 compliant today instead of DX9.

Since you don't care to spend all kinds of money for eye-candy on the PC platform, you'd probably be better off with a console. Maybe you might want to look into the next XBOX and PS4? I'm sure they won't be too cost prohibitive to own. Especially not as much as a top-end gaming rig of today.

In case you haven't realized, you are giving the same justifications that console fans use to not get into PC gaming, yet you are into PC gaming and not into console gaming. It is kinda backwards in your thinking.

You may not think shadows, high-quality textures, AA and transparent AA are a big deal, but many people here do simply because they add to a game's realism.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

While I didn't read every single post in the thread, I got through the first 4 pages or so, skimmed through the rest, and was surprised no one has posted the link to the "Building a balanced gaming PC" article over at Tom's Hardware. It takes a bunch of different CPU's and compares them with a bunch of different GPU's and plots them all. While the 470 and 480 aren't on there, the 260, 285, 5970, and 5870 are, so you could at least see the performance gain you would/wouldn't get by going to a C2Q/i5/i7920.

Here are the results for FC2: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,2625-9.html

Crysis: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,2625-8.html

Interesting article. But no minimums data.

 

[taltamir]

If case you haven't realized, that is the whole goal of PC gaming which developers are trying to accomplish --> REALISM... With each release of OpenGL and DirectX, we are getting closer and closer to reaching that goal.

In case you haven't realized, there is no universal council of PC gaming that sets "goals" for the industry. The goal of gamers is to have fun. The goal of developers is to make money or possibly art.
Neither has ever put much stock in realism. In fact, realism is the quickest way to have a game that is a huge commercial failure...

Now, you probably mean graphical realism rather then realism in general. In which case you are still utterly wrong. That isn't a goal for anyone... its a means to an end (having fun and making money respectively). And it is not required, not by a long shot.
Quality story, solid gameplay, etc are all far more important. And the realism of graphics is constantly sacrificed for making them more "cool looking"... WoW for example uses an intentionally cartoonish look, and borderlands uses a... I have no idea what the technical term for the look they are using.
Although you could perhaps maybe argue that this is due to lack of capability of current hardware... a DESIRE to have better graphics is not a GOAL.

I can't believe you didn't know this.

And here you go with your stupid condescending remarks again

Also, a PC bought in 2002 would either have a DX8 or DX9 GPU. The release of the first version of DX9 was in December of 2002 so chances are if you bought a computer in 2002, you would have had a DX8 GPU and therefore wouldn't be able to play the games of today very well or if at all.

A DX9 card from 2002 will play games excellently today. just crank the settings all the way down. and look, its just as shitty a quality as playing on the console, yay! and no upgrade needed...

Lets be more fair now. the xbox360 came out on November 16, 2005 according to wikipedia. the "core" version cost $279.99 and came with no HDD and 1 wired controller and was the cheapest version at the time.

A 280$ video card from November 16, 2005 would still provide better graphics quality then the xbox360 does today, no upgrade necessary...

The PS3 started out at a much higher price... so this is even more true for it.

The Playstation 3 was released towards the end of 2006. Guess what. The games released in 2010 for the PS3 still obviously work for the PS3.

The graphics of the XBOX360 and PS3 are just as good as a super cheap PC of 2010 with integrated graphics. In some cases, the PC will still win due to them being DX10 compliant today instead of DX9.

Guess what? games released in 2010 still obviously work for video cards from 2006.

here is a GPU from 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_8
A geforce 8 series, with DX10 capability, SM4, either equal ram to the entire console for the GPU alone, or 2x the ram of it (512MB or 1GB ram for the video card), and it is GDDR3 which is faster then the ram on those consoles as well.

Name me one game, ANY GAME, I don't care when it came out, 2006, 2010... whatever... name ONE GAME which doesn't work with a Geforce 8800... and name me ONE GAME that looks better on a PS3 or XBOX360 than on said geforce card.

Since you don't care to spend all kinds of money for eye-candy on the PC platform, you'd probably be better off with a console. Maybe you might want to look into the next XBOX and PS4? I'm sure they won't be too cost prohibitive to own. Especially not as much as a top-end gaming rig of today.

In case you haven't realized, you are giving the same justifications that console fans use to not get into PC gaming, yet you are into PC gaming and not into console gaming. It is kinda backwards in your thinking.

You may not think shadows, high-quality textures, AA and transparent AA are a big deal, but many people here do simply because they add to a game's realism.

Since you don't care for respecting other people maybe you should go sit in the corner.

 

[railven]

The OP has been a member here for quite some time. I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one. It just seems like a "setup" deliberate put-down on Nvidia IMHO.

And if it were why would it bother you? From what I've seen you aren't a long standing poster here and from your posting style it doesn't seem like you're making too many friends.

I'd start to assume people will peg you as a nVidia PR guy at the rate you're going.

 

[luv2increase]

I'd start to assume people will peg you as a nVidia PR guy at the rate you're going.

Quite the contrary actually. Those whom know me @ Guru3D and EVGA know I am anything but a die-hard Nvidia fan. I am solely an enthusiast whom likes the best of the best. I give my money to whoever has the best of the best at any given time. A week after Cypress was released, I had 3 x 5870s. A week after Fermi was released, I had 2 x 480s.

Whoever has the best product gets my praise


However, I can be "blunt" at times. This can make some people angry because sometimes people don't like to face reality. You could equate it to the Motorola Droid to the HTC Droid Incredible. I had both but switched to the Droid Incredible after it was released. Now, "many" people on droidforums.net will put down the Droid Incredible because they don't want to face the facts that the Incredible is better than the Moto Droid. But, that is the nature of the beast. That is technological innovation for you. The market demands it.

To be quite honest, I literally cannot stand fanboys of either camp. Their judgment is so clouded where it is like talking to a brick wall. They can be very immature due to them not wanting to face reality.

Sera sera.. .What will be will be..

 

[taltamir]

You aren't being blunt you are being a troll.
And its not because "they don't want to face the facts" but because you are being a troll.
You are rude, condescending, and vicious... you just spend 3 posts repeatedly telling me I should be a console gamer even after I told you I found it insulting. each time resorting to more outlandish and wrong assumptions about my personality.

And so far you are the only one who looks to be in a "camp"...
I am not a fanboy of either nvidia or ATI. And AFAIK neither is toyota.

 

[railven]

Quite the contrary actually. Those whom know me @ Guru3D and EVGA know I am anything but a die-hard Nvidia fan. I am solely an enthusiast whom likes the best of the best. I give my money to whoever has the best of the best at any given time. A week after Cypress was released, I had 3 x 5870s. A week after Fermi was released, I had 2 x 480s.

Whoever has the best product gets my praise

Understandable, but that history doesn't exist here. The only thing people know of you are is reflected in your (sorry don't know your exact post count here) and it isn't that pleasant.

Regardless, I just mentioned that because in my native forums I can be a dick. But I'm being polite here to make friends

However, I can be "blunt" at times. This can make some people angry because sometimes people don't like to face reality. You could equate it to the Motorola Droid to the HTC Droid Incredible. I had both but switched to the Droid Incredible after it was released. Now, "many" people on droidforums.net will put down the Droid Incredible because they don't want to face the facts that the Incredible is better than the Moto Droid. But, that is the nature of the beast. That is technological innovation for you. The market demands it.

Benches aside of those products, preference is subjective. People might not need those extra 2 FPS you get on your benches - sometimes people are just happy with what they have, or the upgrade to something "better" isn't worth the investment when compared to what they have.

To be quite honest, I literally cannot stand fanboys of either camp. Their judgment is so clouded where it is like talking to a brick wall. They can be very immature due to them not wanting to face reality.

Sera sera.. .What will be will be..

The world would be a boring place without fanboys though

 

[luv2increase]

You aren't being blunt you are being a troll.
And its not because "they don't want to face the facts" but because you are being a troll.
You are rude, condescending, and vicious... you just spend 3 posts repeatedly telling me I should be a console gamer even after I told you I found it insulting. each time resorting to more outlandish and wrong assumptions about my personality.

And so far you are the only one who looks to be in a "camp"...
I am not a fanboy of either nvidia or ATI. And AFAIK neither is toyota.

Get over the console stuff. You are being extremely petty. If that bothers you then I think you have more things to worry about.

I'm trying to help you save money here. People have different "needs". From what you've said in this thread, it seems like console gaming is "more" suited for you. You should really think about it. I'm not saying to just sell your computer and go all gung-ho and buy a console. I'm saying that "maybe" with Microsoft's, Sony's or Nintendo's next big console gaming system may be a good option for you.

Smile

 

[taltamir]

My needs are:
1. A variety of inputs, with highest priority going to mouse+keyboard, second priority to joystick, and 3rd priority to controller. A PC satisfies it by letting me use all 3, a console forces me to use the most inferior of them all

2. High definition, high quality display. PC video cards have always done that. Consoles do poorly in this regards (single link HDMI only). (also, I do not own a TV, by choice)

3. Relatively quiet: Recent consoles are too loud, and there is nothing you can do about it.

4. Higher quality graphics for the same amount of money: The PC gives me better graphics for the same amount of money.

5. OPTIONAL cheap upgradability: While choosing not to upgrade for 4 years would still leave me better off with a PC then a Console, I like the option of upgrading (which I Excecise on occasion... by selling my used video card and buying a newer one). With a console you cannot perform such upgrades (you must replace the entire console... even the controllers become are obsolete)

6. Control over component choice: I like the ability to chose the exact hardware configuration that suits my desires.

7. Game menu's designed for a mouse, keyboard, and a high res monitor (thus providing an immensely superior GUI interface compared to a console which is limited to a game controller and requires it to fit on a low res TV, thus resulting in horribly crappy GUIs)

There is not a single one of my "needs" (actually they are wants) that is better satisfied by a console then a PC... Only the fact that I admit that turning off AA is acceptable at times due to the cost of the upgrade (example, I played crysis with AA off). This however does not mean I WANT to pay MORE MONEY for LOWER QUALITY... I still prefer the superior graphics quality of a PC, I am just not willing to buy a quad SLI setup with a 1200 watt PSU to get some insane graphics quality. A GTX260 currently serves my needs (and is vastly superior to the XBOX360 and PS3... I know, I occasionally buy a game for those and borrow my brother's console for the weekend to play those.. ugh their graphics are terrible compared to my PC).

 

[Duvie]

The mods must be dead in this forum to let that type of language fly by toyota and not even interject into this thread....

I love the fanboyism in this forum....it is almost laughable....

My impression of the GTX 470? It rocks because my cad apps take advantage of the huge memory pool of GDDR5, and it folds like a beast!!! 13k ppd from the video card. Throw in my quad core on an smp and I can attain 22-23k in on system...I remember when I had 2 duals and a quad core with 1900xtx ATI cards and I would get 8-12k out of all of them combined!!!

I dont game past Flight Sim x.....ATI cards dont fold near as well, I imagine they would have done about the same in the CAD apps...

 

[toyota]

yeah perhaps the language was a bit much but its not against forum rules as for as I can tell. I had already asked for this thread to be closed yesterday since it has run its course. unless I am blind, I dont see a way to close it myself like on other forums.

 

[luv2increase]

yeah perhaps the language was a bit much but its not against forum rules as for as I can tell.

 

[BFG10K]

So what are you suggesting exactly?

No gamer should upgrade from a fast C2D to an i5/i7 quad?
No gamer with a 470 should upgrade the CPU until the drivers improve?
OR
Any gamer with a fast C2D and GPU should just buy a $1000+ 30" monitor instead of a CPU upgrade?

Other?

I’m saying the internet has a collective hysteria over CPU limitations, and automatically blames them if scores aren’t moving.

If we follow the arguments of the minimum FPS crowd, we’d be led to believe that games are unplayable unless you have a 4 GHz i7.

 

[badb0y]

PS3 or Xbox360 don't have bad graphics at all. Anyone who played God of War 3 should know this plus most of the PC titles are now available on consoles so I can't see how you can use this as an insult.

 

[BFG10K]

Why do I say this? Well, where at all do I say anything at all which would ellude to me claiming the case had even the slightest hint to do with this performance? There isn't anywhere for any of this supposed info to be found because it isn't true. The case was referred to due to airflow which is obvious to conclude from the posts in response to that post of which you had quoted of mine above.

You’ve blamed every Tom, Dick and Harry for Toyota’s findings. In fact you’ve blamed everything except the real cause.

What other explanation could there be besides airflow. How can the OP claim sufficient airflow when the OP was having games crash with only a single lonely 470 to boot? Hmmm... Yes, I'd say your case is a very good performer when it comes to airflow.

Is this a joke or something? Haven't you ever heard of a driver bug?