Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by FalseChristian, Jan 2, 2013.
We are talking about 1680x1050 also don't be so angry.
lol I'm not angry, i just don't appreciate people posting outrageous bunk as fact (on an enthusiast forum to boot) that they have no clue about & expect not to get called out on it.
I did not post anything as fact. If you want to interpret my post as fact, be my guest.
But neither did I post outrageous bunk. Planetside 2 is bottlenecked by my i7-3770K @ 4.7ghz, on 1080p. Mostly because it's badly optimized.
Also, you seem upset.
BF3 at 1920x1200, High Quality - GTX580
BF3 at four different resolutions, Ultra Quality - Radeon 7970
BF3 at 1920x1080, Ultra Quality - Radeon 7950
Three different sites, published between Oct 2011 and March 2012. Conclusion? A Core i3 2100 and a Core i5 2500 would be inseparable in benchmarks, playing at IQ settings you would want. Having said that, there are two key things the benchmarks don't reveal:
1) They are all single-player benches. It's often argued that multiplayer 64-player maps are the best test of differences in CPU processing power. I can see the logic in that, but I have no way to test it, and looks like most websites don't either (couldn't find a multiplayer CPU-scaling review with a quick search). I could probably do a few benches on the always-full Operation Metro 64-player server I normally play on (I think that map has the most predictable gameplay elements) at different CPU overclock settings (like, from 2GHz to 4GHz) on my i5 750 but...time.
Maybe someone has done this? On the same (full) server, in the same areas (like the 'B' chokepoint in Operation Metro, with the predictable 64 grenades-exploding-every-second shenanigans? Other maps may have too much variety between indoor/outdoor areas, vehicles and explosions.
2) I have started to see value in how TheTechReport now focuses on 99th percentile frametimes (rather than number of frames rendered per second) and measuring delay spikes rather than the average fps. So maybe yes, a faster CPU may reduce frame latencies even when most of us think we are GPU-limited?
Even if that were the case, I'd still argue you wouldn't do any better than a 2500K @ 4.5 GHz.
I'm not trying to stretch my ePenis. My i5 2500K is getting old so I have a valid question regarding its power to run modern GPUs like the GTX 670. If my 2 GTX 460s had 2GB of vRAM I would keep them.
I think you are still not recognizing the fact that this is at 1680x1050.
what is your point? that resolution is still GPU territory, not CPU territory.
so its NOT the cpu then, its badly optimized software! Does that really need to be explained to u and are u really so clueless that you'd blame an i7 @ 4.7ghz in a situation like that? and what's worse u come on the forum and actually say an i5 @ 4.5ghz IS a bottleneck in some games (a completely false conclusion)
how old are anyways? u seem to lack the logic of an adult to come to such a conclusion (ie planetside 2 is badly optimized so your i7 @4.7ghz must be the bottleneck).
Personal attacks are not allowed. Any more of this, and you will get an infraction
Your comments are out of line.
What exactly is it that someone would do if they were bottlenecked with an overclocked i7 exactly? If it was true there isn't a thing you can do about it, that is the state of the art in processor technology. There isn't anything faster short of going for extreme cooling with phase change. Even then you are unlikely to get above 5.5 Ghz and its not going to last very long.
Many people see reasonable scaling to 3 x 680s so there is no reason to think 2x 670 will be a problem for your CPU. Will you sometimes be CPU bottlenecked? Yep you will, but there isn't a thing you can do about that.
Now at 1680x1050 I would make the argument there isn't likely much value going for SLI. All the charts I see suggest that a 670 should produce nice consistent frame rates at 60hz at this resolution. A second card probably wont give you much today. If your monitor was 120hz or 2560x1600 then the situation changes dramatically but 60 fps at 1680x1050 is largely doable on a single card without issue. I don't doubt however there are circumstances (Crysis 3, Witcher 2) where you would benefit from the second card and settings would be available to you that aren't to others. That in itself might be worth it to you.
I've run into a couple instances when playing Skyrim where I've ran into running out of memory and I have a gtx670. I play at 1080p. Sometimes I think its overkill but games today really do require a decent videocard to run at a level I find acceptable.
Please don't tell me the 2500k is old!
Seriously, the 3570k and 3770k are improvements over the 2500k/2600k/2700k but the 2500 series should have plenty of CPU power for games for quite awhile.
I think your focus on the GPU is the correct move. BTW, I had the 2 GTX670 FTws in SLI in rig 1, before I needed one for rig 3 and WOW, they are fast.
I've decided on 2 GTX 660s for some SLI goodness. They are 70% faster than my GTX 460 1GB andd have 2GB of vRAM which should keep me going for quite awhile. Also, they are $75 cheaper than what I paid for my GTX 460 1GB 2 1/2 years ago.
Nice. Congrats. Also, you are right to be concerned about your chip bottlenecking, because yes it will. At 1920x1200 with two 670's and a 3930k @ 4.3, I am CPU bottlenecked HARD in BF3. Its been tested to death by myself (huge thread dedicated to it) as well as plenty of others who contributed to the study. New hardware was purchased and tested to death, Ivy CPUs were tested as well, i5's and i7's were tested with HT on and off from 2 threads all the way up to 12 with clocks as high as 4.6Ghz.
No CPU on earth will feed two high end cards 100% in BF3 at 1920x1080 (64 players), let alone 1680x1050 unless 6ghz Ln2 cooled/act of god.
BF3 test thread
right moonbogg, poor you.... so you only get 110 fps instead of 150 with your 670 GTX SLI. I feel your pain!
listen up....actually forget it. You is wrong. Enjoy your day.