By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - You will need ~$650 bucks to match next gen consoles on PC

ethomaz on 28 June 2013
disolitude said:
Here is an article for those that think you will run out of VRAM before you run out of gpu juice...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/11

"Battlefield 3 has been NVIDIA’s crown jewel; a widely played multiplayer game with a clear lead for NVIDIA hardware. And with multi-GPU thrown into the picture that doesn’t change, leading to the GTX 690 once again taking a very clear lead here over the 7970CF at all resolutions. With that said, we see something very interesting at 5760, with NVIDIA’s lead shrinking by quite a bit. What was a 21% lead at 2560 is only a 10% at 5760. So far we haven’t seen any strong evidence of NVIDIA being VRAM limited with only 2GB of VRAM and while this isn’t strong evidence that the situation has changed is does warrant consideration. If anything is going to be VRAM limited after all it’s BF3."

So let's recap...
BF3 on high settings, 3x 1080p resolution, 680SLI (3x more powerful than ps4 gpu)...no VRAM bottleneck with 2gb.

The acticle not says that lol.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 28 June 2013
Kasz216 said:
Also, for people saying you need to buy a gamepad?

Unlike the PS4 and Xone... Your PS3 and 360 gamepads will work on the PC.

I use a PS3 controller on my PC for sports games and the like.

No official driver for PS3... you use a alternative drive created by reverse engineer... but it works really well.



ethomaz on 28 June 2013
Kasz216 said:
Additionally, everytime I see these threads I think... "Why do people argue tech specs with Disolitude."

Outside Trash there is nobody I know who seems to know more about this stuff.

Sadly Trash won't ever post in these threads however exactly because people are more interested in arguing about tech then studying and learning it.


That an I3 beats the other CPU's is pretty crazy considering i'm posting right now fro an I5 laptop... Is there really no need for an I5 (Let alone I7) on a desktop?

Because Disolitude is saying wrong things about...

And yeah your i5 really destory any AMD processer actualy in single-thread tasks... the IPC is better... but for multi-thread tasks the AMD CPU are still better than Intel... that's the strong point of the AMD CPUs.



disolitude on 28 June 2013
ethomaz said:
disolitude said:
Here is an article for those that think you will run out of VRAM before you run out of gpu juice...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/11

"Battlefield 3 has been NVIDIA’s crown jewel; a widely played multiplayer game with a clear lead for NVIDIA hardware. And with multi-GPU thrown into the picture that doesn’t change, leading to the GTX 690 once again taking a very clear lead here over the 7970CF at all resolutions. With that said, we see something very interesting at 5760, with NVIDIA’s lead shrinking by quite a bit. What was a 21% lead at 2560 is only a 10% at 5760. So far we haven’t seen any strong evidence of NVIDIA being VRAM limited with only 2GB of VRAM and while this isn’t strong evidence that the situation has changed is does warrant consideration. If anything is going to be VRAM limited after all it’s BF3."

So let's recap...
BF3 on high settings, 3x 1080p resolution, 680SLI (3x more powerful than ps4 gpu)...no VRAM bottleneck with 2gb.

The acticle not says that lol.

Its at the bottom dude...not hard to scroll and read.



ethomaz on 28 June 2013
disolitude said:
ethomaz said:
disolitude said:
Here is an article for those that think you will run out of VRAM before you run out of gpu juice...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/11

"Battlefield 3 has been NVIDIA’s crown jewel; a widely played multiplayer game with a clear lead for NVIDIA hardware. And with multi-GPU thrown into the picture that doesn’t change, leading to the GTX 690 once again taking a very clear lead here over the 7970CF at all resolutions. With that said, we see something very interesting at 5760, with NVIDIA’s lead shrinking by quite a bit. What was a 21% lead at 2560 is only a 10% at 5760. So far we haven’t seen any strong evidence of NVIDIA being VRAM limited with only 2GB of VRAM and while this isn’t strong evidence that the situation has changed is does warrant consideration. If anything is going to be VRAM limited after all it’s BF3."

So let's recap...
BF3 on high settings, 3x 1080p resolution, 680SLI (3x more powerful than ps4 gpu)...no VRAM bottleneck with 2gb.

The acticle not says that lol.

Its at the bottom dude...not hard to scroll and read.

They are not sure if the game is VRAM limited or not... if a game have change to be VRAM limited is BF3.

Don't make assuptions based in something not confirmed.



Around the Network
disolitude on 28 June 2013
ethomaz said:
disolitude said:

I suppose thats the memory utilized by Killzone?

If it is, thanks for proving me right.

This game would run fine on a 1gb nvidia card with its 800mb render targets. some textures may suffer from pop in but it wont be too noticable.

When running out of VRAM, modern GPUs will run into a hybrid mode where the drivers/GPU start streaming texture data from system RAM over the PCIe bus to make up for the "missing" RAM.  All this other stuff can be loaded on the fly as the card needs it...pixel shaders, textures...etc... but if render target absolutely can not be > than VRAM, if it is, you get bottleneck and frame rate drops.

You misunderstood again... only 572MB is cache.... everything else is used to make the scene... you need the used texture loaded in memory to use them.


I didn't missunderstand anything... 

If you think that 1321 MB of textures will all get pushed at the same time on screen, you're wrong, mistaken or confused.

The game may use 1321 MB of textures during 1 scene which sit in the VRAM, but they are going to render 200-300MB at the time. Texture compression these days is so good that 200-300 MB of textures can easily render 1 GB of on-screen textures. And when try to push more on the screen at once, the GPU can not keep up any more. Look at the example above. GTX 680 SLI barely rendering over 60 FPS... not a VRAM bottleneck but a GPU bottleneck.

Finally when the game has to use more textures than it can store in to VRAM, it uses system memory. Look up Nvidias "Turbo cache" technology. 

Bottom line is that unless your frame buffer needs to be 3 GB you will not run out of VRAM...but keep thinking PS4 will revolutionize everything.



disolitude on 28 June 2013
Locknuts said:
Why do people think that this PC has bottlenecks? I think it's a very well balanced build. The CPU compliments the video card nicely and is actually a very competent gaming CPU, and 4GB of RAM is plenty for games these days and suits the system nicely.

However, in a few years I imagine the PS4 will be able to do things well beyond what this build can and to upgrade the CPU or GPU in this machine would likely cause bottlenecks and you would need a complete rebuild. For games out there right now though this is an excellent machine for the price, in fact I'm considering building this machine myself now....


Yeah 4GB may be a little limited down the road but due to price... Possibly a single 4GB stick which can be found as low as 29 bucks, with a possiblility of another 4 GB stick later would have been a better option.



disolitude on 28 June 2013
ethomaz said:
Kasz216 said:
Additionally, everytime I see these threads I think... "Why do people argue tech specs with Disolitude."

Outside Trash there is nobody I know who seems to know more about this stuff.

Sadly Trash won't ever post in these threads however exactly because people are more interested in arguing about tech then studying and learning it.


That an I3 beats the other CPU's is pretty crazy considering i'm posting right now fro an I5 laptop... Is there really no need for an I5 (Let alone I7) on a desktop?

Because Disolitude is saying wrong things about...

And yeah your i5 really destory any AMD processer actualy in single-thread tasks... the IPC is better... but for multi-thread tasks the AMD CPU are still better than Intel... that's the strong point of the AMD CPUs.

If intel slaps 8 cores on an affordable CPU it will destory anything AMD has. Even 6 core intels rape AMD's 8 cores easily in multithreaded tasks.

AMD is good value, plain and simple...and that is why its in our next gen console.



torok on 28 June 2013

You know that optimizations, custom APIs and all the stuff consoles have demand a PC much more powerfull do deliver the same results, right?



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

ethomaz on 28 June 2013
disolitude said:

I didn't missunderstand anything... 

If you think that 1321 MB of textures will all get pushed at the same time on screen, you're wrong, mistaken or confused.

The game may use 1321 MB of textures during 1 scene which sit in the VRAM, but they are going to render 200-300MB at the time. Texture compression these days is so good that 200-300 MB of textures can easily render 1 GB of on-screen textures. And when try to push more on the screen at once, the GPU can not keep up any more. Look at the example above. GTX 680 SLI barely rendering over 60 FPS... not a VRAM bottleneck but a GPU bottleneck.

Finally when the game has to use more textures than it can store in to VRAM, it uses system memory. Look up Nvidias "Turbo cache" technology. 

Bottom line is that unless your frame buffer needs to be 3 GB you will not run out of VRAM...but keep thinking PS4 will revolutionize everything.

I need to explain everyting...

1. Textures used in games is higher then the output resolution... for exemple for better quality games uses 2048x2048 textures to render output a 720p game... for 1080p render output the devs will use 5096x5096 textures.

2. Textures are heavly used in games... and more = better... I can use a different texture for piece of object in scene... so if you render a minuscule object in the scene you can use one or more high textures for it... what limit that is the VRAM.

3. There are new techs (and better) not used in the actual games due VRAM limitation... that will change.

4. Uses SystemRAM to store textures is the worst thing possible due bandwidth speeds... nVIDIA just use that in low-end cars where the bandwidth of the VRAM is alreay weak... for high-end cars that's didn't works... in fact that will make your game run worst than use only the VRAM.

Again... you can increase the numbers of textures used in the scene without repeat the same in the objects... console VRAM limited the PC development... now they will use the VRAM in the right way.

The next AMD and nVIDIA GPUs will have the lowest VRAM limited to 2GB for the low-end cards.

You are looking for the actual games... please stop and look for the new games to come... actual games run limited to PS360 development... we will see again a graphical leap like Crisis (2007) soon.