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

Forums - PC Discussion - Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

Chazore said:
QUAKECore89 said:

On PS4, it looks like running low-med mixed setting 1080p native with TSSA 8X on, yes i have Doom on PS4. As for my PC... Sigh 30fps, maxed out 1440p with TSSA 8X on & Vysnce off. Tested on AMD FX 8370 8 Core/16GB ram/AMD R9 390.

And about Anti-Aliasing, i turned off completely & result...jaggies everywhere.

Yeah the level of detail on both X1/PS4 seems to be in that range along with a decent amount of image blurring/motion blur. PC does have some jaggies in that vid but like I said on TB's stream, he had AA at max and was doing fine and even getting more fps than 60.

I do wish they had MSAA though since that easily pairs up with Nvidia's MFAA setting within the NV control panel, though TSSA is decent. I do think DOOM would look much better at 4k, though I'm still going to be a few years off till I finally step into 4k, next year I'll be trying for 2k at the least and VR/4k maybe 3-4 years later.

Also am I the only one that really likes the new DOOM theme?, I feel it really adds to the "I don't give a fuck, I do what I want" nature of the DOOM guy as he shoots and rips apart his enemies. 

Aye, and again i figured out it was actually sharpening amount, i slided to full 4.0 with TSSAA 8TX, now you see jaggies a bit...and it looks like some kind of dvd playback to me. :|

So, i slided backward to 0.0 with SMAA on, the result blurry, but i still notice jaggy edges. :|

Edit: i lowered light & shadow quality to low, average frame rate is 54 on 1440p.



Around the Network

So, I recently was given a new computer for free with this specs:

Intel core i5-4440
8 Gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce GTX-950

Will I be capable of running this gen games? I'm not looking for an outstanding performance, just decent enough!



Slimebeast said:
JEMC said:

New rumors about AMD's Polaris 10 & 11

Rumor: Possible Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 specifications emerge

http://www.techpowerup.com/222450/more-polaris10-and-polaris11-specifications-revealed
http://videocardz.com/59903/possible-polaris-10-and-polaris-11-specifications-emerge

This a summary of both articles:

Industry sources revealed to TechPowerUp that AMD is preparing a performance-segment GPU and a mainstream one. It turns out, that the performance-segment chip, which the press has been referring to as "Ellesmere" or Polaris 10, could feature 32 compute units (CUs), and not the previously thought 40.

IF the number of Stream Processors per Compute Units hasn't changed and remain at 64, that means that Polaris 10 will have 2,048 SPs.

Polaris 10 is said to offer 5.5 TFLOPs of single precision computing performance, above the 5.2 TFLOP/s of "Hawaii", so it means that Polaris 10 is clocked at around 1350 MHz. The new chip has a TDP rated no higher than 150W, a 256-bit wide GDDR5/GDDR5X memory interface, and 8 GB could be its standard memory amount. The first SKUs based on this chip could feature 7 Gbps GDDR5 memory.

But this is horrible. 5.5 TFLOPs is not even much faster than a GTX980 (5.3TFLOPS) and significantly less than GTX 980Ti at 6.5 TFLOPs. So not that much faster than a GTX 980 and yet it's rated at 150W? AMD has talked so much about 2.5x performance per Watt , and considering a GTX 980 draws only 165W, a Polaris 10 shouldn't draw more than 100W.

I really really hope this rumour is false or else AMD is toast.

That's why the FLOPS figure is never an accurate measure of performance. And I don't know if some of those numbers are right either...

A few days ago, Pemalite wrote this on the "GTX 1080 unveiled; 9 teraflops" thread:

Case in point: Radeon 5870.
Even though the Radeon 5870 has 2.72 Teraflops of performance, majority of games it will lose against the Radeon 6950 at 2.253 Teraflops and the Radeon 6970 at 2.703 Teraflops (Usually by a healthy margin). And will even lose against the Radeon 7850 at 1.761 Teraflops, Radeon R7 265 at 1,843 Teraflops and so on.
The Radeon 270X will more than double the Radeon 5870's performance despite having 2.688 Teraflops verses the Radeon 5870's 2.72 Teraflops.

Graphics is more than just single precision floating point.

And if that's not enough, there's this: R9 290X = 5.6TFLOPS vs GTX 980Ti = 5.6TFLOPS. Or the GTX 970 = 3.4TFLOPS vs GTX 780Ti = 5.3TFLOPS. TechPowerUp has a database where you can see the specs of any chip, including its GFLOPS figures. You may find some surprises.

In summary: FLOPS doesn't translate into real world performance, just like synthetic benchmarks. It's worth keeping that in mind.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about the 256-bit memory controller. AMD will have to improve a lot its texture compression techs to make it work, given that the 7970 used a 384-bit bus and the 290 a 512-bit bus.

zero129 said:

Well i give you my first video here (Thanks for the offer JEMC).

I recomend watching in fullscreen

Its a HD Remaster of Beyond Good and Evil made using the Ishiiurka build of Dolphin in DX12 mode.

I add Per-Pixel Lighting&Phong Lighting.
and also SSAO and SSGI+ Natural Colour Boost.
I hope you enjoy the video, and please subscribe for part2! .
And if the is any other old games you would like to see Remastered using Ishiiruka Dolphin please do let me know.



#UBI #WANTREALREMASTER!

Ishiiruka Dolphins page: https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-unofficial-ishiiruka-dolphin-custom-version

Offical Dolphin Site: https://dolphin-emu.org/

Thanks for sharing! It runs and looks great.

Volterra_90 said:
So, I recently was given a new computer for free with this specs:

Intel core i5-4440
8 Gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce GTX-950

Will I be capable of running this gen games? I'm not looking for an outstanding performance, just decent enough!

The CPU and RAM will be mostly fine until the end of this gen. Only the graphics card can give you troubles given that it's barely more powerful than a GTX 660, and that's becoming the min req. for a lot of games this gen.

If I were you, and if I was serious about gaming on PC, I'd try to upgrade to something a bit more powerful. Maybe the GTX 1060 that will launch later this year (but only after checking reviews and its real world performance).



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:
Slimebeast said:

But this is horrible. 5.5 TFLOPs is not even much faster than a GTX980 (5.3TFLOPS) and significantly less than GTX 980Ti at 6.5 TFLOPs. So not that much faster than a GTX 980 and yet it's rated at 150W? AMD has talked so much about 2.5x performance per Watt , and considering a GTX 980 draws only 165W, a Polaris 10 shouldn't draw more than 100W.

I really really hope this rumour is false or else AMD is toast.

That's why the FLOPS figure is never an accurate measure of performance. And I don't know if some of those numbers are right either...

A few days ago, Pemalite wrote this on the "GTX 1080 unveiled; 9 teraflops" thread:

Case in point: Radeon 5870.
Even though the Radeon 5870 has 2.72 Teraflops of performance, majority of games it will lose against the Radeon 6950 at 2.253 Teraflops and the Radeon 6970 at 2.703 Teraflops (Usually by a healthy margin). And will even lose against the Radeon 7850 at 1.761 Teraflops, Radeon R7 265 at 1,843 Teraflops and so on.
The Radeon 270X will more than double the Radeon 5870's performance despite having 2.688 Teraflops verses the Radeon 5870's 2.72 Teraflops.

Graphics is more than just single precision floating point.

And if that's not enough, there's this: R9 290X = 5.6TFLOPS vs GTX 980Ti = 5.6TFLOPS. Or the GTX 970 = 3.4TFLOPS vs GTX 780Ti = 5.3TFLOPS. TechPowerUp has a database where you can see the specs of any chip, including its GFLOPS figures. You may find some surprises.

In summary: FLOPS doesn't translate into real world performance, just like synthetic benchmarks. It's worth keeping that in mind.

There's a strong correlation though, even if it can be off by 20% or so.

5.5TFLOPS rated at 150W has no chance of being even close to Raja Koduri's claim "2.5x performance per Watt".

Our only chance is for the rumour to be totally wrong.



Slimebeast said:
JEMC said:

That's why the FLOPS figure is never an accurate measure of performance. And I don't know if some of those numbers are right either...

A few days ago, Pemalite wrote this on the "GTX 1080 unveiled; 9 teraflops" thread:

Case in point: Radeon 5870.
Even though the Radeon 5870 has 2.72 Teraflops of performance, majority of games it will lose against the Radeon 6950 at 2.253 Teraflops and the Radeon 6970 at 2.703 Teraflops (Usually by a healthy margin). And will even lose against the Radeon 7850 at 1.761 Teraflops, Radeon R7 265 at 1,843 Teraflops and so on.
The Radeon 270X will more than double the Radeon 5870's performance despite having 2.688 Teraflops verses the Radeon 5870's 2.72 Teraflops.

Graphics is more than just single precision floating point.

And if that's not enough, there's this: R9 290X = 5.6TFLOPS vs GTX 980Ti = 5.6TFLOPS. Or the GTX 970 = 3.4TFLOPS vs GTX 780Ti = 5.3TFLOPS. TechPowerUp has a database where you can see the specs of any chip, including its GFLOPS figures. You may find some surprises.

In summary: FLOPS doesn't translate into real world performance, just like synthetic benchmarks. It's worth keeping that in mind.

There's a strong correlation though, even if it can be off by 20% or so.

5.5TFLOPS rated at 150W has no chance of being even close to Raja Koduri's claim "2.5x performance per Watt".

Our only chance is for the rumour to be totally wrong.

We'll see.

Hopefully, part of that inside look from May 18th will not be under NDA and we can learn some more details, giving us an indication of how they will perform.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
JEMC said:

The CPU and RAM will be mostly fine until the end of this gen. Only the graphics card can give you troubles given that it's barely more powerful than a GTX 660, and that's becoming the min req. for a lot of games this gen.

If I were you, and if I was serious about gaming on PC, I'd try to upgrade to something a bit more powerful. Maybe the GTX 1060 that will launch later this year (but only after checking reviews and its real world performance).

Maybe, but I guess I'll be working with this GPU and upgrade to a new one in maybe a couple of years. I still haven't played any new game this gen (WiiU/3DS only) so I have plenty of games to keep going. I haven't got the money to make a GPU upgrade right now, but I'll probably save for one to take more advantage of my CPU. A cheap but useful one XD. Also, I'm new to this, but I read that one problem with GPUs is that if you're not careful they can burn if you twitch a lot with the settings. The GPU came OC from fabric, so I guess it's better to leave it alone? I might sound stupid, but as I said I'm new to all of this XD.

I must say that this computer wasn't used a lot, so it's like almost brand new. 



Volterra_90 said:
JEMC said:

The CPU and RAM will be mostly fine until the end of this gen. Only the graphics card can give you troubles given that it's barely more powerful than a GTX 660, and that's becoming the min req. for a lot of games this gen.

If I were you, and if I was serious about gaming on PC, I'd try to upgrade to something a bit more powerful. Maybe the GTX 1060 that will launch later this year (but only after checking reviews and its real world performance).

Maybe, but I guess I'll be working with this GPU and upgrade to a new one in maybe a couple of years. I still haven't played any new game this gen (WiiU/3DS only) so I have plenty of games to keep going. I haven't got the money to make a GPU upgrade right now, but I'll probably save for one to take more advantage of my CPU. A cheap but useful one XD. Also, I'm new to this, but I read that one problem with GPUs is that if you're not careful they can burn if you twitch a lot with the settings. The GPU came OC from fabric, so I guess it's better to leave it alone? I might sound stupid, but as I said I'm new to all of this XD.

I must say that this computer wasn't used a lot, so it's like almost brand new. 

There's no rush to upgrade. I currently have an HD 5850 that's weaker than your card, but given that I don't buy new games at launch, it still serves me well.

And if you have doubts about if you can or can't run a game, there's always "can you run it"?

About overclocking, you can indeed damage your components if you go too far when you overclock but, if you're careful, you should be safe. A lot of cards come with a factory overclock, and they are under warranty, but that doesn't mean that you can't push the OC a bit more. After all, most of those cards have small overclocks just to allow the vendors to market them as "overclocked" or "faster than reference", even if the difference is small.

Oh, and one little advice, if this June will be your first Steam Sale... don't panick! You don't have to buy everything that goes on sale, even if it's cheap .



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:

There's no rush to upgrade. I currently have an HD 5850 that's weaker than your card, but given that I don't buy new games at launch, it still serves me well.

And if you have doubts about if you can or can't run a game, there's always "can you run it"?

About overclocking, you can indeed damage your components if you go too far when you overclock but, if you're careful, you should be safe. A lot of cards come with a factory overclock, and they are under warranty, but that doesn't mean that you can't push the OC a bit more. After all, most of those cards have small overclocks just to allow the vendors to market them as "overclocked" or "faster than reference", even if the difference is small.

Oh, and one little advice, if this June will be your first Steam Sale... don't panick! You don't have to buy everything that goes on sale, even if it's cheap .

Haha. Nah, it's not, I already have about 200 Steam games XD. But it's my introduction to the new gen, so I really have to be careful with the sales and no rush them :P. I've seen some pretty good deals in the past in Steam, but I couldn't buy the games because I didn't have a proper computer.

About OC, I'm not sure if I'll go to far with the overclocking just in case, unless it's necessary to run the game properly. And always with care. I think there're some programs who monitor the temperature and exit the game if you're pushing it a bit too far, so maybe that's what I'll do. It'd be a shame to burn the GPU in its first year XD.



Volterra_90 said:
JEMC said:

About overclocking, you can indeed damage your components if you go too far when you overclock but, if you're careful, you should be safe. A lot of cards come with a factory overclock, and they are under warranty, but that doesn't mean that you can't push the OC a bit more. After all, most of those cards have small overclocks just to allow the vendors to market them as "overclocked" or "faster than reference", even if the difference is small.

Oh, and one little advice, if this June will be your first Steam Sale... don't panick! You don't have to buy everything that goes on sale, even if it's cheap .

Haha. Nah, it's not, I already have about 200 Steam games XD. But it's my introduction to the new gen, so I really have to be careful with the sales and no rush them :P. I've seen some pretty good deals in the past in Steam, but I couldn't buy the games because I didn't have a proper computer.

About OC, I'm not sure if I'll go to far with the overclocking just in case, unless it's necessary to run the game properly. And always with care. I think there're some programs who monitor the temperature and exit the game if you're pushing it a bit too far, so maybe that's what I'll do. It'd be a shame to burn the GPU in its first year XD.

You have more games than me! >.<

I'm not the best one to give advices about OC, because I rarely do it, but MSI Afterburner is considered by many as a great tool. Also, some sites overclock the testing cards and report the settings used, so you can use them as a reference. Or, if you don't want to push the limits, just try to find the most stable OC without touching the voltages and, once you find it, add a tiny bit of voltage to make it more stable.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:

You have more games than me! >.<

I'm not the best one to give advices about OC, because I rarely do it, but MSI Afterburner is considered by many as a great tool. Also, some sites overclock the testing cards and report the settings used, so you can use them as a reference. Or, if you don't want to push the limits, just try to find the most stable OC without touching the voltages and, once you find it, add a tiny bit of voltage to make it more stable.

Thanks! I might try to do some reading before twitching with the GPU, but I'll try to touch the settings the minimum. I'm happy with a stable >30 framerate with low/medium settings, 720p. If something works worse than that, it'd be time to change the settings a bit, but I'll try not to force it. Just in case XD.