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

Forums - PC Discussion - How many of you who mainly game on a Pc can run all games on Ultra @ 1080P/60fps?

dane007 on 04 January 2015
vivster said:
dane007 said:


in nz the price between the cpu and gpu is very small lol.  Especially with thoswe choices. I was trying to future proof the pc hence why i chose the cpu as thats the best cpu for the prive you pay. the next ones up alone cost 1.3k and above.   I know the gpu would be somethign i have to replace down the track. i was thinking of less parts upgrade in teh futre hence the choice lol. if you want to put double graphics card down the track wouldn't putting 1000 watts be a good idea?  The reason why i chose 970 over 9060 is because the price you pay for 980 and gains you get from it , in comparison to 970 is small ? Correct me if i am wrong. Remember seeing teh fps davantage as small.

The difference between 970 and 980 is between 10-20% depending on the game. The difference between the 5930k and 4790k is between -5% and 5%. Yes you heard right, the 4790k will be faster than the grossly overpriced 5930k in a lot of games due to higher base clock. In the end it doesn't even matter because your CPU will never be the bottleneck. You could even go with a 4770k and will never see a difference.

While the 970 is good, it will have already trouble with current games on ultra. So if you have the money definitely go for 980.

SLI is never a good idea except if you're going the full high end route from the start. I know a lot of people who were "planning" on just getting a second GPU later. I don't know a single person who actually went through with it. I will tell you why.

Let's say your GPU will be too slow for you in 2-3 years. You then have 2 choices, either buy a second card of the same type or buy a newer better card. Buying the old card will save you a few bucks but will have the huge disadavantage of being SLI:

- 2 cards don't scale efficiently which means you will not have double the power. In a best case scenario maybe 90%

- you will have what's known as micro jitter. That means in certain scenarios depending on the framerate and game the game will not run smoothly despite having a high enough average framerate

- You are absolutely dependent on SLI profiles. If a game you want to play has none, you are stuck with your old and weak GPU while the second one does nothing

- You will have unnecessarily high power consumption. First because years of an oversized PSU and then because you have 2 old and inefficient cards running

- you will miss out on all the new features that the last generations of GPUs brought with them

Now if you would just buy a newer card that is maybe 70-80% faster than your old one you will have none of these disadvantages except maybe paying a few extra bucks more.

What you should take away from this:

- Don't overprovision your CPU. By the time it becomes a bottleneck it's time for a new CPU and mainboard anyway

- Pick the highest GPU option your budget allows. Divert as many resources as possible from other components like CPU, mainboard and RAM and put it where it counts. Your GPU is your number one bottleneck and it will stay that way for a long time

- Don't buy a PSU for components you don't have. 1000W is too much for everything that's not 3 way SLI. 500W is sufficient for every single GPU setup with Intel.


Interesting. I would love to get 980 but the price in nz means more by 300 bucks. HOwever with your advice would consider gewtting one. Would having that cpu and 980 be a better setup?  For graphics card which one is better in terms of branD. ie asus , gigabyte or EVGA?  Lol my pc graphics card at the moment is teh 1gb variant of GTX 460 XD . Thats ancient. lol. I checked df and both cards do well in 1080p but yeah i have to consider the newer games down the track like witcher 3 .  With 980 would a 500 PSU be sufficeint or do i have to get slightly higher? 

 

Thanks ofr this advise :) as i am a noob at pc building lol



Around the Network
vivster on 04 January 2015
dane007 said:


Interesting. I would love to get 980 but the price in nz means more by 300 bucks. HOwever with your advice would consider gewtting one. Would having that cpu and 980 be a better setup?  For graphics card which one is better in terms of branD. ie asus , gigabyte or EVGA?  Lol my pc graphics card at the moment is teh 1gb variant of GTX 460 XD . Thats ancient. lol. I checked df and both cards do well in 1080p but yeah i have to consider the newer games down the track like witcher 3 .  With 980 would a 500 PSU be sufficeint or do i have to get slightly higher?

 

Thanks ofr this advise :) as i am a noob at pc building lol

A 4790k or 4770k with a 980 is pretty much the best setup you can currently get without overdoing it. 980 is the fastest single GPU on the market and a 4770k will always have enough power. Especially considering that DX12 is on the horizon, which will conserve the CPU even more.

The brands are not really that important. Just read a few reviews and see which one is the most quiet and has the highest clock. There are noticeable power differences with custom cards. I'm personally a fan of ASUS and their cooling but there are other great cards as well. Palit Super Jetstream, MSI Gaming 4G and EVGA Superclocked ACX 2.0 are all great models for the 980.

For your setup even a 400W PSU would be plenty enough. Nvidia's newer GPUs are all insanely power efficient with maxwell being the current record holder in efficiency. 500 is a good middleground. Don't cheap out too much on the PSU. A bad PSU can literally burn your house down. I'm a big fan of beQuiet but others are fine as well.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Conina on 04 January 2015

If you really really need the performance of a GTX980 (or R9 390 soon?) NOW, of course you can buy them.
But I wouldn't invest in such 28nm-high-end-cards at this point when die-shrinks are on the horizon, better get a GTX970 or R9 290(X) (or R9 380?) if their performance is enough for you at least this whole year, they have a much better price/performance-ratio.

In September I had to choose between a stock GTX970 for €290, some custom GTX970 around €350 or a nice GTX980 for over €500... I went with the stock GTX970 because I was sure that its performance is enough for me at least until the 20nm-GPUs finally launch... the "second best" GPUs of each series are great stop-gap solutions.



vivster on 04 January 2015
Conina said:

If you really really need the performance of a GTX980 (or R9 390 soon?) NOW, of course you can buy them.
But I wouldn't invest in such 28nm-high-end-cards at this point when die-shrinks are on the horizon, better get a GTX970 or R9 290(X) (or R9 380?) if their performance is enough for you at least this whole year, they have a much better price/performance-ratio.

In September I had to choose between a stock GTX970 for €290, some custom GTX970 around €350 or a nice GTX980 for over €500... I went with the stock GTX970 because I was sure that its performance is enough for me at least until the 20nm-GPUs finally launch... the "second best" GPUs of each series are great stop-gap solutions.

That is true. Getting the second best GPU every 2 years or so is pretty much the most cost/performance effective one can do. But still, the best time to buy is when you need it and the best GPU is the best you can afford.

Though I doubt we will see the shrinks anytime soon. I don't know how far AMD is with production but Nvidia will not release Pascal within this year. That's why I'm going for big maxwell when it hopefully comes out soon. I kinda doubt that the performance cards of Pascal will be able to beat it. My next upgrade will be 2017 when they mastered the shrink and architecture :)



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

NightmareCash on 04 January 2015
daredevil.shark said:
Nice thread. After reading the response I feel good at my decision to be console only this gen (last gen I was PC and PS3). Better get a decent laptop (for email and normal stuff) instead of gaming rig this gen.


Why?



Around the Network
daredevil.shark on 04 January 2015
NightmareCash said:
daredevil.shark said:
Nice thread. After reading the response I feel good at my decision to be console only this gen (last gen I was PC and PS3). Better get a decent laptop (for email and normal stuff) instead of gaming rig this gen.


Why?


I dont like indies. Most of them are garbage. I have never played a few games that I purchased from steam / origin. I am not a graphics junkie anymore. Its an expensive hobby. Evey time a new GPU came out (in past) I felt I need to buy it and it wasnt good financially. So PC is out of question. Happy with PS4. Now I am thinking to get Wii U / Xbox One for exclusives.



JazzB1987 on 04 January 2015

TBH whats the point of ultra? Its not like you need ultra or very high to make it look better than current gen. Also there is barely a difference in visuals anyway. I never played a game at ultra settings because there is no point in doing so.

I prefer framerate and resolution over ultra settings.



Mr.Playstation on 04 January 2015
JazzB1987 said:
TBH whats the point of ultra? Its not like you need ultra or very high to make it look better than current gen. Also there is barely a difference in visuals anyway. I never played a game at ultra settings because there is no point in doing so.

I prefer framerate and resolution over ultra settings.

That's not what the general population of Pc gamers think, as can be somewhat seen by this thread with many wanting to upgrade their Pc to get ultra settings on any game.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Conina on 04 January 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
JazzB1987 said:
TBH whats the point of ultra? Its not like you need ultra or very high to make it look better than current gen. Also there is barely a difference in visuals anyway. I never played a game at ultra settings because there is no point in doing so.

I prefer framerate and resolution over ultra settings.

That's not what the general population of Pc gamers think, as can be somewhat seen by this thread with many wanting to upgrade their Pc to get ultra settings on any game.

Do you REALLY think people writing in a forum of a website about videogame-statistics are representative to "the general population of PC gamers"? *ROFL*

That's like saying "The Fast and the Furious" is a representative documentary about "the general population of automobile drivers". ;)



Mr.Playstation on 04 January 2015
Conina said:
Mr.Playstation said:
JazzB1987 said:
TBH whats the point of ultra? Its not like you need ultra or very high to make it look better than current gen. Also there is barely a difference in visuals anyway. I never played a game at ultra settings because there is no point in doing so.

I prefer framerate and resolution over ultra settings.

That's not what the general population of Pc gamers think, as can be somewhat seen by this thread with many wanting to upgrade their Pc to get ultra settings on any game.

Do you REALLY think people writing in a forum of a website about videogame-statistics are representative to "the general population of PC gamers"? *ROFL*

Most people on PCs are interested in graphics, otherwise what's the use. Even on steam reviews are given on graphics and games are called console ports if they only allow you to change the resolution. One such game is South park: The stick of truth which is criticised for being 30fps and only allowing you to change the resolution. Nobody mentioned the fact that it is extremely optimized and controls well.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P