Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Finally Dx 10 maxed out

Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.

3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.

This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.

This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.

But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.

«13

Comments

  • DreathorDreathor Member Posts: 537

    I demand screenshots! :)

    Edit: or a video!

    "If all you can say is... "It's awful, it's not innovative, it's ugly, it's blah.." Then you're an unimaginative and unpolished excuse for human life" -eburn

  • thamighty213thamighty213 Member UncommonPosts: 1,637

    Nice machine.

     

    Oddly enough both my machines have never really had too much of a issue with DX10 and AOC.

     

    Main machine 4ghz Q9450 Water, 6GB ram ,GTX275 @ 1920 x 1080 - 30ish FPS

     

    Laptop I5 520 - 4GB ram GT330 20ish FPS (gets bloody hot though :) )

  • KroxMalonKroxMalon Member UncommonPosts: 553

    This is silly I know, but sometimes a machine can be to good for a game. Leaving only dissapointment. Alot of your new shiney components may not run great with software. When you say x6 do you mean a 6 core? that is over kill i dont know many games that even use the 4 cores that were out b4 the 6. Tbh a 2 core wud probably run it quicker.

  • ReizlaReizla Member RarePosts: 4,092

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.

    3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.

    This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.

    This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.

    But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.

    This is insane. 55FPS on DX10 with the best DX11 video-card around a this very moment. But I have to say... nice system...

    And like Drator said - We want screenies or video. We'd love to see maxed out DX10 in AoC!

  • greymanngreymann Member Posts: 757

    Does it not enable 10 if you have directx 11 installed?  My dx10 tab is always grayed out even though I have 10 selected in the launcher.

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Nice PC mate, which driver you on with the GTX 480? I get sometimes 100-250 FPS in dungeons, open world always about 30 - 70 FPS in typical situations, only in a very crowded and heavy situation will it drop to 20 FPS and this is Maxxed out too at 1900x1200. If you have AoC on your SSD's like me then you want the latest trim on there too.

     

    Welcome back btw. The drivers for the 480 will mature too.



  • AcidWaveAcidWave Member Posts: 35

    DX 10 & 11, I have to admit I am lost ... is DX 11 an upgrade to DX 10 ? I mean I should be able to run DX 10 setting on a DX 11 rig right ? For some reason I feel like I am wrong... Anyone care to confirm ?

  • Wharg0ulWharg0ul Member Posts: 4,183

    I run in maxxed out DX10 pretty smoothly....except in Khitai. Frames drop into the mid 20's there....but give 'em time to optimise the zones a bit.

    Game is completely stunning, I have to say. The "fine wine" of MMORPGs.

    image

  • DeeweDeewe Member UncommonPosts: 1,980

    Originally posted by Wharg0ul

    I run in maxxed out DX10 pretty smoothly....except in Khitai. Frames drop into the mid 20's there....but give 'em time to optimise the zones a bit.

    Game is completely stunning, I have to say. The "fine wine" of MMORPGs.

    Game's beautiful. The environments are jaw dropping!

  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.

    3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.

    This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.

    This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.

    But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.

     

    Excuse my inner techie lashing out, but thats kind of an inefficient build if you were solely going for gaming.  You'd have been better off trading 3 of those SSDs for an i7 and a 5970, plus you could then expand to an eyefinity setup... which is absolutely amazing in AoC(and pretty much every game that supports it).  You'd have seen a fairly reasonable performance increase at the cost of a very miniscule loading time increase (my x-25m SSD already loads zones super fast by itself).

    But cheers on your new system.  The game truly is a beauty when you have the power to run it at full blast.  I'm currently running it at 5760x1200 with everything but AA on and its absolutely stunning.

     

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Originally posted by Draemos

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.

    3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.

    This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.

    This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.

    But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.

     

    Excuse my inner techie lashing out, but thats kind of an inefficient build if you were solely going for gaming.  You'd have been better off trading 3 of those SSDs for an i7 and a 5970, plus you could then expand to an eyefinity setup... which is absolutely amazing in AoC(and pretty much every game that supports it).  You'd have seen a fairly reasonable performance increase at the cost of a very miniscule loading time increase (my x-25m SSD already loads zones super fast by itself).

    But cheers on your new system.  The game truly is a beauty when you have the power to run it at full blast.  I'm currently running it at 5760x1200 with everything but AA on and its absolutely stunning.

     

     looks even better with 32 AA and 8xSuperSampling ;P



  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

    Originally posted by AmazingAvery

    Originally posted by Draemos


    Originally posted by Loke666

    Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.

    3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.

    This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.

    This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.

    But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.

     

    Excuse my inner techie lashing out, but thats kind of an inefficient build if you were solely going for gaming.  You'd have been better off trading 3 of those SSDs for an i7 and a 5970, plus you could then expand to an eyefinity setup... which is absolutely amazing in AoC(and pretty much every game that supports it).  You'd have seen a fairly reasonable performance increase at the cost of a very miniscule loading time increase (my x-25m SSD already loads zones super fast by itself).

    But cheers on your new system.  The game truly is a beauty when you have the power to run it at full blast.  I'm currently running it at 5760x1200 with everything but AA on and its absolutely stunning.

     

     looks even better with 32 AA and 8xSuperSampling ;P

    I can't tell a difference unless I zoom in so close that its not practical for playing the game.

  • Vagrant_ZeroVagrant_Zero Member Posts: 1,190


    Originally posted by greymann
    Does it not enable 10 if you have directx 11 installed?  My dx10 tab is always grayed out even though I have 10 selected in the launcher.

    You have to launch the DX10 client.

    On your computer it will be AgeOfConanDX10.exe in your AoC folder.

  • Vagrant_ZeroVagrant_Zero Member Posts: 1,190


    Originally posted by Draemos

    Originally posted by Loke666
    Just got a new computer that actually can max out everything in dx 10.
    3,2 ghx x6 processor with water cooling, 480 GTX gfx card, 8 gig ram and 4 raided SSDs.
    This gives me 22-55 FPS. the new zones are toughest and just give me 22 all the time.
    This game do need some optimization of dx 10. I mean this is a true high end computer and it should get 50+ FPS everywhere.
    But dang, it really looks great. The water effects just take my breath away.
     
    Excuse my inner techie lashing out, but thats kind of an inefficient build if you were solely going for gaming.  You'd have been better off trading 3 of those SSDs for an i7 and a 5970, plus you could then expand to an eyefinity setup... which is absolutely amazing in AoC(and pretty much every game that supports it).  You'd have seen a fairly reasonable performance increase at the cost of a very miniscule loading time increase (my x-25m SSD already loads zones super fast by itself).
    But cheers on your new system.  The game truly is a beauty when you have the power to run it at full blast.  I'm currently running it at 5760x1200 with everything but AA on and its absolutely stunning.
     

    Except some people...like me... despise SLI/Crossfire, and prefer single card solutions.

    In which case the 480GTX dominates.

    There's also the fact that bleh ATI, my 5870 GSODs instantly while playing Conan under DX10. Became a large enough issue that I pulled it out and put my old 280GTX back in. Now waiting on grabbing a 480GTX.

    And just for the record I'd rather take AA (especially Nvidia's new 8x Supersampling which is absolute sex) over 5760x1200. If I ever wanted to step up to a larger resolution than my current 1920x1200 I would get the Dell 3007-HC, but I definitely wouldn't piss around with a multi-monitor setup. Not only are you not increasing the image quality (you're just adding more monitors running at an inferior resolution), but now you get to deal with bezels.

    Fuck that, there are no bezels in Hyboria. I'd have a nervous breakdown if I was forced to stare at them constantly.

  • RuethusRuethus Member Posts: 101

    Originally posted by Vagrant_Zero

     




    Originally posted by greymann

    Does it not enable 10 if you have directx 11 installed?  My dx10 tab is always grayed out even though I have 10 selected in the launcher.




    You have to launch the DX10 client.

    On your computer it will be AgeOfConanDX10.exe in your AoC folder.

    Even though I didn't ask the question, thanks for the reply!!!  I was having the same issue and couldn't figure it out.  Loading to see it now!!!  =)

     

    Cheers!

  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

     

    There's also the fact that bleh ATI, my 5870 GSODs instantly while playing Conan under DX10. Became a large enough issue that I pulled it out and put my old 280GTX back in. Now waiting on grabbing a 480GTX.

    And just for the record I'd rather take AA (especially Nvidia's new 8x Supersampling which is absolute sex) over 5760x1200. If I ever wanted to step up to a larger resolution than my current 1920x1200 I would get the Dell 3007-HC, but I definitely wouldn't piss around with a multi-monitor setup. Not only are you not increasing the image quality (you're just adding more monitors running at an inferior resolution), but now you get to deal with bezels.

    Fuck that, there are no bezels in Hyboria. I'd have a nervous breakdown if I was forced to stare at them constantly.

    The 5870s have more mature drivers, and as such have less troubles on average than the 480GTX.  If your having a problem then its a rare occurance, and much less likely to happen than a 480 GTX  issue.  I have a 5870, and recently added another in crossfire... and I have absolutely no problems outside of advanced shadow flicker that is common with all dual GPU setups.  A 480GTX provides a very mild performance boost over a single 5870 at the cost of an addtional $100 and a massive power increase (and thus a massive heat increase).

    As for your AA/8x Supersampling > Eyefinity.  I'd just have to say your either lying or simply haven't used a multi-monitor setup in a MMO before.  I can't even fathom anyone (who has actually tried it) not absolutely loving Eyefinity in a MMO game.  You don't even notice the bezels in a 3 screen setup, it adds immensely to your field of view and peripheral vision, adds tons of real-estate to space out your UI (ie all my journals, maps, chatscreens, etc are on my side monitors, giving me an absolutely prestine view of my main monitor).  The only time bezels become an issue is in a 6 screen setup, and those aren't practical anyway.

    It doesn't matter anyway, because a 5870 is more than capable of supporting the same resolutions and AA on a single monitor.

     

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Originally posted by Draemos

     

    There's also the fact that bleh ATI, my 5870 GSODs instantly while playing Conan under DX10. Became a large enough issue that I pulled it out and put my old 280GTX back in. Now waiting on grabbing a 480GTX.

    And just for the record I'd rather take AA (especially Nvidia's new 8x Supersampling which is absolute sex) over 5760x1200. If I ever wanted to step up to a larger resolution than my current 1920x1200 I would get the Dell 3007-HC, but I definitely wouldn't piss around with a multi-monitor setup. Not only are you not increasing the image quality (you're just adding more monitors running at an inferior resolution), but now you get to deal with bezels.

    Fuck that, there are no bezels in Hyboria. I'd have a nervous breakdown if I was forced to stare at them constantly.

    The 5870s have more mature drivers, and as such have less troubles on average than the 480GTX.  If your having a problem then its a rare occurance, and much less likely to happen than a 480 GTX  issue.  I have a 5870, and recently added another in crossfire... and I have absolutely no problems outside of advanced shadow flicker that is common with all dual GPU setups.  A 480GTX provides a very mild performance boost over a single 5870 at the cost of an addtional $100 and a massive power increase (and thus a massive heat increase).

    As for your AA/8x Supersampling > Eyefinity.  I'd just have to say your either lying or simply haven't used a multi-monitor setup in a MMO before.  I can't even fathom anyone (who has actually tried it) not absolutely loving Eyefinity in a MMO game.  You don't even notice the bezels in a 3 screen setup, it adds immensely to your field of view and peripheral vision, adds tons of real-estate to space out your UI (ie all my journals, maps, chatscreens, etc are on my side monitors, giving me an absolutely prestine view of my main monitor).  The only time bezels become an issue is in a 6 screen setup, and those aren't practical anyway.

    It doesn't matter anyway, because a 5870 is more than capable of supporting the same resolutions and AA on a single monitor.

     

    ATI can not do 32 AA With Fermi you can set it do 32AA in all games.. A tri monitor set up on a 5870 will increase your power bill more over 1 large decent monitor and a GTX 480. Eyefinity rocks don't get me wrong. Do not have the space.

    I have no issues with my GTX 480 the latest drivers rock and put those initial reviews when pitted against the 5870 1 on 1 up to 35% faster in most games.

    It is also a fact that the GTX 480 has higher "minimal" frame rates in AoC as well as most games. It is not just all about the MAX fps attainable anymore. If I am in Crysis or AoC and I see my FPS drop to 30 or so I know the dude next to me with a 5870 in his machine is gonna see 10-15FPS minimal. Catalyst 10.5 helped a little but ATI still lacks there. I still love my old 4870X2 in the wifes machine now.



  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

    ATI can not do 32 AA With Fermi you can set it do 32AA in all games..

    Here is a screen shot showing a 32x and a 16x AA view of the same picture.  Keep in mind that screen shots are the most notiticable way of telling the difference in AA effects.  Can you tell the difference?  I barely can, and I can tell you w/out a doubt that I couldn't if I was playing the game.  Once you start reaching high resolutions and high AA multipliers, the difference is almost negligable.

    http://www.hardware.fr/marc/tridam/quadsli/16xtaa_quad.png

    http://www.hardware.fr/marc/tridam/quadsli/32x_quad.png

     

    A tri monitor set up on a 5870 will increase your power bill more over 1 large decent monitor and a GTX 480. Eyefinity rocks don't get me wrong. Do not have the space.

    You would think so, wouldn't you.  Actually, my 2 additional 24" produce a max of 60watts each.  So an additional  120watts of power.    A GTX 480 at max load pulls ~450 watts, a 5870 at max load pulls  ~320 watts.  A difference of 130 watts.  Now of course the videocard isn't always pulling max load, and my monitors aren't pulling max amps either (I don't have the brightness blaring on them, nor am I using my speakers)  But the reality is its pretty close to a wash on power consumption.  The difference is your playing on 3 screens with a 5870, and 1 screen with a 480 GTX.  Plus you can always drop the Eyefinity and play on a single monitor and save yourself a 120amp power draw with the 5870, not so with the 480. 

    On top of that, the 480 idles at 31amps higher than a 5870.  I can turn my extra monitors off when I'm not gaming, you can't exactly turn off your 480.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-15.html

    I have no issues with my GTX 480 the latest drivers rock and put those initial reviews when pitted against the 5870 1 on 1 up to 35% faster in most games.

    Ouch, who sold you that lemon?  The 480 is about a 7-10% increase on average.The only time it gets anywhere near 30% is on the Heaven benchmark(and with the newer drivers its actually closer to 20%), which makes heavy use of Tessellation.  THAT was basically a marketing ploy that takes the 480s only truly strong point and exaggerates it for the sake of a byline, since almost no games are currently using heavy amounts of tesslation, and it won't be an industry standard for atleast a year or more. Out of the few DX11 games that are currently using tessellation, most are showing a 7-10% 480 advantage, and nowhere near 30%.

    It is also a fact that the GTX 480 has higher "minimal" frame rates in AoC as well as most games. It is not just all about the MAX fps attainable anymore. If I am in Crysis or AoC and I see my FPS drop to 30 or so I know the dude next to me with a 5870 in his machine is gonna see 10-15FPS minimal. Catalyst 10.5 helped a little but ATI still lacks there. I still love my old 4870X2 in the wifes machine now.

    You mean this Crysis benchmark?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlEA8E9NomM&fmt=22 

    Where the minimum FPS for the 5870 is 4 lower than the GTX 480 for about .01% of the duration of the test... however maintains a 3 FPS advantage otherwise.  Definitely isn't worth $150, 130amps of extra power draw, and about a 30 celcius higher operating temperature.

    And God forbid you'd ever want to put a 480GTX in SLI, you'd need your own coal plant and a steady supply of dry ice.

    Sorry man, but the 480 is a bad investment... unless you just really like the Heaven benchmark demo or wanna cook eggs on your GPU.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Screenshots: 

    imageimageimage

    I will put out more later.

    As for drivers do i use the latest, check a few days a week as a habit.

    And yes, I do get better FPS in dungeons and I also have been able to tweak in 5-10 FPS in today with ASUS turbosystem.

    Something worth doing is worth overdoing.:)

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by Draemos

    Excuse my inner techie lashing out, but thats kind of an inefficient build if you were solely going for gaming.  You'd have been better off trading 3 of those SSDs for an i7 and a 5970, plus you could then expand to an eyefinity setup... which is absolutely amazing in AoC(and pretty much every game that supports it).  You'd have seen a fairly reasonable performance increase at the cost of a very miniscule loading time increase (my x-25m SSD already loads zones super fast by itself).

    But cheers on your new system.  The game truly is a beauty when you have the power to run it at full blast.  I'm currently running it at 5760x1200 with everything but AA on and its absolutely stunning.

     

    Well, I could but I already had the SSDs since my last build. I would have liked the 6 core Intel better than the AMD but I didn't feel like pay more than three times the price, and the AMD performs actually great, particularly with the Corsair H50 hydro cooling system.

    As for the 5970, it out performs the 480 in many games, but not in all. Far cry 2 is one of the games it does better in and I would believe AoC is another, the Cuda cores is a great advantage in a game that uses shadows and light that much. But it really boils down to me having some bad experience with ATIs drivers earlier, great hardware but the software are programmed by drunken monkeys or something. Too bad the Omegadriver dude isn't tweaking drivers anymore, amazing that they didn't hire him to do that officially.

    But of course I would love to see a benchmark test on it.

    Since I know you wont take my word for it:

  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

    As for the 5970, it out performs the 480 in many games, but not in all. Far cry 2 is one of the games it does better in and I would believe AoC is another, the Cuda cores is a great advantage in a game that uses shadows and light that much. But it really boils down to me having some bad experience with ATIs drivers earlier, great hardware but the software are programmed by drunken monkeys or something. Too bad the Omegadriver dude isn't tweaking drivers anymore, amazing that they didn't hire him to do that officially.

    But of course I would love to see a benchmark test on it.

    I'm well aware Farcry 2 performs better on Nvidia cards.  Farcry has always performed better on Nvidia architechure(because it was designed specifically to work with Nvidia hardware). Nvidia also caters to it specifically because its constantly used in benchmark tests and has an affinity with their architecture. It's the most extreme of examples you can give, and its an anomoly.

    ATI drivers have been as solid, and arguably more solid, then Nvidia since the release of the 4800 series.  I know specifically what driver issues you are talking about, and avoided ATI myself in those days.   Your living about 3 years in the past, and your now paying a premium for a subpar product because of it.  I don't back a brand because I prefer them, I back a brand because its better.

    I understand why you went with the x6 now that I realize your SSDs were leftovers.  Although a 965 x4 would have been a better value for pure gaming.  Either one is a good chip, I have a 955 x4 myself... can't beat AMD for performance/value.

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Originally posted by Draemos

    ATI can not do 32 AA With Fermi you can set it do 32AA in all games..

    Here is a screen shot showing a 32x and a 16x AA view of the same picture.  Keep in mind that screen shots are the most notiticable way of telling the difference in AA effects.  Can you tell the difference?  I barely can, and I can tell you w/out a doubt that I couldn't if I was playing the game.  Once you start reaching high resolutions and high AA multipliers, the difference is almost negligable.

    http://www.hardware.fr/marc/tridam/quadsli/16xtaa_quad.png

    http://www.hardware.fr/marc/tridam/quadsli/32x_quad.png

     

    A tri monitor set up on a 5870 will increase your power bill more over 1 large decent monitor and a GTX 480. Eyefinity rocks don't get me wrong. Do not have the space.

    You would think so, wouldn't you.  Actually, my 2 additional 24" produce a max of 60watts each.  So an additional  120watts of power.    A GTX 480 at max load pulls ~450 watts, a 5870 at max load pulls  ~320 watts.  A difference of 130 watts.  Now of course the videocard isn't always pulling max load, and my monitors aren't pulling max amps either (I don't have the brightness blaring on them, nor am I using my speakers)  But the reality is its pretty close to a wash on power consumption.  The difference is your playing on 3 screens with a 5870, and 1 screen with a 480 GTX.  Plus you can always drop the Eyefinity and play on a single monitor and save yourself a 120amp power draw with the 5870, not so with the 480. 

    On top of that, the 480 idles at 31amps higher than a 5870.  I can turn my extra monitors off when I'm not gaming, you can't exactly turn off your 480.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-15.html

    I have no issues with my GTX 480 the latest drivers rock and put those initial reviews when pitted against the 5870 1 on 1 up to 35% faster in most games.

    Ouch, who sold you that lemon?  The 480 is about a 7-10% increase on average.The only time it gets anywhere near 30% is on the Heaven benchmark(and with the newer drivers its actually closer to 20%), which makes heavy use of Tessellation.  THAT was basically a marketing ploy that takes the 480s only truly strong point and exaggerates it for the sake of a byline, since almost no games are currently using heavy amounts of tesslation, and it won't be an industry standard for atleast a year or more. Out of the few DX11 games that are currently using tessellation, most are showing a 7-10% 480 advantage, and nowhere near 30%.

    It is also a fact that the GTX 480 has higher "minimal" frame rates in AoC as well as most games. It is not just all about the MAX fps attainable anymore. If I am in Crysis or AoC and I see my FPS drop to 30 or so I know the dude next to me with a 5870 in his machine is gonna see 10-15FPS minimal. Catalyst 10.5 helped a little but ATI still lacks there. I still love my old 4870X2 in the wifes machine now.

    You mean this Crysis benchmark?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlEA8E9NomM&fmt=22 

    Where the minimum FPS for the 5870 is 4 lower than the GTX 480 for about .01% of the duration of the test... however maintains a 3 FPS advantage otherwise.  Definitely isn't worth $150, 130amps of extra power draw, and about a 30 celcius higher operating temperature.

    And God forbid you'd ever want to put a 480GTX in SLI, you'd need your own coal plant and a steady supply of dry ice.

    Sorry man, but the 480 is a bad investment... unless you just really like the Heaven benchmark demo or wanna cook eggs on your GPU.

     Honestly, do not want to sound rude but who told you that a 460 pulls 450 watts?

    With regards to the percentages: The GeForce GTX 480 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card, being an average 28-33% faster than the ex-leader Radeon HD 5870  this is a review after post launch drivers. A newer review.

    In Anands review ALL games nearly show something similar, for crysis -  the GTX 480 still enjoys a 33% lead in the minimum framerate, and the GTX 470 is well ahead of the 5850 and even slightly ahead of the 5870

    Power consumption 1 hour run (not much difference from a 285 that I came from and no difference in electric bill since ownership):

    5870 320W 3x 24 monitors pulling at max 500 watts inclusive. Total cost  $439 GPU + 3x $300 for [19x12 rez ones each] = $1339

    GTX 480 390W + 1 x 28" monitor maxx pull 100 W 490watts inclusive.  Total cost  $499 GPU + 1x $300 for [19x12 rez] = $799

    $540 difference is not worth it to me.

    On in my system my GTX 480 idles at 42c and at 100 use never goes about 82c. These blantant lies spread out to the interwebs that it draws enough power and burns sytems is just bull, people like yourself (5870 owners lap it up for justification)

    Simple fact like I already said in AoC A GTX 480 peforms better than a 5870. Where I live it costs $50 more and draws more power but only a little bit more than a GTX 285 (last gen) yet performing twice as much better.

    Across the board, fermi seems to be ageing like fine wine: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=518&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=15

    Folds like a champ too.

     



  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Oh Loke you may wanna try the 256 beta drivers: The do give a boost in AoC.

    If you add all these gains to the ones on launch day reviews you get even high %.



  • DraemosDraemos Member UncommonPosts: 1,521

     Honestly, do not want to sound rude but who told you that a 460 pulls 450 watts?

    With regards to the percentages: The GeForce GTX 480 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card, being an average 28-33% faster than the ex-leader Radeon HD 5870  this is a review after post launch drivers. A newer review.

    In Anands review ALL games nearly show something similar, for crysis -  the GTX 480 still enjoys a 33% lead in the minimum framerate, and the GTX 470 is well ahead of the 5850 and even slightly ahead of the 5870

    Power consumption 1 hour run (not much difference from a 285 that I came from and no difference in electric bill since ownership):

    5870 320W 3x 24 monitors pulling at max 500 watts inclusive. Total cost  $439 GPU + 3x $300 for [19x12 rez ones each] = $1339

    GTX 480 390W + 1 x 28" monitor maxx pull 100 W 490watts inclusive.  Total cost  $499 GPU + 1x $300 for [19x12 rez] = $799

    $540 difference is not worth it to me.

    On in my system my GTX 480 idles at 42c and at 100 use never goes about 82c. These blantant lies spread out to the interwebs that it draws enough power and burns sytems is just bull, people like yourself (5870 owners lap it up for justification)

    Simple fact like I already said in AoC A GTX 480 peforms better than a 5870. Where I live it costs $50 more and draws more power but only a little bit more than a GTX 285 (last gen) yet performing twice as much better.

    Across the board, fermi seems to be ageing like fine wine: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=518&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=15

    Folds like a champ too.

     

     

    Dude, you are cherrypicking results like a champ to make your argument seem stronger. Lets look at just the  Anands review you listed (the only one thats actually comes from a reputable site)... we can see that the power draw for a 480 is 421 compared to the 5870s 319..  A 102 amp difference under load.   If we really push it via Furmark, the 480 is drawing 479! amps,  while the 5870 is at 375.

    It's also 11dB louder, and 6 degrees hotter.  And while looking at those temperatures, we can assume that the 5870 fan is probably running at about 30%, while the 480 is chugging along at 70%.  Why?  Because thats how the auto control software is setup.

    I'm not even going to entertain your Eyefinity rant, both because the numbers are skewed and because with Eyefinity your paying for a seriously upgraded gaming environment.  The only reason I ever put up the power consumption numbers in the first place was because of the accusation that they used more power than a single 480, which isn't actually the case.

    The most reputable review site you listed shows the same temp/power  numbers that are floating around the web, so unless they are lying and invalidating your entire argument... well, tough nutz.  Just because you manually set your fan to 100% or having it setting in a room with a low ambient and then say "mine never goes above 80 degrees" doesn't change the universal.  Hell if I set my 5870 at 100% it would never break 50 degrees, as it stands I set it at 40% and it never breaks 70 under load... it also doesn't sound like a jumbo-jet taking off either.

    Now, lets take a look at the actual FPS benchmarks.  If we average % gains across resolutions. of ALL games instead of cherrypicking games.

    2560x1600    480 has a 7.5% lead

    1920x1200   480 has a 9.4% lead

    1680x1050   480 has a 10.5% lead

    Nvidia performs better at low resolutions.  Thats nice, but its worthless for a high end card thats going to be played at high-end resolutions.  This skews byline data and gives a false impression of how well the cards work at the resolutions they are targeted at working at.  Why do I care if a 480 has 150fps and a 5870 has 100 fps at 1680x1050.  Its not a practical difference, and it just skews numbers.  The higher resolutions is where it matters, and thats what you should be looking at when you actual pull comparative numbers.

    For the record, the only time the 480 breaks a 10% difference at 2560x1600 (where FPS becomes an issue, so not HAWX) is Battleforge (24%) and Stalker (22%).  The 5870 is 11% faster at that resolution in both Battlefield 2 and Left 4 Dead 2.

    Yes, a 480 is faster than a 5870.   I have never, not once, said that it isn't.  It's not fast enough to warrant the increased temperature, sound, power, and cost levels.  The drivers are definitely improving, surprisingly so, and that very well might change in the bottom line in the future.  But as it stands now, the 480 is a substandard card for the premium you pay for it.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by Draemos

    I'm well aware Farcry 2 performs better on Nvidia cards.  Farcry has always performed better on Nvidia architechure(because it was designed specifically to work with Nvidia hardware). Nvidia also caters to it specifically because its constantly used in benchmark tests and has an affinity with their architecture. It's the most extreme of examples you can give, and its an anomoly.

     So is AoC and that is the game I play right now. It is not the only example either even if the 5970 performs better in most games.

    As for temperature and sound, I don't have any problem whatsoever with that 40-50 degrees. But of course I have a large tower, if you stick it in a small one you probably get a very different resault.

    I wanted the Cuda system so I bought Nvidia.

    As for AMDs 4000 cards have several of my friends those and have complained pretty much about them. Only one of my buddies have a 5970 and he says it is fine.

    We can discuss forever what is the best buy here, the important thing is that I can max out any game right now.

    Maybe I should have gotten a ATI or not. As for the Intel, I spent several hours on tom's watching benchmarks. The new Intel 32 nm is the best processor in existance but it is not good enough value for the money right now. I did consider some of the old 40 nm ones but decided for AMD instead, they were very similar but I just thought AMD in this case was better value for the money, but only with the hydro cooling system.

Sign In or Register to comment.