gpu

[ryno85]

Hi all
R9 270 single good enough for ultra gaming or eventually crossfire them asus r9 270 OC

 

[EarthDog]

At what res? What games?

In CFX it could be fine, but they only have 2gb ram...

 

[ryno85]

1080x1920 starcraft 2. Diablo 3. advanced warfare And maybe middle earth

 

[bob4933]

All 4 of those games are CPU intensive. A 270x would be fine for all of them if paired with a quality intel.

 

[EarthDog]

COD:AW is a FPS... not cpu intensive. The rest more or less are, yep!

I still wouldn't crossfire low end cards like that with only 2gb vram.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor?

I thought that was pretty GPU intensive, not CPU intensive.

 

[bob4933]

COD:AW is a FPS... not cpu intensive. The rest more or less are, yep!

I still wouldn't crossfire low end cards like that with only 2gb vram.

No, cpu limited for sure. Especially with multiplayer.

Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor?

I thought that was pretty GPU intensive, not CPU intensive.

Yeah, but lets be real, that game is EVERYTHING intensive, however a 270x at max settings still provides relatively solid performance.

For the games mentioned, an intel with a 270x will more than likely outperform any amd with a 280x.

 

[bob4933]

I keep saying 270x. OP mentions 270, that does change things slightly of course.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

A 270X might get 60fps at 1080p on medium settings. Max settings? It'll cripple it.

But yes, SoM is absolutely a brutal game on PC.

 

[bob4933]

A 270X might get 60fps at 1080p on medium settings. Max settings? It'll cripple it.

But yes, SoM is absolutely a brutal game on PC.

seen some surprising 1080p benchmarks on mordor. Somewhere around 50fps on ultra settings with a 270x iirc. Not where I consider my level of "acceptable" 60 fps, but it seemed to be pretty well optimized considering.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

seen some surprising 1080p benchmarks on mordor. Somewhere around 50fps on ultra settings with a 270x iirc. Not where I consider my level of "acceptable" 60 fps, but it seemed to be pretty well optimized considering.

 

[ryno85]

Ok how about this i have heard ati cards run hotter so if i was to fit a nvidia gtx 960 because the new maxwell architecture is quite good at keeping heat down ( as we know heat is the enemy of all pc hardware ) and then later adding a 2nd but will have to change mobo gaming 3 only has cross x support

 

[EarthDog]

I would stay away from multiple cards for 1080p...


@Bob, image didn't load for what I presume was something supporting your assertion regarding COD...

Edit:http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perform...uty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance-analysis/

From the above, it becomes pretty clear how GPU-bound this new Call of Duty game actually is.

 

[bob4933]

ED, on a 5960x, the game caps out at 90fps on 980, 970, 290x, 295x2, and ... that's an oldddd article ed. 4930k and gtx 680 on a pre release.

Also, multiplayer further shifts the balance to cpu performance
Even further. When people are getting 20-30 fps from overclocking, that's pretty indicative it's cpu bound. It's a dual threaded game, so that test with the 4930k where they disabled cores was ultimately pointless.


But yeah, op should strive for a better, single card setup for the time being. If he's adamant, a 4gb card would provide some leniency for sli/xfire in the future.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

I doubt the game can use 16 threads, and the 5960X is clocked lower than other CPU options because it is an octo core.

That's why it appears CPU limited.

 

[EarthDog]

ED, on a 5960x, the game caps out at 90fps on 980, 970, 290x, 295x2, and ... that's an oldddd article ed. 4930k and gtx 680 on a pre release.

Also, multiplayer further shifts the balance to cpu performance
Even further. When people are getting 20-30 fps from overclocking, that's pretty indicative it's cpu bound. It's a dual threaded game, so that test with the 4930k where they disabled cores was ultimately pointless.


But yeah, op should strive for a better, single card setup for the time being. If he's adamant, a 4gb card would provide some leniency for sli/xfire in the future.

want to reload that link and image? Pressing on with your point without it is a bit tough for me to wrap my head around.



EDIT: As far as the core thing. The type of testing was fine. They only did it to show that FPS didn't go down when they simulated 2/3/4 threads. Who knew it was a dual core game at that time (release day I believe was when that article was out - I recall early November 2014)? That was the point of that paragraph. Where does it mention they used a pre-release version?

Anyway, curious to read the article on that octo!

 

[ryno85]

Hey guys thanks for all input you guys rock \m/

 

[bob4933]

Sorry ed, made a mistake, it was a 6 core 3930k. I think I had both that ARMA thread and this one up together and thats where my confusion was (stupid cell phone links)

http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-advanced-warfare-benchmark-performance/


I'd bet you a billion dollars a 980 ti will also do 90 fps on that rig The game probably was gpu bound on that system. But that gtx 680 is 3+ (depending how you wanna look at it) generations old now

View attachment 164326

 

[ATMINSIDE]

That review talks about a frame rate cap, there's your plateau

 

[bob4933]

That review talks about a frame rate cap, there's your plateau

figured thatd come up ->

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

An r7 260 gets around 60fps on 1080p at max settings. Not exactly a "gpu intensive" game... Again, adding in multiplayer shifts it much further in the CPU's side of the court.