Upcoming GTX880/980, fastest card, but what game we will play with it ?

S

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,765
As title.
GTX880/980 will be monstrous cards, 780ti is a monstrous card yet, but where are the titles to use it?

2014/2015 has really few demanding title.
The witcher 3
Batman
Far cry 4
Ac unity.

Four titles in one year and a half.

I'm really evaluating if upgrading my gtx580sli.
Where is the new interesting titles?
Will we use this power in 2015 titles?
 
There aren't any demanding games being released for the rest of 2014 AFAIK, because all the games coming out are console ports. But with better hardware you can play the same old stuff with higher AA (or subsampling if you wanna get crazy), or at higher framerates, or at higher resolutions, etc...

As usual for the past two generations. I thought people sort of expected this laziness from developers by now?
 
sblantipodi said:
2014/2015 has really few demanding title.
The witcher 3
Batman
Far cry 4
Ac unity.
Click to expand...

none of those games except for Witcher 3 will be really GPU intensive...if 'The Division' doesn't get downgraded like Watch Dogs then you can add that to the list
 
Here we go again. We get these silly threads every time a new card is about to come out. There is no such thing as too much gpu power if wanting to run above 1920x1080, run games on full max settings, use multi monitor setups, have a high refresh rate monitor, use high levels of AA or use downsampling. If you really have to ask then why are you here in an enthusiast forum? Buy whatever works for your needs but dont sit there and pretend that more gpu power cannot be put to use.
 
GTA5 is scheduled to be released later this year. That will def be a game that should be a test for the upcoming GPU's.
 
misterbobby said:
Here we go again. We get these silly threads every time a new card is about to come out. There is no such thing as too much gpu power if wanting to run above 1920x1080, run games on full max settings, use multi monitor setups, have a high refresh rate monitor, use high levels of AA or use downsampling. If you really have to ask then why are you here in an enthusiast forum?
Click to expand...

Because when I upgrade my hardware I buy two cards at least.
 
sblantipodi said:
Because when I upgrade my hardware I buy two cards at least.
Click to expand...

So? He has a point. Not even two of the strongest cards are enough to push high fps @ max settings even at lower resolutions. Just because some find 40-60 FPS enough doesn't mean more isn't needed.
 
misterbobby said:
Here we go again. We get these silly threads every time a new card is about to come out. There is no such thing as too much gpu power if wanting to run above 1920x1080, run games on full max settings, use multi monitor setups, have a high refresh rate monitor, use high levels of AA or use downsampling. If you really have to ask then why are you here in an enthusiast forum? Buy whatever works for your needs but dont sit there and pretend that more gpu power cannot be put to use.
Click to expand...

best post of the week? month?.. anyway.. this should be sticky in each video card section..

sblantipodi said:
Because when I upgrade my hardware I buy two cards at least.
Click to expand...

your OP question its extremely generic, without mention of Refresh rate or resolution.. at 2560x1600 and 4k you need as much GPU power as possible.. at 120+hz you need as much horsepower and CPU as possible.. so why do yo think are few titles that can't max out a 780TI?
 
cpus need to get a lot faster. even at 1440p all ultra no aa in bf3 i'm cpu limited on a couple of the maps (seine crossing being one of them) with a 2500k @ 4.5 and 770. until i can play bf3/4 at max settings with minimum fps of 120, hardware needs to keep speeding up. dropping to even 90 fps at 120 hz is extremely jarring. obviously my cpu is not the best, but you need an overclocked 6/8 core intel cpu to get even close to minimum 120 in these two games.

there's always plenty of room for more power.
 
Last edited:
trick0502 said:
Wasn't hl2 in its day demanding?
Click to expand...
No not really and it scaled down to even pos comps. I played it on high DX7 settings with a dinky mx440 which was garbage even then. The Geforce 5 series cards had massive trouble with DX9 so maybe thats what you are thinking about. Other than that high end cards at the time where not really stressed at all.
 
Odellus said:
cpus need to get a lot faster. even at 1440p all ultra no aa in bf3 i'm cpu limited on a couple of the maps (seine crossing being one of them) with a 2500k @ 4.5 and 770. until i can play bf3/4 at max settings with minimum fps of 120, hardware needs to keep speeding up. dropping to even 90 fps at 120 hz is extremely jarring. obviously my cpu is not the best, but you need an overclocked 6/8 core intel cpu to get even close to minimum 120 in these two games.

there's always plenty of room for more power.
Click to expand...

Mantle?

#threadderailed
 
Araxie said:
best post of the week? month?.. anyway.. this should be sticky in each video card section..
Click to expand...

Yes, please! I blame consoles and years of low res 60 Hz LCDs for this not demanding nonsense.
 
There's a number of things that will tax even the best cards out today. Try running in 1440p @ 144Hz and not drop any frames.

What about 4K? Triple Screen? Stereo 3D? How about 3D Vision Surround?!? Yeah, maybe not so hot anymore.
 
Maybe at 1080p but in my case at 3440*1440 a 780ti (with a hefty OC) is maxed out on demanding game.

I guess if you are happy with 1080p you dont need much gpu power.
But I recently got my LG 34um95 (3440*1440) and was previously on 2560*1440 for the past 2.5+ years. IMHO 1080p =/= [H] !
 
isnt DICE working on Star Wars Battlefront? From the early short footage they've shown, it looked pretty crazy.
 
xmadror said:
Maybe at 1080p but in my case at 3440*1440 a 780ti (with a hefty OC) is maxed out on demanding game.

I guess if you are happy with 1080p you dont need much gpu power.
But I recently got my LG 34um95 (3440*1440) and was previously on 2560*1440 for the past 2.5+ years. IMHO 1080p =/= [H] !
Click to expand...

^ this, hence my original response.

Same crap games, but now you can play them at bigger resolutions/higher framerates/more AA -_-
 
>_> which horribly coded games are you playing? My Crysis Sense is tingling...
 
Xinmosni said:
>_> which horribly coded games are you playing? My Crysis Sense is tingling...
Click to expand...
Lol no but sadly that old game will still push my gpu to limit at times with only 4x MSAA. Some parts of Crysis 1 are insanely cpu bound though too. I am talking about truly maxing some games which some people like to do. That means full AA which makes several games not even average 60 or even 50 fps. A few examples would be Witcher 2, Crysis 3, Metro 2033, and Metro Last Light. Even without AA, Wolfenstein will drop at times because of the reflections setting. Anyway the point is that even at 1080 there are cases where having more gpu power would be nice.
 
First you want more than 4GB, now you don't know what to do with it? :D
 
Get two GTX 980s and see if you can max Dragon Age Inquisition in November at 4K with max AA/AF. My guess is OP...you won't be able to even average 40fps with two cards with +150-200MHz overclocks. Or when you said "at least two cards" you meant 3? Well maybe you'll hit 60fps with 3 overclocked cards :p
 
jwcalla said:
Do games even come with 4k textures?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a serious question but just in case I will respond. Games don't need to come with 4k textures for a can of soda and everything in the game. 99% of objects in a game will not fill up your entire screen or even 1/8 of it during normal gameplay (other than main characters/enemies etc. which always get prioritized for higher resolutions regardless) :p. Most titles within the last several years look great on a 4k monitor and are a huge improvement, due to the increased texel screen-space resolution of the display. The rest which are a minority just look good rather than really great.

More pixels at a given distance for the provided texture = better, same with geometry on the models. The vast majority of games do not display their full texture resolutions at normal in-game viewing distances on the low resolution monitors mainstream pc's use such as mainstream 1080p already by a longshot, and grow into 4k resolution for amazing results.
 
bq6ay.jpg
 
As long as the hardware outpaces the software, demand will be less. This, in turn, typically means lower hardware prices. And I'm OK with that.
 
xmadror said:
Maybe at 1080p but in my case at 3440*1440 a 780ti (with a hefty OC) is maxed out on demanding game.

I guess if you are happy with 1080p you dont need much gpu power.
But I recently got my LG 34um95 (3440*1440) and was previously on 2560*1440 for the past 2.5+ years. IMHO 1080p =/= [H] !
Click to expand...

There you go humble-bragging with that LG widescreen...
 
Shit i am having a helluva time trying to get stable fps in Metro 2033 redux with advanced physx on @ 1440p and a massive overclock(clocked @ 1360 from 980) on my 780 lightning. If more titles in 2015 start using Physx in more interesting ways it will definitely tax some high-end GPUs.
 
misterbobby said:
sarcasm? Valve does not make demanding games.
Click to expand...
Eh? Were you around for Half Life 2's launch? The game was plenty demanding.

Half Life 2 launched in 2004. Trying to run the game on a GeForce FX was painful unless you dropped back to DX8 mode.

They simply haven't done a major engine upgrade since then.
 
naticus said:
Shit i am having a helluva time trying to get stable fps in Metro 2033 redux with advanced physx on @ 1440p and a massive overclock(clocked @ 1360 from 980) on my 780 lightning. If more titles in 2015 start using Physx in more interesting ways it will definitely tax some high-end GPUs.
Click to expand...

When Metro 2033 first came out, I was on a Radeon 5850 and the framerate was terrible. I'm looking forward to trying it again now. Hopefully, it won't be too bad at 1080 on my 670.
 
jwcalla said:
Do games even come with 4k textures?
Click to expand...

Star citizen has 4k maps on their main player ship models.
They also ran their most recent demo where they confirmed the texture size on a single gtx680 with 2gb with playable fps.
 
With all this discussion of 4k textures, and higher resolution, isn't the most important thing from graphics cards now VRAM? I know that 3gb gets eaten quickly at large resolutions, and I doubt that 4gb will be much better (4 is what the 900 series is rumored to have, correct?) I might be wrong in that, but I think before you can even consider get good frames at large resolutions you would want at least 6gb, 8gb being preferable.
 
Unknown-One said:
Eh? Were you around for Half Life 2's launch? The game was plenty demanding.

Half Life 2 launched in 2004. Trying to run the game on a GeForce FX was painful unless you dropped back to DX8 mode.

They simply haven't done a major engine upgrade since then.
Click to expand...
I played the game at launch. Again I already said that geforce 5 series cards had trouble with DX9. That was not because the game was demanding though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top