Bejeweled doesn't count.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
7970 endgame card?
- Thread starter onthemour
- Start date
- Status
Bejeweled doesn't count.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
He wasn't saying playable, he was saying maxed out or near maxed out at 1920x1200 with a 5770. That's just not the case.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,126
It's pretty damn good, but I certainly cannot max BF3 at 5760x1200.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
The most powerful card to come out this year might come close to doing this but that card isn't the 7970.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
I can tell you without question that at 2560x1600 your going to need 2 7970's to max out BF3 in MP to keep above 60fps. It goes into the 40's pretty commonly and is frankly unplayable for me. Metro 2033, The Witcher 2, and even Skyrim drop below 60 maxed out (possibly the CPU choking from shit coding but still).
My old 6970 Lightning was seriously only half a fast in BF3.
My old 6970 Lightning was seriously only half a fast in BF3.
Florin22xxl
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 236
40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game 
to all who think 40 is unplayable i sugges closing down fraps,u will be amazed of how good your games will run when u dont look at a counter and your mind is NOT telling u that 40 is not enough. Its like a placebo effect,if fraps was hacked to show 60 fps when u actualy had 40 your mind would perceive this as ultra smooth.
to all who think 40 is unplayable i sugges closing down fraps,u will be amazed of how good your games will run when u dont look at a counter and your mind is NOT telling u that 40 is not enough. Its like a placebo effect,if fraps was hacked to show 60 fps when u actualy had 40 your mind would perceive this as ultra smooth.40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game
its like lighting dynamite, light the fuse and run away...
Bottom line, it's up to personal use and opinion.
For me, a current endgame card is one that can run 120fps average at 1080. I would like to eventually go to a higher resolution like that but I am limited by 120Hz monitors at current. And all this on a single card solution. Far away from that, IMO.
For me, a current endgame card is one that can run 120fps average at 1080. I would like to eventually go to a higher resolution like that but I am limited by 120Hz monitors at current. And all this on a single card solution. Far away from that, IMO.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,293
I suspect OP is seeking to rock the boat, as it were.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game
Your wrong on every level, there are those of us who are extremely sinsitive to drops below 60. Its the same as people and microstuttering some people see it some don't. I was raised in the CS day's playing competitively getting the 100fps+ goal and it stuck. So please spare me some bullshit that 40 is playable, it might be doable in some single player garbage but not in MP.
It's not placebo, I'll get annoyed as fuck then look into it with some game and low and behold we had drops into the 40's or sometimes even the 50's.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
Go play on even Metro at Ultra and tell me that shit is playable it routinely drops into the high 30's low 40's. You might be able to play that shit but I can't. Nice I'm too stupid to know how to properly setup a PC comment fuck nuts.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
The game doesn't end if you hadn't noticed. This is the best card right now, then the nvidia whatever will be the best card, then AMD etc. etc etc. By the time 8k monitors are widely availible an 7970 will be like a 9800pro is now. The best thing we can hope for is that AMD and nVidia (and possibly intel?) keep kicking each others asses as much as possible and pushing things forward.
Good troll.
60fps is playable, 40 is jerky. Which is why I kill all AA/AF/Shadows in competitive games to ensure solid 60/120fps without dips. In lots of games precise timing of things and quick reactions are important. 40 feels laggy with 25ms between frames. At 40fps you have around an extra 8.3ms delay over 60fps before you can react, and compared to 120fps you are double that at 16.6ms behind, with frames happening every 8.3ms (a third of 40fps' lag). 120fps gives a much smoother movement which is easier to predict and adjuct to, 40fps is waaay more jerky and more erratic, as the actions fall more roughly between frames.
But lots of this depends on the games. Smooth slighty lower framerate is more playable than jerky high framerates. 60fps contant is more playable than 200fps max 20fps low 120average!
40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game
Good troll.
60fps is playable, 40 is jerky. Which is why I kill all AA/AF/Shadows in competitive games to ensure solid 60/120fps without dips. In lots of games precise timing of things and quick reactions are important. 40 feels laggy with 25ms between frames. At 40fps you have around an extra 8.3ms delay over 60fps before you can react, and compared to 120fps you are double that at 16.6ms behind, with frames happening every 8.3ms (a third of 40fps' lag). 120fps gives a much smoother movement which is easier to predict and adjuct to, 40fps is waaay more jerky and more erratic, as the actions fall more roughly between frames.
But lots of this depends on the games. Smooth slighty lower framerate is more playable than jerky high framerates. 60fps contant is more playable than 200fps max 20fps low 120average!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
The game doesn't end if you hadn't noticed. This is the best card right now, then the nvidia whatever will be the best card, then AMD etc. etc etc. By the time 8k monitors are widely availible an 7970 will be like a 9800pro is now. The best thing we can hope for is that AMD and nVidia (and possibly intel?) keep kicking each others asses as much as possible and pushing things forward.
Good troll.
60fps is playable, 40 is jerky. Which is why I kill all AA/AF/Shadows in competitive games to ensure solid 60/120fps without dips. In lots of games precise timing of things and quick reactions are important. 40 feels laggy with 25ms between frames. At 40fps you have around an extra 8.3ms delay over 60fps before you can react, and compared to 120fps you are double that at 16.6ms behind, with frames happening every 8.3ms (a third of 40fps' lag). 120fps gives a much smoother movement which is easier to predict and adjuct to, 40fps is waaay more jerky and more erratic, as the actions fall more roughly between frames.
But lots of this depends on the games. Smooth slighty lower framerate is more playable than jerky high framerates. 60fps contant is more playable than 200fps max 20fps low 120average!
Thank you, there is a significant difference between 30, 60 and even 120 fps. The human eye might not be able to see the difference but you can damn sure feel it. Single player games, RPG's, etc are not that big of a deal but in MP FPS's I just can't do anything below 60.
B^gD^ddy~CF~
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 172
We all know this, and aside from the guys running multi-monitor setups, there is really no need even for a 7970. I sooo want to go buy one, but it would be a waste of money, as I game at 1920x1080 and I would have to buy 2 in order to beat my 6970CF setup.
I am one of those multi-mon guys but I will say some of those guys with 30" screens will see the need. Now someone with your video card setup maybe not. You do see a point of diminishing returns, but some people are willing to pay through the teeth to always have the latest and greatest. For everyone else it really comes down to tradeoffs like can I pay rent this month...or eat.
If I was in your position even with a 30" screen I'd wait out this generation but I personally just came from 5870 in CF that are being RMA'd right now(fans starting to go).
You should be good for a while but you are going to have to make compromises to balance out performance vs image quality. You will not be able to run everything maxed out even on that single monitor going foward even with a 7970. Course you won't be wanting for much either at least for a while. So you won't be able to run BF3 with everything maxed and adaptive antialiasing or supersampling maybe but I don't think you'll run into too many games that you couldn't get to a level of playability.
Depends on what kind of performance your getting in games now and whether that is acceptable to you versus the amount of cash you have to throw at the problem. Now personally I think about the amount of my electricity bill with my 5870's versus what it will be now with the 7970's I'll just have to see how much energy savings are there month to month. I'm also a programmer who's going throught the process of learning OpenCL so I can tell you without a doubt that the 7970 is a LOT easier to program for as far as being able to get the performance your looking for out of it.
How much will the 7970's drop? Well I'm no soothsayer but I can look at some trends and extrapolate. I see the world economy going even more into the crapper in 2012 so that should help lower prices. That is as long as the banks continue to hold onto that quanitative easing money. If more of that QE money stops being held in accounts and instead makes it out into the economy you'll see the value of the dollar drop which would raise prices in the form of inflation. The Federal Reserve has loaned a lot of money into existance since 2008. I see GDDR5 being used everywhere so that should help lower prices. I see the 7970 is having good yeilds and is not overly large for the process it's on so that should lower prices over time. I also see that Nvidia has Kepler coming out later this year so that may lower prices as well. I'd expect 7970's to hit $300 by the end of the year IF and that's a big IF you can still find them at that point in time. I guess time will tell whether I'm full of it or not
That may be the line for you but everyone has different standards. I'll agree that for competitive MP gaming you NEVER want it to go below 60 FPS and the higher above that the better. But by no means does everyone have a requirement of that massive amount of AA in order for the game to be enjoyable or to be competitive
I would imagine so. However you must realize that you are gaming on the fringes of what is possible. If I'm a 3 monitor eyefinity gamer, and your a 3 monitor surround gamer with all 3 monitors capable of 120 or 240 hz playing in 3d. Then people like me are probably <1% of the gaming community while people with setups like yours are <0.25% of the gaming community. I think 3D is cool in fact back in the day I used to have an eyeSCREAM 3d setup on my Voodoo II's
http://www.stereo3d.com/wicked3d.htm
and I think one day maybe it will be everywhere and prolific I just don't think we are there yet. Add to that that extended play gives some people headaches and you can see why it might never become the way that EVERYONE plays. I personally have enjoyed all of the COD and MW games to date. I enjoyed the single player of both BF3 and MW3. I like the MP of both games, but I like the MP of BF3 more. That's just my personall preference. I will say that BF3 looks a lot better than MW3 but then again I can't run BF3 @ 6048x1200 with everything maxed
Its ok if you see it that way but it's not. I can say from personall experience that not having to excruciate over the way I program so that the compiler can extract as much parallelism as possible out of the instructions is a godsend. It's kind of like the argument do you just have one CPU core and keep growing it while trying to extract as much parallelism as possible to keep the core fed and everything utilized or do you have multiple cores that are not as massive but are much easier to keep at high utilization by extracting your parallelism through multiple threads instead of through parallelism of instructions.
40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game
It depends on the game, your sensitivity to refresh rates, and how much money you willing to throw at it. Now I played through AVP, BF BC2, Crysis, Crysis WH, Crysis 2, Deuse Ex HR, Metro 2033, and BF3 with 2 5870's in Crossfire. They served me well but believe my I had to make tradeoffs of performance for image qualty in those games in the Single player portions. Forget about MP there I was just trying to maximize framerate while not having it look too ugly.
I know I can percieve 120 hz refresh rate in my peripheral vision right now. I figure a lot of people can, a lot of people can't. When I look head on at anything above 60 htz refresh I can't see the screen refreshing, but when it's in my perpheral I can see it up to about 200 hz.(it's been years since I've had the CRT that could do that so my aging may have lowered my sensitivity to it I don't know) So when I'm playing competetively in multiplayer yeah 40 fps is not enough 40 fps means you have a disadvantage of milliseconds which count in competetive online first person shooters.
I can also percieve up/down swings in the framerate looking head on at the display. So your looking for above 60 FPS without too much swinging up and down in the framerate for those types of games. For singleplayer games I'm williing to put up with a lot worse performance if the story is compelling enough. I think I played through Metro 2033 at 40 FPS and below at 1280x1024 without everything(read DOF/Tesselation/AA) maxed and had a great time.
Last edited:
the only important question in the thread
Not even close. As a matter of fact, it would take around three 7970's for a 120 FPS minimum at max settings 1080P.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I would imagine so. However you must realize that you are gaming on the fringes of what is possible. If I'm a 3 monitor eyefinity gamer, and your a 3 monitor surround gamer with all 3 monitors capable of 120 or 240 hz playing in 3d. Then people like me are probably <1% of the gaming community while people with setups like yours are <0.25% of the gaming community. I think 3D is cool in fact back in the day I used to have an eyeSCREAM 3d setup on my Voodoo II's
http://www.stereo3d.com/wicked3d.htm
and I think one day maybe it will be everywhere and prolific I just don't think we are there yet. Add to that that extended play gives some people headaches and you can see why it might never become the way that EVERYONE plays. I personally have enjoyed all of the COD and MW games to date. I enjoyed the single player of both BF3 and MW3. I like the MP of both games, but I like the MP of BF3 more. That's just my personall preference. I will say that BF3 looks a lot better than MW3 but then again I can't run BF3 @ 6048x1200 with everything maxed
I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I was simply pointing out that MW3 when pushed is as demanding as a lot of games. Does BF3 look better and is it more demanding? Most definitely
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
@OP: I don't see where you're getting your info from. That statement is riddled with opinions and you're stating them as fact. There's always a way to bring a card to it's knees. There will never be an endgame card, because people like me who run 12MP setups and want to go to 21MP in time will always need more power. I might be feeding a troll, but you're kind of ridiculous.
@magoo: Actually, feature wise, I feel AMD has done a good job with their drivers (especially on the Eyefinity side). Albeit, they did let a lot of people down with BF3 and Skyrim fixes in a timely manner. But overall I've been impressed, where I feel nVidia just has surround in there feature set and are doing nothing to improve it. Kinda like, "Hey we can do it too..." and then they were done with it. I probably wont ever buy a top end nVidia card because they wont ever support multi-monitor users the way AMD/ATI does. Though I'm a minority and am rambling at this point.
@magoo: Actually, feature wise, I feel AMD has done a good job with their drivers (especially on the Eyefinity side). Albeit, they did let a lot of people down with BF3 and Skyrim fixes in a timely manner. But overall I've been impressed, where I feel nVidia just has surround in there feature set and are doing nothing to improve it. Kinda like, "Hey we can do it too..." and then they were done with it. I probably wont ever buy a top end nVidia card because they wont ever support multi-monitor users the way AMD/ATI does. Though I'm a minority and am rambling at this point.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I think this assessment isn't quite accurate. Yes AMD has better multi-monitor support particularly when it comes to single cards and more than three monitors but nVidia seems to have done a better job at more consistent and solid support for both multi-GPU and multi-monitor. Plus never say never, do you know what Kepler's multi-monitor support looks like? I think it would be hard to imagine that reference Kepler cards won't support single card surround gaming consider how powerful it will probably be.
So I agree that AMD multi-monitor support at this time is better but nVidia does have some strengths here as well particularly when it comes to multi-GPU and multi-monitor and I don't see how anyone can conclude that nVidia's multi-monitor support won't improve.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
Mostly from past experience. It just seems since the inception of nVidia surround, they have done nothing with it. If it's not reasonably mainstream, nVidia wont put any support into it. Also, Unless they can get 5 30"rs on one card, I'm not interested.
Again, I'm a very small minority.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
As I said earlier I agree with your assessment as it regards single cards and multiple monitors and support beyond 3 monitors. However when it comes to 3 monitor gaming and multi-GPU nVidia's support and execution has been every bit as good as AMD's. And I too am in a minority as I game in 3D and AMD just got 3D working with Crossfire which is pretty much a requirement for decent performance and multi-monitor for 3D gaming.
And I think that it makes little sense that nVidia wouldn't improve multi-monitor support in Kepler.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
Well requiring SLI is not always awesome. Beyond the regular problems with multiGPU, there's those little titles that nVidia doesn't make support for. With no support for SLI on those titles, no multi-monitor goodness. This is probably my biggest gripe. On top of that, There are a lot of ways people can spend there money. I'd rather not throw down $1000 in video cards when my target is just around 30 FPS (any higher is icing on the cake) especially when I'd rather spend my money on displays or a CPU upgrade (something I actually need to do very soon).
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
I don't think it's the FPS number itself that matters exactly, but rather how wildly the FPS fluctuates in a game, which disrupts the fluidity of the motion and, depending on the severity and the how sensitive the subject is to it, makes the gameplay not feel smooth.
There's certainly a correlation between high FPS and smooth playability, but some games will be smooth even at 40fps if it's consistent (say for example 45 to 55 vs 60fps where frames fluctuate between 30 and 90).
Look at this page for example:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/9
Notice the 7970 gets close to 60fps vs 45fps on the 5870, but when breaking it down by "time spent under 50ms to render a given frame" all but the Geforce 280 were having 0 of those, thus to the reviewer the gameplay was pretty much the same for all video cards except the 280.
Just my two cents.
40 fps not playable? Damn i used to be like this,watching fraps counter more that i would watch my game
Agreed, BF3 averages in the mid 40s for me on 64 multiplayer, totally playable.
Isn't BF3 limited to 30fps on consoles? I've never played it on a console so I don't know what the experience is like.
Last edited:
mw3 is not a demanding title at all.
is the 7970 a end game card ? no
Yes it is able to run all games currently at high settings, even with a single card solution. However with 4k hd displays around the corner even these cards will struggle at resolutions as such.
We might be rather stuck as far as game graphics go due to console hardware, however current games are rather taxing on hardware at high resolutions. So granted the 4k hd displays come out dual 7970's might not be enough to max out settings.
is the 7970 a end game card ? no
Yes it is able to run all games currently at high settings, even with a single card solution. However with 4k hd displays around the corner even these cards will struggle at resolutions as such.
We might be rather stuck as far as game graphics go due to console hardware, however current games are rather taxing on hardware at high resolutions. So granted the 4k hd displays come out dual 7970's might not be enough to max out settings.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Even when SLI acceleration isn't supported or doesn't work properly in a game multi-monitor still does. I've yet to see a single game that had problems with SLI acceleration but didn't work with multi-monitor as long as the game supported ultra widescreen resolutions. Plus what doesn't work with SLI acceleration these days? if not at launch it's patched in later at some point.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,073
That is what I'm starting to believe.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
Epic troll. Four pages of troll food. This thread should be deleted.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,282
I'm not sure how much more wrong can be in a single post.
So the only ppl that are saying that this card is far from maxing games are the ultra high resolution and 3d. The percentage of these players are so low that to be considered to a majority of the gaming community is close to nil. For the LARGE majority of pc gamers it is all they need. Anyone disagree with that?
That being said what do you think the long term sales of this card will reflect?
That being said what do you think the long term sales of this card will reflect?
The percentage of people actually buying this card is also "so low that to be considered to a majority of the gaming community is close to nil" (whatever that means). People who buy fancy cards have fancy setups and expect fancy results - is that surprising? What "generic" gamer is going to pay $550 for a video card? They might not even have a $550 computer.
The contention that the 7970 is somehow the only card anyone is ever going to need is as ridiculous as the contention that 640K is all anyone is ever going to need. Software, and technology, advances. That's the way it is, and the way it will always be.
Do you think the only ppl that need to upgrade now are the high end gamers and the ones with aged cards?
B^gD^ddy~CF~
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 172
I don't know now that I've had a multi-monitor setup for a while I don't think I could ever go back to a single monitor. I have no loyalty to either Nvidia or AMD. I go with whoever has the features I value most at the time.
I have to think the people at Nvidia are not stupid and realize that enabling as many displays from one card as possible will behoove them. I would think even your average user would have a hard time going back once they've had a chance to use a multi-mon setup. My point being that multi-mon on one card has implications that go far beyond just the gaming world. With the price of panels how they are I think that multi-mon use will continue to grow and not just in the gaming/enthusiast crowd. I think Nvidia caught a slap to the face with Eyefinity it was a surprise to everyone when AMD came out with it. I would be surprised if Nvidia doesn't counterpunch with multi-display in a big way on Kepler now that they've had time to work it into a design from the ground up. If they don't well it's their loss
I program for a living and multi-display has really enabled me to realize multi-tasking. For example will have a coding window on one screen, a window to view the results of that code on another and maybe a music/e-mail/database windows on the other. Just my two cents.
Not sure what you mean. Nobody needs to upgrade, but typically the ones who want to are users that aren't getting sufficient performance from their existing setups, which mostly includes those with high-end equipment or with older cards, yes.
maboblivion
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,586
Not when they'll release 4kx4k resolution 24" monitors in a few years....can't wait
- Status