Jump to content

What Graphics Card


40 replies to this topic

#1 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 24 August 2016 - 09:27 PM

I do not get it. What graphics card does MWO on Very high settings? I was using a Evga Geforce GTX 750 and settings at Medium, Does ok....fair enough. Then I go out and purchase a AMD Radeon R7 265 Core Edition (Ghost) http://xfxforce.com/...on-r7-265a-cnj4

Sam settings (2GB), no difference. I am saying to myself, this card is no difference. but 2GB. I would think I would get more, and it is a hot card. (Gets hot). Get 60-70fps on medium settings.

Now, I get a Evga Gforce GTX 970 ftw (4GB). Now I have settings on high (not very high). Now I would think I would get kick *** graphics. Same as medium settings. And the fps is 50-100 fps. Then the bottleneck. I found myself warping sometimes during play.

I say to myself...wtf? Why? Graphics card were never this difficult (AGP),or yet (PCI), or yet (ISA). They are suppose to take problems away from the CPU, and run on their own process (Recalling the 16kb trident video cards and earlier). Same with sound cards. But these cards require CPU help more than ever. CPUs are now built with Integrated graphics. Was never like that. Had the option of built in video chip on the motherboard and able to enable, disable video with a jumper or in BIOS, depending on amount of Ram. AMD did make one FM2+ CPU processor without integrated graphics ( Athlon x4 880k) and the chip function harder, hotter. What is going on in the tech engineering? Would think a 4GB GDDR5 would kick ***. 16 GB Ram 2133s, AMD A6-8800k water cooled. We shouldn't be getting problems.

My Question:

Like what Graphics card is the one used in Very High settings? Evga GeMax 128GB V8 Nitro decade edition? Where do you get that card? Anyone have MWO on Very High (All)

Edited by GuardDogg, 24 August 2016 - 10:07 PM.


#2 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 24 August 2016 - 09:37 PM

Your confusing how this works, your Fps is tied to more than just your Gpu.

MWO is Cpu bound, what that means is your Fps is impacted greater by the CPU you use rather than Gpu.


#3 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 24 August 2016 - 09:44 PM

When owning a IBM XT, the graphics chip was on the motherboard. Very little. Then these monochrome Hercules cards start coming out. They were huge. But they were engineered to take problems away from the CPU. They ran on their own process. They were in KBs and very powerful then. Today we are using GBs. and they are sure causing problems on CPU. Now this bottlenecking. That word was never used. Now it seems to be common.

#4 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 25 August 2016 - 12:28 PM

I am surprised no one knows what system, and graphics card is needed to use video settings on "Very High", and able to get perfect gameplay. No one knows.

#5 POOTYTANGASAUR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 595 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 August 2016 - 01:27 PM

rx 480 or gtx 1060. they will max this game 1080p
fury or 980 for 1440p.

Edited by POOTYTANGASAUR, 25 August 2016 - 01:28 PM.


#6 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 25 August 2016 - 01:40 PM

Thanks POOTYANGASAUR. :-)

But now this is confusing. After a few days on High Settings bad fps. I decided to go to Medium, and ended up confused as heck.

Medium Settings: 40-60 fps
High: 50-100 fps
Very High: 80-130 fps

Now I would think in Medium settings I would get more fps than very high settings I would get lower fps. And the graphics look no different from Medium to Very High. I am in so much confusion.

#7 Kaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,284 posts
  • LocationNorth America

Posted 25 August 2016 - 01:55 PM

View PostGuardDogg, on 25 August 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

Thanks POOTYANGASAUR. :-)

But now this is confusing. After a few days on High Settings bad fps. I decided to go to Medium, and ended up confused as heck.

Medium Settings: 40-60 fps
High: 50-100 fps
Very High: 80-130 fps

Now I would think in Medium settings I would get more fps than very high settings I would get lower fps. And the graphics look no different from Medium to Very High. I am in so much confusion.


Your FPS will very greatly depending on what map you are on.

The problem with MWO is that it is CPU limited not GPU limited.
AMD operations per clock are %20-%25 slower than Intel. That means that in this game (and other cpu bound games) amd CPU even overclocked is your bottleneck, not your GPU.

#8 Vxheous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • 3,822 posts
  • Location2 Time MWO World Champion

Posted 25 August 2016 - 02:19 PM

You need at least an Intel i5/i7 "K" processor that you can overclock past 4.4Ghz, paired with that GTX 970 to play everything very high (and particles will still drop your fps because MWO is poorly coded). The i5/i7 overclock helps with raising the minimum fps that you get which really helps with stutter when there's a lot of things going on in MWO

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 25 August 2016 - 02:20 PM.


#9 darqsyde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood Bound
  • The Blood Bound
  • 348 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationFar Beyond The Black Horizon

Posted 25 August 2016 - 04:13 PM

This game is very much CPU limited. It's not the GPU that is holding you back(generally).

My 7870 maxes out when running V.High(no AA), but has no problem giving me @60fps at 1080p.

However, even that dips into the high 30's/low 40's occasionally on a 4790K@4.4. Why? Because MWO is very CPU limited. When I ran the same GPU on an A8-3870K@3.4 I could barely break 50-55FPS because of the CPU.

You should do what you can to overclock your CPU as much as possible, and save your monies for an i5-6600K(at minimum)((or maybe wait for Zen, maybe)).

That would give you the best increase in MWO performance for your dollar. I would be willing to bet that a RX470 could easily run MWO @60fps/1080p, if it wasnt' for the CPU bottleneck.

Edit: Example

Edited by darqsyde, 25 August 2016 - 04:20 PM.


#10 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 25 August 2016 - 05:31 PM

Guess, the struggle for a better graphics card to play MWO is not important (except for the RX470). Only get a good CPU.

Although now knowing about AM4 MB and Zen hitting the market in the near future. I will have to wait for that. This MW shouldn't be that difficult on graphics. We have kick *** computers already. When I started playing MWO when it was in beta. I was using a 6 core (FX-6300) CPU and 1 GB Sapphire 6770 card. And all was on Medium, and did okay. I can never win, spending all this money.


Oh btw....nice link (Saved as favorite). :-)

Edited by GuardDogg, 25 August 2016 - 05:55 PM.


#11 Myantra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 210 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 26 August 2016 - 10:38 AM

I run MWO in 1080p at the highest settings. I do not monitor my FPS frequently, but I have never seen it dip below 80. While I have not tried it, I think I could handle it in 4k just fine.

My rig:

i7 6700k @ 4.4 w/Corsair H100i GTX
16GB DDR4 3200
GTX 1070

EDIT: I just noticed you mentioned an AMD A6 8800k in your OP. That is your problem. I have not seen any of the AMD APU's break 6000 in Passmark. I cannot find anything on that specific one. For the purpose of comparison, an i5 6600k is close to 8000 in Passmark out of the box.

Edited by Myantra, 26 August 2016 - 10:49 AM.


#12 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 26 August 2016 - 10:46 AM

View PostMyantra, on 26 August 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

I run MWO in 1080p at the highest settings. I do not monitor my FPS frequently, but I have never seen it dip below 80. While I have not tried it, I think I could handle it in 4k just fine.

My rig:

i7 6700k @ 4.4 w/Corsair H100i GTX
16GB DDR4 3200
GTX 1070


It won't handle 4K at 60 FPS, you'll be wanting double cards for anything close to that, and probably a X99 chip too.

#13 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 26 August 2016 - 10:51 AM

View PostGuardDogg, on 25 August 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

I am surprised no one knows what system, and graphics card is needed to use video settings on "Very High", and able to get perfect gameplay. No one knows.

Everybody in this subforum already knows and all of the information is definitely here. You simply haven't bothered to read.

Having said that, a Haswell architecture CPU at 4.5GhZ is about where the bottleneck for CPU-related items starts to disappear. At least, for 1080p, anyway. We're not really sure if that's true at higher resolutions due to lack of test data. If you go with Skylake (or the impending Kaby Lake, due in roughly December) then you can probably count on 4.4GhZ being that mark instead.

GPU-wise, anything GTX 970 or beyond should max out MWO. Well, pub matches at 1080p, anyway, and likely all FW matches as well. FW really starts to eat up the VRAM, though, so at resolutions beyond 1080p I think you will end up needing a 6GB or 8GB framebuffer instead of the 4GB that cards like the GTX 980 offer.

#14 Myantra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 210 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 26 August 2016 - 10:55 AM

View PostOderint dum Metuant, on 26 August 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:


It won't handle 4K at 60 FPS, you'll be wanting double cards for anything close to that, and probably a X99 chip too.



I cannot say that I am very concerned with 4k at the moment, and definitely not enough to buy another GTX 1070.

#15 Robot Kenshiro

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 315 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 26 August 2016 - 10:58 AM

Think CPU makes a huge difference in this game more so then others.
I used to run an fx 9590.....and it still wouldn't run this game at a constant 60fps. This is was paired with a gtx 970 at the time.
I upgraded my partners pc and gave her my 970 and bought the gtx 980.
Still choppy fps dips. While still high 40s to 60s on max settings I just got so frustrated with how irratic the fps dips were.
So.. saved up some cash and bought and i76700k cpu +intel MBA.
BOOM.... 60fps with stock clock cpu.

They say it's not true but it is. I had to actually do it to physically see the difference myself.

I now run the game at 2560x1040 (using a 34in ultra widescreen) o max settings. 60fps 100%.

I76700k
16b Ddr4 2400 ram
Gtx 980

I later added another 980 for sli configuration. While mwo doesn't scale well as some might say for me the game runs even better now.



#16 darqsyde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood Bound
  • The Blood Bound
  • 348 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationFar Beyond The Black Horizon

Posted 26 August 2016 - 12:04 PM

View PostRobot Kenshiro, on 26 August 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

Think CPU makes a huge difference in this game more so then others.
I used to run an fx 9590.....and it still wouldn't run this game at a constant 60fps. This is was paired with a gtx 970 at the time.
I upgraded my partners pc and gave her my 970 and bought the gtx 980.
Still choppy fps dips. While still high 40s to 60s on max settings I just got so frustrated with how irratic the fps dips were.
So.. saved up some cash and bought and i76700k cpu +intel MBA.
BOOM.... 60fps with stock clock cpu.

They say it's not true but it is. I had to actually do it to physically see the difference myself.

I now run the game at 2560x1040 (using a 34in ultra widescreen) o max settings. 60fps 100%.

I76700k
16b Ddr4 2400 ram
Gtx 980

I later added another 980 for sli configuration. While mwo doesn't scale well as some might say for me the game runs even better now.



I hate to be the one to say this...but...Logs or...

I don't doubt it sits around 60fps MOST of the time, it likely still dips. Simply logging in Afterburner would show any dips.

But...The reason I suggested an i5 and maybe a 470 is to keep the cost as low as is reasonable. Anyody can say my i9-10000X and a GTX1090Ti will max run best, but what is really more important to a majority of people is the Minimum required for a performance level.

#17 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 26 August 2016 - 12:51 PM

The Fm2+ motherboard (Supported CPUs), is the worst that AMD did. They brought it out into the market, and then forgotten. They only go up to 4 core CPUs, and hot as heck. And thinking I was getting or had the latest, I realize I was getting fustrated. The boards come with PCIe-16x 3.0 slots for video cards. AMD decided (my opinion), to go back to AM3+ boards and still make CPUs for that type of board. Making 8 cores. But the PCIe x16 slots are 2.0. What a screw up I have ever seen by a company, and by AMD? Now I have to resort to spending more money again, possibly on an Intel board, CPU, DDr4 ram. Although hearing, reading, careful on removing/installing intel CPUs on board. Bend a pin(s), your whole board is f-ed. Or wait for the Amd AM4 boards, Zen CPUs.

Edited by GuardDogg, 26 August 2016 - 12:56 PM.


#18 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 26 August 2016 - 07:22 PM

View PostGuardDogg, on 26 August 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

The Fm2+ motherboard (Supported CPUs), is the worst that AMD did. They brought it out into the market, and then forgotten. They only go up to 4 core CPUs, and hot as heck. And thinking I was getting or had the latest, I realize I was getting fustrated. The boards come with PCIe-16x 3.0 slots for video cards. AMD decided (my opinion), to go back to AM3+ boards and still make CPUs for that type of board. Making 8 cores. But the PCIe x16 slots are 2.0. What a screw up I have ever seen by a company, and by AMD? Now I have to resort to spending more money again, possibly on an Intel board, CPU, DDr4 ram. Although hearing, reading, careful on removing/installing intel CPUs on board. Bend a pin(s), your whole board is f-ed. Or wait for the Amd AM4 boards, Zen CPUs.

If you bend an LGA pin in the socket, you're doing something really wrong. REALLY WRONG.

#19 GuardDogg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 26 August 2016 - 08:09 PM

I agree, although if you remove a CPU, and a pin stays, or is broken.

#20 Moonlander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ominous
  • The Ominous
  • 684 posts
  • LocationCocoa Beach, FL

Posted 26 August 2016 - 08:15 PM

I have a GTX 980 G1 4gb and an i7 and I play max settings in every game I own. Never have issues. 80-100 fps. However, I don't really feel the graphics change much quality wise regardless of settings. Sure, some more ground clutter here and there but if you're expecting it to look like say, CoD on a modern console, forget that. Just don't have the same quality of graphics like games like that do. Having said that, I'm not knocking MWO's graphics. I love this game and I'm finally coming back to it after a very long hiatus.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users