Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Azeem's Discussion on GPU

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 8, 2012 12:13:11 AM

Hello.

Which GPU, along with my i5-2500k and ASRock Extreme3 Gen3, will run Skyrim, Battlefield 3, and Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 at 60 FPS on high settings? I don't want to go above 60fps by too much since I like to see the difference, and the human eye cannot tell the difference above 60fps.

EDIT: Oh, and I will be OCing to 4.5 GHz with only 2x Anti-aliasing.

Thanks.

More about : azeem discussion gpu

February 8, 2012 12:33:46 AM

So with a 7970, I will get 60FPS and not much above at high settings?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 12:42:04 AM

You'll get more, but it won't appear on your screen. Your monitor, unless it's a very new and expensive model, refreshes at 60Hz, so it can only display 60 fps, ever. Turning on Vertical Sync matches your GPU's output to the monitor's refresh rate, so it never tries to display half each of two consecutive frames (screen tearing).
I think you might be able to get close to 60fps on Ultra, with drops to around 45fps. You can decide whether or not that matters, whether you'd rather have an imperfect framerate on Ultra or a perfect one on High.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 12:43:53 AM

All I want is 60fps average. Drops to 45fps don't matter to me as long as they are in crowded areas. :) 

I am guessing the 7950 should give me that experience, but I am not entirely sure. I am not so smart when it comes to comparing GPUs, so mind my questions. :p 
m
0
l
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 12:46:08 AM

^+1
Is it true if you trun on your AA it locks the frame rate in not to exceed 60? I think I just herd or read this in the past week I am just curious.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 12:47:19 AM

So the 7950 will give me that experience? :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 12:52:16 AM

No, I don't think AA has to do with that.
The 7950 should get you 60fps on high settings, yes.
m
0
l
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 12:55:00 AM

One more quick question. If his frame rates are too high can he dial the card down the reverse of OC'ing like using MSI Afterburner?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 12:56:14 AM

No such thing as "too high" :D 
Yes, you can underclock, but it would only be useful to save a little power.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 1:01:11 AM

I guess I can save 100 bucks! Thanks everyone!
m
0
l
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 1:05:13 AM

Your welcome azeem40 I wasn't much help. I had questions also. Good luck to ya

@kajabla thank you for your answers.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 1:11:53 AM

It is ok. You still helped a bit. :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 1:20:04 AM

Yeah the 7970 is really only better if you have a use for the extra Stream Cores since both can max out basically every game.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 1:27:26 AM

Neither can max today's most demanding games (defined as a fairly consistent 60fps on the maximum settings with a reasonable amount of AA). It takes 6970 SLI to max Crysis 2. The OP asked about playing on high settings, which I assume to be out of low-medium-high-ultra.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 1:39:13 AM

I usually say "max out" when I mean high settings. I'm not a huge ultra guy, but then again, I've never had a card that could actually hit ultra on a big name game.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 1:46:08 AM

Max = maximum = highest settings = ultra. Semantics aside, now. No single card can hit 60fps on ultra in the most demanding big-name games (Metro, Crysis 2, BF3).

Oh, OP! Important! Get a PSU that can handle 7950 Xfire! This means a good 750W unit. This one's nice: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 1:52:08 AM

Yeah, I am not really interested in ultra settings because high is good enough for me. As long as the image quality is alright and there is no lag, which is less likely to happen (the lag being more) on high settings; and yes, I did mean out of low-medium-high-ultra. :p 

Is the Antec Earthwatts's 750W unit good as well?

EDIT: Just as an fyi, the reason I am building a gaming computer is because I have heard so much about all these titles but never got to play console games, so I am a complete beginner for any type of "gaming" (Runescape doesn't really count as gaming to me :p ). My current computer is a Toshiba Satellite P105-S6024, which can't even run Runescape on min settings, let alone any gaming title out atm lol. Even when browsing the web, I lag and freeze up, and it's not even my internet (the upstairs computer my mom has can load pages quickly). So that is why I am building this gaming computer and have asked SO MANY questions on the parts and how to get into gaming and whatnot.

m
0
l
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 2:32:37 AM

I sort of did that I just got tired of burning out store bought rigs. They just didn't do what I was wanting. Grant you my choice of cards and PSU were way off but they do the type of gaming I like to do and that is strategy.

I am big on strategy and some puzzle arcade type games. I like some RPG type as long as it isn't first person. It make's me dizzy headed. So as long as I get 30 and above FPS I am happy.

I don't blame you for doing so much reserch, this cost a lot of money and you want to make sure your investment is going to pan out. I kinda wished that I knew about Tom's before I bought my cards. But o'well.

At least you are doing the right thing. I hope everything turns out good for you I really do. This is an important thing. You spend 1000 dollars vs a Xbox 360 for 300 dollars. Ya very important.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:38:50 AM

Yeah. However, when I ask in New Builds, I get brushed aside. I know others are important, but after my first two topics in late-December, I have barely gotten any responses in my threads.
m
0
l
a c 181 U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 2:43:07 AM

That is a shame that has happened. The only place I check on new builds is CyberPower. I never thought to check the others. I always try to say something to people who have posted a thread and they are getting passed up. Anyway I try. But that is just me.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:59:41 AM

Yeah, well, I don't think I will need to ask for more advice in New Builds section as I am set on the components I want.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 10:26:34 AM

Vettedude said:
I usually say "max out" when I mean high settings. I'm not a huge ultra guy, but then again, I've never had a card that could actually hit ultra on a big name game.


lol not big on the ultra game eh? rofl.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 2:53:50 PM

Neither am I.. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

@ Kajabla: The Antec 750W is $15 cheaper than the OCZ one you linked.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 8:56:40 PM

i feel that there is no such thing as "not being into ultra settings". Lets cut through the bs and get to the real issue.

"I'm not a guy who is dumb enough to pay $600 for a g. card just so that I can bump high settings to ultra". THAT is totally fine...if thats the case.

I agree that the difference between high settings and ultra in most any game is barely noticeable.

It is nice that at current it does NOT take a $2k computer to run ultra settings...in fact it costs less than $800. Loving it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 9:47:08 PM

kyle382 said:
i feel that there is no such thing as "not being into ultra settings". Lets cut through the bs and get to the real issue.

"I'm not a guy who is dumb enough to pay $600 for a g. card just so that I can bump high settings to ultra". THAT is totally fine...if thats the case.

I agree that the difference between high settings and ultra in most any game is barely noticeable.

It is nice that at current it does NOT take a $2k computer to run ultra settings...in fact it costs less than $800. Loving it.

If I was into gaming more than I am, I could cough up $600 for a card. But it's not a priority for me. If I can get high settings off a $200 card, then I'm fine with that, its saving me money and I don't care about high vs ultra.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2012 10:17:24 PM

azeem40 said:
Neither am I.. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

@ Kajabla: The Antec 750W is $15 cheaper than the OCZ one you linked.

After rebates. If the OP doesn't think the rebate hassle is worth $15, so be it.
m
0
l
February 9, 2012 10:29:09 AM

Vettedude said:
If I was into gaming more than I am, I could cough up $600 for a card. But it's not a priority for me. If I can get high settings off a $200 card, then I'm fine with that, its saving me money and I don't care about high vs ultra.


the whole point of my statement was that you dont need a $600 card to hit ultra settings these days, which is great.

I dont get the PSU arguement guys...just dont buy a friggin rosewill powersupply and you will be fine haha. Kidding, but really...plenty of great, reliable psu's out there. Corsair is a safe bet in the psu department. I have been running mine for 2+ years with no complaints. I have had cheaper psu's decay and begin killing components...spend the extra $20-$40 on a good psu.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2012 9:43:48 PM

Short good list: Antec, Corsair, Seasonic, OCZ, Silverstone, XFX, NZXT, Thortech. Apparently some high-wattage Rosewills are actually good.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
February 9, 2012 9:49:41 PM

the 7950 can run all the games listed on ultra with more than 60 fps 99% of the time.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2012 11:31:53 PM

Nope. From Tom's BF3 review: "It’s entirely possible to get a good experience out of a GeForce GTX 580 at 1920x1080 or lower, though in real-world game play you still run into occasional stuttering."
7950's roughly equal to the 580, so I assume it would also average 50fps.
The AMD page of the same review has the 6970 getting around 45 on average, for comparison.
m
0
l
February 9, 2012 11:49:49 PM

azeem40 said:
Hello.

Which GPU, along with my i5-2500k and ASRock Extreme3 Gen3, will run Skyrim, Battlefield 3, and Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 at 60 FPS on high settings? I don't want to go above 60fps by too much since I like to see the difference, and the human eye cannot tell the difference above 60fps.

EDIT: Oh, and I will be OCing to 4.5 GHz with only 2x Anti-aliasing.

Thanks.

A few points I didn't see addressed above:

  • Skyrim is very CPU-dependent. With such high-end GPUs your choice will make no real difference: whenever you fail to hit 60fps it'll be because of a CPU bottleneck.

  • Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 isn't a PC game, so I'm assuming you're running the disc (Wii version?) on an emulator. (perhaps Dolphin?) Again, the bottleneck there, if any, will be on the CPU, so the GPU choice is irrelevant.

  • The human eye CAN see well past 60fps; at least 300-500 is the capability of most human eyes. The use of 60 fps is just the result of the old ATSC television standard in North America being pegged to the 60 Hz AC standard for electricity. (this is the same reason why PAL television is 50 Hz: their AC standard is 50 Hz as well) The REAL impact here is that a lot of displays tend to not refresh any more rapidly than this, so a lot of games will also cap the framerate here, too.

    Obviously, Battlefield 3 will be the main "benchmark/bottleneck" application we've got to look at here, as all the other posts implied. Curiously, I noticed you never once made a mention of your resolution. That makes just as huge an impact on what kind of graphics card you need as does your settings. If your monitor doesn't go above 1920x1200 or so, that can mean a big difference compared to trying to run at 2560x1600 like you would if you had, say, a huge 30" screen.
    m
    0
    l
    a c 92 U Graphics card
    February 10, 2012 12:07:57 AM

    kajabla said:
    Nope. From Tom's BF3 review: "It’s entirely possible to get a good experience out of a GeForce GTX 580 at 1920x1080 or lower, though in real-world game play you still run into occasional stuttering."
    7950's roughly equal to the 580, so I assume it would also average 50fps.
    The AMD page of the same review has the 6970 getting around 45 on average, for comparison.

    the 6970 can run bf3 on ultra with aa off at 60 fps.
    m
    0
    l
    a b U Graphics card
    February 10, 2012 12:11:09 AM

    Ok. Personally, I'd take High with AA over Ultra without, but it's the OP's preference.
    m
    0
    l
    February 10, 2012 12:16:10 AM

    esrever said:
    the 6970 can run bf3 on ultra with aa off at 60 fps.

    However, the OP noted they intend to run with x2 AA enabled, which tends to more resemble x4 performance-wise than having AA disabled.
    m
    0
    l
    February 15, 2012 4:46:47 PM


    Wow, I never knew I'd still get replies after my last reply lol.

    nottheking said:
    A few points I didn't see addressed above:

  • Skyrim is very CPU-dependent. With such high-end GPUs your choice will make no real difference: whenever you fail to hit 60fps it'll be because of a CPU bottleneck.

  • Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 isn't a PC game, so I'm assuming you're running the disc (Wii version?) on an emulator. (perhaps Dolphin?) Again, the bottleneck there, if any, will be on the CPU, so the GPU choice is irrelevant.

  • The human eye CAN see well past 60fps; at least 300-500 is the capability of most human eyes. The use of 60 fps is just the result of the old ATSC television standard in North America being pegged to the 60 Hz AC standard for electricity. (this is the same reason why PAL television is 50 Hz: their AC standard is 50 Hz as well) The REAL impact here is that a lot of displays tend to not refresh any more rapidly than this, so a lot of games will also cap the framerate here, too.

    Obviously, Battlefield 3 will be the main "benchmark/bottleneck" application we've got to look at here, as all the other posts implied. Curiously, I noticed you never once made a mention of your resolution. That makes just as huge an impact on what kind of graphics card you need as does your settings. If your monitor doesn't go above 1920x1200 or so, that can mean a big difference compared to trying to run at 2560x1600 like you would if you had, say, a huge 30" screen.

  • Wow, I didn't know Skyrim and DBZ were CPU-dependent; thought they were GPU-dependent. My resolution is 1920x1080 on a Dell UltraSharp U2312HM. All the features and the .6ms input lag appealed to me big time.

    Any thoughts?
    m
    0
    l
    a c 181 U Graphics card
    February 16, 2012 12:01:56 AM

    azeem40 said:
    Wow, I never knew I'd still get replies after my last reply lol.


    Wow, I didn't know Skyrim and DBZ were CPU-dependent; thought they were GPU-dependent. My resolution is 1920x1080 on a Dell UltraSharp U2312HM. All the features and the .6ms input lag appealed to me big time.

    Any thoughts?


    Welcome to Tom's Hardware. This sort of thing goes on all the time here. I always like to sit back and learn from everybody. You got your question answered more ways than one.

    Look at it this way anyway you go, you can't loose. You have everything to gain and nothing to loose, well except money, you always loose money when you buy something. It is your choice.

    Either card and you are still a winner. Good luck to you on making the choice and I hope you enjoy your gaming.
    m
    0
    l
    !