Help settle an arguement

[malbluff]

Having just had a heated "discussion", I would appreciate a second (or third) opinion on the validity of the following statement:

"An Asus GTX 670 TOP, is more than adequate to play virtually any game at 2560x1440 resolution".

 

[Kari]

well since that doesnt mention desired fps or anything else it is true... I'm sure some games with maxed settings wont be hitting 60fps

 

[a little black duck]

well since that doesnt mention desired fps or anything else it is true... I'm sure some games with maxed settings wont be hitting 60fps

+1

 

[xxsjxx1]

Yeah it's adequate I guess... You just won't be able to max the top games at 60 fps but at 30 fps... Sure

I'll also add that I'd rather drop AA in a lot of games to get 60. I notice a big difference in smoothness especially in fast paced shooters

 

[manofchalk]

Ditto I guess.
A GTX670 will max out any game (except Witcher 2's Ubersampling) at 1920x1080 at a good-high FPS. So I imagine that it will perform adequately at 2560x1440.

 

[malbluff]

well since that doesnt mention desired fps or anything else it is true... I'm sure some games with maxed settings wont be hitting 60fps

I quite agree, the arguement revolves around how you define "adequate". If you're spending a lot of money on a system, including high res monitor, you want to be able to run at (sensible) max settings, but then, what is a "reasonable" AVERAGE FPS. I mean, below which you're likely to have to reduce settings, for minimums, or, above which, any more is pointless?

 

[manofchalk]

24FPS is the supposed maximum the eye can perceive, anything below that and you can consciously tell its slower. But 30FPS is considered the minimum for playable frame rates, with 40-50 being good and 50+ being excellent.

 

[Pinhedd]

Having just had a heated "discussion", I would appreciate a second (or third) opinion on the validity of the following statement:

"An Asus GTX 670 TOP, is more than adequate to play virtually any game at 2560x1440 resolution".

Metro 2033 uses DirectCompute/OpenCL for its depth of field filter (which look gorgeous by the way). This means it has a massive slant towards AMD 7000 GPUs because NVidia castrated the Kepler architecture in this regard. To compensate for this many reviewers don't test Metro 2033 with Depth of Field turned on (some mention it, some don't) and the 670 is still a bit behind the AMD cards. With DoF turned on and AA turned on, it's far behind and basically unplayable.

Witcher 2 has a mode called "Ubersampling" which renders multiple frames and interpolates them. This differs from Supersampling which renders a single frame at a high resolution and interpolates it. Ubersampling looks gorgeous but cannot be run smoothly at high resolution on any hardware, not even 2 overclocked 7970s.

 

[voodooking]

"An Asus GTX 670 TOP, is more than adequate to play virtually any game at 2560x1440 resolution".

You had a heated discussion because your statement is meaningless. The word "adequate" is realative to anyone at any time and therefore can't be argued over. Then the statement "virtually any game" is meaningless because "virtually" means part of a whole in this case. If one were to bring up a game that didn't work well on the GPU in question, the person making the statement now has the option to include the game in his "virtually" group or not.

Mobile warfare is great strategy for winning contests but it's useless for just about everything else.

 

[golgo_13_338]

Metro 2033 uses DirectCompute/OpenCL for its depth of field filter (which look gorgeous by the way). This means it has a massive slant towards AMD 7000 GPUs because NVidia castrated the Kepler architecture in this regard. To compensate for this many reviewers don't test Metro 2033 with Depth of Field turned on (some mention it, some don't) and the 670 is still a bit behind the AMD cards. With DoF turned on and AA turned on, it's far behind and basically unplayable.

Witcher 2 has a mode called "Ubersampling" which renders multiple frames and interpolates them. This differs from Supersampling which renders a single frame at a high resolution and interpolates it. Ubersampling looks gorgeous but cannot be run smoothly at high resolution on any hardware, not even 2 overclocked 7970s.

Really, Depth of Field on Metro 2033 really makes a huge difference if turned on or off.
My GPU is an "old" GTX 570, and I usually get +10fps with it disabled when playing on 1080p with everything maxed out (using AA instead MSAAX4).
With DoF enabled, sometimes I get annoying fps drops, around 20-24 fps.

But with a resolution of 1440p, even with the with a 670, I think it would be hard to keep a good fps all the time with everything maxed out.

1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels
2560*1440 = 3686400 pixels

1.6 M more pixels for the GPU to deal with.

 

[xxsjxx1]

The 670 is one of the few best cards out right now for a reasonable price

End.

 

[malbluff]

You had a heated discussion because your statement is meaningless. The word "adequate" is realative to anyone at any time and therefore can't be argued over. Then the statement "virtually any game" is meaningless because "virtually" means part of a whole in this case. If one were to bring up a game that didn't work well on the GPU in question, the person making the statement now has the option to include the game in his "virtually" group or not.

Mobile warfare is great strategy for winning contests but it's useless for just about everything else.

That was my point, as that was the effective response I got to trying to ascess 670TOP performance at 1440p, as there are few benchmarks at that res, or with good comparasons, with likely alternatives, at 1600p. Rightly, or wrongly, I've tended to regard a figure of 45 fps, as a reasonable "target" for average framerate (sort of on the basis that, then, minimum framerates are still likely to be playable). In all honesty, I don't know how sensible that figure is. As I don't have anything, at the moment, which will get near that (hence the need for new rig), it's difficult to judge.

 

[nforce4max]

Catch 22

 

[DarkOutlaw]

The 670 is one of the few best cards out right now for a reasonable price

End.

Agreed. Kinda dumb to be trying to bash a 670...unless you wanna compare it to the 660 ti. 670 is better, but 660 ti is best. Have fun playing with that phrase

 

[malbluff]

Agreed. Kinda dumb to be trying to bash a 670...unless you wanna compare it to the 660 ti. 670 is better, but 660 ti is best. Have fun playing with that phrase

Certainly not bashing 670's. If I could have got hold of Asus TOP, a couple of weeks ago, I'd probably have rig built, now. It's definately best option at 1920x1080. It's just that I plan to get Dell U2711, as well, for photgraphic work, so makes sense to at least check out how well the 670 would be able to game, on that.

 

[Pinhedd]

Certainly not bashing 670's. If I could have got hold of Asus TOP, a couple of weeks ago, I'd probably have rig built, now. It's definately best option at 1920x1080. It's just that I plan to get Dell U2711, as well, for photgraphic work, so makes sense to at least check out how well the 670 would be able to game, on that.

I've heard that the u2711 has some weird problems with the way the pixel pitch and the matte coating interact. Some other posters on this forum have had issues with that particular model. I have the u3011 and there's no problems with it at all.

 

[malbluff]

I've heard that the u2711 has some weird problems with the way the pixel pitch and the matte coating interact. Some other posters on this forum have had issues with that particular model. I have the u3011 and there's no problems with it at all.

Thanks for heads up. Wasn't aware of that issue, but will check it out. 30" is starting to get a bit big, with a two monitor set-up, but wouldn't be impossible.
Thanks again.

 

[Minus_i7]

24FPS is the supposed maximum the eye can perceive

Just chiming in, because this is the internet, to say that that statement is wrong.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[malbluff]

Just chiming in, because this is the internet, to say that that statement is wrong.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Thanks for that. I kept slightly losing track of what it was saying, but I think I agree. lol