Graphical Powerhouses

[interpunct]

I bought a PC a year ago, well, I built it.

I have a FX-8350 CPU and a R9 270 GPU and yet I have to find a properly optimized game that looks really good. Are there any PC games with almost uincanny valley type of graphics available for PC?

I'm kinda disappointed that games like driveclub exist for PS4 but a game looking as great as that I have yet to find it on PC.

 

[fatkrakr]

I bought a PC a year ago, well, I built it.

I have a FX-8350 CPU and a R9 270 GPU and yet I have to find a properly optimized game that looks really good. Are there any PC games with almost uincanny valley type of graphics available for PC?

I'm kinda disappointed that games like driveclub exist for PS4 but a game looking as great as that I have yet to find it on PC.

GTA V

 

[interpunct]

GTA V

Tried it, it's only marginally better than the PS4 version.

 

[Luminis]

Project CARS
Far Cry 4
Crysis 3 (seriously, still one of the best looking games out there, imho)
Metro: Last Light
I'd say Witcher 3 as well, but a 270(X) will likely not be able to run it at max settings. Might not look any better than the console version, in that case.

/edit: Now that I think about it, PCARS won't be able to run at max settings, either. My old 680 wasn't enough to max it, so a 270 won't be, either.

 

[DQuaN]

All the Bioshocks.
Dying Light.

 

[sesselpupser]

This is Crysis 3 at around 8K, rendered on a 7950... At around 2fps.

If you're talking about games you can run, I have no idea (I don't know what a 270 can do), but Max Payne 3 can look really good at times - those times being the five minutes there's not some weird noise or glitch filter. I have yet to see anything look as good as Drive Club, I have no idea how they made a game look that good.

Actually, MGS V: Ground Zeroes will probably run well for you, that's an astoundingly pretty game. Sure, if you look closely you'll see pop-in, dithered transparency and other compromises to keep the performance high but for the most part, when it's in motion and at a high resolution, it's amazing and it scales extremely well (as you'd expect from a multiplatform engine). The various 1080p videos of The Phantom Pain suggest that's going to be similarly gorgeous and I really can't wait to play it.

 

[interpunct]

All the Bioshocks.
Dying Light.

Played all Bioshock games on my old PC almost maxed out. Can't say I'm really fond of Infinite as a game, it kinda bores me.

I also played and passed Dying Light. That thing runs like a car with square wheels. My friends with Nvidia cards with 4GB were struggling to get over 30 fps and I was hitting 22-30 in my 270 (2GB) so you can guess how badly optimized that game was at release.

Project CARS
Far Cry 4
Crysis 3 (seriously, still one of the best looking games out there, imho)
Metro: Last Light
I'd say Witcher 3 as well, but a 270(X) will likely not be able to run it at max settings. Might not look any better than the console version, in that case.

/edit: Now that I think about it, PCARS won't be able to run at max settings, either. My old 680 wasn't enough to max it, so a 270 won't be, either.

Project CARS doesn't run well because of the simple fact that I run a AMD card. They didn't optimize that game well for those, just for Nvidia's.

I tried Far Cry 4 at release. It stutters a lot and when I'm in a car the FPS tanks because of poor optimization. Maybe they fixed it by now, I gotta re-check.

I gotta try crysis 3 then. I tried it on PS3, lol. Never again am I playing a port for a demanding PC game.

I gotta finish Metro:LL. I started it and didn't really go too far.

Witcher 2 runs at 50-60 sometimes at 30 on the boss but hasn't tanked past that. And it looks amazing. I can't wait to see how good Witcher 3 will look. I will play it after I'm done with Witcher 2, I already have it on my PC installed ready to go.

This is Crysis 3 at around 8K, rendered on a 7950... At around 2fps.

If you're talking about games you can run, I have no idea (I don't know what a 270 can do), but Max Payne 3 can look really good at times - those times being the five minutes there's not some weird noise or glitch filter. I have yet to see anything look as good as Drive Club, I have no idea how they made a game look that good.

Actually, MGS V: Ground Zeroes will probably run well for you, that's an astoundingly pretty game. Sure, if you look closely you'll see pop-in, dithered transparency and other compromises to keep the performance high but for the most part, when it's in motion and at a high resolution, it's amazing and it scales extremely well (as you'd expect from a multiplatform engine). The various 1080p videos of The Phantom Pain suggest that's going to be similarly gorgeous and I really can't wait to play it.

I did play Ground Zeros. What an odd game that is. It's smooth as butter, but when I change some settings around, specifically when I turn the textures I think, from high to very high, the FPS tank to 5-15. Still. Lovely game to look at.

I really want to try Crysis 3 after that screenshot. Wow that looks amazing.

 

[Luminis]

Project CARS doesn't run well because of the simple fact that I run a AMD card. They didn't optimize that game well for those, just for Nvidia's.

The 270 scores similar (or slightly worse) compared to a 680 on most benchmarks. Optimisation isn't that great, sure, but it's not an especially powerful GPU to begin with.

 

[interpunct]

The 270 scores similar (or slightly worse) compared to a 680 on most benchmarks. Optimisation isn't that great, sure, but it's not an especially powerful GPU to begin with.

2GB isn't exactly "low end". And when setting everything on ultra has the same impact on FPS as everything on low. Yeah, you can only blame it so far on the GPU.

 

[Luminis]

2GB isn't exactly "low end".

Well, the 270 was a competitor to the GTX660, a midrange card. While I agree wholeheartedly on the optimisation issues, the equivalent NVIDIA card, the 660, wouldn't be able to handle a true graphics powerhose of a game, either.

Battlefield 4 and the Tomb Raider reboot come to mind as being (supposedly) optimised for AMD cards, but that's about it. From the top of my head, at least. Which isn't all that surprising, as NVIDIA's leading three to one in market share (by the end of 2014, that is; might be four to one by now).

 

[interpunct]

Well, the 270 was a competitor to the GTX660, a midrange card. While I agree wholeheartedly on the optimisation issues, the equivalent NVIDIA card, the 660, wouldn't be able to handle a true graphics powerhose of a game, either.

Battlefield 4 and the Tomb Raider reboot come to mind as being (supposedly) optimised for AMD cards, but that's about it. From the top of my head, at least. Which isn't all that surprising, as NVIDIA's leading three to one in market share (by the end of 2014, that is; might be four to one by now).

Hey I know that my card isn't that great but one thing is being able to max out a game. Another is being playable haha.

I never liked nvidia as a company. So I usually stick to AMD.

Maybe crossfiring doesn't sound that bad now. I should buy a 4gb card and crossfire it with my 2gb one and have a good PC for a few years considering the PS4 AFAIK has only 2gb gpu so that'll be the standard for the next 6 years or so.

I remember that tomb raider played wonderfully on my old 512mb amd gpu. Maybe I'll try it out again. And BF4 doesn't interest me that much since I got no way of playing it with buddies

 

[Pseudopod]

Framerate taking a huge hit when upping texture quality is a good indication that you've run out of VRAM. When that happens, textures need to be cached from system RAM almost constantly, and this is a lot slower to do than just fetching them from VRAM.

 

[interpunct]

Framerate taking a huge hit when upping texture quality is a good indication that you've run out of VRAM. When that happens, textures need to be cached from system RAM almost constantly, and this is a lot slower to do than just fetching them from VRAM.

True. Still it kinda baffled me. I mean usually for me when I go from high to ultra if my card can't handle it I get a 10 fps drop at most in every other game I played.

That being said, in mgs if I turned down the dof and kept the texture in ultra I was able to hit 60 again. Such a weird game for me.

 

[sesselpupser]

Maybe crossfiring doesn't sound that bad now. I should buy a 4gb card and crossfire it with my 2gb one and have a good PC for a few years considering the PS4 AFAIK has only 2gb gpu so that'll be the standard for the next 6 years or so.

1. If you Crossfire a 2GB card with a 4GB one, both cards will only use 2GB. Also a system with two 2GB cards in Crossfire technically doesn't have 4GB VRAM, they've got two processors with access to 2GB each.
2. The PS4's graphics chip shares the 8GB total RAM with the APU, there's a limit to how much it can use but it's more than 2GB.

 

[Luminis]

I never liked nvidia as a company. So I usually stick to AMD.

For any specific reason? I do hear that a lot from folks who prefer AMD, but I rarely get any details. I'm kinda attached to AMD myself, if only for the nostalgia... Had an ATI Radeon 9800 PRO by Sapphire back in '04 or '05 when I started playing World of WarCraft, alongside a 2.6 GHz AMD Athlon XP Loved that old piece of junk. Gotta still be around at my dad's place.

Been eagerly awaiting the day AMD's overtaking Intel/NVIDIA, but I can't find a reason to not go for the latter.

1. If you Crossfire a 2GB card with a 4GB one, both cards will only use 2GB. Also a system with two 2GB cards in Crossfire technically doesn't have 4GB VRAM, they've got two processors with access to 2GB each.
2. The PS4's graphics chip shares the 8GB total RAM with the APU, there's a limit to how much it can use but it's more than 2GB.

Agreed on both accounts. Plus, at this point, I'd probably rather go and try to get my hands on a better single GPU. Something capable of DX12, I'd say.

 

[interpunct]

1. If you Crossfire a 2GB card with a 4GB one, both cards will only use 2GB. Also a system with two 2GB cards in Crossfire technically doesn't have 4GB VRAM, they've got two processors with access to 2GB each.
2. The PS4's graphics chip shares the 8GB total RAM with the APU, there's a limit to how much it can use but it's more than 2GB.

Well that ps4 detail is interesting. I didn't know that.

So what the best course of action then? I mean I bought this card not one year ago. A bit less. Maybe 9 months ago when I built this (my first) PC.

I seriously want to max out games but at the same time if buying a 4gb card to crossfire it isn't worth it what do I do? Is crossfire even worth considering?

For any specific reason? I do hear that a lot from folks who prefer AMD, but I rarely get any details. I'm kinda attached to AMD myself, if only for the nostalgia... Had an ATI Radeon 9800 PRO by Sapphire back in '04 or '05 when I started playing World of WarCraft, alongside a 2.6 GHz AMD Athlon XP Loved that old piece of junk. Gotta still be around at my dad's place.

Been eagerly awaiting the day AMD's overtaking Intel/NVIDIA, but I can't find a reason to not go for the latter.

Agreed on both accounts. Plus, at this point, I'd probably rather go and try to get my hands on a better single GPU. Something capable of DX12, I'd say.

Well, the most annoying thing is that thanks to nvidia gameworks now any game that have that has that will run like trash in a amd gpu. You can argue that amd has mantle but they introduced that after nvidia pulled this stunt afaik. So now games like PCars are pretty much just not worth my time.

Besides that amd are a lot cheaper, and maybe in games thanks to lazy developers nvidia gets some edge, but when it comes to the real world to the software I use like photoshop or somy vegas amd has a clear edge. And can be on par with even higher end gpu. Thats my experience using borrowed PC's.

Also amd gpu's tend to be a lot more overclockable. Which is great. And they have always been dependable in my experience. I've had 3 friends that their Nvidia cars have gotten busted in less than 2 years while I've heard of people talking about their amd's lasting for a long time. Its a few reasons but yeah.

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

Most games will look good if used with Sweetfx, Mastereffect, Gemfx, ENB etc.:

 

[Luminis]

Well that ps4 detail is interesting. I didn't know that.

So what the best course of action then? I mean I bought this card not one year ago. A bit less. Maybe 9 months ago when I built this (my first) PC.

I seriously want to max out games but at the same time if buying a 4gb card to crossfire it isn't worth it what do I do? Is crossfire even worth considering?

Crossfire (and SLI, for that matter) are usually something you'll want to consider for a rather high-end build. I was toying with the idea of just throwing a second 680 into my PC instead of upgrading to a 980, but at the end of the day, you're still paying for old tech. If you're shelling out, I'd say invest a few more bucks and get yourself something that's gonna last a little.

Well, the most annoying thing is that thanks to nvidia gameworks now any game that have that has that will run like trash in a amd gpu. You can argue that amd has mantle but they introduced that after nvidia pulled this stunt afaik. So now games like PCars are pretty much just not worth my time.

Eh, that stuff has been going back and forth for quite some time now. There's been an "optimisation war" for years, AMD getting their logos onto some games, NVIDIA on others. AMD released their TressFX and Tomb Raider ran like crap on anything made by NVIDIA at first (in 2013). Then came GameWorks, half a year later - seemed to me like NVIDIA did that one out of spite, at the time . Now there's Mantle and G-Sync, too... They've both been playing the same game, as far as I am concerned. Can't blame them for trying to get a leg up on their competition, either.

Besides that amd are a lot cheaper, and maybe in games thanks to lazy developers nvidia gets some edge, but when it comes to the real world to the software I use like photoshop or somy vegas amd has a clear edge. And can be on par with even higher end gpu. Thats my experience using borrowed PC's.

Maybe on the entry level GPUs, never looked into those. As far as gaming cards are concerned, no. Lots of benchmarking going on these days. And that doesn't rely on games with lopsided optimisation. I've yet to see AMD touch a GTX970 on neutral grounds, let alone a 980, Titan or 980ti.

As far as price goes, a 970 costs just as much as a R9 290X. The 970 pulls ahead in pretty much every benchmark I've seen, though. And, yeah, the games I've cared about are optimized for NVIDIA, too, so there's that. Believe me, if I saw a point in going AMD, I would've done so.

Also amd gpu's tend to be a lot more overclockable. Which is great. And they have always been dependable in my experience. I've had 3 friends that their Nvidia cars have gotten busted in less than 2 years while I've heard of people talking about their amd's lasting for a long time. Its a few reasons but yeah.

Meh, never had issues with either brand and don't know anyone personally who's had a card go belly up. And my old 680 had to take a lot of abuse (overclocked it a wee bit past the recommended limits ); only thing I've got first hand experience with (and heard a lot about) is how hot AMD's GPUs and CPUs are running. As I said, never ran into trouble with either company, so that's the only thing I can go by.

 

[interpunct]

Crossfire (and SLI, for that matter) are usually something you'll want to consider for a rather high-end build. I was toying with the idea of just throwing a second 680 into my PC instead of upgrading to a 980, but at the end of the day, you're still paying for old tech. If you're shelling out, I'd say invest a few more bucks and get yourself something that's gonna last a little.


Eh, that stuff has been going back and forth for quite some time now. There's been an "optimisation war" for years, AMD getting their logos onto some games, NVIDIA on others. AMD released their TressFX and Tomb Raider ran like crap on anything made by NVIDIA at first (in 2013). Then came GameWorks, half a year later - seemed to me like NVIDIA did that one out of spite, at the time . Now there's Mantle and G-Sync, too... They've both been playing the same game, as far as I am concerned. Can't blame them for trying to get a leg up on their competition, either.


Maybe on the entry level GPUs, never looked into those. As far as gaming cards are concerned, no. Lots of benchmarking going on these days. And that doesn't rely on games with lopsided optimisation. I've yet to see AMD touch a GTX970 on neutral grounds, let alone a 980, Titan or 980ti.

As far as price goes, a 970 costs just as much as a R9 290X. The 970 pulls ahead in pretty much every benchmark I've seen, though. And, yeah, the games I've cared about are optimized for NVIDIA, too, so there's that. Believe me, if I saw a point in going AMD, I would've done so.


Meh, never had issues with either brand and don't know anyone personally who's had a card go belly up. And my old 680 had to take a lot of abuse (overclocked it a wee bit past the recommended limits ); only thing I've got first hand experience with (and heard a lot about) is how hot AMD's GPUs and CPUs are running. As I said, never ran into trouble with either company, so that's the only thing I can go by.

OK so first things first, I'm pretty sure the 290x is a year older than the 970. Plus the 970 has 3.5 GB unlike the 4GB that the 290x has.

Usually that doesn't matter too much, a GPU is a lot more than just vram but if I remember correctly I read a long time ago that the 290x has a 30-35% edge over the 970 in DX12. Which is pretty significant imo considering that's what we are moving into.

And again, optimization war or not, TressFX is a thing that could be turned off just like those special effects in Mirror's Edge could. It didn't warrant Gameworks, yes you could argue it's a step to beat the competition but when some games are practically being held back because of a piss-war between companies, well you start to resent that company that pulls out that BS. It's why people rail on Cal of Duty for the yearly games and constant DLC yet don't bat an eye at other games that do the same thing like Assassins Creed. Even if lately Assassins Creed has been gotten it's fair share of hate. But people still bitch and moan about Call of Duty the most. Not every other company that has done it since. Nvidia opened the gates for that kind of BS.


Thing is that this is just an example but Nvidia has always been known of doing shady things behind the consumers back, I could tell you a few more things Nvidia has done but right now I don't have a way to look for links since I'm on my phone and got a very low battery on this little thing.

BTW concerning the "I've yet to see AMD touch a GTX970 on neutral grounds, let alone a 980, Titan or 980ti." here is this link so you can see that indeed AMD can hold it's own against a titan, and even beat it gaming wise. Although we aren't really talking here about high end cards are we, I am talking about low to mid range cards that are for the average consumer like me. I'm talking about the cheapest way to get a nice and good system that is reliable. Thing is for me my pc isn't just gaming. It has many other uses. And Nvidia just doesn't cut it when I can have a better option which is AMD. People can argue that AMD is hotter or uses up more electricity but in reality it's pretty much the same with Nvidia and the results are mostly negligible because that's not something a good fan can fix.

Anyways that BS too cuz under load my GPU goes at most 60C and doesn't surpass that number. My cheap 15$ fan is enough for it.

I gotta clean it now tho. Ever since I built it I haven't cleaned it one bit.

 

[Luminis]

Sorry, past few days been a bit busy.

1. 290X vs 970: The 290X being older doesn't change the fact that I can get more for my money by buying something else, does it?

2. DX12: Recent preliminary benchmarks show the performance increase for NVIDIA and AMD GPUs to be pretty similar when running DX12 compared to DX11 (which is to be expected, given that the increase is mostly due to reduced API overhead). Those benchmarks are a pretty moot point, though, given that there are no finalized drivers that utilize DX12 yet.

3. NVIDIA specific features: Going by a recent GameWorks title like The Witcher 3, GameWorks features such as HairWorks can be turned off as well. Other GameWorks features can be turned off by disabling the corresponding DLLs, even if there is no such option in the game itself.

4. GameWorks performance: From what I've seen GameWorks features aren't causing considerable performance issues for AMD cards per se. HairWorks screws older NVIDIA cards just as much (probably because tesselation is one of Maxwell's strong suits). A 290X performs only slightly worse than a 970 in the Witcher 3 (about 10% difference in average FPS) and that game's got the full range of GameWorks features. The difference in performance is what neutral benchmarks would make you expect, so I fail to see your point there. You sure you're not just blaming GameWorks when it's really a matter of processing power?

5. I'm thrilled to hear what "shady things" they've done. Never felt screwed over by NVIDIA for buying one of their products (which, arguably, have not been many ).

6. 295X: Sorry, completely forgot about the 295. Might be because it's a dual GPU card or because it isn't surrounded by the same hype as the Titan. You're right though, cards in that price range hardly matter to the average customer.

7. Low range GPUs: As I said, I've not been looking into the low-range stuff. Might very well be that AMD pulls ahead there, haven't been keeping up with that market segment because I'm usually going for the higher end stuff (just not the enthusiast-level equipment like a Titan )

8. Heat and stuff: Eh, as I said, never had any significant issues with either brand because I generally take care of cooling. However, AMD's cards running hotter isn't just made up, you know.