Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SidekickUBT

New Hardware for Prepar3d v2

Recommended Posts

Video Card

I've got a 550Ti overclocked (2+ yrs old)

 

Would I see a difference if I upgraded to a GTX 770 with either 2GB or 4GB? Price is around $385.

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Video Card

I've got a 550Ti overclocked (2+ yrs old)

 

Would I see a difference if I upgraded to a GTX 770 with either 2GB or 4GB? Price is around $385.

 

Tim

Get all of the VRAM you can afford--see my recent post on VRAM use in V2...

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely, you will see a nice improvement and can slide the settings a lot further right.

Share this post


Link to post

This is what I just bought and installed. It has made a H U G E difference:

 

EVGA GeForce GTX 770 Superclocked with ACX Cooler 4 GB GDDR5 256-Bit Dual-Link DVI-I/DVI-D HDMI DP SLI Ready Graphics Card 04G-P4-3774-KR 

Share this post


Link to post

What sort of difference? I'm interested as I'm still on a very cheap lowly configuration of G860 (dual core 3.0Ghz) and GTX 460 1Gb, I get about 20fps at 1920x1080 pretty much maxed out, was considering an upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still in two minds between the 4GB 770 or the 3GB 780.  Bill?

Share this post


Link to post

This is what I just bought and installed. It has made a H U G E difference:

 

EVGA GeForce GTX 770 Superclocked with ACX Cooler 4 GB GDDR5 256-Bit Dual-Link DVI-I/DVI-D HDMI DP SLI Ready Graphics Card 04G-P4-3774-KR 

 

Well I agree with Bill here lol only bought the 2 GB version en not EVGA but MSI http://www.msi.com/product/vga/N770-TF-2GD5-OC.html#overview

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still in two minds between the 4GB 770 or the 3GB 780.  Bill?

I chose the 770 SC version solely because of the 4GB of VRAM. The 780's GPU, while demonstrably faster than the 770's, simply isn't that much faster. I felt the less expensive but 1GB more VRAM outweighed the speed increase.

 

Further making my decision easier is that my motherboard only has one PCIe  2.0 slot, so I'd not be able to get another 780 for possible SLI support anyway without changing out my motherboard and CPU...

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the 770 with 4gb VRAM.  I upgraded from a 660ti and the difference was noticeable.  I also considered the 780 with 3gb VRAM, but opted for the additional 1gb VRAM.

Share this post


Link to post

he difference was noticeable.

 

difference as far as? I also believ this needing 4gb is unfounded. Running default texture, Ive never seen higher than 1,6 gb. Now with addons textures of which havnt remotely been optimized to use in V2 get up to 2.5. Again, not optimized or DX11 adapted. They are finding theses thing out. By golly if it gets to where you need more than 3gb of Vram. Ill dump the programs so fast it will be silly,

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using only one display 1920x1080. Don't you think 7803GB will be better choice for me than 7704GB?

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


I also believ this needing 4gb is unfounded.

 

I think it's commensurate w/ what you ask it to do and what capability your hardware has:

 

 

And w/ Normal Veg & Autogen, Shadow quality High down from Ultra:

 

 

At one point I saw VRAM at 5.9Gb of use, but failed to paste the screen capture.

 

Share this post


Link to post

As I said before.. It's taking liber

 

I think it's commensurate w/ what you ask it to do and what capability your hardware has:

 

Yup.. Been saying.. It's using tons of VRAM because it's there and very convienent, not because it will go down in flames if it can't eat VRAM.  :lol:

 

Here is a great example I just did (I never actually run this way.. Not even close)

 

EVERYTHING slide right.. Traffic,  clouds, scenery etc you name it.. No slider left behind

Water is reflecting every single thing..

Every shadow box is checked

AF 16

MS 8

2x SGSSAA

The only thing I left unchecked is HDR because THAT is a VRAM hog to the umpteeth degree.. (so is triple buffering)

I have NOTHING left to increase the quality of here

 
1805MB of VRAM being used on a 2GB card.. My PC is crying here and on the brink of OOMing.. lol
 

Share this post


Link to post

At one point I saw VRAM at 5.9Gb of use, but failed to paste the screen capture.

 

That proves, there needs to be improvements! big ones. One observation. Ive tried 2, 3 and 4 gb cards. It seems it will never use more than you have for Vram. Never noticed any difference in performance between the 3 either. 680 2gb, 680 4gb and 780 3gb. But did see the 3 go to 2.2 and the 4 got to 3+ and the 2gb, never more than 1.8,. If thats the case why wouldnt the 2 gb totally lay down? Same scenerios.

Share this post


Link to post

If thats the case why wouldnt the 2 gb totally lay down?

 

Because code is designed to use what it can, and begins paging or other activity, to compensate for less VRAM. If it assesses there is more VRAM, it opts for that path. If it sees there less VRAM, it chooses a different path. What is the basis of the preference for more VRAM--IOW, what is the trade off the programming makes to always opt for more VRAM use when it's available? I don't fully trust subjective impression either, so when one says things appear the same, they are the same. How does one measure 'smoothness', to what resolution? Is it possible making maximum use of VRAM is indeed a way to improve total efficiency, and that also could lead to better smoothness. I'm sure the math can be done to some level of precision to be able to estimate what value more VRAM utilization has over less, and that really is where the answer lies to this question, the math.

Share this post


Link to post

Because code is designed to use what it can, and begins paging or other activity, to compensate for less VRAM. If it assesses there is more VRAM, it opts for that path. If it sees there less VRAM, it chooses a different path. What is the basis of the preference for more VRAM--IOW, what is the trade off the programming makes to always opt for more VRAM use when it's available? I don't fully trust subjective impression either, so when one says things appear the same, they are the same. How does one measure 'smoothness', to what resolution? Is it possible making maximum use of VRAM is indeed a way to improve total efficiency, and that also could lead to better smoothness. I'm sure the math can be done to some level of precision to be able to estimate what value more VRAM utilization has over less, and that really is where the answer lies to this question, the math.

Agreed Noel. So then, why go out and buy a 1000 dollar video card to get 6Gb?

Share this post


Link to post

Good discussion.

I run triple monitors using two GTX 680s. Frame rates are ok, but not great, and complex scenery or heavy clouds causes performance to plummet.

 

Would I expect to see much performance improvment if I upgraded to dual 780ti's?

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed Noel. So then, why go out and buy a 1000 dollar video card to get 6Gb?

The same reason I went out and bought a decent hexacore CPU PCIe 3.0 compliant, 32Gb of 2400Mhz quad channel DRAM, and even a good SSD.  I wanted the headroom, the least number of restrictions so that timing becomes less critical.  I wanted something that had a decent chance of running whatever came along be it V2 which was yet to be released.  Because 6Gb of GDDR5 over a 384-bit bus is a lot of bandwidth & capacity, and bandwidth is generally a good thing--and apparently the programmers made a decision to look for the bandwidth and use it, w/ backup mechanism to help the sim run when the ideal hardware isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post

Good discussion.

I run triple monitors using two GTX 680s. Frame rates are ok, but not great, and complex scenery or heavy clouds causes performance to plummet.

 

Would I expect to see much performance improvment if I upgraded to dual 780ti's?

 

Wait till it officially supports SLI and see where you stand... You have two cards but that second one isn't scaling at all yet.. :)

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


difference as far as?

The difference for me was the sim was smoother and I could tick the sliders to the right more and maintain decent frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using only one display 1920x1080. Don't you think 7803GB will be better choice for me than 7704GB?

That was the choice I made. Tough call, though, given the extra cost. Is it worth $100 for 15 percent or so more performance? I think so, but others may differ. The 770 offers more performance per dollar.

Share this post


Link to post