NVIDIA GeForce 900-series cards released - Page 3

Karrrrrrrrrrrresche · 03-03-2015, 07:38 PM

To be honest noise is the biggest concern for me. I wouldn't have minded the 970s other problems were it not for that.

Is there a benchmark thing for that?

Like I'm currently running a 560 Ti and I'm not exactly miserable with it. A lot of stuff could be a pretty big upgrade.

Solid Snake · 03-03-2015, 07:40 PM

Honestly I probably should've considered NVIDIA just for the contrast between the Radeon build on the PS4 and my PC, as I'll probably own a PS4 soon (if only for the exclusives) and it would have been intriguing to see the differences in how certain games played on the different architectures.

As is, a Radeon 290 is basically a more powerful iteration of the PS4 architecture, so it's like, why bother with a PS4? The answer is of course Uncharted, Bloodborne and the JRPGs, but damn Sony, you could just release that shit on Steam and make my life even easier.

Glass Pencil · 03-17-2015, 06:51 PM

I've got an EVGA GTX 980 superclocked with the third party ACX 2.0 cooler on it. Just about perfect for 1080p gaming, I upgraded from dual 570s when I couldn't run Dragon Age: Inquisition on ultra settings at an appropriate frame rate. My only real complaint is that we're probably still a few generations away from crisp, 60fps 4k gaming at a reasonable budget. I think I'll end up getting a second 980 and a high resfresh rate 1440 monitor. (The Asus ROG swift monitor if I can ever scrounge up the cash for it, or if something better and cheaper comes out before then.)

I didn't really understand the backlash about the under-reported Vram on the 970s, I mean its not like it changed the benchmarks or actual performance. It's still a beast of a card, and it still wasn't going to give you a satisfactory 4k gaming experience anyways. There' is no currently extant single card solution for 4k gaming, and your best bet is probably triple sli titan blacks, which is what most sane people would call "cost prohibitive."

03-03-2015, 07:40 PM	#22
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	Honestly I probably should've considered NVIDIA just for the contrast between the Radeon build on the PS4 and my PC, as I'll probably own a PS4 soon (if only for the exclusives) and it would have been intriguing to see the differences in how certain games played on the different architectures. As is, a Radeon 290 is basically a more powerful iteration of the PS4 architecture, so it's like, why bother with a PS4? The answer is of course Uncharted, Bloodborne and the JRPGs, but damn Sony, you could just release that shit on Steam and make my life even easier. __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text.

03-17-2015, 06:51 PM	#23
Glass Pencil Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 28	I've got an EVGA GTX 980 superclocked with the third party ACX 2.0 cooler on it. Just about perfect for 1080p gaming, I upgraded from dual 570s when I couldn't run Dragon Age: Inquisition on ultra settings at an appropriate frame rate. My only real complaint is that we're probably still a few generations away from crisp, 60fps 4k gaming at a reasonable budget. I think I'll end up getting a second 980 and a high resfresh rate 1440 monitor. (The Asus ROG swift monitor if I can ever scrounge up the cash for it, or if something better and cheaper comes out before then.) I didn't really understand the backlash about the under-reported Vram on the 970s, I mean its not like it changed the benchmarks or actual performance. It's still a beast of a card, and it still wasn't going to give you a satisfactory 4k gaming experience anyways. There' is no currently extant single card solution for 4k gaming, and your best bet is probably triple sli titan blacks, which is what most sane people would call "cost prohibitive."