DISCUSSION: GTX400 vs HD5xxx Series

[flu!d]

As stated, I would not even consider one 5870 for 3 screen action, Source based games run on anything, they don't utilize my GTX275's past 35% utilization - Hardly a valid example of the merits of single card Eyefinity peformance.

[anthony256]

Originally Posted by flu!d

As stated, I would not even consider one 5870 for 3 screen action, Source based games run on anything, they don't utilize my GTX275's past 35% utilization - Hardly a valid example of the merits of single card Eyefinity peformance.

Ok, change my card to a 5970....

Still, much cheaper and will run on a standard ~500 - 600W PSU. Even if you had to buy a 650W Corsair, add $150 to $1499 and it's still way cheaper than NVIDIA's solution.

For someone to say NVIDIA is more expensive... I actually feel sorry for someone who would think that, as I've shown in explicit detail many, many times now.

ATI's Eyefinity:

1 x 5870 ~$800
2 x 24" screens - $300ea ($600 total)
1 x EyeFinity dongle - $99 ($99 total)

ATI Total: $1499

NVIDIA's Surround Vision (non 3d):

2 x GTX480's - $650ea ($1300 total) - SLI is required by default for multiple displays this is more than the cost of the ENTIRE ATI setup
2 x 24" screens - $300ea ($600 total)
Corsair HX1000 - $350 average ($350 total)
16x/16x SLI mobo - $300 average

NVIDIA Total: $2550

[anthony256]

Don't like to double post, but this is a seperate thing:

Keep in mind, NVIDIA's cards were not only 9 months late... their software is now delayed. ATI have had no delays in hardware apart from the 6 edition of 5870.

EyeFinity is here, NOW.

NV's Surround, is not.

Another thing;

You could buy the entire system for $2500 (which I have sold to customers myself, many times) for the pricing of just 4 components to build the NVIDIA system.

How it somehow is cheaper on NVIDIA, I would like to know explicit details on this, pricing, real world tests on power consumption and ACTUAL use. But, this cannot be done as the tech isn't here.

We can talk about requirements - but we don't even know if it WORKS YET.............................

[Frag]

Originally Posted by anthony256

No, because that is the point of this thread.

It is a LARGE difference as I've shown with numbers and stats.

NVIDIA require SLI - ATI do not. This increases the price of GPU's by 100%. Those 2 GPU's require significant more power - so you can't just make any 'ol PSU work, 1000W or nothing.

Bleeding edge gamers will want this, yes... but the thing is, as I've always said - EyeFinity opens it up to MAINSTREAM gamers (58x0) owners..... just 2 more displays @ the same res + DP adapter... ~$600 - $700 entry fee.

NVIDIA require an SLI capable mobo, another entire GPU, and 2 more screens. This is something to consider when going multiple screens.

BUT how many "mainstream" gamers will want 3 screens?
Ones who have/want 3 screens will more than likley have a 1000w plus psu anyhow.

I realise that ATi option can be had cheaper, but i cant see myself buying 3 screens and playing current titles at 30 fps..

Yes if TF2 and other like games is all you play you may get away with the cheaper ati option, but really how many "mainstream" gamers will splurge an additional 600-800 just to play old games on eyefinity? Essentially if you want to "EXPERIENCE" the surround gaming, you would need 2x 5870 (or one 5890) on the minimum otherwise your watching a slide show.

Who here is a "mainstream" gamer who has 3 screens?

[flu!d]

Ok then, we've clarified that if you think the NV solution is too expensive and you're impaitient than you have to option of going to the ATi side of the fence....

Of course many people prefer NV and they are more than entitled to do so, no matter what the cost....

Moving on....?

[anthony256]

Originally Posted by Frag

BUT how many "mainstream" gamers will want 3 screens?
Ones who have/want 3 screens will more than likley have a 1000w plus psu anyhow.

I realise that ATi option can be had cheaper, but i cant see myself buying 3 screens and playing current titles at 30 fps..

Yes if TF2 and other like games is all you play you may get away with the cheaper ati option, but really how many "mainstream" gamers will splurge an additional 600-800 just to play old games on eyefinity?

Who here is a "mainstream" gamer who has 3 screens?

I am a mainstream gamer.

I do not play in a clan, I do not play much - but when I play - I play in LUXURY. I wanted it cheap, and I was able to secure 120hz X 3 for $1200, to me that's a bargain. 5970 - $800 or so - bargain.

I run a GA-P55A-UD3P - nothing luxury about that. i7 860 - overclocked. HX620 Corsair PSU.

A relatively 'mainstream' setup apart from the card. Not a 1366, no 1500W+ PSU, no 2000mhz memory, etc.

Mainstream gamers have spent $800 - $1000 as an investment 3 years ago on a 24" 1920x1xx0 screen. These days - you can have 2 additional screens + DP adapter for that price.

[klownkill]

Originally Posted by flu!d

As stated, I would not even consider one 5870 for 3 screen action, Source based games run on anything, they don't utilize my GTX275's past 35% utilization - Hardly a valid example of the merits of single card Eyefinity peformance.

Any one that considers just a single 5870 is sorely mistaken and will find out when it gets crushed by the worlds fastest GPU 480 jk. Yes the 5870 was a good card but running games at medium detail just so I can play on 3 screens was horrible and frame rates drop a lot. Even when I had 3 x 5850 with eyefinity I wasn't able to play all my games at max image quality and have an acceptable frame rate. I am happy now just running 2 monitors 1 for gaming and the other is for email etc. I run my games at 2048*1152 8xAA-32xAA so a single 5870 would struggle. I prefer image quality over luxury any day, better gaming experience.

[anthony256]

Originally Posted by flu!d

Ok then, we've clarified that if you think the NV solution is too expensive and you're impaitient than you have to option of going to the ATi side of the fence....

Of course many people prefer NV and they are more than entitled to do so, no matter what the cost....

Moving on....?

It's not a matter of me thinking it - do you agree? Add it up - give me your breakdown and let me know if YOU agree it's more expensive.

Of course people may want to go to NVIDIA, that's their choice - but at the end of the day, ATI is cheaper, mainstream is where the market is, the requirements for Eyefinity are fairly low.

Why move on? This thread is built for this type of discussion.

[anthony256]

Originally Posted by klownkill

Any one that considers just a single 5870 is sorely mistaken and will find out when it gets crushed by the worlds fastest GPU 480 jk. Yes the 5870 was a good card but running games at medium detail just so I can play on 3 screens was horrible and frame rates drop a lot. Even when I had 3 x 5850 with eyefinity I wasn't able to play all my games at max image quality and have an acceptable frame rate. I am happy now just running 2 monitors 1 for gaming and the other is for email etc. I run my games at 2048*1152 8xAA-32xAA so a single 5870 would struggle. I prefer image quality over luxury any day, better gaming experience.

Straight from NVIDIA's forums, you probably didn't know:

Proof of link:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=164301

Quotation from said proof:

+ on that indeed, but to be clear CSAA is lesser quality than Box FSAA mode the best FSAA for the best image quality on GT200 = FSAA x8, the CSAA modes lessen the image quality alot, they only improve the FSAA being does hereby producting more wash over the entire image

2048*1152 8xAA-32xAA and an acceptable frame rate on a GTX480?

I would like proof of this thank you. Rules of the thread state:

Provide some sort of facts in your posts (reviews, your experience, others experience etc)

Unless you think <30fps is acceptable? Yet 3 x 5850's were not impressive enough for you.

Now the comparison is for KK:

3 x 5850 @ 5760x1080 = max detail, wasn't enough.
Yet
1 x 480 @ 2048x1152 @ 8X - 32X AA = max detail, provides acceptable FPS?

5760x1080 would require no AA, same with 2048x1152. If you're running around, you wouldn't tell. Unless you're the type of gamer to stop and look at individual leaves or fences in a game.

AA at high resolutions is very hard for a GPU.

[klownkill]

I forgot to add a pic of my GTX480 running 2048*1152 32xAA

Here is the FPS with Furmark card at stock speeds

CSAA is better because it doesn't sacrifice much performance for better quality, where as MSAA is the direct opposite. Definitely use it if you have a geforce 8*** video card.

MS32xAA
I don't use
FPS=
MIN = 40fps
MAX = 87fps
Ave = 57fps
I would call that a fantaic fps.



http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5996/furmark32xaatest23.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Frontl1ne]

Is triple monitor gaming even worth the price to set it up? Ideally if I had a triple monitor setup, I'd also be looking for one of those proluma stands which are about ~$300 for triple monitor setups. I was gonna go ahead with building one, but considering that the two extra monitors are only going to be for peripheral vision, I don't see how it's worth blowing $1.5k to set it up. I guess for people with lots of $$$ to burn, it'd be a pretty good experience. But I think most gamers would rather put that money to keeping their system up to date.

[anthony256]

You're basing your entire argument of "great FPS" in a benchmark??

LOL.

Wow, that made my morning.

Go into Crysis, maximum resolution, 32X aa and give me playable (45fps+) frame rates.

Proof:

http://gizmodo.com/5503193/nvidias-g...rmi-benchmarks

Quote:

A few years ago, Intel commissioned a study to find out what the threshold of pain was when it game to playing games. At what point will lower frame rates affect player experiences? Their research uncovered two interesting data points. First, if a game could maintain a frame rate above 45 fps, then users would tend to remain immersed in the gaming experience. The other factor, however, are wide, sudden variations in frame rate.

If you're humming along at 100fps, and the game suddenly drops to 48 fps, you notice, even though you're still above that magical 45 fps threshold.

[zehoo]

I really don't think mainstream gamers would be forking out for a video card that costs +$200-250 or 3 monitors. That right there excludes the mainstream from ultra wide screen gaming until it becomes less of an enthusiast sector.

[flu!d]

Why move on? This thread is built for this type of discussion.

How much can we strip down and analyze what we all allready know Anthony?

The discussion just becomes so repatitive....

Cmon dude?

[anthony256]

Originally Posted by Frontl1ne

Is triple monitor gaming even worth the price to set it up? Ideally if I had a triple monitor setup, I'd also be looking for one of those proluma stands which are about ~$300 for triple monitor setups. I was gonna go ahead with building one, but considering that the two extra monitors are only going to be for peripheral vision, I don't see how it's worth blowing $1.5k to set it up. I guess for people with lots of $$$ to burn, it'd be a pretty good experience. But I think most gamers would rather put that money to keeping their system up to date.

For some games - yes, for some games - no.

My experience and testing has found Source based games are amazing. Dirt 2 is amazing. BC2 would require way too much GPU power to run smooth.

I (personally) require 100fps to maintain smoothness, when it drops to 50 - 60 from 100fps, it drops by 50% and it IS noticable.

It's not for people with lots of money to burn, if you have a 58x0, you buy 2 screens at $200 - $250ea, DP adapter ($99 - $150) and that's it. Sourced based game numbers are huge (TF2, L4D, L4D2, entire HL catalogue, CSS, etc).

Plenty of other games will run fine with a few details turned down (no AA required at such a high resolution - shadow detail to medium, etc) will increase performance by 20 - 30%.

Testing Dirt 2/ BC2 for those stats a few nights ago.

Details of this here:

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...8&postcount=72