Question about GPU Performance

[crazykilla]

Hello, I'm CrazyKilla

sorry for the very uninformative title but i couldn't fit a good title.
Anyway, I am wondering, I've seen many videos and reviews of graphics cards, one being the Nvidia GTX 680, it is one of the best cards in the world. Anyway, take this video for example: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB Kepler Video Card: In-Depth Review & Benchmarks - YouTube
At one part it shows the FPS recieved whilst playing some games, if you look at Metro 2033, he got an avarage of 42 FPS whilst on maximum settings, now this dissapoints me, does this mean one of the best GPUs in the world can still suffer lag whilst playing intensive games? 42 FPS is 18 fps under my monitor refresh rate, I've managed to live many years whilst using 2xGTS 450s and i managed to play many games such as both Metros, Hitman absolution, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3 and all this game and still get wonderfull performance and quality.
I was expecting to have like solid 60FPS ATLEAST on some of the most intensive games.

EDIT: I forgot about the fact that they were tested before/right after release, with brand new drivers and everything, so this might be one reason for such low FPS.

 

[TwoCables]

You also have to consider the resolution he's using, his monitor's size, and his in-game settings.

 

[crazykilla]

He was using 1920x1080, pritey standard resolution, and using highest graphical settings, still, for one of the best GPUs in the world it seems a let down,

 

[TwoCables]

I don't think I would call it "one of the best in the world". The 7970 beats it, and now so does the GTX Titan and the GTX 780.

Besides, if you really wanted that kind of performance, then I would recommend 2 GTX 680s in 2-way SLI. Of course, that could require a PSU upgrade because it would require a good quality-made 550-650W PSU. The reason I'm including 650W units is simply because it's easier to find an affordable good quality-made unit that has 2 x 6+2-pin PCI-E connectors when shopping for 650W PSUs.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

I forgot about the fact that they were tested before/right after release, with brand new drivers and everything, so this might be one reason for such low FPS.

Likely. Other reviews give a more normal number, between 64 and 90.

Anyway, i personally think it's better to not SLI in this times, as costs and whatnot are more or less the same as buying a more powerful card (you just choose if you want to pay for a bigger card or a bigger PSU). Also a single card is more compatible with most games (some games freak out on SLI).

I don't think I would call it "one of the best in the world". The 7970 beats it, and now so does the GTX Titan and the GTX 780.

Being the Titan a copycat of 780 performance, and that the 7970 does beat the 680 by a small margin anyway (and that the 780 is only 1/10 better than the 680 on average), I'd leave the 680 in the "one of the best of the world" category for at least another year.
It's not THE best, but it's rather close.
It lost bragging rights, of course.

 

[crazykilla]

For GPU Performance i like to use this: PassMark Software - Video Card Benchmarks - High End Video Cards
And it does show that the GTX 680 is 4th down, was 2nd just a few weeks ago.
so anyway, what would be a good card to get, the GTX 680 or the GTX 770? According to the web i just posted, the 770 quiet an improvement from the GTX 680 and even cheaper, but is there a down side to this card, it's cheaper, how could it have better performance too?

 

[kbrady1979]

There are still some games that the 680 will run better than the 770. If you are looking at getting a 680, that means you are willing to spend the cash for it.........why not get a 780 and call it a day. The 780 is one of THE best graphics cards out today.

 

[crazykilla]

A'ight, I think I'll get the 770 or 780, i saw a review on 770 and saw that its cheaper AND better performing that 680, even if the performance isn't as good for all games.
Does anyone know the specs for the new Xbox one and Ps4? i want to laugh at them

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Actually, Ps4 specs aren't so bad. here a vs comparison.

 

[Faladu]

Also, don't use refresh rate of a monitor as basis for playable FPS or not.

The human eye struggles past 30 FPS. NTSC is 23.xx FPS and PAL is 25 FPS for TV standards, to use as REAL comparison.

If I was stuck with smooth 42 FPS forever on everything, that would be fine and daddy.

YES INDEED some games aren't programmed perfectly, it happens.
[too many variables here, this argument could exceed ANYONE's interest, so I am not getting started on that end. :devil:]

Oh yeah, the 680 is a bitchin' card right now, no doubt, it tends to run hot is only negative comments I have read, fairly typical on high end cards when pushed, counter it with good air flow and shouldn't be much of an issue, replace the thermal compound they used with Artic MX-4, sure couldn't hurt, unless you are careless during this upgrade process.


Yeah edge to the 770 with this comparison, anyhow:
http://www.hwcompare.com/14636/geforce-gtx-680-vs-geforce-gtx-770/

If 680 is still going higher cost wise, ooops old inventory pricing, tsk tsk.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

The human eye struggles past 30 FPS. NTSC is 23.xx FPS and PAL is 25 FPS for TV standards, to use as REAL comparison.

It's much more complex than just a FPS game. I did gave a shot at explaining what is known about it in this post.

 

[Faladu]

Yes, I know it's way beyond the general discussion on what his ? was.

I hate motion blur and bloom in games, I look for check boxes to disable them immediately.

I'm getting too old, I don't need artificially created eye trickery. haha

 

[TwoCables]

The human eye struggles past 30 FPS. NTSC is 23.xx FPS and PAL is 25 FPS for TV standards, to use as REAL comparison.

It's much more complex than just a FPS game. I did gave a shot at explaining what is known about it in this post.

I'm glad you wrote this up because I was just about to ask why we can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60+ FPS. The answer seems simple: it's just a bunch of still images (frames) with no motion blur in between each image (or frame) to connect them together in order to give the illusion of fluid motion like in real life. I guess in other words, it's digital. Without any motion blur, it's very easy to tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. 30 looks "choppier" than 60, and the reason we use the word "choppier" is due to the lack of motion blur in between each frame. No, I'm not saying 30 FPS is choppy, but it's just "choppier" than 60 FPS.

Thanks, bobafetthotmail!

 

[Faladu]

Yeah it's just smoother.... It's like using 30 images vs 60 images in a cartoon for the same movement.

I just got a 120 refresh rate TV, I haven't noticed a difference yet. [using it as 3rd monitor, also]

Supposedly, it will be noticeable during blu-ray fast action sequences, and I just haven't been using it for that yet, price was right, was shocked available on a $400 set, albeit, Costco, still up $ in regular chain stores.

I really just wanted to say that 42fps was playable, nothing more.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

The refresh rate matters if the content on it does have a fps that needs it. As I said, most TV broadcast/cable companies don't give a flying... so you are probably looking at stuff at 25-30 fps with true motion blur (being filmed from real life or when each frame is rendered by a BIG render farm for CGI in movies).

Also because a video stream at 120 fps is something like 4 times the bandwith of one at 25-30, and that's significant for a company dealing with TV broadcasts, as they do pay for the infrastructure.

To have a chance to notice an improvement on that screen Vs a computer screen at 60 hz you need to have a FPS somewhere more than 60. (duh!) And even than it may or may not be apparent (depending on how good the game was in the first place).

I guess in other words, it's digital.

I'd say it's just because of imperfections in current technology. It's temporary.
The physics employed in the game engines are far from perfect, so they don't manage to simulate motion blur in a really convincing way. Better physics code would greatly help, possibly harnessing CUDA or the AMD's equivalent.
The other way is if the GPU tech starts going a bit faster than game development speed and the FPS of actually still images jumps over the 100 threshold and the eyes are fooled by sheer brute force.

 

[TwoCables]

Well after seeing the trailer for Mirror's Edge 2, I'm convinced now that we are extremely close to reaching a point where it's going to become impossible to tell the difference between real life footage shot in HD vs. a video game. I couldn't believe me eyes when I saw it.

 

[Solarstarshines]

WOW ! :shock:

 

[TwoCables]

I know, it's like, how is that even possible? lol

It makes me wish I were still interested in playing video games just so I could enjoy the visuals! However, it sounds to me like I'd probably want to upgrade to an Ivy Bridge system with a newer and better video card first. lol

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Yup. CGI in movies broke that barrier a few years ago, and games are getting real close. That is still recognizable as a game (at least to my trained nerd eye), but hey, that is pretty motion-heavy. For more simple idle animations and mundane movements games are more or less already there.