1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread

Discussion in 'Building a new PC' started by abuzar1, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Please do give them a shot and let me know what you think. I've heard lots of good things about them!

    Also, try them for PC gaming! A good open-back set of hi-fi headphones can give an equivalent or even better surround effect than a 7.1 headset. My Sennheisers and AKGs are totally divine for gaming. They sound amazing, and games with good sound engines have very realistic positional audio in straight stereo mode. Also, those Philips 'phones likely sound MUCH better quality-wise than any 7.1 headset ever will.

    One of my favorite EAX games is Call of Duty 2, and it has insanely good hardware surround audio, as well as some of the best mixed stereo audio ever. Many modern games should take note and make strides to be more like CoD2. Especially some of the later Treyarch-made Call of Duty games.

    CoD2 is also among the more glitch free EAX games when running on the newer SoundCore 3D-based cards like mine. Some older EAX games are just doomed unless you have X-Fi or older and Windows XP. As it is, I have to enable EAX on Windows 10 by using ALchemy, a middleware from Creative. It emulates the older architecture into a language the ZxR's hardware can process. It's not perfect, but the ZxR is otherwise such a good piece of hardware that I can suffer in a few games to get superior quality from the rest.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2017
  2. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Just got Ghost Recon Wildlands. Insanely demanding. All max with Nvidia Gameworks settings ON and no AA, the benchmark puts me at 42FPS average. With Nvidia Gameworks settings OFF, it gives me 49FPS.

    So because of that game, I went back to overclocking my hardware. lol. CPU back to 4.6-ish GHz and video card overclocked from 1595/8008 -> 1720/8500. Very healthy overclocks for both components, especially the video card as it's already factory OC'd quite a bit. Hopefully should put that ~49 more around ~55 which is comfortable for tactical 3rd person games. The framerate does seem to stay pretty steady, and the game is ludicrously beautiful, so I wouldn't call it poorly optimized.

    So far everything running cool and super stable. Love my cooling setup. The video card is especially nice. When left to its own devices, it will turn the fans off and run passively unless under load. It even has a "Fan Stop" LED on the side of the card to indicate when it enters passive mode. When overclocked, this behavior is unchanged. It still runs so cool as to not need the fans running unless gaming. It idles from 35-40*C and I've never seen it hit 70 under load, even with the power/temp limiters turned up. With my overclock it loads at about 65-68*C. Supremely cool temps for a video card. Gigabyte's Windforce coolers are definitely a winner, as it remains VERY quiet while maintaining these temps. The default fan curve turns the fan off below 50*C, and uses 50% and up after 50*C. I made the curve slightly more aggressive, from 100% at 90*C to 100% at 80*C, and left everything else alone. It still stays very low noise. Surprisingly so.

    Also, the Corsair H110 AIO liquid cooler is getting up there in years. It's 3 or 4 now, and they have a pump lifespan of about 5-7 years. Just got my tax return, so I splurged on an H115i to replace it. It's essentially the same radiator, with a new housing, and an upgraded pump with a new housing as well. Cooling capacity should be largely the same, though I imagine the new pump will have slightly more GPM and head pressure. Probably a small difference overall.

    Interesting thought for future reference. This 32" 1440p Samsung monitor doesn't seem to mind running 1080p games. It scales pretty well and looks equivalent to a 32" TV panel. Like not bad with AA, and still sharper than the 40". Like actual good scaling too, not blurry garbage like some displays do out of native res. Maybe an option for some games, though I'd rather run 1440p on the Samsung or 1080 on the TV with resolution scaling. I'm tolerant of different resolutions, but I still like to keep things as crisp as possible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  3. harvardguy

    harvardguy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thanks again for the tip about the $50 headphones. It's interesting that you say they are good also for gaming, even in stereo mode.

    I have been using Medusa 5.1, but my one good pair suddenly would not work - the rear left came out of the rear right. I had another old set, and they did NOT do that, but the sound volume is very weak.

    So I went to amazon and got the current version of the medusa, analog for $100, not usb for $80. It has the 4 drivers per earcup.

    I'll run the speaker test on it to see if the sounds are truly discrete.

    On the forums there is a lot of discussion about whether separate drivers mounted that closely in a headcup, can really help you identify sounds behind you, versus coming from in front. One guy sounded particularly knowledgeable about the subject, and he said it totally depended on the individual.

    He said that even out in the real world, one's brain detects the slight delay of sound to different ears to detect location. Some people are better than others at detecting location.

    I read many forum comments that started out: "Everybody knows that you can't tell sounds coming from the rear within a headphone that has mutiple drivers - it's just a gimmick."

    AND YET I AM HERE TO SAY THAT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO TELL WITH THE MEDUSA 5.1 HEADPHONES, IF SOMEBODY IS SHOOTING BEHIND ME, OR OFF TO THE SIDE, OR TOWARD THE FRONT SIDE.

    So I have to pick a bone with those who say "It's just a gimmick." My ears are compatible with the individual drivers, even if somebody else thinks the effect is negligible.

    BUT ..... when my medusas began to degrade, and speakers got crossed somehow, then YES - they no longer gave me good directionality, Usually I noticed first in the games, that I seemed to not be able to tell where the sound was coming from - then I ran the sound test, and then I discovered that the Medusas were messed up.

    As recently as two months ago, the sound seemed completely off, and I unplugged everything and re-plugged, and then every single source was identifiable. Rear left and rear right both worked fine.


    So I was very annoyed a couple days ago when rear left came out of rear right, exactly like rear right did. How those tiny wires made contact like that was irritating.


    As I said, we'll see what happens when they arrive in about 10 days from England.

    Rich


    EDIT: Jeff as I recall, you got rid of crossfire and SLI, and you are on one card - is it the 980? Oh wait - your signature says GTX 1070 - I beg your pardon. What's your memory with that - about 8 gigs? Let me ask you this - on gpu-z it shows my card memory on card 1 (doesn't show that figure at all on card 2) at near 5000 MB. My cards are only 3 gigs each. So is it giving me the total of the two cards, or is it telling me that the system is loaning each card the other 2 gigs? (I only have a total of 8 gigs of system RAM.)

    I was thinking about Call of Duty 2 the other day - thinking about going back to play it. I watched the older English television series about world war 2 - and the Battle of Stalingrad was particularly brutal. The game includes that - the lucky few Germans who had winter clothing are running around in white - blending in nicely with the snow. I guess the other guys without the white coats are already frozen dead by then.


    WILDLANDS
    I have not played Ghost Recon since some of the originals - warfighter I think - down in Mexico. I tried Vegas, but it seemed too "indoors boxy compartments" type of thing. This open world sounds very interesting - I might get the game.

    TOMB RAIDER
    I finished Tomb Raider - it was awesome. I went back into it and got the super powerful 2-shot shotgun, and now I am blowing guys away - probably two hours before the finale - just for the fun of it. There was no point at all in saving money to buy the M16 with less punch than the AK - you don't any better accuracy. But spending money on the grenade launcher was definitely a good idea.

    You can kill those armored guys carrying the riot shields with poison arrows, or grenade arrows, but the time to draw back on the arrow and place it, is a lot longer than hitting one button to pop a grenade out. This is not a grenade launcher like Arma 3 that can shoot 100 yards. This is a 10 yard max launcher if that - you could throw them further than this - but for close-in riot shield guys, it's great!

    DISHONORED 2
    I told myself that I wasn't going to play Dishonored 2 because of the terrible artifacts, but I discovered a trick. I had already dropped resolution to 1920 wide (versus 2560 wide) and quality to medium, but I was getting terrible lighting glitches. Then I let it stay in windowed mode instead of forcing it to full screen.

    All the artifacts disappeared. I am running fraps, and I am happy when I am getting 26 - 30 fps. Once in a while it drops to 18-20, but usually stays near the 30 mark. I increased texture quality to high on water and on objects. The game does look good, and it maxes out both my 7950 cards - the game IS using crossfire unlike Tomb Raider.

    I open a light-weight photo program, the old photoimpact, with a 2560x1600 picture of black nothing, full screen, then switch to the game window which lays over the black jpg, to end the distraction of half my desktop illuminating the sides of Dishonored 2. It is quite a nice game - perhaps not quite as brilliant as the original, but with some new touches that I thought were good, like the blood flies with nests that take over an entire apartment building. I have played two chapters out of about 15 I guess. I'll put it down for now until the new headphones come in.
     
  4. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Rich, software often misreads video memory and I've yet to see a single program save AIDA64 show it reliably. Having Crossfire/SLI affects how it is read as well. Regardless, you still have 3GB per card as long as you are using a 64 bit OS. It doesn't double, or add, or borrow in any way.

    I have a Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 Edition which is a factory overclocked card with an excellent cooler. Very nice card from Gigabyte, but pricey at $400+ a piece.

    As far as dropping dual card completely, it's up in the air. Since Nvidia and AMD have stopped focusing on multi-GPU above two cards and started concentrating on dual- GPU performance, it's getting better again. SLI would especially be an option for the 1070 as they are very power efficient cards. Even my excellent G1 Edition only needs a single cable for power. Very simple and energy-conscious to install another card. I would certainly consider it in the future given a few price drops. Definitely.

    Mainstream games usually support multi-GPU quite well and Ghost Recon Wildlands is a perfect example for that. Likewise one of my problem games, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, has a new Special Edition with a fixed and updated engine that does multi-GPU brilliantly. I had a pretty good experience running the 970s in SLI. Only a few games gave me grief, and the rest were pretty much fine. Sure, I got fed up with the problems, but then I'll get fed up with the performance and go back to the problems, lol. It's a cycle. That being said, I'm pretty happy with how the 1070 runs. Ghost Recon is the first truly challenging game for it that I want to play. Mass Effect Andromeda might be very demanding as well, and is a MUCH bigger priority than Ghost Recon, so we'll see what the future holds.

    Nearly any set of decent hi-fi cans will demolish any gaming headset in sheer sound quality. I would imagine having several discrete speakers gives pretty good directional sound, and things like that are definitely subjective. However, the difference in sound quality is so large, I can never go back to a "Gaming" headset again. I find the directional audio from my open-back headphones to be eerily accurate. I have often mistaken game audio through my headphones as an external sound from elsewhere in my room or even outside my room. It is that realistic. I prefer to go for raw quality, and if the game has well designed sound, the directional ques will be there naturally in regular stereo or headphones mode.

    It also stands to be said that onboard audio chipsets are usually far better at straight stereo than they are at surround.

    Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is one of the newer generation games. Like Xbox 360 era. The original Ghost Recon games were very primitive indeed. Mid 2000's, which is original Xbox era. The Vegas you are thinking of is Rainbow Six Vegas. Another Tom Clancy game and taking place in the same fictional world. Rainbow Six has always been about close quarters room-clearing tactics, while Ghost Recon is more in the open and action-based.

    Ghost Recon Wildlands is a first for the series as it is completely open-world. You can go anywhere and do anything you want, with an RPG-style unlock and skill system. Some reviewers have compared it to Mercenaries, GTA V and Far Cry 3/4. Very high praise indeed. Wildlands separates itself from these other games by being focused on military authenticity and real-world locations with realistic scenarios. Stays very close to its tactical shooter roots. It is insanely fun in solo and co-op, and requires a very tactical approach as you can't soak up bullets like a sponge. Good mix of realism and fun. It gets a bit repetitive, as any open world game tends to do, but the quality of the gameplay is very high. It also has some large expansions and content packs on the way. Two large ones for sure. Should be interesting.

    The graphics are exceptionally good, and it takes a monster PC to run. Another card for SLI would likely do the trick for me, putting me well over 60FPS average. Currently I have most settings to Ultra but have tweaked a few down. I get maybe 40-60FPS depending on what I am doing. Rarely drops into the 30s. Averaging ~50FPS. I consider this to be pretty smooth for the style of gameplay.

    Rich, if you are running in Windowed mode, Crossfire is not in effect, period. The card maybe under load, but it is not rendering the game and increasing your performance. I would look into updating your video drivers, and try running in fullscreen with Crossfire off to see if that's the culprit. If Crossfire is the cause of the glitching, the internet may have some tips for it. On the other side of that, Tomb Raider should most definitely use Crossfire. It's a AAA title that was heavily sponsored by AMD. It worked fine for me in SLI. I think you have some issues that need to be fixed, instead of worked around.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  5. harvardguy

    harvardguy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Oh yeah, I forgot that about crossfire - in windowed mode it doesn't work. I had the two gpu-z sensors out next to the game window, and both were running at 975 clock so I assumed the second card was helping. But now I recall that crossfire only functions in full screen mode.

    So then I'm only running on one card.


    I do have the very latest catalyst drivers. I have 16.12 - one article said "get 16.11 it supports dishonored 2." So I am more recent than that (dec 2016)​


    So I will run it in full-screen mode after resetting for crossfire off. If I get no artifacts, then there's a crossfire glitch. If it's a crossfire glitch - do some googling and see what comes up. That sounds good.

    I just found this on the web:



    So you're saying that Tomb Raider should have supported crossfire? I think I figured out by gpu-z logging that it wasn't supporting crossfire. I run that in full-screen. If I see that the second card is pulling watts by the amps coming down, and is running at 975 instead of idle 300, then I assume the second card is under load.

    But at full-screen, I recall that gpu-z showed the card at idle - definitely not under load.

    What other problems do you thing I might have that would do that to me? I just pulled both cards, switched them around, rubbed eraser on all contacts, and they seem to be seating properly. I test them in furmark full screen before I start any gaming, and they are both working fine, and in crossfire.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  6. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    I think one of your video cards is suspect. Something has always seemed fishy with your setup. It never seems to function the way Crossfire did for me. Artifacting, bad Crossfire scaling, etc. I'm guessing one of the two cards is faulty.
     
  7. harvardguy

    harvardguy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hmmmm.

    Well then, sounds like switching the cards might have been a good idea.

    I run them in furmark, and I get crossfire - that's the only way I can get 54 fps - when a card drops out I am down to under 30. My logic might be off, but if they run in crossfire on furmark - then my logic says it's not the card, it's the drivers.

    I definitely was not getting crossfire support from Tomb Raider - I am 99% sure of that, but you have me doubting myself so I think I'll do some more gpu-z logging - at least 15 minutes' worth - if my second card hangs there at 300 mhz instead of 975, then I'm not getting crossfire support.

    Wow I just read a hardop article showing that Tomb Raider crossfire scaling was almost 99% - the best scaling they've seen. They were using 8gig cards, the 390s.

    I think I am going to use driver cleaner - get rid of all my AMD - then reload the latest catalyst. I'll see if that helps. AMD said it was still giving support for the 7900 series - most of the others no, but for these yes.

    EDIT: Well, I cranked up spedo and made sure driver cleaner.net shortcut was where I could get it. The new Radeon gui interface is not something I really understand - and the idiots didn't include any kind of a help file. So I guess I'll do some googling.

    For general settings, I do have crossfire enabled - when a card dropped out a week ago I had to find that setting, reboot, and fix it. I just now went for the bottom tab on display. In that section there is something that says "gpu scaling" and it is turned off. What the hell does that mean?

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    thanks Jeff
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  8. harvardguy

    harvardguy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well, I think I sort of figured out what gpu scaling means.

    Also based on that forum section in my 9785 post above, I found AFR compatibility, and I am chasing down google to see what it all means. I tried to contact AMD by email, but their email form seemed to not complete - I urged them to hire a technical writer and put together a help file for their driver - but I don't think the email went through - which maybe tells me they are beyond incompetent. LOL

    I finally downloaded their autodetect program for helping me upgrade drivers, and they said I had 16.5, but 17.2 was ready, and 17.3 was optional - something like that. So I am installing the VERY LATEST drivers.

    thanks Jeff

    Edit - well the main article on crossfire was written by AMD - great! (Why not package that with the driver in a help file.) I found out what the crossfire logo is for - if you check the box, then it will display the logo in the upper right part of the screen (I can move fraps) when crossfire is working.


    I can always jump out of the game and turn off the logo - but that might be kind of useful, rather than trying to figure it out with gpu-z.

    I gave feedback to that article where the above quote came from - it started good and then they lost me with 1x1 surfaces. It deteriorated into jargon. In the little window below the review of the article - I didn't give it high marks - I told them everything that I wanted to say in my email, and I gave them my contact information.

    I guess I will just try those different options, and see if any of them work.

    LOL :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  9. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,424
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    68
    You seem to be on the right track, Rich. Good luck.

    Finding in Ghost Recon that I can get a good balance of visuals and performance, if I am willing to compromise a little. The game does a good job of giving you lower settings that help performance but don't hugely compromise the look of the game. The High preset and above all look very similar with the differences growing more subtle as you approach Ultra.

    I'll run through the settings individually, what I chose, and why:

    LOD at Very High means slightly more pop-in than Ultra as I get closer to objects and they load up higher detail textures and models. The difference for Ultra->Very High is not much at all so very acceptable. Going lower it gets noticeable, but even High would still be pretty workable. Up close, objects still look the same, and the game deals with very large distances, so this setting can be pretty subjective. On the ground is a total non-issue, but in the air, it can be visible. Tree LODs especially are noticeable, but not really jarring or anything.

    Draw Distance only goes as high as Very High, so I left that maxed to complement the other settings. The difference from Very High->High for draw distance is small for actual distance you can see. Hardly noticeable at all. However, it also affects the distance at which certain objects are drawn inside the horizon draw distance, and the pop-in can be noticeable when moving fast in a vehicle on the ground or in the air. I elected to leave it turned up, but high would be workable if someone wanted some FPS for a minimal loss in visuals.

    Texture Quality I left at Ultra. The game uses about 5GB of video memory maxed at 1440p which is a simple task for this 8GB card. There is no Very High setting, but lowering to High actually does give a few FPS in the benchmark. I find the visual difference to be unacceptable though. Not terrible but still noticeably worse. The performance difference is small enough that I'd rather have the Ultra textures. A Very High setting here would be nice though, as it could be a normalmap optimized version of Ultra, vs High which is an outright lower res texture. If such a setting existed I would recommend it. For now, I say just have enough video memory and use ultra. The game has excellent, crisp textures with multiple layers of detail.

    Shadow Quality to Very High means slightly blurrier shadows and a readily visible loss in depth from Ultra. Ultra shadows are lusher and more realistic. Very High shadows look a little washed out in comparison, despite still being pretty sharp and detailed. However, turning on HBAO+ somewhat overpowers the stock shadows' brightness values and helps IMMENSELY to reduce the difference in depth. The bonus here is that Very High shadows with HBAO+ performs better than Ultra shadows without HBAO+. Good stuff. High shadows would be acceptable as well, if a little rough, as HBAO still works the same way, but you start to sacrifice some smaller shadows in the distance. High is as low as I'd recommend.

    SSBC, the alternative to HBAO+, is also much better than older types of Ambient Occlusion, but lacks the depth and detail of HBAO+. It's certainly better than the original form of HBAO, which is a poor effect in some games(Far Cry 3, for example. HDAO is superior to HBAO in that game), but HBAO+ is in a whole new league visually. It's an as of yet unrivalled technology. SSBC is fine if you're looking for a few frames as it's certainly better than no Ambient Occlusion, and a highly-developed new technology in its own right. However, it's a poor substitute for HBAO+.

    Terrain Quality to Very High means less of the ground and environment are tessellated than Ultra. However, Very High still has tessellation at a lower level, so the loss is minimal unless you scrutinize. Smaller details like pebbles and sticks are not tessellated like they are on Ultra. Larger objects like rocks and logs and stuff still have the effect, so you get most of it.The texture quality is unaffected, but the tessellation is less detailed. Turning it to high disables tessellation entirely, and the ground goes a bit flat. The textures at High are still acceptable, but the lack of tessellation sucks as this game uses it very well. If you can run the game fairly well but need a few frames, Very High is a good compromise. If you are using a more mid-range PC and struggling for more performance, turn it to High and disable tessellation entirely for a large performance boost.

    Vegetation Quality to Very High means that trees, grass, and other vegetation become slightly less lush than Ultra. Everything is still there, but with less density and detail, and a resulting boost in performance. Grass, foliage, and cover are a large part of this game, so normally I would just crank this to Ultra to preserve the authenticity, but the next setting means I was willing to compromise a notch.

    Turf Effects is all about making the grass realistic and interactive with the player. The grass bends and deforms around the characters in very natural and lifelike way. So cool. It adds its own bit of density and lushness to the grass, somewhat negating lowering the foliage setting. You still lose other foliage a bit, but this can provide a kind of middle ground, adding back some of the lost grass density. A slightly sparser tree in a dense jungle is less noticeable than bare patches of ground in a grassland. With this setting enabled, you could turn Vegetation Quality even lower to the High setting, and still have a very lush and detailed environment. The performance benefits of turning Vegetation down even one notch outweigh the performance impact of Turf Effects so it creates an interesting combination. Highly recommended.

    Motion Blur and Depth of Field are subjective settings and turning them off does give you a few frames here and there. If you are still looking for more performance after going through the above settings, go ahead and turn them off. Some people will argue that the human eye already does motion blur and depth of field. However, video games are a 3D space being presented to us in a flat image. There's no real depth, just a flat frame. It will never be real enough to fool our eyes on a 2D monitor. I personally find that in most games, well implemented Depth of Field and Motion blur add to the smoothness and immersion greatly. They help blend the seams between your eyes and the world on the screen. Now, if you are using a VR headset in 3D, it might be totally beneficial to leave these post processing effects off and let your eyes do their natural thing. But until I have that and am able to use it comfortably and seamlessly, I will continue to enable Depth of Field and Motion blur when they are available.

    Bloom On as always. Some don't like the overexposed look of Bloom lighting but I find it helps simulate the intense brightness of direct sunlight pretty well. It's worth about half a frame and I feel adds a lot to the look of the game when combined with the other effects, so leaving it on is an easy decision.

    God Rays to Enhanced
    This is a really interesting setting as the options are Off, On, and Enhanced. On enables subtle DirectX10-style god rays that are very similar to those found in Crysis. They give the scene a lot more dynamics and depth for a pretty modest performance cost. Enhanced enables very different volumetric Godrays that are much more far-reaching and even come through from the clouds. The rays of light expand and diffuse and give the entire scene a dynamic, sunwashed effect when given indirect lighting. They even cover vast swathes of land in the distance. It's subtle, but at the same time adds immensely to the image quality of the game. Far Cry 4 has this technology as well and it really has a drastic effect on the overall look of the graphics. It's really a very nice look, and while it costs performance, it's not monstrously more demanding. The basic God Rays are really a pretty nice effect on their own, so if you need the performance, turning this from Enhanced->On is a smart choice. However, if you can lower some of the above settings to acceptable levels and still use Enhanced, it's worth it.

    Subsurface Scattering takes a few FPS, but the effect is pretty neat. It creates the subtle illusion of light shining through human skin and diffusing as it passes through. It gives the character models more depth in different lighting scenarios and looks very realistic. I feel that it does a lot to make them look especially lifelike.

    Lens Flare is entirely subjective. I like the cinema sheen it adds to the image. I think it helps sell the effect of the incredible brightness of the sun, helping to make up for a display's inability to show its true brightness.

    Long Range Shadows is a good effect but the options are limited. The options are Off, On, and Ultra. When off, only very large distant objects with baked-on effects like mountains will have shadows. When turned on, most large landforms and large buildings will cast a basic shadow at long distance. This is a pretty nice effect and adds a lot to the overall detail and depth of the game. When Turned to Ultra, it goes one step further, and now a range of much smaller objects cast a shadow at long distance, as well as all of these shadows being a higher resolution. I feel like a single setting in between would be useful. Like a medium where you get the larger number of shadows, but at the same details as the "On" setting. So far, "On" is the happy medium, as the game is so visually dense, that these shadows are hard to notice. I had a hard time telling the difference between anything except On and Off for this setting, and there is a small FPS hit for Ultra, so On it is.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At my settings at 1440p I get a very respectable 56FPS in the benchmark. The same settings at 1080p net a whopping 79FPS. I get 42 and 57 respectively for full Ultra settings.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    When it looks and runs like this, I think I can call myself satisfied. Anyone would be hard pressed to tell this from a truly maxed version :)

    I have considered using my TV for this game. Not the worst idea, and would free up a few FPS with this demanding title. That's why I got it to begin with, to help ease the stress on my GPUs when running the most demanding games at the highest settings. I may do just that, and report back with my results. I have been flip-flopping between the 1440p monitor and 1080p TV for a while.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  10. harvardguy

    harvardguy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Wow Jeff, freakin awesome!


    Thanks for those screens. That is a lush game.

    I'll use your Wildlands settings as a guide and see if I can get even mid 20 fps with a half-way decent picture.

    But it won't come close to what you've got - it's gonna look a lot flatter than that.

    Or I could just wait until I upgrade. But that might be a while. I'm a pretty slow upgrader. However, this 5 year old system (summer of 2012) is under strain for these great newer titles. I might be 1-2 years out for a full upgrade running about $2k on cpu and gpu only - probably getting the strongest thing that nvidia makes - going for a one gpu solution, keeping my current 1600p monitor setup (with 30" monitor about 12" from my face - I am packed in here - I couldn't sit any further back in this trailer even if I wanted to.) :)


    By the way, I'm hoping of course that Wildlands supports crossfire - but if it doesn't support it natively then I'll try those 6 options just like with Tomb Raider and Dishonored 2. Yeah - one guy on a YouTube video just now says they support crossfire using the "AFR friendly" setting.

    It's a good thing you gave me a nudge about what was up with my lack of crossfire support.

    Hmmmm. The game needs support for shader model 5.0 - I wonder if my cards support that. I remember when my other-wise strong card was a shader 2.0-only card, and I couldn't play Medal of Honor Airborne until the 3850 agp came out. Let's see what dxdiag says - I finally did - recently - upgrade my windows 7 to service pack 1 in order to play Dishonored 2.

    Well, Yep, I do have DX 11, and google says that my cards support shader model 5.0, so Wildlands might load.

    Those screens of yours remind me of Arma3 (but Arma3 is a lot less lush, fewer trees, mostly small bushes, some grass waving gently along with tree leaves, flying grasshoppers and mosquitoes - quite a lovely environment.)


    note - Photobucket is not supporting full-size like before
    [​IMG]


    Arma 3 fully uses both of my cards and gives me upper 20 fps if I turn it down one quality level. It's hard to tell the difference from ultra to very high, which I run most of the time. Once in a great while I am forced to drop to High, and then I can start to see the loss of quality but it's not super terrible.


    I just tried image shack, getting a free subscription which I read is good for up to 5 gigs - that would last me quite a long time. The images seem to be totally full-size.


    Click this one below - one of my oldest back when Arma3 was in beta in 2014. In this particular shot, there are no clouds - it's kind of crummy screenshot actually, very plain - none of the fancy stuff you are talking about like god rays and bloom, etc. (the game DOES have bloom though I'm pretty sure - the sunlight is blinding at times.)

    Here's a different Arma3 image from image shack instead of photobucket (this one will click open to full size 2560x1600)
    [​IMG]



    I already posted about 3rd person Arma3 a couple of times, and I am continuing to utilize Arma3 3rd person a lot more, for the much greater field of view, and to give me an edge to try to compensate for the fact that the NPCs can see through thick grass and I can't. When I need it, in an instant I can switch back to first person for better aiming. But with 3rd person I see over the grass, so in those situations I just keep it in 3rd person and work off the crosshairs.

    For some reason, purely subjective, 3rd person seems to me to be more forgiving of lower frame rates. It's got to really drop to under 15 before I can feel major lag. ​


    Similarly, I have to do the same thing now on AC Syndicate just like I did on AC Unity - turn it down one quality level. Unity in Paris was really very pretty - I was into the game, then got out of it distracted by something else - maybe Arma 3. I wasn't too interested, but when I finally got back into Unity I started liking it more and more.


    There were some great bits, like the woman's march - and that led to some of the more rural areas outside Paris - and they were quite beautiful. I took some screens in one area near a barn where I went to ultra, and let it settle down at 8 fps, took the screen, then dropped to very high at 28 fps and took the same screenshot.

    Look at the fraps fps lower right, one shows 8, the other 28.


    I see that Photobucket is no longer posting FULL size photos - 2560x1600. The former trick of adding ~original appended to the end of the photo name, no longer works.


    Here it is on ultra at 8 fps - not playable (photobucket - it will slightly enlarge when you click it)
    [​IMG]


    Here is the same image at image shack instead of photobucket - (oh wow, full 2560x1600 when you click it)
    [​IMG]


    Here it is at very high - 28 fps - ignore the difference in sunlight - the weather affects constantly change.
    [​IMG]


    And for the full-size image of the 28 fps version directly above (here is the screenshot from image shack)
    [​IMG]


    Try to ignore the extra sunlight on the bottom photo - the weather affects change every few seconds in that game as the clouds pass overhead.

    It was very hard for me to see much quality difference, and one was playable, the bottom shot, the other not at all. Generally I got mid to high 20 fps on that game.

    Syndicate too has some gorgeous areas just south of London. Again I'm able to manage on very high most of the time - I am happy to run mid to high 20 on that game and as it's purely 3rd person I find that to be fine most of the time - lagging does occur once in a while.

    Rich


    Edit - hey Jeff do you have any thoughts about this idea of offering 3 photo sizes:

    It occurs to me that the full-size could actually be a little too large sometimes - and in those cases, the slightly enlarged might be better - it would be larger than first displayed, but not full size. So if I were to upload photos to BOTH image shack and photobucket like I did here, I could first show the photobucket, and then below it the full-sized image shack. That way they would have the pick actually of 3 sizes of photos - the default after dawn size, the slightly enlarged, and then the full-size image. Oh wait - image shack gave me only a 30 day trial account, then it's $19 a year. Maybe not worth it since I don't post screens that much any more. Do you know of some other free sites?
     

Share This Page