RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I was talking about 1920x1080. In one benchmark that you posted, it looks that you need two GTX 980 Ti (SLI) and an i7 5960X and so on, just to keep the framerate above 60 fps. Nice. That PC is not at the price point of the GTX 960 2GB buyer.
Which benchmark was that?
You know that you do not have to install HD textures packs and game mods and push all the game graphics settins sliders to "Ultra", right?
For a game like Skyrim? It looks ugly without HD texture packs and I am pretty sure the whole fun of playing that game for years at a time is mods. Besides the point, even without mods, HD7970Ghz crushed a GTX680 so how in the world would a GTX960 be a better experience than a 290 in Skyrim -- that was alluded to earlier in the thread and hence my reply. I will gladly accept being wrong if there is data that shows that a card with 50% less GPU horsepower is somehow better for Skyrim.
user 1:
"I can't speak for the 970, but with my 290x I get frames rates of at least 60 - 75 on my 1080p monitor. I have an ENB and over 100 mods.
I am totally biased, but that extra .5 G is going to help tremendously if you're using ENB and things like grass mods."
user 2:
"970 has 3.5gigs of vram which is definitely something to take into consideration because this texture mods eat your Vram unless you do some serious optimisation. I use close to 4gig Vram with mostly 2k textures..sometimes over that. That's when you experience reduced fps performance and stuttering."
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimmods...ussion_amd_vs_nvidia_for_skyrim_modding_more/
That rules 960 2GB out for me when in the OP's budget, it's possible to get a $230 R9 290 4GB.
Also, since there is a lot of foliage/grass in Skyrim, being able to apply SSAA/MSAA is a huge benefit to reduce shimmering. TXAA is a blurfest so it's not going to produce a great picture. With SSAA and/or MSAA, the extra 50% GPU horsepower of the 290 is going to be a huge benefit even at 1080P for this title.
Last edited: