GTX 580 not happy....

[Gikaseixas]

GTX 580 is the fastest single GPU card you can find. If you're not happy with it the only other options are dual GPU cards aka GTX 590 and HD6990 or getting a second GTX 580.

Want higher performance? You gotta spend

 

[OCGuy]

This thread reminds me of http://firstworldprobs.com/


Some good ones:

"It is pouring rain and I want to grill "

"I just spent an hour folding all the clothes piled up on the floor! Man, that took forever!"

"The Land Rover loaner I got doesn't have satellite radio so I had to listen to commercials"

 

[badb0y]

This thread reminds me of http://firstworldprobs.com/


Some good ones:

"It is pouring rain and I want to grill "

"I just spent an hour folding all the clothes piled up on the floor! Man, that took forever!"

"The Land Rover loaner I got doesn't have satellite radio so I had to listen to commercials"

LOL :thumbsup:

 

[JumBie]

Okay, so I understand all of the opinions that have been shared. I use to watch the fps with fraps but I found it became to much of an obsession. Most games I play with Vsync on due to the visual anguish that screen tearing causes me. I notice in games like Bad Company 2, Crysis 1 and 2, GTA IV and even small games such as League of legends, and world of tanks that I will get the occasional hiccup or slowdown, in certain areas or when a lot of action is presented on screen.

Now maybe the ones that happen to games with lower graphical consumption like LoL and WOT are because I have about 20 different things open and running, but the ones with the bigger games seem to be hardware related. I did notice a great jump in performance when I went from the 6870 to the 580 but I guess I was expecting a lot more. I think I may have to invest in a dual GPU, but I will have to wait for 28nm to make a decision. I'm worried at how this card might perform on BF3, Skyrim, and newer games of that liking.

 

[Imouto]

Buying a top single card to get performance is senseless these days. For 200 bucks you can buy 2 5850 getting almost the same graphics power. For 400 you can buy a pair of 6950 that outperform by light years a single 580 GTX.

I mean, are you spending 500 bucks in a single card just to say you have the most powerful "single core" card out there and when it comes to play (seriously, the real thing about graphic cards) a cheaper x2 solution outperforms badly your 500 bucks hardware?

 

[Matrices]

If you are playing in V-sync that explains your problem right there. Seriously, disable that unless you enjoy shitty FPS that vary wildly and input lag. If you are very sensitive to the tearing that happens without V-sync, get a 120hz monitor or try using V-sync in conjunction with triple buffering at the least.

I ran a single 580 with a 30" 2500x1600 and I was mostly satisfied. Obviously there are a handful (literally 3 or 4) games where you can't max every setting and you will occasionally get slowdown, but that was very minor compared to the 90% of the time I was enjoying myself. So I'm really not sure how you're dissatisfied at 1080p unless you are applying supersampling to everything or solely playing Crysis and Metro maxed out all day. Bad Company 2 should be running damn near perfect.

 

[Seero]

OP, I don't think new gears are going to smooth your obsession about FPS. Unlike what some said, v-sync doesn't really decrease FPS, but more like putting a cap on FPS to the refresh rate of the display. The only down side of v-sync isn't FPS, but the response time. With v-sync, the frame is always one frame behind. Triple buffer also decrease response time.

Games are not designed against the highest end setups, so there will be times where gears don't get max out. That is, even with the highest possible gear, there will be times where FPS take a dive. The question is, can you really see it and does it really effect game play. Having FPS shown on screen does nothing confusing the user as high FPS does not always means smooth. As long as the interval between frames reminds constant, then you won't feel laggy even if it is 30 FPS.

Games are designed to suit the market, meaning that it will be optimized against the mid-end setups. Its goal is to keep scenes fluent with mid-end setups on middle settings. Anything about middle settings are probably overkill and un-optimized.

Because of this, getting a better video card may not lead to better FPS as the bottleneck may not be on video card. In fact, the bottleneck may appear on storage, memory, cpu, nic, bus, or gpu.

Just keep in mind that most games are optimized around 30FPS with average setup. No games are optimized to produce maximum FPS possible.

 

[Silverforce11]

Metro, turn on DoF and 4x AA. It will cripple single GPUs and even hammer multi GPU setups. Some options are just so poorly optimized or intensive that its just not worth to enable.

Hell, Arma II can't even be maxed on my CF OC setup.. and from what ive seen, its unlikely to be able to run smoothly with SLI 580s.

Some games are just bad.

 

[BFG10K]

Unlike what some said, v-sync doesn't really decrease FPS, but more like putting a cap on FPS to the refresh rate of the display.

Incorrect; without triple buffering vsync reduces the framerate to fractions of the refresh rate. Or to put it another way, 30-59 FPS on a system with vsync becomes 30 FPS.

So yeah, that’s probably his problem, especially in the more demanding cases which don’t have many frames to begin with.

 

[E6700]

For 200 bucks you can buy 2 5850

where the hell can u get 2 5850 for $200? i like to know

 

[apoppin]

Okay, so I understand all of the opinions that have been shared. I use to watch the fps with fraps but I found it became to much of an obsession. Most games I play with Vsync on due to the visual anguish that screen tearing causes me.

That's the issue. And you will always have it with any single-GPU video card.

Your best bet since you play shooters is to get a good 120Hz LCD; they are up to 27" now. You will not have the tearing issues that you have with a 60Hz display and you can play with Vsync on and not suffer artificially capped framerates; not to mention afterward, it is an easy transition for S3D gaming.
:thumbsup:

 

[Imouto]

where the hell can u get 2 5850 for $200? i like to know

My bad, european here.

http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_radeon_hd_5850_xtreme_1gb_gddr5.html

 

[toyota]

That's the issue. And you will always have it with any single-GPU video card.

Your best bet since you play shooters is to get a good 120Hz LCD; they are up to 27" now. You will not have the tearing issues that you have with a 60Hz display and you can play with Vsync on and not suffer artificially capped framerates; not to mention afterward, it is an easy transition for S3D gaming.
:thumbsup:

can you please explain a bit more about that? I know there should be less tearing but tearing can still occur no matter how high the refresh rate is. some games tear like crazy even at super low framerates and even things like flickering lights or explosions can cause massive tearing no matter what fps you are getting.

and if a 60hz refresh rate would cause you to go to 30fps if 60fps is not maintained with vsync on then why would a 120hz not to the same thing? I mean would you not go from 120 fps to 60 fps if 120 cannot be maintained or still go to 30 fps if 60 fps cannot be maintained?

 

[apoppin]

i am exploring and researching it right now as i prepare to write a mega-evaluation using over 70 games with 3D Vision. i am still researching and will be glad to share what i can.

First of all, it is impossible to *show* the differences to someone with a 60Hz display using video. Taking stills is just hard to do (although i have a way and am working on it)

With a 60Hz display you have to make compromises - there is built-in motion blur and tearing without Vsynch and a framerate cap with. It's not an issue at 120Hz.

Of course, with Vsynch and sometimes triple buffering, you cap your framerates with a 60Hz display; 30 fps is simply awful and it is the first thing i fixed when playing Alice: Madness Returns, for example.

Using a 120Hz LCD, there is no noticeable frame tearing that i experience as Vsynch remains on all of the time and the framerate cap is gone. Hence the motion blur that everyone experiences at 60Hz is also gone at 120Hz.

edited

Yes, you *can* make a 120Hz LCD also tear or ruin the framerates if you bog it down enough. However, in a practical way - what i experience is a much better gaming experience with a 120Hz over 60 in regard to playing without tearing or severaly capped framerates.

 

[Seero]

Incorrect; without triple buffering vsync reduces the framerate to fractions of the refresh rate. Or to put it another way, 30-59 FPS on a system with vsync becomes 30 FPS.

So yeah, that’s probably his problem, especially in the more demanding cases which don’t have many frames to begin with.

You need to prove what you said.

If you simply look af FPS, yes, vsync seems to hurt FPS, but it produces better scene. For example, lets assume the interval between frames is 1/60 second, and frames are delivered in 2.01,0,2.02,0,2.01,0,2.03,0 ... for a total of 60 frames in one second, the second frame of each interval may not have a chance to be displayed before the buffer is flushed, and there for losing a Frame every 2 Frame. However, without triple buffer, that frame is what causes tearing. Triple buffer will allow this frame to be displayed 2 interval after the frame is created, thus introduce what is known as input lag (you click a button, but the display doesn't show this change immediately, as if there is seem lag going on.)

Under this example, without vsync, Fraps will show 60FPS, while with it, Fraps shows 30FPS. If you simply look at the number, it is only have. However, if you think about it, without vsync, the video card is trying to send a frame that consists of 2 scenes fused together, then no frame for the next interval, so not only you get a bad frame, but that extra FPS count is a miscount as half of a frame was overwritten and a frame is only half drawn. Yes, the count shows 60 FPS, but you only see half of each frame.

All this may sound nerdy and no human will see this, but actually we do, especially when we focus our eyes on an icon on the screen. In MMO, CD is very important and we love to cast things back to back. Because human knows approximately how long is one second, we are able to signal our finger to click the button without a long input delay (this is another world of talks). During this time we can detect a 20ms delay from the time we click to the time the icon turns color (with is a time shorter than the input delay from your brain to your finger). This is, we will be able to detect if a game really plays at 60hz (not 60 frame a second, but display gets refresh at 60hz interval.)

If MMO isn't your cup of tea, guitar freaks or alike will do.

 

[avatar82]

Doesn't double buffering v-sync drop to 45 fps before it drops to 30fps, and triple buffering v-sync can have anything from 59 to 1 fps but with slight delay?

60 All the time is preferable sure, and i don't mind the slight delay with triple buffering, but double buffering v-sync is way better then screen tearing anyday in my opinion.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Would the 1.5gb limit me in crossfire? Also would running them in 8x/8x limit me? I dont think my motherboard supports 16x/16x. First slot runs in the 16x the other runs in 8x. The 6990 is far to expensive for my taste, I know for a fact I can get another 580 for about $380, but would it be worth it to get it now, or should I not wait till the 28nm chips roll out.

1.5GB shouldn't be a limit at 1080p

 

[AdamK47]

Doesn't double buffering v-sync drop to 45 fps before it drops to 30fps, and triple buffering v-sync can have anything from 59 to 1 fps but with slight delay?

60 All the time is preferable sure, and i don't mind the slight delay with triple buffering, but double buffering v-sync is way better then screen tearing anyday in my opinion.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794

I've used vsync and triple buffering (when available) since the nVidia TNT days. I cannot stand having vsync off.

 

[Seero]

Doesn't double buffering v-sync drop to 45 fps before it drops to 30fps, and triple buffering v-sync can have anything from 59 to 1 fps but with slight delay?

60 All the time is preferable sure, and i don't mind the slight delay with triple buffering, but double buffering v-sync is way better then screen tearing anyday in my opinion.

No, vsync doesn't really affect frame rate. Put it this way, how accurate do you think FPS is? Without vsync, sometimes it can go up to thousands, what does it mean? Do you really think you get thousands of frames a second through a 60hz monitor? Really, you cannot get more than 60FPS from a 60hz monitor.

What if it shows 60FPS, does it mean you do see 60 frames a second? Not necessary. The computer may generate 60 frames in 10ms while not a single frame for the 990 ms, so you get 1 frame going into the display, but it shows 60 FPS.

Don't let the number confuses you, it doesn't mean what you think it does. Vsync removes the tearing on the screen, but also introduce a slight input delay. Triple buffering increases the fluidness between frames by having one more buffer, but at the same time introduce more input latency. Both are made to produce better, smoother scenes.

Many jumped the gun and claim "Oh your bad FPS is due to vsync." Obviously, the replies to that are "I tried toggling vsync, but don't see a lot of differences." In the case where FPS > refresh rate, then it will be a decrease as you really can't display more frames per second than the refresh rate of the display. The 60 FPS with vsync off, and 30FPS with vsync on is the most extreme case possible, which it highly unlikely to happen. I personally haven't find a game where vsync kills FPS by more than 1%, but there are lots of video card testers who will be able to give solid data about it.

It is easy to challenge what I said. Pick a game that runs below your monitor's refresh rate and play with vsync and see for yourself. Remember, see if you can detect differences with it on vs off with your eyes instead of the number too.

 

[Ben90]

ugh. this place is so painful sometimes.

The entire reason triple buffering was introduced was to decrease latency over double buffering. The only downsides to triple buffering instead of double is increased power consumption and slightly less RAM available to the application.

 

[toyota]

ugh. this place is so painful sometimes.

The entire reason triple buffering was introduced was to decrease latency over double buffering. The only downsides to triple buffering instead of double is increased power consumption and slightly less RAM available to the application.

well it has been mentioned in articles that it CAN add lag.

 

[BFG10K]

You need to prove what you said.

It’s trivial to prove with mathematics or by anyone that has a fundamental understanding of the buffering chain. It’s also trivial to prove by using a framerate log. Vsync is just not a framerate cap, and without triple buffering it'll affect your FPS in other ways.

If you simply look af FPS, yes, vsync seems to hurt FPS, but it produces better scene. For example, lets assume the interval between frames is 1/60 second, and frames are delivered in 2.01,0,2.02,0,2.01,0,2.03,0 ... for a total of 60 frames in one second, the second frame of each interval may not have a chance to be displayed before the buffer is flushed, and there for losing a Frame every 2 Frame. However, without triple buffer, that frame is what causes tearing. Triple buffer will allow this frame to be displayed 2 interval after the frame is created, thus introduce what is known as input lag (you click a button, but the display doesn't show this change immediately, as if there is seem lag going on.)

This paragraph has so many errors I don’t even know to begin. There’s no need for me to go any further until you get a fundamental understanding of the buffering chain. You really shouldn’t discuss this topic any further until you do.

 

[darckhart]

hmmm what's ur 2500K running at? gtx580 at 1080p should really not be a prob, esp with dx9 games...

I removed one of my gtx580 SC for other purposes, and left the remaining one stock and my 920 at stock and for example, it chewed thru fear3.

Of course, with Vsynch and sometimes triple buffering, you cap your framerates with a 60Hz display; 30 fps is simply awful and it is the first thing i fixed when playing Alice: Madness Returns, for example.

hm i'm not noticing anything unusual with alice at 30fps, but in any case, how do you remove the cap? thanks.

 

[apoppin]

hmmm what's ur 2500K running at? gtx580 at 1080p should really not be a prob, esp with dx9 games...

I removed one of my gtx580 SC for other purposes, and left the remaining one stock and my 920 at stock and for example, it chewed thru fear3.


hm i'm not noticing anything unusual with alice at 30fps, but in any case, how do you remove the cap? thanks.

Are you serious? Anyway, you need to edit the game files. i got sick of the sloppy controls on some of the jumps and edited the Zgravity to be more forgiving,

Anyway, in Win 7,

Documents >My Games > Alice Madness Returns > Alice Game > Config > AliceEngine

​

Then down about 10% of the way, look for and change the 'x' and the ''y' to whatever values you want. If you use Fraps, you will see the 30 FPS cap is gone.

bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE
MinSmoothFrameRate=x
MaxSmoothFrameRate=y

​

Config > AliceGame is where you can set the damage multiplyers, easily gain weapon upgrades and alter GravityZ; just make sure to do a back-up of the default files.
()

 

[Seero]

It’s trivial to prove with mathematics or by anyone that has a fundamental understanding of the buffering chain. It’s also trivial to prove by using a framerate log. Vsync is just not a framerate cap, and without triple buffering it'll affect your FPS in other ways.


This paragraph has so many errors I don’t even know to begin. There’s no need for me to go any further until you get a fundamental understanding of the buffering chain. You really shouldn’t discuss this topic any further until you do.

When i say you need to prove, it is the statement you made

Incorrect; without triple buffering vsync reduces the framerate to fractions of the refresh rate. Or to put it another way, 30-59 FPS on a system with vsync becomes 30 FPS.

Again, you claim that my example is full of faults, but then why don't you point out the fault instead of personally attacking me? Where exactly do you get the idea that i don't have the fundamental idea of buffering?

Is asking for an example to your claim sounds rude?