Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Guru3D News, Mar 22, 2012.
id probably give away my middle nut, but not my left one. but thats just me.
lol, i have the money to get one, even if i would get a slap if i spent it, but i just don't want to.
Not that i don't want a new GPU, i would love 60fps minimum in all games especially some of the upcoming ones, but i can't help shake the feeling that these will be quite abit cheaper in a few months time.
Isn't that always the case though? I've decided to just pull the trigger on one next week, sure I wish they were £50 cheaper but whatever.
Yeah it is, but for some reason i feel it moreso now.
Could be wrong though, if they are no cheaper by the summer, then i will get one as i need more power and i have no intention of getting a second 570.
Hope you have fun with it, should be a noticeable upgrade from a 5850.
Ive finally given in to getting a 680. Its on back order now.
should hopefully see some good improvements over my crossfire 5850
sry wrong thread
Make use of the ram
When you already have benchmarks the two GB card posted you shouldn't even bother posting benchmarks for single monitor non 3D setups. It would be more interesting to see benchmarks with 3 monitors and with and without 3D. These are scenarios where we would likely see some benefits from these double sized frame buffers. And it would be interesting to see just how much it would help.
I think you meant to post in the 4gb card thread.
Why does the GTX 670 article review comments send me here? Seems wrong X)
dunno I just posted fine in that thread
When will guru start testing 3DMark11 in fullHD?
no one buys a GC that comes with a price tag of more than 250$ to play at 1280x1024.
same with the other benchmarks.
i understand that lower res. are used for the "smaller" cards, but the "upper half" of the list should mainly be tested at 1600 and up (thats what they will run in real life).
1280x1024 is the default preset for 3D Mark11 though, and is just used there as an epeen test.
It's not a game anyway, and no-one has a PC able to run 3D Mark11 at 60fps at FullHD anyway, even a GTX680 will only get around 10fps at 1920x1080.
What he said, you cant play 3DMark, there is no real life playing of it.
Use it to make sure your PC has no issues.
ok, just to clarify :
never said its a game (thats why its called benchmark?! ) nor do i wanna play it. dont need to have a high fps or any of that.
BUT just because 1280 is the standart profile, doesnt mean "i" (guru3d) cant change it and have another result for the extreme setting...
to compare GC in the above-200$-range, i wanna see real life resolutions aka FullHD and higher, so i can compare them without limitations from cpu-power.
so for me to see 460/560ti and up being tested @default, it is kind of :stewpid:.
if the benchmark is "useless" for comparison, than why have the results in every test they do??...
do it right (default AND the extrem settings (maybe only for "bigger" cards) or not at all...
not everyone plays the same games so a benchmark like 3DMark11 is an easy way to compare different cards/brands/clockspeeds...
Seeing as you cant play it, why are you worried how other people use a benchmark?
You can easily run it in quality or demo mode for your own pleasure if you want it to look good and can still run at the lower res to check performance.
It isnt representative of gaming performance, it is included so you can verify your PC hasnt got any immediate performance issues.
Before calling others stupid, check you arent the stupid one first.
Nobody said its not a useful comparison, thats ALL it is useful for.
Please tell us what benefit you expect to get from running it at higher resolution?
I can get only a 45 FPS average with crossfire 7950s at those settings and allowing the application to control the tessellation. But then I didn't cheat. :wanker:
I jumped the Nvidia ship in favour of the AMD offerings after the 8800GTS. . . I currently run a HD5870 but am looking to upgrade soon . . . I must say that the GTX 670 is making noises that may persuade me to choose it as an upgrade over the AMDs in the same price range. . . .
never called anyone stupid, only testing powerful cards at res. like 1280x1024 is.
who buys a 680 to play at that setting ? no one.
i wanna "compare" the different cards/brands, NOT just gameplay fps.
there are to many different games out there, to test them all, so synthetic tests are the easiest way to look at the different cards (stock clocks vs OCed; another brand...)
im just tryin to say that guru3d is not just online since yesterday, and testing 300$ (and up) GC in lower resolutions is not up to date.
every game test is run at 1280. why not drop that for the big cards and just do all tests in fullHD and higher (incl. 3DMark).
heck even gurus vga-list is from spring 2011, not 2012...