Updated my drivers and getting a solid 40-50 fps. Good enough, but not great.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51017901][video=youtube;HlFl8SsEmOQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlFl8SsEmOQ[/video]
I highly doubt that - this guy is running with a 1060 and I5-6500 is averaging 90 FPS on Ultra. 1060 is just above my card.[/QUOTE]
going by what DICE said, it is, and i believe it. it would explain why on conquest i get absolute shit fps and stuttering, but on rush i get stable above 70 fps.
I was actually thinking about getting a Titan X is the GTX 1080 better as it's slightly cheaper.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51019027]I was actually thinking about getting a Titan X is the GTX 1080 better as it's slightly cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Titan x is for rendering, 1080 is for gaming.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51019027]I was actually thinking about getting a Titan X is the GTX 1080 better as it's slightly cheaper.[/QUOTE]
The Pitan can overclock natively unless you get a crappy sample to 170% of a 1080 on air, which is pretty much equal to two stock 1080s in SLI without any microstutter.
It really depends on what games you play, and whether they support AFR or not.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51019415]Titan x is for rendering, 1080 is for gaming.[/QUOTE]
I actually do both but wouldn't that be better for gaming if you want a faster framerate? The titan if its a rendering card.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51019000]going by what DICE said, it is, and i believe it. it would explain why on conquest i get absolute shit fps and stuttering, but on rush i get stable above 70 fps.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to my CPU being the minimum. Is it? I am not a huge enthusiast as far as computer parts, but from my knowledge, my CPU is certainly higher level and should give quite good performance on most games.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51023268]I actually do both but wouldn't that be better for gaming if you want a faster framerate? The titan if its a rendering card.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't go as far as to say the titan is for rendering, more for people with a lot of money to throw around, but power isn't everything. Cards themselves will have different features internally and drivers are a big part too. The titan is not a good example of that.
A better comparison would be a GTX 1080 for gaming, and a quadro/firepro for rendering. You'll basically beat a $4,000 graphics card with an $800 one for gaming for those reasons.
[sp]those cards are also very overpriced even for what they are too, so that doesn't help[/sp]
now I know what a 1080 sli laptop looks like on the inside
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi7gbWPXCXg[/media]
This video reminds me I need to upgrade
I've been reminded for about four years
[img]https://puu.sh/r569S/16e116423e.png[/img]
[QUOTE=HyperTails;51023703]This video reminds me I need to upgrade
I've been reminded for about four years
[img]https://puu.sh/r569S/16e116423e.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh boy, the kind of evil deeds I'd do to get a card like yours.
[img]https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/6y6RH8ZU.png[/img]
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51023411]I was referring to my CPU being the minimum. Is it? I am not a huge enthusiast as far as computer parts, but from my knowledge, my CPU is certainly higher level and should give quite good performance on most games.[/QUOTE]
Look at their system requiements, its at the minimum for intel chips.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/r5DUJ/5adb64826e.png[/IMG]
-snip-
Minimum CPU requirements are almost always bullshit though. Like an FX 6350 is nowhere near on par with the i5 6500.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51016986]I got an R9 390 a few months ago - AMD's equivelant to the 970/980. I struggle to get 30-40 FPS on Battelfield 1. It is such a struggle.[/QUOTE]
Something is broken on your part. I rarely got less than 100fps in BF1 beta. Was like up to 140fps with dips to ~96fps if literally everything exploded in my face.
That's with Ultra at 1080p and default render scale.
[t]https://my.mixtape.moe/kpnivo.png[/t]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51019415]Titan x is for rendering, 1080 is for gaming.[/QUOTE]
Nope. You want dem CUDA cores for rendering, and with a single Titan X you only get 3584, but with dual 1080's you get 5120 - for pretty much the same price as a single Titan X
[editline]10th September 2016[/editline]
Also I found an opportunity to sell my old PC and get a bit of an overhaul and found myself with x2 GTX 1080's and a 6700k so can confirm I am dead and this is heaven. Render speeds have gone down nearly up to [B]75%[/B] per frame vs a single 980 I had before.
Using Redshift, I went down from 2m 44s a frame @ 720p / 512 samples to 0m 46s a frame at the same settings, and 1m 33s in 1080p vs the previous 3m 55s
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51028060]Nope. You want dem CUDA cores for rendering, and with a single Titan X you only get 3584, but with dual 1080's you get 5120 - for pretty much the same price as a single Titan X
[editline]10th September 2016[/editline]
Also I found an opportunity to sell my old PC and get a bit of an overhaul and found myself with x2 GTX 1080's and a 6700k so can confirm I am dead and this is heaven. Render speeds have gone down nearly up to [B]75%[/B] per frame vs a single 980 I had before.
Using Redshift, I went down from 2m 44s a frame @ 720p / 512 samples to 0m 46s a frame at the same settings, and 1m 33s in 1080p vs the previous 3m 55s[/QUOTE]
Well I suspect our friend mixed Titan X and Titan P
[QUOTE=426_Hemi;51028374]Well I suspect our friend mixed Titan X and Titan P[/QUOTE]
Titan X Pascal has 3584 CUDA, Titan X Maxwell has 3072 CUDA. Maxwell still cost $1100 per card, Pascal at $1200 through Nvidia directly. Still more worth it to get x2 1080's for rendering.
after all these pages, did anyone point out that in the OP video, when the internet browser pops up, one of the open tabs is Bad Dragon? :v:
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51029365]Titan X Pascal has 3584 CUDA, Titan X Maxwell has 3072 CUDA. Maxwell still cost $1100 per card, Pascal at $1200 through Nvidia directly. Still more worth it to get x2 1080's for rendering.[/QUOTE]
Psh just get two Titan XPs
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51000605]I honestly don't see much of a difference with anything higher than 60.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not "seeing" but "feeling". The higher the frames the more responsive controls feel.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;51036682]Psh just get two Titan XPs[/QUOTE]
LET'S GET REAL TECHNICAL UP IN HERE
x1 [B]Titan X Pascal[/B] = $1,200 and [B]3584[/B] CUDA
x2 [B]GTX 1080[/B] = $1,398 and [B]5120[/B] CUDA
So far, for $200 more, you get 30% more CUDA at your disposal.
Let's dig deeper!
x2 [B]Titan X Pascal[/B] = $2,400 and [B]7168[/B] CUDA
x2 [B]GTX 1080[/B] = $1,398 and [B]5120[/B] CUDA
x3 [B]GTX 1080[/B] = $2,097 and [B]7680[/B] CUDA
So for 400 dollars [I]less[/I] than x2 Titans you get not only [I]one more GPU[/I] (which is great for rendering, distributed core usage etc.), you get [I]more[/I] CUDA cores.
In fact, if you're feeling spendy you can get quad 1080's for [B]$2,796[/B], "just" $396 more than double Titans, and you end up with [B]10240[/B] CUDA - a whooping [B][U]3072[/U][/B] cores [I]more[/I] than with double Titans. :cool:
tl;dr, GTX 1080's for rendering, Titan X for games. Unless money is no object in which case, uh, go ahead and get yourself x4 Titan XP's.
[QUOTE=codemaster85]that cpu is at the bare minimum requirement, and the game is heavily CPU based on conquest. Try switching your priority on the task manager to high, it should give you about 10-20 fps.[/quote]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51019415]Titan x is for rendering, 1080 is for gaming.[/QUOTE]
stop spreading misinformation, tia
The Titan obviously can be used for gaming but it's more geared towards professional usage. Use in mission-critical scientific servers or use in render farms, for example. Titans are very expensive making them arguably a poor choice for the average gamer unless they are super-enthusiast tier and are dropping several thousands of dollars on a computer anyway.
The 1080 is more geared towards gamers as it's much more affordable. This also makes it less suited towards professional tasks I listed above. You're looking at like >$1200 for a Titan and like ~$650 for a 1080. This should give insight into the intended markets here.
[editline]13th September 2016[/editline]
Comparing a 1080 to a Titan is like comparing an i5 to a Xeon. They're there to accomplish different tasks and meet different criteria of reliability, customer support, and performance. It's disingenuous to have this conversation in the context of the average consumer.
Titans are a terrible choice for mission critical servers, you use an actual professional render card for that. A 1080 and a Titan is more comparing an i5 to an i7 Extreme. You really don't need one for gaming outside of extreme circumstances and it's best used for someone doing gaming+lower end professional work on the same rig.
[editline]13th September 2016[/editline]
Maybe you could make that argument a bit more for the OG Titan and Titan Black but it just isn't true for the Titan X's.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51046342]The Titan obviously can be used for gaming but it's more geared towards professional usage. Use in mission-critical scientific servers or use in render farms, for example. Titans are very expensive making them arguably a poor choice for the average gamer unless they are super-enthusiast tier and are dropping several thousands of dollars on a computer anyway.
The 1080 is more geared towards gamers as it's much more affordable. This also makes it less suited towards professional tasks I listed above. You're looking at like >$1200 for a Titan and like ~$650 for a 1080. This should give insight into the intended markets here.
[editline]13th September 2016[/editline]
Comparing a 1080 to a Titan is like comparing an i5 to a Xeon. They're there to accomplish different tasks and meet different criteria of reliability, customer support, and performance. It's disingenuous to have this conversation in the context of the average consumer.[/QUOTE]
A 1080 to Titan is like an i5-6600K to an i7-6700K. An i5 to a Xeon would be more like comparing a 1080 and a Quadro M6000. A Titan X Pascal is an overpowered beast, but it still has the GTX branding and gamer enthusiasts are a big chunk of the buyers for it. You probably have a good number of people using them who are doing research (Computerphile has gone into depth with Dr. Mike Pound on the topic, and it seems their research at the University of Nottingham takes advantage of older Titan models) or non AAA professional stuff. For the actual high-end though? Company's like Pixar probably take advantage of insane numbers of Quadros hooked up to a server that the workstations delegate tasks to.
[QUOTE=Levelog;51046938]Titans are a terrible choice for mission critical servers, you use an actual professional render card for that. A 1080 and a Titan is more comparing an i5 to an i7 Extreme. You really don't need one for gaming outside of extreme circumstances and it's best used for someone doing gaming+lower end professional work on the same rig.
[editline]13th September 2016[/editline]
Maybe you could make that argument a bit more for the OG Titan and Titan Black but it just isn't true for the Titan X's.[/QUOTE]
Did they change up their lineup? Once upon a time Titans were their professional tier cards.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51047872]Did they change up their lineup? Once upon a time Titans were their professional tier cards.[/QUOTE]
Titans have never been a true professional card. Originally a workstation card that's capable of gaming, now more of just a gaming card. The quadro line is quite a bit older than the Titans are.
[editline]13th September 2016[/editline]
Well and Tesla cards but talk about expensive.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51046342]The Titan obviously can be used for gaming but it's more geared towards professional usage. Use in mission-critical scientific servers or use in render farms, for example. Titans are very expensive making them arguably a poor choice for the average gamer unless they are super-enthusiast tier and are dropping several thousands of dollars on a computer anyway.[/QUOTE]
Truly spoken like somebody who has never rendered anything in 3D using GPU-powered rendering (ie. any GPU-renderer like Octane/Redshift)
The Titan X is overpriced garbage and should not be used for 3D rendering. It's better suited for gaming due to its lower CUDA core count in relation to its price.
Multiple 1080's over a single Titan nets you faster rendering due to the distributed core use and CUDA amount.
[editline]edit[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loriborn;51047017]An i5 to a Xeon would be more like comparing a 1080 and a Quadro M6000.[/QUOTE]
SPEAKING OF OVERPRICED GARBAGE, Quadros are useless in most modern GPU renderers that utilize CUDA. The price vs performance ratio is insane. The only time Quadros are useful are in CPU-based renderers - which brings me to this:
[QUOTE=Loriborn;51047017]For the actual high-end though? Company's like Pixar probably take advantage of insane numbers of Quadros hooked up to a server that the workstations delegate tasks to.[/QUOTE]
Pixar's Renderman is a CPU-based renderer, so they [I]probably[/I] focus on high-end Xeons and Quadros / FirePros.
So yes, if your renderer of choice is CPU-powered (ie. RenderMan), a Quadro will be more useful to you - then again for the price of a Quadro you might as well get double 1080s and a license to a better renderer. If your renderer is GPU-powered (RedShift / Octane / Cycles GPU-rendering mode), 1080's or Titan X (although, like I said, price vs performance ratio dictates 1080's are the better choice).
Also for things that should really have Quadro features. Like ECC VRAM and DP. For a lot of GPU rendering yeah, you just need all the CUDA
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
