These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

A new Graphics card.... Help!

Author
Predsaki
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2012-09-24 07:38:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Predsaki
Morning guys,

My graphics card (Geforce 9800 GT) is currently dying when I run Eve on 2 windows. The background starts flashing white green and purple. As soon as I manage to Log off both screens are black and I need to restart the machine in order to get back in game.

As such, I come here requesting a little help with picking a new one as I don't want to spend £150 on a graphics card that A) won't work at all in my PC B) will only utilize 80% of the card due to other limiting factors such as my processor.

My budget is around £120 but can't be altered slightly if needed. Here is a PICTURE of what is currently in the Computer . If you need anymore information just ask and I will post it as soon as I can.

Power Supply is 400w.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

Pred

Quick Edit - If the PSU isn't large enough I can purchase a new one(separate budget)
Card will need 2 outputs VGA or DVI. Monitors aren't HDMI so not too fussed about that.
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#2 - 2012-09-24 12:50:27 UTC
nVidia 650 would be just about perfect for you.

I also found this review/comparison between a 660 and a 9800gt, which is close, but not the same as the 650, but is interesting reading from a technical standpoint, speaking about the 9800gt.

but yeah, looking at the stats, I think the 650 is cats whiskers for you.

AK

This space for rent.

Sh'toq
Stillwater Enterprises
#3 - 2012-09-24 12:59:47 UTC
I have the 650GT chip in my laptop with 1gb dedicated memory. It handles 2 clients perfectly well with medium to high settings.

Taking the desktop version I can almost say for sure that this should work well enough for you.
Predsaki
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-09-24 14:02:58 UTC
Thank you very much for the replies guys. Picked this one -

http://www.dabs.com/products/zotac-geforce-gtx-650-1071-mhz-2gb-pci-express-3-0-hdmi-890Z.html?q=650&src=16

Just need to check that my monitors will support the DVI leads. I know one will but I don't know about the other, can you tell me why there are 2 different types of DVI socket on the board instead of 2 the same??

Thanks

Pred
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#5 - 2012-09-24 14:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
AFAIK, the NVIDIA cards in the 8000 series or later are made only for PCI-E, so you should have a PCI-E slot on your motherboard, no need to worry about AGP.
The specific 9800 GT you had (stock speed 65nm, non-green edition) was already drawing in about 125W, so you should be ok with a card that draws in slightly less power than that, just to be safe.

A 660 eats up to 140W at stock speeds, so for that one you might a new PSU, and besides, it's above your budget, at over 175 GBP.
That basically means that a GTX 650 is your only reasonable choice, as it only consumes about 65W tops at peak stock speed usage (so you have quite a bit of leeway even if you get a factory-overclocked version), and it costs somewhere in the 90 to 130 GBP range depending on memory size and factory overclocking level.

I would recommend this one:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-gigabyte-gtx-650-overclocked-28nm-pcie-30-(x16)-5000mhz-gpu-1110mhz-cores-384-dvi-hdmi
It's a 2GB version, only slightly factory-overclocked, can be manually pushed much further if you so wish, costing you about 112 GBP, and you would not need to change your PSU at all.
The out-of-the-box performance with no manual tweaks should be about 80% better than your old video card - not quite twice as fast, but close.
Connectivity: 1 x D-Sub + 2 x Dual Link DVI-D + 1 x HDMI .

P.S. It supports up to THREE monitors at the same time.

P. P.S. The DVI-D is the "digital only" DVI connector, whereas the DVI-I is the Analog+Digital combo.
You can buy a DVI-I (combo) to D-Sub (analog) adapter for some spare change and run your old monitors via analog signal.
From DVI-D to D-Sub, you need a converter, which is a bit more difficult to find, but doesn't cost all that much either.
Chances are your monitors do support DVI however if they're less than 10 years old or thereabouts, the connectors came out 13 years ago.
Verone
Veto Corp
#6 - 2012-09-24 14:24:13 UTC
Akita T wrote:
AFAIK, the NVIDIA cards in the 8000 series or later are made only for PCI-E, so you should have a PCI-E slot on your motherboard, no need to worry about AGP.
The specific 9800 GT you had (stock speed 65nm, non-green edition) was already drawing in about 125W, so you should be ok with a card that draws in slightly less power than that, just to be safe.

A 660 eats up to 140W at stock speeds, so for that one you might a new PSU, and besides, it's above your budget, at over 175 GBP.
That basically means that a GTX 650 is your only reasonable choice, as it only consumes about 65W tops at peak stock speed usage (so you have quite a bit of leeway even if you get a factory-overclocked version), and it costs somewhere in the 90 to 130 GBP range depending on memory size and factory overclocking level.

I would recommend this one:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-gigabyte-gtx-650-overclocked-28nm-pcie-30-(x16)-5000mhz-gpu-1110mhz-cores-384-dvi-hdmi
It's a 2GB version, only slightly factory-overclocked, can be manually pushed much further if you so wish, costing you about 112 GBP, and you would not need to change your PSU at all.
The out-of-the-box performance with no manual tweaks should be about 80% better than your old video card - not quite twice as fast, but close.
Connectivity: 1 x D-Sub + 2 x Dual Link DVI-D + 1 x HDMI

P.S. It supports up to THREE monitors at the same time.


This.

Also, the site Akita linked is far better than Dabs.com for buying stuff in the UK.

I've been using Scan for 10 years and have built 30+ systems in that time for myself, friends and family. I've only ever had one return due to a manufacturer's defect and it was sorted within 48 hours.

Verone CEO & Executor Veto Corp WWW.VETO-CORP.COM

Predsaki
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-09-24 15:16:04 UTC
Akita, what can I say....

That was pretty much what I was looking for in a nut shell. All you guys have been so helpful. I couldn't have asked for a better response. Payday tomorrow so should be fitted by the end of the week.

Thanks again, especially for the detailed descriptions Akita!!!

Pred
Paul Oliver
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-09-24 16:00:17 UTC
I'm in the market for a new card too, how about the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, or is that outdated already?
Its good to be [Gallente](http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/QEQlJ.jpg).
Caleidascope
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-09-24 19:13:28 UTC
Paul Oliver wrote:
I'm in the market for a new card too, how about the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, or is that outdated already?

GTX 560 Ti is really nice card. Make sure you have power supply that is 500 Watts or more.

Life is short and dinner time is chancy

Eat dessert first!

Agaetis Byrjun Endalaust
#10 - 2012-09-24 19:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Agaetis Byrjun Endalaust
Quote:
I'm in the market for a new card too, how about the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, or is that outdated already?

if you go that way, take the MSI twin frozr and possibly the 2Gb version. Tbh I didn't read any review about the 650 and how much it is better than the 560Ti but if you can find an MSI 560Ti at a good price you could get a really good deal.

btw: 560Ti 1Gb can run 2 clients on 2 monitors at 1920x1080 flawlessly, the 2Gb version could be good for more than 2 clients or for other games more ram-demanding than eve (almost anyone since EVE is actually a dx9 game, while all these cards support dx11 already)

In any case if the price difference isn't remarkable, I'd go for a 650. It's a Kepler card, a complete new world.

__________________________ just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not after you

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#11 - 2012-09-25 02:38:51 UTC
GTX 560 Ti eats up 170W and is slower than a GTX 660 (no Ti) which only eats up 140W.
The 1GB version exists only for the former, and it starts at around 180 USD.
The 2GB versions start at around 240 USD for the former, but from a surprising 230 USD for the latter.
The 660 also supports up to three monitors, the 560 Ti only two.

I would just get a 2GB GTX 660 if I was in your particular situation.
Only get a 560 Ti if you can find it noticeably cheaper than the usual price.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-09-26 03:05:41 UTC
call me crazy but wouldn't a 6670 work in his case.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#13 - 2012-09-26 05:17:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
A HD 6670 ? For whom, Predsaki, or Paul Oliver ? I'm guessing Predsaki...

A HD 6670 would indeed be "good enough" for EVE (~110 station FPS single client FHD near-max detail), eat up 66W of power, and have a cost starting at 60$ for the 1GB version (and close to 80$ for the not-low-speed-memory 2GB version).
Predsaki's (the OP) former GPU ate up 125W of power to give him barely above 90 FPS in similar circumstances, so, yes, if "cheapest replacement" would be the goal, the 6670 would be a very decent alternative.
Still, a few select features of EVE (not that many would even notice they aren't used) only properly fully work on NVIDIA hardware (or, they used to only work on it, not so long ago), so some people might still show preference towards NVIDIA over AMD//ATI if the situation is close.
However, a GTX 650 will give him around 180 FPS (noticeably better than a HD 6670, and most likely a noticeable difference in performance with 2-client runs, like the OP claims to be using), for a 65W power usage (actually ever so slightly lower than the HD 6670), but the cost is 120$/140$ and upwards (1/2 GB versions).

So I guess it's about what he wants, any manufacturer or just NVIDIA, and either cheapest replacement or best in budget.

P.S. Pricing in the UK is a bit wonkier, the former posts were using UK prices, this post used USA prices.
Kenneth O'Hara
Sebiestor Tribe
#14 - 2012-09-26 21:26:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth O'Hara
Check this out.

http://www.ebuyer.com/398334-point-of-view-gt-440-2048mb-vga-dvi-hdmi-pci-e-graphics-card-vga-440-c2-2048

Not sure why people are suggesting these powerhouse cards for (not powerhouse in power consumption).
I have a xfx nvidia geforce 250 gts and it runs 4 windows of eve at max settings with ~210 fps in station.

The one I linked should be way more than enough for your needs and at a fair price.

Edit: spelling and grammar.

Bring Saede Riordan back!! Never Forget! _"__Operation Godzilla Smacks Zeus"  ~__Graygor _

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#15 - 2012-09-27 05:18:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Kenneth O'Hara wrote:
Not sure why people are suggesting these powerhouse cards for (not powerhouse in power consumption).

A GT 440 is noticeably weaker than both a GTS 250 (what you say you have) and a 9800 GT (what the OP has now, but it's failing).
It should not even go past 80 FPS station-spinning a single client in near-max detail on FHD, and probably dip below 30 FPS for dual client even in moderate sized PvP fights.

The OP listed a (max) budget of 120 GBP to begin with, so we're suggesting cards that are at least as fast as the one he has now and up to around his listed budget. Also, a total power consumption under his current card's consumption.
There's really nothing to be surprised about in the cards being suggested, it's what the OP asked for after all, no ?

Quote:
I have a xfx nvidia geforce 250 gts and it runs 4 windows of eve at max settings with ~210 fps in station.

I find it shocking that you claim to have a 250 GTS running FOUR instances of EVE at max settings with over 200 FPS in station.
I have a slightly-factory-overclocked GTX 460 and I couldn't get anywhere near that kind of performance with four clients, and I think you'll have to agree a GTS 250 should be nowhere near the performance of a GTX 460, let alone surpass it.

With that claimed hardware of yours at stock speeds, running only at near-max settings (no AA) in FullHD, you shouldn't even be able to go much past 100 FPS station-spinning a single client, let alone over 200 and with four clients (unless we're talking one maximized and active with the rest minimized in the background, but even then, it still stretches believability since it's way above what you should be getting).

I'm guessing you're either NOT running at anywhere near max graphic detail AND/OR you're running at or near the minimum allowed resolution AND/OR your video card is insanely heavily overclocked AND/OR you actually have two of them in SLI mode but you forgot to mention that AND/OR there's something wrong with the FPS indicator for your machine, reporting you a lot more FPS than you actually get, making you believe you're getting way more performance than you actually are AND/OR you made a typo and actually meant 20-21 FPS not 210...
Kenneth O'Hara
Sebiestor Tribe
#16 - 2012-09-27 15:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth O'Hara
Akita T wrote:
Kenneth O'Hara wrote:
Not sure why people are suggesting these powerhouse cards for (not powerhouse in power consumption).
A GT 440 is noticeably weaker than both a GTS 250 (what you say you have) and a 9800 GT (what the OP has now, but it's failing). It should not even go past 80 FPS station-spinning a single client in near-max detail on FHD, and probably dip below 30 FPS for dual client even in moderate sized PvP fights. The OP listed a (max) budget of 120 GBP to begin with, so we're suggesting cards that are at least as fast as the one he has now and up to around his listed budget. Also, a total power consumption under his current card's consumption. There's really nothing to be surprised about in the cards being suggested, it's what the OP asked for after all, no ?
Quote:
I have a xfx nvidia geforce 250 gts and it runs 4 windows of eve at max settings with ~210 fps in station.
I find it shocking that you claim to have a 250 GTS running FOUR instances of EVE at max settings with over 200 FPS in station. I have a slightly-factory-overclocked GTX 460 and I couldn't get anywhere near that kind of performance with four clients, and I think you'll have to agree a GTS 250 should be nowhere near the performance of a GTX 460, let alone surpass it. With that claimed hardware of yours at stock speeds, running only at near-max settings (no AA) in FullHD, you shouldn't even be able to go much past 100 FPS station-spinning a single client, let alone over 200 and with four clients (unless we're talking one maximized and active with the rest minimized in the background, but even then, it still stretches believability since it's way above what you should be getting). I'm guessing you're either NOT running at anywhere near max graphic detail AND/OR you're running at or near the minimum allowed resolution AND/OR your video card is insanely heavily overclocked AND/OR you actually have two of them in SLI mode but you forgot to mention that AND/OR there's something wrong with the FPS indicator for your machine, reporting you a lot more FPS than you actually get, making you believe you're getting way more performance than you actually are AND/OR you made a typo and actually meant 20-21 FPS not 210...


There is a detail that I missed out. I'm running on a 15" CRT (Long story don't ask) I still have 4 windows open running at the same time. I alt tab between them and NO, thay are not minimized and running in the background. I just re-checked my fps meter and you're right, I'm not getting ~200+ fps. Its more like ~160 fps in station which is still awesome. I have windows and EVE running that is it. I go through and turn off all unneccesary programs and windows apps. Now I also have the fan on the VC OCed to max rpms all the time. But the rest is still stock.

Now you also have to take into consideration the rest of the system as well. If the FSB, pci bus and south bridge bandwidth sucks then it doesn't matter how good of a card you put in it. It will always be bottle-necked. Predsaki has already stated that he would only be able to use about 80% of the card anyways due to other limiting factors. If he wants to dump around 120 on a new vga and only get around 60% ~ 80% usage out of the card that's fine. I just don't see a reason why waste the extra money on something you can't even use due to limiting factors. I say get a way cheaper card at only a slight performance decrease compared to an awesome card and use 100% and it would still do better on that system.

One of the major bottleneck points is the HDD. It doesn't matter how fast the system is if it takes forever to pull the data from the drive. My fps increased by ~30% across the board for all games after i switched to a SSD. Best investment ever.

But hey, I could be wrong and maybe I'm just overthinking from an IT/engineering aspect (No certs, IT degree, self taught and how my brain works) Ultimately he will need to upgrade his system.

My system:
MB: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Pro: Phenom II x4 965 Black
Mem: AMD 4gb DDR3 1333
VGA: xfx nvidia 250 gts 1gb 256bit x1
HDD: Kingston 64gb SSD
PSU: Apevia 680w

I know you're thinking there is no reason for me to even post but I jsut want to point out that your overall system does make a difference. I'm not hardcore and I only upgrade about once every 2-3 years with a 200-250 pounds range as long as I'm working and I'm covered in everything else. Seeing as he has a 9800gt, I would presume he has a PCI-Express 2.0 slot. It also has a 256bit interface. I personnally don't see where he would see a performance decrease in this area here if he upgrades but the rest would be a major role. I would need to know more about his system so i can get down to the numbers and see where we could cut corners. If his system is 5+ yrs old, I would suggest upgrading over time within the next yr.

FYI, the 9800gt, 250gts and the 330gts are just relabeled 8800gt according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#GeForce_9800_GT

Also the monitor plays an important role. Especially resolution and refresh rate. anything passed 60fps on a 60Hz monitor is a waste. The monitor can not keep up to even project those frames beyond 60. Now, 120Hz is a different story. In terms of resolution, Higher equals more work for the vga not necessarily better graphics. This whole "HD" fad is a load of bullocks. It's just higher resolutions and there is nothing fancy about it. Computer monitors have been doing 2560x1600 resolutions for yrs and no one called it HD. Stick 1920x1080 on a TV and it's HD now. It's all just a marketing scheme. now up the refresh rate to 120Hz and ill take that monitor over one with a higher resolution everytime.


EDIT: btw, on a single client running "fullHD" on a 50" 60Hz 1080p LCD TV with max settings and AA, I'm getting roughly ~200fps in station. It's all about how you run your system and how you optimize.

Bring Saede Riordan back!! Never Forget! _"__Operation Godzilla Smacks Zeus"  ~__Graygor _

Kenneth O'Hara
Sebiestor Tribe
#17 - 2012-09-27 15:32:36 UTC
After looking around, to keep 256bit memory interface and over 119 cuda cores(egual to streaming proccessors for ATI) he is going to have to spend atleast 140. Regardless, due to power requirements he will have to upgrade his PSU if he upgrades his VC to something better.

Bring Saede Riordan back!! Never Forget! _"__Operation Godzilla Smacks Zeus"  ~__Graygor _

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#18 - 2012-09-27 15:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Kenneth O'Hara wrote:
There is a detail that I missed out. I'm running on a 15" CRT (Long story don't ask) I still have 4 windows open running at the same time. I alt tab between them and NO, thay are not minimized and running in the background.

Then I am guessing you are running in fullscreen mode.
In that case, the rest might as well be minimized, they don't really use much of the GPU in that state.
Even in windowed mode, with the focus out from the window, it already gets shifted to a much lower priority... with fullscreen alt-tabbing, it's as if they're barely there in comparison (you still feel them, but far less).
Keep a FPS monitor open on each of them, and see the FPS jump down while they are not on display, and jump back up as you alt-tab back to them.

Quote:
Predsaki has already stated that he would only be able to use about 80% of the card anyways due to other limiting factors. If he wants to dump around 120 on a new vga and only get around 60% ~ 80% usage out of the card that's fine. I just don't see a reason why waste the extra money on something you can't even use due to limiting factors.

He was concerned that he might get some bottleneck on his machine with an expensive card, and he was asking us if he would (he wouldn't, unless he goes into large fleet combat situations).

Kenneth O'Hara wrote:
One of the major bottleneck points is the HDD. It doesn't matter how fast the system is if it takes forever to pull the data from the drive. My fps increased by ~30% across the board for all games after i switched to a SSD. Best investment ever.

For EVE, after the grid has loaded, if you still have any free RAM remaining (so nothing uses the swap file), HDD/SSD performance is pretty much meaningless. Depending on OS version, loaded services and apps, 4 GB might be barely enough or way too much.
With Win7-64bit with default services and 4 EVE instances, 4 GB will most likely start chewing the swap file. You would probably have gotten much of the same performance upgrade by just adding more RAM to your machine.
Now, don't get me wrong, a SSD is great in general (especially for office type work, not only gaming), but for many simultaneous EVE clients, more RAM is usually a better answer (almost same improvement at a fraction of the price).


Kenneth O'Hara wrote:
I just re-checked my fps meter and you're right, I'm not getting ~200+ fps. Its more like ~160 fps in station which is still awesome. I have windows and EVE running that is it. I go through and turn off all unneccesary programs and windows apps. Now I also have the fan on the VC OCed to max rpms all the time. But the rest is still stock.
[...]
btw, on a single client running "fullHD" on a 50" 60Hz 1080p LCD TV with max settings and AA, I'm getting roughly ~200fps in station. It's all about how you run your system and how you optimize.

That's not just awesome, it's unbelievable. As in, I have a bit of difficulty believing you. The difference between a clean OS install pruned to the max running EVE, and a chock-full-of-semi-junk system running EVE should be nowhere near that huge, yet you are getting a performance out of your hardware which should be borderline impossible on factory settings, and very difficult even if the board was pretty seriously factory overclocked,

Can you please post a few screenshots on the big screen you can use in 1080p ?
Preferably one of the ESC menu showing all the graphics options (and as much of the next view as possible via blurry transparency), and one with the FPS monitor open clearly showing your claimed huge FPS ?
And what drivers are you using ? What settings do you use in your drivers ? Fiddling JUST with the driver settings and nothing else can actually improve my FPS by almost 50% while only sacrificing minimal visual quality, but it's there and able to be seen if you look closely.
Also, what station, what ship in hangar, how far away from it is the camera, and where is it pointing ? I generally talk FPS for any frigate in a Caldari station on the default camera position. That also can mean up to almost 10% FPS difference easily, as weird as it sounds.
Or maybe it''s a seriously factory-overclocked 250 GTS. Do you have GPU-Z ? Can you post a screenshot of the video card data too ?

There's some option, situation or circumstance you have to be missing, that FPS is just too much for max image quality on what hardware you say you have, and no amount of optimization without sacrificing image quality should be able to make that happen.

But in case that' huge FPS is what you're actually getting at max possible detail, both in drivers and EVE, and with a normal camera view... congratulations, you are one both really lucky and insanely thorough guy.
Kenneth O'Hara
Sebiestor Tribe
#19 - 2012-09-27 16:44:22 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Then I am guessing you are running in fullscreen mode.
In that case, the rest might as well be minimized, they don't really use much of the GPU in that state.
Even in windowed mode, with the focus out from the window, it already gets shifted to a much lower priority... with fullscreen alt-tabbing, it's as if they're barely there in comparison (you still feel them, but far less).
Keep a FPS monitor open on each of them, and see the FPS jump down while they are not on display, and jump back up as you alt-tab back to them.


Naw, Im in window mode. I have to resize each one slightly so the corners do overlap. My max res on the 15in is 1024x768. My ex-gf shattered my 42in in a fight, hence why shes my ex.

Akita T wrote:
For EVE, after the grid has loaded, if you still have any free RAM remaining (so nothing uses the swap file), HDD/SSD performance is pretty much meaningless. Depending on OS version, loaded services and apps, 4 GB might be barely enough or way too much.
With Win7-64bit with default services and 4 EVE instances, 4 GB will most likely start chewing the swap file. You would probably have gotten much of the same performance upgrade by just adding more RAM to your machine.
Now, don't get me wrong, a SSD is great in general (especially for office type work, not only gaming), but for many simultaneous EVE clients, more RAM is usually a better answer (almost same improvement at a fraction of the price).


Everytime you load a new system, it pulls that data from the HDD. When you undock, it would pull that system data from the HDD if it wasn't already loaded when you first dock. It's only noticable when you first login. All PC ships are pulled from the HDD when you come across them in real time, PC ships are not pre-cached. That's why running fleet battles are so heavy on a system.
I'm running win-7 64bit but mostly all of the default services are off. Stuff that really isn't even used like printer stuff and media center sharing. Besides, I already had the SSD when I upgraded my MB and Memory. With the pagefile.sys on the SSD, it greatly increases load times but once it's in memory it doesn't matter until it has to pull something else.

Akita T wrote:
That's not just awesome, it's unbelievable. As in, I have a bit of difficulty believing you. The difference between a clean OS install pruned to the max running EVE, and a chock-full-of-semi-junk system running EVE should be nowhere near that huge, yet you are getting a performance out of your hardware which should be borderline impossible on factory settings, and very difficult even if the board was pretty seriously factory overclocked,
Can you please post a few screenshots on the big screen you can use in 1080p ? Preferably one of the ESC menu showing all the graphics options (and as much of the next view as possible via blurry transparency), and one with the FPS monitor open clearly showing your claimed huge FPS ?
There's some option, situation or circumstance you have to be missing, that FPS is just too much for what hardware you say you have, and no amount of optimization should be able to make that happen. Or maybe it''s a seriously factory-overclocked 250 GTS. Do you have GPU-Z ? Can you post a screenshot of the video card data too ?

But in case that's what you're actually getting... congratulations, you are one both really lucky and insanely thorough guy.


The screen shots will have to wait until I get home for I am at work currently.

I noticed the 650 gtx you recommended is actually a decent card for the price. The only thing that throws me off on it is the 128bit memory interface. It does create a slight bottleneck. This is just me being picky. It's kinda like a 4 lane highway compared to an 8 lane highway. They both might handle the same amount of traffic but the 8 lane does it a little better with a much better flow. If you take the same card specs but give it 256bit interface, it jumps the price by 50 ~ 100% depending on name brand. That's ridiculus.

Bring Saede Riordan back!! Never Forget! _"__Operation Godzilla Smacks Zeus"  ~__Graygor _

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#20 - 2012-09-28 09:26:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Please also see yesterday's edits with regards to drivers, their settings and other parameters.
With significantly older drivers and maxed-out image quality and responsiveness settings on default hangar view plus highest AA in-game setting (enhanced by driver settings) in 1080p, I could drop as low as 100 FPS.
But with the newest drivers on minimal DRIVER settings, zooming out in hangar view and disabling AA altogether (but not altering anything else ingame) I could climb to around 270 FPS in the same resolution.
That's without changing the video card frequencies at all, and it's a huge difference.

...

By the way, keeping the pagefile on the SSD when you have pretty heavy pagefile activity is a surefire way to make your SSD croak much earlier than it could last for.
Before even considering letting the pagefile on the SSD, you should make sure you have enough system RAM so that pagefile access would be fairly infrequent (and in small doses).
For Win7-64bit, even if kept very clean and tidy, four EVE instances with just 4GB of RAM is a bit low, you'll almost surely have some significant pagefile activity.

The oldest SSDs were SLC (single layer cell), holding 1 bit per cell.
SLCs are pretty solid, for up to 100k erase/write cycles, and still fairly reliable even afterwards.
They didn't really need to use complicated wear leveling schemes because of that, yet some basic version of it was still useful.
But SLC storage is fairly expensive, so the market spoke, and MLCs soon started being used.

Slightly newer and more affordable SSDs have MLC (multi-layer cells) that hold 2 bits per cell.
This obviously means cheaper per-GB prices, but it comes at the cost of reducing the reliability to at most 10k erase/write cycles (and you usually want to use at least a 1-bit ECC, just in case, thus slightly reducing the price advantage).
After about 10k cycles, the data is no longer reliably stored (unless you use multi-bit ECC, which brings the cost advantage down a bit further), and 10k writes can happen pretty fast in some locations if you don't employ wear leveling.
At least newer SSD models have pretty decent wear leveling and TRIM support (the OS also needs to support TRIM, but Win7 does that natively already), but heavy-duty pagefile usage can still quickly wear down the drive.

Some of the newest and cheapest SSDs use TLCs (triple-layer cells), which store 3 bits per cell.
Their cost per GB is obviously even lower, but that comes with a further reduction in expected life, down to a mere 5k erase/write cycles. And the need for ECC bits is even stronger.
Needles to say, heavy-duty pagefile usage will fairly quickly cream the SSD's reliability if you're using a TLC drive, regardless of wear leveling. Unless your drive is at least twice as large compared to a similarly priced MLC (seldom the case), it will fail faster due to that constant rewriting, even if the wear leveling does a perfect job in both cases.
Also, TLC has slightly slower access times compared to MLC, but it still beats HDDs out of the water by orders of magnitude.

TLCs are good for data you often read but seldom write, and you should avoid putting your swap file on them. Very nice for installed games and such.
MLCs are acceptable for swap file usage, but only with ample extra system RAM. Fairly decent for OS drive.
SLCs are the way to go if you can afford them. Best used as SSD cache drives due to their reliability, and awesome for swap files (a lot more system RAM to begin with is still always a better and cheaper first choice though).

P.S. An ideal compromise between cost, reliability and storage space would be something like this : 3 drives - a small SLC SSD, a large MLC/TLC SSD, and a huge HDD (or even several huge HDDs).
The small SLC SSD would be for the pagefile first and foremost, and also maybe as a SSD cache partition for the huge and slow HDD (mostly keep less frequently used games and your media files on the HDD, but all installed games could go in there as well).
The reasonably large MLC (or even TLC) would be for the OS and frequently used apps/games (or just your frequently used online games, for single-player games, the HDD is good enough when paired with the SLC SSD as cache).
12Next page