These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

GTX FPS question

Author
Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-10-29 01:35:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hopfrogg
Can't seem to find specific FPS EVE online performance for GTX970 and GTX960.

I'm torn between these two cards and wonder what the FPS performance is for them at 1080p and 1440p. Can current owners of these cards give me some figures?

Thanks.

Edit: All settings maxed. I know both cards would easily get 60fps at 1080p. My main concern is being able to take advantage of 144hz + 1440p/1080p.
Black Panpher
CastleKickers
Rote Kapelle
#2 - 2015-10-29 04:10:57 UTC
I wouldn't buy a lesser card than a 970.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-10-29 04:19:50 UTC
Well first off... Don't think most games will run at max quality+145 fps. To many factors are involved in most games rendering to actually push performance to this level in actuality.

The main advantage to higher hz and higher pixel count, personally, is that you obsolete issues such as tearing to a degree and massively reduce the need for memory intensive AA so you can upscale the base textures for improved quality. Optically it takes a generally trained eye to notice normal usage differences between 60FPS and 120FPS or 144FPS. Many will dispute this saying they have magical eyes and they are both correct and incorrect. Your eye/brain combo can notice movement differences in excess of these timings but when other things are going on in your brain, such as playing a game, you habitually wont notice it unless you are viewing a specific screen intentionally for the purposes of noticing a difference. When people claim to notice major changes and they don't know exactly what to look for in the image(different movements are easier for our brain to notice) they actually are noticing variations in the rendering of the image... which frankly will happen in 99.9% of consumer video games. To much happens for the image to be absolutely 100% unaffected by all the other calculations going on and while we might not notice a 60hz difference we damn well notice a 1hz hitch when a frame gets slightly delayed due to a glitch in the games code.

Additionally higher pixel count does not equate to linear changes in performance.. IE going from 1080p to 4k is not a 4x increase in raw power needed. At higher pixel count other factors are involved and frame processing can become slightly more efficient under certain circumstances.. TLDR 4k doesnt need 4x the card.. but it does need more memory and pixel rate.

Back to your question the 970 typically is a 4gb card while the 960 is a 2gb card. The lower tiered card also has 65% less pixel fill rate. If you intend to use 1440p and any FPS above 60 you will want to seriously consider the extra memory. Using a 2gb card in will cripple its ability to reliably finish the frame without thrashing in many modern games.
Directly to EVE online.. currently the engine isn't very demanding except for HDR and sound... the GFX team keeps adding stuff at an amazing rate though so I wouldn't exactly rely on current eve as a good benchmark.. especially with all the major behind the scenes code changes going on that we DON'T see.
Velarra
#4 - 2015-10-29 04:36:29 UTC
Of very minor note, unfortunately, the 970 is a 3.5 gig card with a 512mb extra bonus chunk of non-contiguous memory which gravely impacts 970 performance IF the card needs to use more than 3.5 gig of ram. Not that splitting this hair matters too much at present unless you're playing with ineffecient "HD" mods / HD textures in other games that may not be the most VRAM efficient.
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-10-29 04:44:58 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
Well first off... Don't think most games will run at max quality+145 fps. To many factors are involved in most games rendering to actually push performance to this level in actuality.

The main advantage to higher hz and higher pixel count, personally, is that you obsolete issues such as tearing to a degree and massively reduce the need for memory intensive AA so you can upscale the base textures for improved quality. Optically it takes a generally trained eye to notice normal usage differences between 60FPS and 120FPS or 144FPS. Many will dispute this saying they have magical eyes and they are both correct and incorrect. Your eye/brain combo can notice movement differences in excess of these timings but when other things are going on in your brain, such as playing a game, you habitually wont notice it unless you are viewing a specific screen intentionally for the purposes of noticing a difference. When people claim to notice major changes and they don't know exactly what to look for in the image(different movements are easier for our brain to notice) they actually are noticing variations in the rendering of the image... which frankly will happen in 99.9% of consumer video games. To much happens for the image to be absolutely 100% unaffected by all the other calculations going on and while we might not notice a 60hz difference we damn well notice a 1hz hitch when a frame gets slightly delayed due to a glitch in the games code.

Additionally higher pixel count does not equate to linear changes in performance.. IE going from 1080p to 4k is not a 4x increase in raw power needed. At higher pixel count other factors are involved and frame processing can become slightly more efficient under certain circumstances.. TLDR 4k doesnt need 4x the card.. but it does need more memory and pixel rate.

Back to your question the 970 typically is a 4gb card while the 960 is a 2gb card. The lower tiered card also has 65% less pixel fill rate. If you intend to use 1440p and any FPS above 60 you will want to seriously consider the extra memory. Using a 2gb card in will cripple its ability to reliably finish the frame without thrashing in many modern games.
Directly to EVE online.. currently the engine isn't very demanding except for HDR and sound... the GFX team keeps adding stuff at an amazing rate though so I wouldn't exactly rely on current eve as a good benchmark.. especially with all the major behind the scenes code changes going on that we DON'T see.


I agree i told this so many times to other players you need to have more than 2gb video ram... Guess what people thinking you`re stupid or what. 2gb video cards are not for 4k gaming. End of all the debate that will come.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#6 - 2015-10-29 05:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
970 should easily do the job, I'd avoid the 960 though.
I run 2 clients on 3 screens @ 1080p on a R9 390 (probably somewhere between the performance of a 970 and 980 depending on the resolution and how the games optimized) and run between 200-400 fps depending on what's going on.

Eve isn't particularly intensive. If you want to maintain 144hz vsync in something else like Elite or other games though the 970 may not be enough. Running 3 screens at 1080p in elite I only manage up to about 100 fps.

Daemun of Khanid

Kal'Han
Kador Trade Company
#7 - 2015-10-29 05:27:34 UTC
1080p
interleave none = no vsync

my gtx970 goes up to 280 in space, 500+ in station
enough for your 144GHz

You want data : here are my settings and here is a screen of fps count.
http://i.imgur.com/Fx5OIRP.png (I realize I was in windowed mode, add more fps (not much) for fullscreen)


I'm playing in full high quality, except Anti Aliasing to none, my eyes can't really tell the difference when things move around
sure on static screenshot it's clear as crystal, but in space when things move at 60 fps without ever a drop, you don't see it.

anyway, 240 is way over what you need for 144hz screen

Oh, I have a 1rst gen i7 960 from 4 years ago I think, about as powerful as a current i5 and I think that's what's limiting my reaching the 1000 fps bar...

and yes, 970 is better than 960, no there is no ram issue if your card was released after the manufacturing bug announcement (beware cheap 970) and I don't like ATI/AMD on simple gut feeling basis (and the most ****** drivers ever : catalol)
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#8 - 2015-10-29 05:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
Kal'Han wrote:
1080p
interleave none = no vsync

my gtx970 goes up to 280 in space, 500+ in station
enough for your 144GHz

You want data : here are my settings and here is a screen of fps count.
http://i.imgur.com/Fx5OIRP.png (I realize I was in windowed mode, add more fps (not much) for fullscreen)


I'm playing in full high quality, except Anti Aliasing to none, my eyes can't really tell the difference when things move around
sure on static screenshot it's clear as crystal, but in space when things move at 60 fps without ever a drop, you don't see it.

anyway, 240 is way over what you need for 144hz screen

Oh, I have a 1rst gen i7 960 from 4 years ago I think, about as powerful as a current i5 and I think that's what's limiting my reaching the 1000 fps bar...

and yes, 970 is better than 960, no there is no ram issue if your card was released after the manufacturing bug announcement (beware cheap 970) and I don't like ATI/AMD on simple gut feeling basis (and the most ****** drivers ever : catalol)


Not sure what you're getting at about interleave, it has nothing to do with vsync. The processor also has nothing to do with preventing you from hitting 1000 fps. Your processor probably isn't even hitting 50% utilization in EvE.

Daemun of Khanid

Amarant'h
Council of Exiles
Brave Collective
#9 - 2015-10-29 06:52:35 UTC
Well I have GTX 970, and it's good. End of the story.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#10 - 2015-10-29 07:36:53 UTC
If you want to 4k for cheap, R9 390(X). The memory (8 GB!) and bandwidth make it good for that. You better have the power supply to feed it and the case fans to cool it, though, cause they're all vent-into-your-case cards.
If energy efficiency is a serious issue (you live in Europe or California and power costs more than 10 cents/kW*h), go with the 970/980-or an i7 5775c, which delivers a serious amount of integrated graphics performance with 60W.

A signature :o

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#11 - 2015-10-29 08:03:21 UTC
Nvidia driver settings have a HUGE impact on performance, not only can you change overall render quality which affects fps a lot (so you can't really compare people's stats because some of them might/will have toyed with that setting) but you can also activate DSR which will increase the quality (beyond normal realistic use) at quite a high cost.
Samir Duran Xadi
Diversity Equity and Inclusion
#12 - 2015-10-29 09:35:43 UTC
The AMD 390 has rendered the GTX 970 completely obsolete so I would go for that.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2015-10-29 09:39:00 UTC
My 4GB GTX960 happily runs EVE in 4K with all settings on high, except AA which isn't really necessary anymore. When I switched off V-sync it showed well in excess of 100fps, and had no trouble running multiple clients either.

EVE has pretty low graphical requirements compared to most modern games. The card you want will depend more on what else you play, and/or if you want to run lots of EVE clients at once.
Kal'Han
Kador Trade Company
#14 - 2015-10-29 11:01:19 UTC
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at about interleave, it has nothing to do with vsync. The processor also has nothing to do with preventing you from hitting 1000 fps. Your processor probably isn't even hitting 50% utilization in EvE.



interleave "immediate" means no wait time between each frame, allowing the game to go faster that your screen refresh rate and allows you to see lots ot FPS with ctrl+F

Interleave "1" means you get as much FPS as your screen refresh rate, (60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz) which means ctrl + F will give you only the number of FPS your screen can display.


ok it is not "vsync on/off", but it serves approximatively the same purpose.

for the test I made, I wanted to show that the 970 could go above the 144Hz asked by OP, hence interleave immediate.
Yourmoney Mywallet
Doomheim
#15 - 2015-10-29 11:11:10 UTC
I think that setting is called "Interval." If you're talking about the one in the Esc-menu.
Norian Lonark
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-10-29 11:15:24 UTC
I would go for the 970 because I think its probably the best value - performance out of the GTX range.

Having said that I am happily running 2 x clients on two monitors, 1 @ 3440x1440 and 1 @ 1920 x 1080 with a single GTX 680 all detail settings are high and I have no performance issues... with the exception when in areas with "clouds", so I think you will be good with either card for EVE :)

Start wide, expand further, and never look back

Kal'Han
Kador Trade Company
#17 - 2015-10-29 11:22:31 UTC
Yourmoney Mywallet wrote:
I think that setting is called "Interval." If you're talking about the one in the Esc-menu.


whaaaat ? *remove shades* damn! I read that wrong a few years ago... and kept using that word (years!)

ahahah, my bad!
Velarra
#18 - 2015-10-29 14:05:22 UTC
Kal'Han wrote:


no there is no ram issue if your card was released after the manufacturing bug announcement



Really? All documentation from nvidia following and surrounding the incident reported that the "4GB" value representation was due to a miscommunication between NVidia marketing department and their engineers. That it was not an issue that could be resolved by drivers and was an inherent -working as intended- trait associated with the 970 by design. Not, a hardware bug.

I'd like to see some formal documentation from NVidia clearly stating the engineering feature (3.5 + 512) was a bug.

However i would highlight that this issue is a lot of hair splitting over a small detail that really is unlikely to impact anyone playing modern, commercially developed games released today or in the recent past. The only real kinds of situations where it is bad, where performance suffers due to lack of texture memory as 'advertised' by NVidia on the box, are in mods developed by players for games that allow modding or at least make it possible. The fan made mods are often prone to having inefficient 'hd' textures and " [WIP]" levels of detail that do not always scale that well, that consume hysterically amusing quantities of VRAM. To the point where you can hit that 3.5g wall. Go beyond it? And performance drops off.

Otherwise, for today's commercially developed or near future games, the 970 is great and should be an absolutely fine card if used within its 3.5g limits.
rofflesausage
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-10-29 14:43:54 UTC
OP: I'm sorry you've had to listen to the drone of people not understanding what you're asking.

I have a 970 with a 1440p / 144Hz screen. I can not maintain 144fps with everything on highest. Knocking off AA helps a lot, and keeps it much closer to the 144FPS. Knocking all settings down to medium and I've never not been at full FPS.

I'm sure I could find a good balance of some being on highest / medium, but I tend to stick with medium on the off chance I get into large fleet battles and it drops slightly.

Netan MalDoran
Hail To The King
The Silent Syndicate
#20 - 2015-10-29 16:44:42 UTC
How can you measure FPS in game? I have the 960 and i run it on max everything with no lag at all, I can spout numbers if someone tells me how.

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

123Next pageLast page