These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GTX FPS question

Author
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#21 - 2015-10-29 17:23:47 UTC
Netan MalDoran wrote:
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.


CTRL+F in game or use 3rd party OSD software such as RivaTuner. You can get that with MSIAfterburner or PercisionX.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Netan MalDoran
Hail To The King
The Silent Syndicate
#22 - 2015-10-29 18:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Netan MalDoran
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Netan MalDoran wrote:
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.


CTRL+F in game or use 3rd party OSD software such as RivaTuner. You can get that with MSIAfterburner or PercisionX.


Ok, after that with the GTX 960 FTW with max everything, I get:
275 FPS just warping around
Brief dip to 80 FPS on system load after a jump
250 FPS on a gate with no players (Just NPC's)
110 FPS on the Jita undock (Changed depending on which direction you were looking at, lowest I got was looking back at the station for 100 FPS)

I'm running 2 monitors with 2 docs open and Mozilla along with EvE, so the others shouldn't affect it much.

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

Falcon's truth

Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#23 - 2015-10-29 21:09:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
Netan MalDoran wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Netan MalDoran wrote:
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.


CTRL+F in game or use 3rd party OSD software such as RivaTuner. You can get that with MSIAfterburner or PercisionX.


Ok, after that with the GTX 960 FTW with max everything, I get:
275 FPS just warping around
Brief dip to 80 FPS on system load after a jump
250 FPS on a gate with no players (Just NPC's)
110 FPS on the Jita undock (Changed depending on which direction you were looking at, lowest I got was looking back at the station for 100 FPS)

I'm running 2 monitors with 2 docs open and Mozilla along with EvE, so the others shouldn't affect it much.


I assume youre running at 1920x1080 as you didn't specify. That sounds about right for a 960 at 1080p. Those situations can be kinda misleading though. For example. I get 465 fps sitting on a gate w npc's but looking away from the gate. But that drops to 320 if I'm looking directly at the gate. It also varies depending on how long I've been sitting there. It's lower at first but stabilizes at a higher number after sitting there a few moments and looking around. By maxed I also assume you also mean HDR, lightrays and all those kind of goodies enabled as well.

I think the best test for FPS is to warp into a belt with Asteroid debris and light rays enabled, turn the camera so that the sun is just fully visible behind your ship (not occluded) and see what your FPS is. Other than some of the clouds you come across, that environment seems to produce some of the most consistently demanding requirements and effects FPS more than pretty much any other game location. If you can maintain 150+ FPS there then you should be good to go for vsync lock on a 144hz monitor.

I'll start by saying that when I said earlier that a 970 should be fine, that was based on typical game play from my perspective which involves mostly pvp in plexes or on gates. If we want an absolute minimum of 144 then things get a little more complicated.

In the asteroid beltt environment, at 1920x1080 everything maxed (except AA on low) I'm getting 180-200 FPS. I'm not sure that at 1440p I'd be able to maintain 150+ quite honestly. If I set it up on 3 screens at a res of 5760x1080 I'm JUST able to maintain a minimum of 60 FPS. Just a quick guess based on the number of pixels rendered, 1440p should be a little less than half way between whats rendered for 1x1080p screen and 3x1080p screens. The half point between those 2 setups should be about 130 FPS so I should be able to just barely maintain @ or around 144 FPS.

That's based on a 8gb R9 390 which typically outperforms a 970, particularly at higher resolutions. If OP really wants to maintain an absolute minimum of 144 then he should probably go with a 390x, r9 fury or a 980. Any of which should do so comfortably.
I don't mention RAM or CPU because neither is likely to be the bottleneck when playing eve.

Daemun of Khanid

Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-10-29 21:20:35 UTC
rofflesausage wrote:
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.



Big smile It's ok, lots of great information from everyone. So do you recommend spending the extra for the 144hz? EVE is too gorgeous not to get a 1440p monitor, but can't decide if it's worth the much higher price jump to get one that does both 1440p/144hz.

Is the jump from 60hz to 120hz/144hz very noticeable in EVE? Will my best experience be to run the game at max quality, 60hz, 1440p and full 60fps all the time... or medium settings getting full 144fps... or a compromise and run max quality with varying fps 60-144?

Thanks, your answer will probably be the decider P
Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-10-29 21:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Hopfrogg
Netan MalDoran wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Netan MalDoran wrote:
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.


CTRL+F in game or use 3rd party OSD software such as RivaTuner. You can get that with MSIAfterburner or PercisionX.


Ok, after that with the GTX 960 FTW with max everything, I get:
275 FPS just warping around
Brief dip to 80 FPS on system load after a jump
250 FPS on a gate with no players (Just NPC's)
110 FPS on the Jita undock (Changed depending on which direction you were looking at, lowest I got was looking back at the station for 100 FPS)

I'm running 2 monitors with 2 docs open and Mozilla along with EvE, so the others shouldn't affect it much.


Thanks... so if I don't spend extra for the 144hz, it seems the 960 will aptly handle the job. If what you are talking about is 1440p...If not, confidence was already high about doing the job at 1080p. My 750 gets full 60fps at max quality 1080p. Thanks for the response.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#26 - 2015-10-29 22:00:12 UTC
Added some further details to my last post, but as to whether or not there's a noticable difference between 60hz and 144hz I'd say probably not. 60 FPS is the generally accepted norm for butter smooth video. The resolution of 1440p over 1080p though I'd think would certainly be worth it. 1440p at 60 hz and you should be loving it.

Daemun of Khanid

Jenshae Chiroptera
#27 - 2015-10-29 22:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Modern graphics cards the bottle neck is in the memory bus.
The 970 has 256 bits vs 960's 128 bits. Ideally for gaming you want the 384 bit or higher but 256 suffices.

(Which is why some older generation cards can actually be superior).
The "Radeon R7 370" is roughly equivalent to the GTX 970 and is half the price. The only real reason to stick with Nvidia is if you are running Linux or something that might have compatibility issues. Valve converted many games to run natively on Linux and in the process discovered that Direct X was covering for a fault in Nvidia and hampered AMD's performance (caused some tearing and such (much of that has been corrected)). As games and programs adjust more as time goes by; it may well be that AMD will become far superior.

Oh and the "Gigabyte R9 390X" is +20% on the price of the GTX 760 but it is almost +100% the graphics card with double the RAM, double the memory bus, et cetera.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Leeluvv
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#28 - 2015-10-29 22:30:46 UTC
A 2560 x 1440 monitor has 3.7 million Pixels.
At 32 bit colour, it uses 118 Million bits of memory.
This equates to 14 MBytes of memory.

i.e You only need a 14MB card to display 2560 x 1440 at 32 bit colour.

The large amounts of RAM modern graphics cards have is for processing and handling the textures, etc, but Eve does not require much memory (graphics or CPU) to run. If you think otherwise, use Task Manager and see how much RAM Eve is actually using, mine is currently using 700MB. Second hint, the installed game is only 300MB and texture compression won't be huge.

Using GPU-Z on my PC (i5 4670K, 16GB RAM and a 3GB R9 280X), Windows is using 600MB of Video memory and each Eve client running at 1920 x 1200 and full details uses an additional 400MB.
Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-10-29 22:34:31 UTC
Daemun Khanid wrote:
1440p at 60 hz and you should be loving it.


Pretty much my thoughts. I can achieve this for a reasonable price. The temptation to kick it up a notch and do it all at 120-140fps is a costly one... Willing to pay the price if those framerates can remain stable at max settings and if people who have experienced this can testify that it is worth the big bump in price... if not, 1440p at 60fps is nothing to complain about. Game already looks gorgeous on my TN 21in 1080p. Can't wait to see it in 1440p, 27in, IPS. The 144hz factor is the sticking point right now. The price difference is almost double to do 1440p, IPS, and 144hz all in one panel compared to just 1440p/IPS.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#30 - 2015-10-29 23:02:59 UTC
Hopfrogg wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
1440p at 60 hz and you should be loving it.


Pretty much my thoughts. I can achieve this for a reasonable price. The temptation to kick it up a notch and do it all at 120-140fps is a costly one... Willing to pay the price if those framerates can remain stable at max settings and if people who have experienced this can testify that it is worth the big bump in price... if not, 1440p at 60fps is nothing to complain about. Game already looks gorgeous on my TN 21in 1080p. Can't wait to see it in 1440p, 27in, IPS. The 144hz factor is the sticking point right now. The price difference is almost double to do 1440p, IPS, and 144hz all in one panel compared to just 1440p/IPS.


Both the 970 and the 390's are very reasonably priced as far as high end graphics cards go. The 980's and Fury are in a totally different league, costing almost as much as a crossfire/SLi setup of their junior cards. Personally having just recently upgraded to a new PC I went with the 390 due to it's improved performance at higher resolutions. An important point when running multi-screens and next spring when oculus rift is released. Just be sure if you go with AMD you have enough power supply as they are pretty hungry. Next summer I hope to pick up an Oculus Rift and upgrade to a second 390 to run in crossfire for FPS heaven at an affordable price.

Daemun of Khanid

Leeluvv
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#31 - 2015-10-29 23:51:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Leeluvv
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Next summer I hope to pick up an Oculus Rift and upgrade to a second 390 to run in crossfire for FPS heaven at an affordable price.


Oculus Rift is only 1080 x 1200 per eye, so you won't need an expensive card for it.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#32 - 2015-10-30 00:28:31 UTC
Leeluvv wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Next summer I hope to pick up an Oculus Rift and upgrade to a second 390 to run in crossfire for FPS heaven at an affordable price.


Oculus Rift is only 1080 x 1200 per eye, so you won't need an expensive card for it.


That's just shy of 2 screens of 1080p, combine that with the fact that most games have reported looking MUCH better when using VSR which essentially doubles the workload. Besides, who's gonna play EvE with Oculus? What would be the point? The oculus is much more for games like Elite and Star citizen which will certainly need expensive cards (emphasis on plural) to run at consistant 60fps or higher while using VSR/DSR.

Daemun of Khanid

Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#33 - 2015-10-30 00:32:33 UTC
My 970 doesn't break a sweat.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide

Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#34 - 2015-10-30 00:42:57 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
My 970 doesn't break a sweat.


Need that in context. What resolution and FPS?

My 750 doesn't break a sweat either, but it's all relative. I'm just in 1080p 60hz.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2015-10-30 03:38:04 UTC
Leeluvv wrote:
A 2560 x 1440 monitor has 3.7 million Pixels.
At 32 bit colour, it uses 118 Million bits of memory.
This equates to 14 MBytes of memory.

i.e You only need a 14MB card to display 2560 x 1440 at 32 bit colour.

The large amounts of RAM modern graphics cards have is for processing and handling the textures, etc, but Eve does not require much memory (graphics or CPU) to run. If you think otherwise, use Task Manager and see how much RAM Eve is actually using, mine is currently using 700MB. Second hint, the installed game is only 300MB and texture compression won't be huge.

Using GPU-Z on my PC (i5 4670K, 16GB RAM and a 3GB R9 280X), Windows is using 600MB of Video memory and each Eve client running at 1920 x 1200 and full details uses an additional 400MB.



Minor correction.. well actually not so minor. EVE online stock folder may be 300ish MB... however the game itself is around 15gb.
Shared caching.. Cool stuff huh? Also CCP themselves have referenced the absurd size of EVEs texture base. It's one of the major reasons we don't have access to truly 2k band textures yet.

Also, simply because knowledge is power, lets correct a few myths being expressed in this thread about GFX card needs.

Memory.. More is better.. but not. You need X memory to use Y resolution myths.
Yes its weird but 1gb vs 2gb actually means nothing beyond a critical point. If the card is operated in a way that allows its buffer of RAM to contain everything it needs to do you will see no performance gain with more memory. The catch here is everyone uses different settings and has different needs. This applies to application choice as well as OS choice. Its fairly common sense though. If you use a 2k(1920x1080) monitor and don't use AA then you don't really need monster amounts of memory. Conversely a 4k monitor used in the same fashion will use less overhead than a 2k with all the bells and whistles turned on and AA janked to extremes. Think of memory like a bucket.. You can move an ocean of water.. the only question is how fast and how much the bucket can hold per throw.

Quick example of how things like AA eat ram however. On a typical AAA title FPS game with moderate background calculations going on using 2k resolution you will only see ~40% increase in memory going from no AA to 8xMSAA. Scale this up to 4k and the increase in memory usage is closer to 100%. Depending on application however this can even be as high as 300% peak usage.

Also as to buses.. Yes a larger bus is better.. to a point. If the ram itself is a bucket the bus is the pipe feeding the bucket.
Just having a bigger pipe isnt always better.. in fact in many cases it can be a bad thing. In practical usage a bus needs to complement the amount of memory its using for the average application needs. If it exceeds this then it can result in thrashing. One of the main reasons you DONT see giant buses on smaller older cards. Engineers arnt ******** ya know... well most of them arnt. You usually have to check their math regularly though.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#36 - 2015-10-30 20:06:28 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
Also as to buses.. Yes a larger bus is better.. to a point. ...
I should have qualified this by saying high end cards. The processing and RAM is usually more than sufficient, has been for multiple generations. The bus is usually the only thing you really want to keep an eye on and not only the card thrashing you can also run into motherboard problems if that bus speed is too slow to handle the graphics bus speed.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Herzyr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2015-10-30 20:15:28 UTC
Honestly, I think upgrading to a 970 was a waste for me, I tend to play eve between a 23'' at 1920x1080, totally smooth, so smooth I can feel the lag ticks. I also run it with a 40'' TV but it doesn't look as pretty (hurr durr TV resolution) but I love it because of the inmersion and sound.

Chief Serious
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-10-30 22:14:58 UTC
Hopfrogg wrote:
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?.


Can't help you with 1440p, however I have been using my trusty 1080p monitor for quite some time with 144Hz and my GTX 970 easily hits 144 FPS however, not all the time. Will frequently drop below 100 FPS in asteroid belts, when lots of other players are around and a few other circumstances. Currently I am sitting at 109 FPS at low settings while writing this, but to be fair, I have 5 EVE game windows open and running 2 screens (1 for netflix :) )

I think it's also important to note, with the same GPU (GTX 970) I had an "newer" AMD CPU and never hit 144 FPS even with a single screen and single game window open at low settings, I recently upgraded to an Intel i5 4690k (OC'd 4.0 GHz) and it runs smooth as can be at 1080p often at 144 FPS.
Haleuth
Peoples Liberation Army
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-10-31 19:15:59 UTC
Hiya

Just to give you another reference point, i just took delivery of a new gaming rig that has the latest top end skylake chip+nvidia 980 ti+1 gig ssd+2 hard drives in raid 0+windows 10.

Eve runs at light speed, there are no loading times at all. I am getting 850 FPS (yes 850) on a 27 inch BenQ monitor.

Using a max trained alt with full implants it is impossible to lock my pod after ganking someone even if his stiletto has all mid and low slots full of scan res mods.

However, graphically, it is overkill. The graphics look no different to a pals 960.

Hope this offers some help in your choice of system.

Hal
Hopfrogg
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#40 - 2015-10-31 21:17:01 UTC
Haleuth wrote:
Hiya

Eve runs at light speed, there are no loading times at all. I am getting 850 FPS (yes 850) on a 27 inch BenQ monitor.

However, graphically, it is overkill. The graphics look no different to a pals 960.

Hope this offers some help in your choice of system.

Hal


Thanks... it does. Seems the 970 is all I need if I want 120fps, and the 960 if I just want 60fps.

Haleuth wrote:
Hiya

Using a max trained alt with full implants it is impossible to lock my pod after ganking someone even if his stiletto has all mid and low slots full of scan res mods.

Hal


I look forward with anticipation to the day when I can understand what that means Shocked