GPU for STEP Ultra.

[envelope91]

I was unsure of where to post this but i need STEP personel expertise so felt like the place to go!

 

My current rig:

 

6GB 2000MHz Ram

Intel i7 3.33GHz

Two GTX 275 cards in SLI mode 896 MB

One 22" screen

 

I'm sure you can see my achilles' heel, 896 MB vram simply cannot cope with skyrim if you mod it.

I need a new card, a card with alot of memory yet also fast enough to run the game..

 

Bad news is, i only got about 623 dollars (472 euro, 400 pounds)...

Good news is, i only use one screen...

Nvidia is my preference.

 

So lads, is what i ask for possible? Or do you need a GTX Titan 6GB to run STEP ultra?

 

Thanks in advance!

[MontyMM]

I use an Nvidia 670 4GB, which should definitely come in under that budget. I'm currently using all the ultra textures unoptimized, at 1080x1920, and my game stays smooth and well over 60FPS. With the tougher ENBs the FPS come down a bit, but never much lower than 40FPS. I should also mention that my i5 3570k is overclocked to 4.3GHz, on an air cooler.

[envelope91]

Thanks, i don't like ENBs so that should not be a problem.

 

So the GTX 670 4GB is the way to go?

[MontyMM]

Well, I can't say it's definitively the way to go, but it certainly does a good job for me.  I came from a setup very similar to yours, using 2x 280s in SLI, and the improvement is like night and day.

 

The other consideration is that the next wave of GPUs shouldn't be too far away, so if you're not in a hurry, it could be worth holding on for a couple of months.

[torminater]

Yeah wait a while and get the 670 for a lot less money ;-)

[Besidilo]

I could not recommend NVIDIA cards at the current prices.

 

Not to mention that a 4GB VRAM card is a waste of money, unless you play at a very high resolution (2560x1600+), crank up the SSAA and use 4K texture mods.

 

[PioneerRaptor]

Currently the 7970 offers the best price/performance. You could get an SSD or another Monitor with the money you save.

[envelope91]

I could not recommend NVIDIA cards at the current prices.

 

Not to mention that a 4GB VRAM card is a waste of money, unless you play at a very high resolution (2560x1600+), crank up the SSAA and use 4K texture mods.

 

I know that many people think alot of vram is a waste, but even when i had a 2gb vram i managed to get capped in Skyrim once, i love high texture mods, my dream is to be able to play step with the higest possible textures and effects, and even though i don't play at 2560x1600 with 15 screens, it does take ALOT of vram...

 

I have no problem waiting, and then i could probably get a second 670 card after a couple of years as a cheap way to keep me on top of the performance. That strategy has worked out pretty well so far.

 

Thanks for all the help lads.

[Besidilo]

What does it mean you managed to get capped?

 

And 2560x1600 takes just one 30" screen.

[MontyMM]

4GB is not a waste of money if you intend to max everything out, as I do, and the OP wishes to. Showing average FPS rates would obviously not illustrate the benefits of extra VRAM to framerate stability, and in that example the cards have different clock speeds, as well as differing VRAM, making the comparison uninformative in any case.

[Besidilo]

4GB is not a waste of money if you intend to max everything out' date=' as I do, and the OP wishes to. Showing average FPS rates would obviously not illustrate the benefits of extra VRAM to framerate stability, and in that example the cards have different clock speeds, as well as differing VRAM, making the comparison uninformative in any case.[/quote']

I'd be really glad if you could prove your "framerate stability" theory.

 

We all know what running out of VRAM ends up with, it's either horrible stuttering, with framerate jumping up and down, or an instant crash in rare cases.

 

 

Skyrim won't run out of VRAM on a 2GB graphics card when you only play at 1920x1080 with no SSAA.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to prove me wrong. I'm sick of the BS being told about VRAM by people who have no idea what it does.

[envelope91]

What does it mean you managed to get capped?

 

And 2560x1600 takes just one 30" screen.

I know, i tried to make an overstatement. My point is: 4gb vram is not a waste of money for me, it's also an excellent choice for future value, if you need more performance, you can always buy a second card, cheap, and run SLI/Crossfire... But if you need more vram, you gotta buy an entirely new card. And i'm sure Skyrim(ultra modded) won't be the only game that uses alot of vram in the future.

 

However, the discussion whether or not its needed is futile, its very much needed, and this brings us back to the original topic.

I believe i have gotten the information i looked for though, and i thank you all :)

[Besidilo]

4GB VRAM as such isn't a waste of money. A GTX 670 4GB is, as it will be obsolete by the time you actually NEED 4GB VRAM, unless you go Triple SLI up.

[envelope91]

4GB VRAM as such isn't a waste of money. A GTX 670 4GB is' date=' as it will be obsolete by the time you actually NEED 4GB VRAM, unless you go Triple SLI up.[/quote']

I know how fast things get obsolete, i realize 4gb may be a little bit over the top, boosting the performance using SLI only works for so long, until you are forced to upgrade.

But i'd rather have a little too much than, say, 2 gigabytes, it's not hard to use 1.5gb in Skyrim, that would only leave me with 500 megs to go until i get capped, who knows what sort of mods/effects that gets released into step since then..

[MontyMM]

@Besidilo

 

If you are going to call other people's opinions "BS", I think the onus is on you to provide proof, and you have proven nothing. 

 

I am very much in favour of free speech and rigorous debate on these forums, but just as you are sick of our "BS", I am also getting very tired of you behaving as an authority and dismissing others' views as ********, and implying or outright stating that they are clueless for failing to abide by your teachings.  Please continue your arguments, but reconsider your attitude.