Nvidia Geforce 1080 - 1070 announced!

How do you mean re: VR having a way to go? Resolution not quite high enough? Graphic cards not there yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If you want your graphics to look like early 2000s Gran Turismo while you sweat your face off every session on only three or four racing titles... then VR has arrived. I am not going to upgrade my VR setup until the graphics look better than my monitors, there is a large collection of racing titles that support VR, and the HMD feels like wearing sunglasses. It is a novelty now... One that demos really well, but ultimately ends up as an expensive paperweight next to my PC until someday maybe games get optimized for it.

 

I'm finally thinking of going triple screen. I have a GTX970, which is probably good enough with settings on medium but I want as much of the settings on max (triple screen). The GTX 1080 is, from what I have read in this thread this is the card to get at the moment >>> AC on stripple screen, if possible as much as possible, all the visible eye candy maxed out with 3 60Hz monitors.

 

Im running tripples with a 1080FE maxed out except reflections (static) and heat shimmering (off)..Never dips below 60..

 

The Gtx 1080 can easily meet your requirements BUT...

As mentioned on this site and on other sites, the gtx 1080 can outstrip many cpu's revealing a bottleneck with your cpu. This is particularly true in AC if you run large fields of AI cars. You didn't mention what cpu you are running but with the gtx 1080 it may be the limitation on what you can produce in fps.

 

My story is a bit different. I got used to my brilliant crystal clear 3D-triple-surround-picture-quality and was disappointed by the bad resolution of the Rift too. But I still decided to go the VR-way, because the immersion of really driving the cars and the correct FOV let me sacrifice the better resolution.

 

No doubt VR has its benefits. I set my personal best laps and race results when I use it... but that doesn't mean that I don't find it uncomfortable and flawed .

I also have 3D Vision Surround, which is crystal clear.... but it sometimes breaks when drivers get updated. I haven't been able to run 3D and surround since I got the GTX1080. I think it has something to do with the port order or the drivers, as this has happened with my older cards as well. I like racing at high refresh rates.

 

I can run triples with everything maxed and maintain 60hz v-sync. If I lower reflections, shadows, and a few post processing settings I can maintain 85hz v-sync and not notice much visually....100hz with a few settings on medium/normal PP....120hz with reflections off and mirrors/smoke on lower settings. I can't see a difference in smoothness between 100hz and 120hz v-sync....85hz seems to be a sweet spot for eye candy and smooth refresh.

 

My CPU usage in the stock app never really goes above 25-30%. I assume that this is a measure of the entire CPU and all 16 cores. What is the best method to get a feel for the CPU1 video load? (the potential limiting factor for the 1080 it seems)

 

Run the benchmark. While it won't tell you that your CPU is the bottleneck, it will show you the FPS figures and CPU load on their setups. You can compare your results to others on this thread.

 

I thought about mentioning my cpu but didn't.
It's an i5 4690 (non K).

I never run large fields of AI, most of the time I'm trying to hotlap. More lap than hot in my case. I do like to watch replays and that is why I like the eye candy so much.

 

I use MSI Afterburner. When you go to settings then the "monitor" tab will have a list of all the items...select CPU1; you can also enable logging of the data so you can use the Hardware Monitor program (comes installed w/ Afterburner in the same directory) to review the data. You can see the different parameters as a function of time. Just jot down your settings in the game so you can maintain configuration control. Hope this helps.

 

I have to stay with 60Hz, I have no choice, I think. I'm going to get two more 24 inch monitors because I have a 24 inch, 60Hz monitor and don't want to buy three new gaming monitors.

 

FPS took a big hit in the benchmark. I typically get 80 or so in large online races. This is more for the CPU though...

Average CPU sits at 36% from the benchmark. CPU1 utilization is approximately 80% in the MSI log.

 

Some more metrics on these CPUs.

I'm interested in the single thread rating since that would be the bottleneck that hampers a powerful card. Interestingly, your old 3770K is only rated 11% below a newer 6700K in this metric. Since you are seeing massive improvements with the Skylake chip, I don't think that this metric alone is good enough to look at. Personally, I really hope it's not the important metric because my 2687W is by far the lowest performing of the three and would therefore bottleneck even worse than the 3770K

 

I'm hoping that other metrics are more important, namely the bus speed and memory bandwidth. Looking at those specs, you can see a HUGE improvement from the 3770K to the 6700K. 60% improvement in bus speed and 33% improvement in memory bandwidth. I'm very much hoping that these are the true performance limiters as that would mean my CPU would handily outperform a 6700K.

Of course all of this is speculation and in reality, single threaded performance, bus speed, mem bandwidth, and many other parameters are surely in play in determining the bottleneck There is literally only one way to find out...

 

Hmmm. Are you upgrading to an ultra wide monitor? Will it go faster than 60hz? What is your desired result? Eye candy, frame rate, high resolution, triples, VR (eventually)? If you are set on buying the GTX 1080, I'd say do it first, then see how yor system responds to it. If you get an ultra wide monitor with g-sync, then frame rates won't be as important (it will always look smooth above 40fps) The GTX 1080 could do 4K @ 60hz/60 fps on my old 3770k CPU...so I'm fairly certain it could do it at 3440x1440 @ 60hz/60fps... It also did 90hz/90fps for VR just fine as well.. So unless you are getting the most expensive g-sync monitor out there (Acer x34) that can do faster than than 75hz, your CPU will not be the bottleneck. Running triples with triple screen rendering on fast gaming monitors...then that may be an issue that would warrant looking at the rest of your system.

 

I''ve got a Dell U3415W that I currently run it at 2560x1080 @ 60hz. It does overclock to 75hz reliably but it has no g-sync. My desired result is to run full UWQHD (3440x1440 @75hz) with everything maxed and have the option to run VR in the future. I got concerned when I read about the CPU being a limiting factor but I'm fairly confident that it won't bottle neck horribly based on your supplied data and results. Again, appreciate your feedback.

 

Is the i5 4690 a potential bottleneck?

 

I still get over 100fps with literally every setting maxed at 3440x1440. Running an Asus Strix 1080oc and a 3770k clocked to 4.5ghz. Solo hotlapping. Background tasks running.

I do wonder what a faster CPU would do for me, but I spent that budget to go 1080 over 1070 so I won't find out any time soon. Probably going to hold out for cannonlake before I touch the system again, realistically.

Seems a nonissue at my resolution, for now.