Why such an so extreme Hardware claim ??? (aka "will it run on my pc?")

Hi guys. Instead of making a new thread, I was just curious to know what people think is the best course of action for me. I know I may seem a little greedy but I just love AC and everything about it so I would like to try to max it out graphically so I've been considering upgrading my GPU (CPU = Intel Haswell + already have 16gb RAM). I was thinking of selling my GTX 670 and getting a GTX 780Ti but from what I've read here, people are saying that they can't max it out and get above 60FPS (my target in fact is 90-95+ FPS). The reason why I have that target is because I can definitely notice input lag if my FPS is below 90FPS. Or would it be better to consider SLI with my GTX 670? I am wary of going SLI because a lot of people say it's more of a headache than better but that said, a lot of people seem to say that Kepler-based GPUs do really well in SLI. There is one critical element that I am concerned about with SLI and that's input lag. I've read on other forums that going SLI can introduce 1 frame of input lag. The reason being because of Alternate Frame Rendering (or AFR) between the two GPUs. So for every second frame in a game, the second GPU renders it while the first GPU renders the odd number frames (e.g.: Frame 1: GPU1, Frame 2: GPU2, Frame 3: GPU1, Frame 4: GPU2 etc.) so is this true? I absolutely despise any form of input lag (never use Vsync in any games).

Obviously going SLI is the much cheaper option but I'm just concerned about this 1 frame input lag. So can anyone with SLI tell me how does AC feel? Is there good scaling? (as in both GPUs run at 100% or very close to it)

 

In my experience if you are so worked up over imput lag that you believe you see it at anything under 90 frames you could SLI two Titans and would probably feel you were still getting input lag.

 

you should check this thread...pauliegtr's 780ti rig can pump out over 500fps!

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/i...s-performance-improvement-after-upgrade.3781/

 

1. There is no need to max everything out!

2. I'd avoid using dual GPU. Theoretically it's a nice thing but in praxis you mostly don't get the theoretical performance and microstuttering makes it look like even less fps. And what you say about AFR is true, it takes the same amount of time to render a single frame, if not even more, so the frame is at least as old when you see it.

3. If you want to max everything out go SLI, if you want a nice graphics card go for the 780ti.

 

Leprekaun : Hi in my opinion you should only care about your gpu power. it doesnt utilize over 60-70 %power on any modern 4 core cpu. even my old i3 3240 is enough. Also in my opinion try to avoid SLI and Crossfire i have very bad expirience from that , most of the games have lag, or tearing, or frame skiping or even you dont get 2x gpu power. ABout 780Ti i know for sure that at 0.3 realese of AC you cant get over 60-70 fps stable. (with all maxed out , AA,blur,cube,reflections,everything) on 1920x1080p. The 780 Ti on maxed out settings utilize 100% gpu load with only one car in the track. Also 2 x Titans are much much slower than 2x 780Ti. I have a single Gainward Phantom 780Ti and i know that because i have friend with Titan and i am faster.
So...... in my opinion 780Ti is far from enough to maxed out AC so for me you should lower the blur effect and reflections until the game is better optimized, and you will get over 100 fps with these lower settings. This is what i have done .

 

Hi , this summer I am going to buy a lap top . Why laptop ? I know laptop is not for gaming but I need somthing portable for working , so that i decided to buy a laptop . I need your opinion from now , because I have to know what to do .I must say that on that laptop I won't play anything except Assetto Corsa ( my favorite lovely game) therefore I dont need powerful laptop .It whould be grate if i can put my setting above a minimum, but not under minimum !! Here is two best for me choices for me and my pocket :

Hp probook 455

Quadcore AMD A8-4500M (1.90 - 2.80 GHz, 4 MB cache)
4GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 8750M - 2GB DDR3
750 GB SATA 5400 rpm

And the best laptop for my pocket and I hope enough power for joyful gaming of AC

Hp Pavilion

CPU INTEL® PENTIUM® 2020M, 2,4 GHZ
RAM 6 GB DDR3
HDD 750 GB 5400 RPM SATA
AMD RADEON HD 8670M 1 GB DDR3

 

Same here. I have a fairly modest two systems, a moderate laptop and a very fair gaming set-up, and the first can get 40 fps easily, and the gaming center easily reaches 60 on high settings...one thing you may try (apart from being angry...not a great idea when gaming ) is to minimize some settings that you find are less important than others. Many folks like myself who are running similar systems max the aniso. and AA settings, along with high shadows and world detail, but turn off things like HDR, motion blur, and keep reflections minimal. Do that, and you should very easily obtain 70+ fps!

 

@Gemballa 2, It's a laptop, so don't expect anything special. I would though expect it to keep you and the rest of the family warm in the winter, as using a laptop to race a hardware intensive game will make it nice and toasty.

As for all this nonsense about 'needing' to max everything, just think FUTURE PROOF! I expect to still be racing with AC in the next three years minimum and if the graphics can be maxed out now then the future looks bland and boring.

P.S. I get 80-90 fps with a 460gtx, I have turned some things off and others on low to end up with an experience that is still better than most other sims, if not all. As for using Fonza as a comparison, how did you get that installed on your PC? It is a console game optimised for people who don't do sim racing so does not have the simulation feel, car/track dynamics, tyre models, weather, damage, or to be more precise it is an arcade game made for the Xbox not a PC.

 

snip...

I'm pretty sure that "500 euro" system he's talking about, is the "spyboxone".

 

€500 just about buys the top notch GPU, half an Intel CPU and maybe a quarter of an Intel "Enthusiast" Motherboard. Even my 3 year old PC (except for the new mobo bought last week) would still cost more than that. lol

 

Thats some strange, maybe the person with the 780ti have some problem on computer, with frameworks or drivers..all the other people with 780ti are getting same performance???

It's rare that i could play all maxed out with only one r9 290 on triple screens having between 46 and 55 all time. the 780ti if its overclocked is more powerfull..

I hope that the developers goes on Mantle, and give a nice push up on fps..

 

Here are my two cents on the matter of why PC gaming is so inconsistent on the graphical front regardless of hardware (I read this in an article once, but sorry if I make mistakes):

When developers develop for a console game, they only have to develop and optimize for one graphics card, one processor, one system architecture (maybe 2 or 3 if it is ported over to other consoles). So an in-house Dev like Turn 10 would know the Xbox One's internals like the back of their hand.

PC developers, like Kunos, on the other hand, have to develop for the wide variety of processors, GPUs, and Operating Systems. How do they manage that? They develop it to a common denominator, and then let a middleman (I believe it's DirectX) translate it to the graphics card, but that tends to bottleneck potential performance. That's I think why a system far superior to the consoles would still not perform as well...

AMD is working on something big to try to minimize the middleman, and optimize performance and squeeze every ounce of potential out of the GPU.

I believe that in the next couple years, PC Gaming will advance leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

 

Triples 16:9 at max resolution and maxed out in game generates ~50 fps with tha Fiat500 on Mugello here. Just for test purpose, not really to use it that way. I need min 120 FPS.

 

cant understand some opinions here. AC is one of the sims for me that has a great "effective" graphics. I can play PCars only in Singlescreen and even with max settings it looks like a comic (or a console game). rfactor 2 is very hungry too. It looks quiet good, but with triplescreen even with hdr off there is no way to get over 120 fps. For me it is very important to get high framerates 120+. It is a big difference to drive with 60 or with 120 Hz - just for the immersion. In AC i can run all on max values and it runs with 200 fps avg.
But to compare the sims we have to wait for AI, Wheater, Multiplayer.
For me the important thing is immersion. And there are more ways to increase it than to push the graphics in some strange regions (PCars). For me AC had a quiet good balance in the graphics (details in cars, effective track and ambient details and natural lightning).

Dont know why, but there are very big differences: Some Apps look very good on wallpaper (PCars) and nothing of that is on screen when you play it. And on the other side there are Apps where the wallpaper are strange, but when you drive them, they can make you think you driving like reality....

 

I am in complete agreement with you there Peter. Personally I hope that the reason some of us cannot run it maxed out , even those on impressive PC's, is to keep it future proof for at least a few years, also it must be better to drop the graphical settings to keep the frame rates high (which is so obvious it's not worth me mentioning). Then again I am running Assetto Corsa on a reasonable PC and am having a much better experience that in other modern racing sims.

 

My 600 Euro PC is running AC nearly maxed out with enough FPS for me, to be happy. I can't feel the difference between 35 and 90 FPS - but what i can feel is the difference between the single frames (Frame-Timing). And even if i would run AC with triple Monitors and all other (IMHO) unnecessary "crap", i would still be no where near the immersion then what for example an Oculus Rift would have.

 

What, you cannot see/feel the difference between 35 and 90FPS! Okay, maybe turn your settings down and check for spikes and lag. Honestly making the sim pretty, does not make it 'feel' better. Honestly I think you should be looking at a minimum of 60FPS but you really want to be in the hundreds to have a smooth and accurate simulator. I am not trying to annoy you, just flabbergasted that you are seemingly getting the same response from such a precision sim running at a seriously low frame rate.

Then again if it feels fine to you, good luck to you.

 

There is a big difference between the frame times and "just" the Frames per Second You could have 400 Frames, but still feel stutter or some form of "lag" - that's because of the difference between the frames. The FPS "rating" for me is pretty useless. And i absolutely have no spikes or lags in that retrospect. And just because it's running with 100 FPS, doesn't mean it's smooth or precise.