Nvidia Kepler, Part 2

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

1080p 120hz surround. 1080p 120hz/fps requires more GPU power than 1440p 60hz/fps, and you would also need a faster CPU, so its a more demanding setting.
Tri 680/7970 with a 5GHz+ Ivy chip and pcie 3.0 platform would probably outperform your set up a lot of the time, let alone x79 plus IB-E.

And your reasoning to state is is more demanding is where?...


Last time i checked it take almost twice the fillrate to render a single frame on a 1440p display(3.7 megapixels), compared to a single frame in 1080p(just over 2 megapixels), and i don't care for 120hz when the cards can't render over 50 Fps using 3 of those screens anyhow.


Edit: You're just going on suppositions and assumptions and i have the hardware right on my desk...

[demo]

It requires more GPU power to run 120fps at 1080p than 60fps at 1440p. Sure 1080p is ~2.1 megapixels vs 3.7, but you need to push double the amount of frames, and have a CPU that can keep up. Tri 680/7970 and 5GHz+ Ivy & z77 pcie 3.0 is more balanced for this surround config and would probably outperform your quad & 4GHz 1366 pcie 2.0 system a lot of the time. For simply more pixels at half the refresh rate, meaning less required from the whole system, sure, different builds aimed for different tasks, but as you can see there are more demanding configs and faster performing systems for those configs.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

It requires more GPU power to run 120fps at 1080p than 60fps at 1440p. Sure 1080p is ~2.1 megapixels vs 3.7, but you need to push double the amount of frames, and have a CPU that can keep up. Tri 680/7970 and 5GHz+ Ivy & z77 pcie 3.0 is more balanced for this config and would probably outperform your quad & 4GHz 1366 pcie 2.0 system a lot of the time.

You're not getting it at all are you?....With the fillrate requirements of a 8044*1440 resolution(11.5 megapixels per frame) X 60 frames comes to 695 million pixels in total.


1080P, regardless of 120 Hz or not is 2.15 megapixels per frame....If you devide that 695 million pixels needed for 60 Fps at 8044*1440, by the 2.15 million needed for 1080p per frame you get 323 frames rendered at 1080p in a second.


Yes, 8044*1440 is little harder on the video cards....Only slightly.

[Roadhog_]

he said 1440p... not 8044x1440.

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

You're not getting it at all are you?....With the fillrate requirements of a 8044*1440 resolution(11.5 megapixels per frame) X 60 frames comes to 695 million pixels in total.


1080P, regardless of 120 Hz or not is 2.15 megapixels per frame....If you devide that 695 million pixels needed for 60 Fps at 8044*1440, by the 2.15 million needed for 1080p per frame you get 323 frames rendered at 1080p in a second.


Yes, 8044*1440 is little harder on the video cards....Only slightly.

You're not getting it. Pixel number is not the only thing to determin how much GPU power is required. 3 x 1080p 120fps requires more GPU power than 3 x 1440p 60fps, aswell as a system and CPU that can keep up to push those 120fps. Same for 3D surround.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Roadhog_

he said 1440p... not 8044x1440.

Fine, let's do 1440p alone then:


3.7 megapixels x 60 Fps = 222 megapixels.


222 megapixels devided by 2.15 = 103 fps.


And 120Hz for 1440p would double things to 444, and be able to render 206 Fps on a 1080p display.

[Roadhog_]

Originally Posted by demo

You're not getting it. Pixel number is not the only thing to determin how much GPU power is required. 3 x 1080p 120fps requires more GPU power than 3 x 1440p 60fps. Same for 3D surround.

yes, yes it does.

[Roadhog_]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Fine, let's do 1440p alone then:


3.7 megapixels x 60 Fps = 222 megapixels.


222 megapixels devided by 2.15 = 103 fps.


And 120Hz for 1440p would double things to 444, and be able to render 206 Fps on a 1080p display.

He is talking 1080p @ 120fps vs 1440p @ 60fps...

3.7 megapixels x 60 Fps = 222 megapixels. 3 displays would be 666mp.

2.1 megapixels x 120 Fps = 252 megapixels. 3 displays would be 756mp

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Fine, let's do 1440p alone then:


3.7 megapixels x 60 Fps = 222 megapixels.


222 megapixels devided by 2.15 = 103 fps.


And 120Hz for 1440p would double things to 444, and be able to render 206 Fps on a 1080p display.

I'll make it simple for you, its easier to achieve 60fps on a 1440p display than 120fps on a 1080p display.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

You're not getting it. Pixel number is not the only thing to determin how much GPU power is required. 3 x 1080p 120fps requires more GPU power than 3 x 1440p 60fps, aswell as a system and CPU that can keep up to push those 120fps. Same for 3D surround.

Of course not and it's not that simple since there's more than just pixel rendering going on like texturing and shading and geometry and lighting....But all of these things are the responsability of the GPU....The CPU has nothing to do with it and the higher you go in resolution, the more pressure is on the GPU's.


PCI-e 3.0 or faster CPU's or better drivers when you reach the physical limits of the video card have nothing to do with it, and i know it from first hand experience running the displays i do.

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Of course not and it's not that simple since there's more than just pixel rendering going on like texturing and shading and geometry and lighting....But all of these things are the responsability of the GPU....The CPU has nothing to do with it and the higher you go in resolution, the more pressure is on the GPU's.


PCI-e 3.0 or faster CPU's or better drivers when you reach the physical limits of the video card have nothing to do with it, and i know it from first hand experience running the displays i do.

No you dont understand. You need a system that is able to achieve 120fps (CPU, platform), balanced with GPU's that can provide 120fps. 120fps at 1080p takes more GPU power than 60fps at 1440p, plus you need a CPU that can maintian 120fps aswell, its an all round more demanding config in surround.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Roadhog_

He is talking 1080p @ 120hz vs 1440p @ 60hz...

3.7 megapixels x 60 Fps = 222 megapixels. 3 displays would be 666mp.

2.1 megapixels x 120 Fps = 252 megapixels. 3 displays would be 756mp

The refresh has nothing to do with it if vertical refresh is off anyhow....The cards will always try to output as many frames as possible.

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

The refresh has nothing to do with it if vertical refresh is off anyhow....The cards will always try to output as many frames as possible.

Yes, but to achieve 60fps at 3 x 1440p requires less GPU and CPU power than 120fps at 3 x 1080p. Same for 3D surround, although I think it can get away with less CPU speed (CPU only needs to maintain 60 plus some overhead, while the GPU's need to be able to render 120)

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

No you dont understand. You need a system that is able to achieve 120fps (CPU, platform), balanced with GPU's that can provide 120fps. 120fps at 1080p takes more GPU power than 60fps at 1440p, plus you need a CPU that can maintian 120fps aswell, its an all round more demanding config in surround.

And i'm telling you it can't be done in 8044*1440 resolution....The hardware for it simply doesn't exist for the latest games, period.

[Roadhog_]

Originally Posted by shadow001

The refresh has nothing to do with it if vertical refresh is off anyhow....The cards will always try to output as many frames as possible.

I was talking about FPS. I meant to put FPS at the top, my bad.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

Yes, but to achieve 60fps at 3 x 1440p requires less GPU and CPU power than 120fps at 3 x 1080p.

That's highly dependent on the scene complexity, and in the number of objects and in the overall effects used....Put a scene thru ray traced lighting and watch even the fastest GPU's not even crank out 10 Fps...

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

And i'm telling you it can't be done in 8044*1440 resolution....The hardware for it simply doesn't exist for the latest games, period.

I didnt say that, I said if you were to use a more demanding config like 3 x 1080p 120hz.

Originally Posted by shadow001

That's highly dependent on the scene complexity, and in the number of objects and in the overall effects used....Put a scene thru ray traced lighting and watch even the fastest GPU's not even crank out 10 Fps...

Pfft ray tracing, we are talking about games on the market. It is easier to achieve 60fps 1440p than 120fps 1080p in almost any game, for both GPU and CPU.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

I didnt say that, I said if you were to use a more demanding config like 3 x 1080p 120hz.



Pfft ray tracing, we are talking about games on the market. It is easier to achieve 60fps 1440p than 120fps 1080p in almost any game, for both GPU and CPU.

It's not more demanding than three 1440p diplays if you also want the highest possible fps beyond 60 Fps and 120hz doesn't matter if you have vertical refresh disabled...The cards will output as many frames regardless if the display is ready or not to receive them, so for any given Fps value a single 1440p is always more demanding than a single 1080p, and three 1440p screens are always more demanding than three 1080p's.


No GPU is close to pulling the minimum of 120 Fps needed for 120Hz at 8044*1440 and it'll take years before it happends and i'm fine CPU wise until it does...And my example for ray tracing is just to put things into perspective before some think our GPU's are too powerfull as it is....They're not, and developers concentrate on making their games look as good as they can, using effects with the least performance penalty possible at all times.


That's why render farms are used to render the effects seen in movies, or TV shows or commercials....They can't be done in real time yet.

[demo]

It requires less GPU and CPU power to achieve 60fps at 1440p than it does 120fps at 1080p, after all isnt that what you are trying achieve? fps at or above your refresh rate?

Put it this way, I could run BF3 in 1440p with dual 580's and a stock 2700k (3.5GHz) and achieve solid 60fps. I need Tri and 4.8GHz+ to achieve solid 120 at 1080p.

No one said anything about 8044*1440 at 120hz, I said 3 x 1080p 120hz.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

It requires less GPU and CPU power to achieve 60fps at 1440p than it does 120fps at 1080p, after all isnt that what you are trying achieve? fps at or above your refresh rate?

No one said anything about 8044*1440 at 120hz, I said 3 x 1080p 120hz.

I have enough CPU power to do that at lower resolutions just fine, even 2560*1440.....Now it would be enough GPU power to have those same frame rates at 8044*1440 in the same programs. and the video cards don't exist yet.

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

I have enough CPU power to do that at lower resolutions just fine, even 2560*1440.....Now it would be enough GPU power to have those same frame rates at 8044*1440 in the same programs. and the video cards don't exist yet.

But thats the thing, 4GHz 1366 chip cannot maintain 120fps solid in many games, no matter the resolution. So, with that in mind, plus 3 x 1080p 120fps requires more GPU power than 3 x 1440p 60fps, you can see that more is required from your total system, both GPU's and CPU, from a 120hz surround config.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

But thats the thing, 4GHz 1366 chip cannot maintain 120fps solid in many games, no matter the resolution. So, with that in mind, plus 3 x 1080p 120fps requires more GPU power than 3 x 1440p 60fps, you can see that more is required from your total system, both GPU's and CPU, from a 120hz surround config.

I'm not looking for 120 Fps solid either, but limiting the amount of times i ever see 60 Fps to a minimum and what i have is plenty enough for that, and that's considering that i'm only really using 4 cores out of 12 in current games, so only 30% of the systems total CPU power is being used in games anyhow....

Changing CPU's because publishers or developers are too worried about still making their games work on current consoles, and not really working on using more cores on their new game releases, i don't think so...

[demo]

Right..

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

Right..

Given that you're going to get three GTX680's wich right there is 1500$ right off the top, i'd personally go for an X79 board and use the 3820 4 core CPU wich is cheap and doesn't perform any worse and sometimes slightly better than the regular sandy bridge in LGA 1155, but the main advantage is that depending on how software develops, that option keeps options open towards 6/8/10 core CPU's in higher end sandy bridge E and ivy bridge E and clocks in at 294$


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...pu-review.html


Going the LGA 1155 route makes sure you're stuck with 4 core CPU's for the next couple of years at the least, and i wouldn't take that chance.

[demo]

Nah I dont want 3820.. would rather Ivy + z77 until haswell. Ivy + z77 will have double my current pcie lanes, be as fast or faster than 2011 chips in games, and the whole platform is far cheaper.

[demo]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Demo, have you been looking at Z77 boards yet? Do you see anything that looks good for tri-sli?

This looks good, not sure what bridge chip its using though? but its very similar to the P67 board with nf200.

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Int...1155/P8Z77_WS/

[shadow001]

For me, it would be that EVGA SR-X socket 2011 board along with a pair of ivy bridge 10 core CPU's, so that i'd go from a system with 12 cores/24 threads to a setup with 20 cores/40 threads....Add that ivy bridge chips should be at least 30% faster than mine are are the same clock, and i pretty much more than double the CPU power overall on applications that eat all that CPU power.


Game developers and their insistance on keeping to 4 cores with their game releases can go you know where(), so my upgrades aren't based on gaming anymore apart from fast video cards when new fab processes are released....20nm is next in 2 years or so.

[demo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

For me, it would be that EVGA SR-X socket 2011 board along with a pair of ivy bridge 10 core CPU's..

LoL and you're complaining no game uses 6 cores now.. same thing will happen, haswell mainstream will release shortly after and be faster again for less than half the money.. while all this time Ivy bridge is providing the same performance as IB-E will in most games (if SB & SB-E are anything to go by), infact it will probably oc better like SB does and be faster.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by demo

LoL and you're complaining no game uses 6 cores now.. same thing will happen, haswell mainstream will release shortly after and be faster again for less than half the money.. while all this time Ivy bridge is providing the same performance as IB-E will in most games (if SB & SB-E are anything to go by), infact it will probably oc better like SB does and be faster.

Haswell will offer even more cores...i heard up to 16 cores for the higher end versions, so it'll be even more underused for gaming and the midrange will have 8 cores....

[demo]

Originally Posted by demo

This looks good, not sure what bridge chip its using though? but its very similar to the P67 board with nf200.

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Int...1155/P8Z77_WS/

Uses PLX chip for anyone interested

Originally Posted by shadow001

Haswell will offer even more cores...i heard up to 16 cores for the higher end versions, so it'll be even more underused for gaming and the midrange will have 8 cores....

Exactly