🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/16/2015 2:12 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like there's about a 10% performance difference between a 980 and an 970.  There's about a 25% difference between a 970 and 960... and just to compare even the 960 is about 5x faster than my 275. :)
> See the links in my earlier post in thread about the 970 stuttering
> after the first 3.5GB being used.  Most people just compare framerate
> numbers on benchmarks between cards and think that's the only thing to
> consider.
>
> Just randomly pulling a recent RPG for a look, Dragon Age Inquisition
> seems to be good for about 55 frames per second with a GTX980 at
> 1080p.  I think this means your video card would produce a slideshow
> at less than 10fps :)
>
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dragon_age_inquisition_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html
>
> Investing the extra bucks to build a machine right, that far exceeds
> what current gen consoles can do, will provide many years of gaming
> without upgrades.  Skimping and running shitty equipment will just
> lead to regrets when running modern games.
  Thanks to all who replied; I think I'm going to go with the one of the 
X99's and a 980; 16GB of mem and an Asrock mobo; 250 SSD and 2 TB WD 
Black. I have an 28 Samsung UHD, so I'm all set there. I went to GPUboss 
and did compare the CPU & GPU; I must admit I was impressed with how 
close the performance of the GTX970 was with the 980 though.

Right now, my i7 920 that's o'clocked to 3.65 or something like that is 
choking on DA:Inquisition, but the PC only came with 6GB of 1333MHz ram. 
I updated the videocard once to a GTX770 which is the only upgrade I've 
done since I bought the PC 5 1/2 yrs ago. It's being passed on to a 
non-gamer who will get plenty of use out of the system because under a 
lighter load it runs flawlessly. Perhaps adding memory would help, but 
I'm entitled to new. :-D

Diane