安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Cool info, thanks for that.
Anyway my 2600K and 980 are doing fine, can play most games in 1440p! I think I will finally upgrade the 2600K next year when Intel Skylake is out.
I'm late to the party I know, but the PC I just replaced 2 weeks ago was an i5 2500k clocked to 4.4 and a superclocked EVGA 980, and I had zero bottlenecks from the CPU gaming at either 1440p on trying out 4k, even with CPU heavy games like WoW. My GPU could reliably get to 99% utilisation unless a game was bugged.
My 780 SC
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4624824
And my 980Ti SC
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5172038
Will be upgrading my 2600K next year to probably Skylake E or what ever the X99 follow up is.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5202398
My 6GB 780 SC does much better too but thats unfair its so much more powerful then the 980.
I think that is why the discontinued the 700s or the 690s what a gimmic.
Please dont take any of this the wroung way . I thank you for posting that . you can see my scores in the stats they are all there if you wanna see or hit me up i show you.
The main thing here is kudos for the 2600K club!! We still rock!
Most benchmarks showed the 980 beating the 780 by about 10% in real gaming.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/7603015?
I understand what you mean, but for me my visuals did improve, because I upgraded to use higher resolutions or drasticly increase framerates, or enable nvidia 3D Vision in my games.
For 4 years I used to game on my Samsung 52" LCD TV, then I decided I wanted to try 3D so I got a 27" 1080 3D monitor and GTX 580, which at the time was just about the top card. Framerates in 3D were OK, but you pretty much need SLI to get the best performance for stereo 3D because you have to render the game twice.
After 12 months I upgraded to SLI 670 which were the sweet spot for value for money and performance. My games all ran much faster using that hardware than when I was using single 580 and I could jack up all the quality settings, and in 2D I could run a lot of games much closer to 120fps which feels a lot more responsive than 60hz.
Then I got the ROG SWIFT 1440p 3D monitor so got the GTX 980 to play at 1440p and 3D, but I also wanted a big single card for VR as SLI adds latency when using the Oculus DK2. I had spent a few weeks reading up on the 780 and made up my mind to buy the Asus ROG version and was bitterly disapointed that they all went out of stock the day I got paid and could afford it, but 2 days later the 980 was released and I got an EVGA 980 SC edition for the same price as the standard edition.
Then a month ago I got a 4k monitor so I built a SLI Titan X PC and donated my old PC to a relative. This all sounds like I have a lot of money to throw around, but the only reason I built a new PC with SLI Titan X was because I sold my property and made a tidy proffit, and decided that for once I would build the best PC I could within reason. I could have afforded 4 way SLI and an Intel Extreme CPU and 3x 4k monitors in surround even, but that kind of money would have just made me sick and been a total waste.
Pretty much all my upgrades are because of the hardware requirements for increases in resolution or gaming in stereo 3D, rather than because I saw pretty numbers and needed to have them.
I understand you can push a lower card harder and beat "superior" cards and save a lot of cash by doing so, but overall most people with a 980 are going to get better performance than most people with a 780, specially in VRAM intensive games, and for me one of the biggest advantages of getting the 980 was the increased VRAM.
As for the VRAM on Titan X, I think its overblown. 4k gaming pushes most games to 3/4GB VRAM, extreme cases like Shadow of Mordor use about 7gb. By the time anyone actually *needs* a 12gb card the Titan X will be a distant memory.
It's not as simple as one thing "beats" another thing, there are tons of variables to consider.
e.g. I dont like how the 960 was marketed as a 1080p card, does that mean my 970 used for 1050p is wrong? of course not, in fact many games force me to turn down settings on my 970 at 1050p and also many games now will use more than 2 gig vram at 1050p. (obviously also 1080p).
Maxwell has optimisations the most famous probably been its memory compression, which is why the performance is more than people expected.
Almost every Titan X review mentions 1440 and 4k purely because its a ridiculous card to use on a single 1080p monitor.
You don't have to like it, but its part of the PC landscape, specially now 1440p is becoming more mainstream, 4k is becoming a lot more affordable, and DSR in the nvidia drivers makes it even easier for people to downscale games regardless of the native res of their monitors.