What graphics card should I get for NMS?

[catsarepoetry]

Recommended is Nvidia GTX 1060 3GB or AMD RX 470 4GB.

Should I just get one of those? Or something a bit more advanced, with the expectation that the game will be further upgraded and thus require a more powerful card.

[John Titor]

NMS is working relatively well on my RX 6600.

[tkwoods]

I have a gtx 1080 and the game runs well for me. More importantly is the rest of the system should complement your choice as well.

[Azure Fang]

I run on a GTX 1060 6GB and get some significant, but not unplayable, frame drops on visually noisy planets such as "exotifying" lush or during storms with tornadoes with middling settings. I would not recommend a 1060 3GB unless you're alright with setting texture detail to its lowest level.

[NZ.Zero]

you might as well get a better ccard, there are other games in the world too :)

[BlueLightning]

I would recommend 3050 or equivalent or better (older cards in 70-80s would work too, like 1080). I used to play this in 1060 3gb, and heck, even on all lowest setting, it can't be stable in 60 fps in most part. Combat, asteroids, basebuilding, etc. It's definitely playable in 1060 3gb, but expect to run around 40-50s in 1080p all low.

[darkstar]

If you set the texture size at the apropiate level you can even play fine on a 1060 with 3GB at 1080p. No slowdowns for me. Personally if you plan to buy one now I would take one with at least 8GB of VRam. Doesnt matter Nvidia or AMD. 6600 from AMD or 2060 (3050) from Nvidia. Most people who have hickups with a 1060 3GB max out the texture quality and then wonder why it runs like crap.

[Lindy Bomber]

Get the best Nvidia card you can afford. But you will also need a good CPU and plenty of memory. Putting a new graphics card on an old motherboard with an old CPU and minium memory won't help.

[Maviba]

nowadays, I wouldn't go fo a 3GB vcard any more.
4gb should be the abolute minimum if you want to enjoy modern games at a decent fps. And games like NMS are very memory intense

4gb is still solid for 1080p gaming, but dont go below.
So if it's one of those two only, get the 470.

But better look for a 480 instead, since it's got 8GB already and doesn't cost a fortune.,

[Maviba]

Originally posted by RiChuF:

i wouldny buy any of those old cards now because they wont be new
best to find newer versions of those cards :BL3Thumbsup:

I think he wouldn't have asked for these specific cards if he had another option.
sure, you always should get a new card if possible.
But if you can't afford a new one, than used cards might be an option.

Although I'd rather look for a 480 or 1070/1660 in that case.
Or a 6gb 1060 at least.

[Lindy Bomber]

Originally posted by libleftantifashnd:

Recommended is Nvidia GTX 1060 3GB or AMD RX 470 4GB.

Should I just get one of those? Or something a bit more advanced, with the expectation that the game will be further upgraded and thus require a more powerful card.

Are you getting a new system or trying to upgrade an old one?

[Krash Megiddo]

NMS works fine for me on GTX 1060 3gb on enhanced settings. My newer system has a GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB and it plays great on enhanced/high settings.

[Looniper]

Originally posted by libleftantifashnd:

Recommended is Nvidia GTX 1060 3GB or AMD RX 470 4GB.

Should I just get one of those? Or something a bit more advanced, with the expectation that the game will be further upgraded and thus require a more powerful card.

Frankly, you want a 2080 Super or better.
Unless No Man's Sky is the last game you think you'll ever play.

Otherwise you pay $400 for a card now, and 2 years from now, you can't play anything because you don't have a 2080 or better.
So you have to buy one of those for $400...

And 2 years later....
And so on.

Just spend $600 now for the 2080, or go big on RTX 3080 and not worry about it for 6 years or more.

And to be honest... that has never been more applicable.
Even ignoring the difficulty getting silicone for chips and the chips themselves...
We've already come to the point where we can't actually optimize much more than we have.

Think about Flash memory storage... SSD, thumb drives, you name it.
They came to the end of the potential for storage capacity/inch a few years ago, because the channel barriers between lanes were so thin that electrons would bleed across to the wrong channels, faulting the memory.
They got around this by making them run 3D... both in horizontal and vertical stacks... making a more efficient, Cheaper method of large volume data storage...
But there aren't any more dimensions to build into... so the high end data/inch we have now, is the physical limit for electronic storage of information.
So prices on SSD started to drop like a rock (before the chip shortage).

We're at or near that same point with graphics processors. You can only handle so much information in a given space over a given amount of time, because the data is electrons, which must be channeled separate from other data channels of electrons....
So with 2 cores working simultaneously, the data they're working on has to be far enough apart that it doesn't get muxed.

Soon we'll reach the point where video cards cannot perform any better than they do, without growing in size.
At that point, the Standards we have used for expansion slots will have to change again, and the concepts on which cases are designed will have to change as well... before cards can improve.

In the interim, the best cards will be the best cards can be... and since there is no new product to roll into, they'll just keep making them... and as people get them... demand falls off, and prices drop... while quality improves to try to get people to trade up for the more "reliable" version...

So... cheaper, better cards.

... at least until we start using Quarks as the carrying method rather than electrons...
Or start shunting the work into computers in another dimension where time operates much more quickly, so you can fully model and 4k^2 texture the entire planet Earth 240 frames per second in 8640p for a game.... think GeForce NOW but with extra dimensions.

[RiChuF]

Originally posted by Eslake:

Originally posted by libleftantifashnd:

Recommended is Nvidia GTX 1060 3GB or AMD RX 470 4GB.

Should I just get one of those? Or something a bit more advanced, with the expectation that the game will be further upgraded and thus require a more powerful card.

Frankly, you want a 2080 Super or better.
Unless No Man's Sky is the last game you think you'll ever play.

Otherwise you pay $400 for a card now, and 2 years from now, you can't play anything because you don't have a 2080 or better.
So you have to buy one of those for $400...

And 2 years later....
And so on.

Just spend $600 now for the 2080, or go big on RTX 3080 and not worry about it for 6 years or more.

And to be honest... that has never been more applicable.
Even ignoring the difficulty getting silicone for chips and the chips themselves...
We've already come to the point where we can't actually optimize much more than we have.

Think about Flash memory storage... SSD, thumb drives, you name it.
They came to the end of the potential for storage capacity/inch a few years ago, because the channel barriers between lanes were so thin that electrons would bleed across to the wrong channels, faulting the memory.
They got around this by making them run 3D... both in horizontal and vertical stacks... making a more efficient, Cheaper method of large volume data storage...
But there aren't any more dimensions to build into... so the high end data/inch we have now, is the physical limit for electronic storage of information.
So prices on SSD started to drop like a rock (before the chip shortage).

We're at or near that same point with graphics processors. You can only handle so much information in a given space over a given amount of time, because the data is electrons, which must be channeled separate from other data channels of electrons....
So with 2 cores working simultaneously, the data they're working on has to be far enough apart that it doesn't get muxed.

Soon we'll reach the point where video cards cannot perform any better than they do, without growing in size.
At that point, the Standards we have used for expansion slots will have to change again, and the concepts on which cases are designed will have to change as well... before cards can improve.

In the interim, the best cards will be the best cards can be... and since there is no new product to roll into, they'll just keep making them... and as people get them... demand falls off, and prices drop... while quality improves to try to get people to trade up for the more "reliable" version...

So... cheaper, better cards.

... at least until we start using Quarks as the carrying method rather than electrons...
Or start shunting the work into computers in another dimension where time operates much more quickly, so you can fully model and 4k^2 texture the entire planet Earth 240 frames per second in 8640p for a game.... think GeForce NOW but with extra dimensions.

why just nvidia products?
why not suggest both

[weiss]

not to be mean but ... when i read from some ppls here what for gpus they have ... guys ... get atleast a 2060 ... alone thatone would be good for the next 5 years, maybe not for 4k full graphic gameplay but probably still 720p~1080p on full graphic/high/medium ...

and to answer the "why just nvidia products"
because nvidia has the least problems with games.
so its normal that peoples recomment nvidia cause the chance is low that ya run into trouble with them.

[RiChuF]

Originally posted by Chiro:

not to be mean but ... when i read from some ppls here what for gpus they have ... guys ... get atleast a 2060 ... alone thatone would be good for the next 5 years, maybe not for 4k full graphic gameplay but probably still 720p~1080p on full graphic/high/medium ...

and to answer the "why just nvidia products"
because nvidia has the least problems with games.
so its normal that peoples recomment nvidia cause the chance is low that ya run into trouble with them.

well had products from both over many years and both do suffer the odd problem
it aint always amd