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
NO
A 970 is superior to a 1030
A 1030 is a very low end budget range card from its family that is only one generation newer than the 900 family, the 970 is a mid tier card from its family and vastly superior by comparison
To compare a card from the 900 series to the 1030 would be the GTX 950 and even the 950 is slightly better than a 1030, a 970 is vastly superior to both.
In fact you could go back all the way to the GTX 750 and it would still compare in performance to a 1030
---------
The key for comparing nvidia numbers is that the last numbers are quality/power and the numbers in front are family/generation
Family or Generation examples:
Quality within a generation
Generally speaking the lowest quality you would want for a gaming card is **50 and a game that allows for less than this is extremely low requirements on par with most flash games. In fact if we were talking about gaming needs typically you wouldn't even consider below a **50 such that:
50/60/70/80 are basically
Minimum/Good/Better/Best
(Yes I'm aware that letters exist like ti or the "titan" versions, but these are modified or beefed up versions built from the same chipset)
With family or generation numbers the only reason to jump up is if a specific feature is required (such as a game that requires dx12 and can't run on dx11, so a family that has no dx12 support can't run it)
Typically speaking the next generation up compares to one step down in power. So a 970 is very roughly equivalent to a 1060 in power, meaning you are above the needs of a 1030. Just to go one step further a 970 compares even as far up to a 1650 (though the 970 lacks the ray tracing and some of the lighting/shadow quality it would still functionally run most games that "need" a 1650, it just wouldn't look as nice)
If you want to upgrade, then upgrade, that's your choice. But if you want something better than a 970 you would need either:
1070, 1080, 1660, 2060, 2070, 2080 or anything in the 30** range
If you bought into anything less you would either be side stepping or downgrading.
750 = 1030 < 950 < 960 = 1050 < 970 = 1060 = 1650 < 1070 = 1660 < 2060 < 1080 = 2070 = 3060 < 2080 = 3070 < 3080 < 3090
Why does it matter? The minimum listed card supports both as do the equivalents that match it for power.
You want to use either 1 stick of RAM (can't think of any idea other then budget issues)
2 sticks (in the correct slots)
or 4 sticks
And if you have a server motherboard you might use more sticks (or maybe some other superduper system whhich is top secret to me)
And you want ALL the sticks of RAM to have the SAME specs (using different RAM sticks will make your memory run at the speed of the SLOWEST stick)
Anywho, instead being concerned how your system runs game X, Y, or Z, you would do well understanding your system first. Basic computer component knowledge etc.
So yea, I get your frustration with the 12, but anyone who has those systems likely doesn't know what you are talking about anyway.
Just FYI but the typical configuration with them is 3 4gb sticks, these were attempts to get rid of old 4gb sticks and the volume and configuration chosen was obviously based on the ratios of on hand left over parts from the previous generation being configured to use them up with what was on hand in mass bulk.
Basically not enough to make every system 16 and if they'd done just 8 they would have left over 4s again which they are trying to move out of inventory. Mass budget dumping like this, the company doesn't want to buy missing low end parts to balance out a better system, they just want to use up their onhand quantity and let marketing decide on how to label the resulting mess for sale.
Some of them are an 8+4, which is even worse, but that's the low end laptop business, basically shovelware.
Imagine being this impatient and entitled , just saying. Kids these days can't wait one month for their favorite present.
A rendering engine can sometimes not be supported in game even when the video card supports it. DX12 & Vulkan give way better overall performance over the older DX11 counter part. The implementation is based on the budget since DX11 will always be there by default in most modern titles and DX12 & vulkan libraries require some serious work and knowledge to make it functional without crashes.
If you would try vulkan or DX12 on World War Z , Doom or even any title that supports it the performance difference can be up to 35% , im not kidding. Recently Deep Rock Galactic implemented DX12 since Update 31 and you can easily hold off 144 FPS without drops compared to the OLD DX11 version.