Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The gtx 295 with pcsx2
#1
is good to be used with pcsx2 ?
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
that is a very low end card. it is even weaker than gtx 260. buy a good card like a gtx 650 or 640 at least.
[Image: lhljdGn.png]
My Steam Profile
Intel i5 3450 @ 3.1ghz~3.5ghz | Nvidia Gtx 980ti 6GB | Corsair Vengence 16gb DDR3 | WD Blue 1tb + Black 2tb hdd | Samsung 850 Evo 250gb SSD | Windows 10 pro

Reply
#3
(02-23-2014, 10:11 AM)Shouvanik Wrote: that is a very low end card. it is even weaker than gtx 260.

The GTX 295 is a lot faster than a GTX 260 but because its a dual-gpu card you can use only half of its power for PCSX2.

Still it should be fast enogh to play most games at 2x or even 3xNative at full speed.
Reply
#4
look at this http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_...95&id=1446
idk if this benchmark is reliable though.
[Image: lhljdGn.png]
My Steam Profile
Intel i5 3450 @ 3.1ghz~3.5ghz | Nvidia Gtx 980ti 6GB | Corsair Vengence 16gb DDR3 | WD Blue 1tb + Black 2tb hdd | Samsung 850 Evo 250gb SSD | Windows 10 pro

Reply
#5
(02-23-2014, 10:11 AM)Shouvanik Wrote: that is a very low end card. it is even weaker than gtx 260. buy a good card like a gtx 650 or 640 at least.

It's old and not able to do much in the DirectX department, but was kind of queen on her days Smile think it as a dual gtx 280 and voila.

So, this card is actually like overkill for PS2 games and should scale well to around 4x. The problem would come looking to the CPU assuming it is from the same time period.

It's not that you are wrong and the card won't be more than mainstream today, but should not be a problem running PCSX2 at least if not abusing upscale, as stated above, if there is some performance issue is toward the CPU to be more worried.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#6
(02-23-2014, 10:11 AM)Shouvanik Wrote: that is a very low end card. it is even weaker than gtx 260. buy a good card like a gtx 650 or 640 at least.
it is not true that it is a low end card , because passmark sucks , do not use it ever passmark , you need to use 3d mark vantage , the gtx 295 is still a high end card , and if you see here at this address , this gpu has the memory bandwidth of 223.776 GB/sec :
http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce-GTX-295-card-603.html
Reply
#7
(02-23-2014, 11:07 AM)josheropex Wrote: it is not true that it is a low end card , because passmark sucks , do not use it ever passmark , you need to use 3d mark vantage , the gtx 295 is still a high end card , and if you see here at this address , this gpu has of memory bandwidth 223.776 GB/sec :
http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce-GTX-295-card-603.html

Maybe he meant it would be weaker than a 460 what could be inaccurate depending on the game but almost certainly outperformed by newer cards on the x60 segment.

What was totally misguided was saying it to be worse than a GTX 260, what makes no sense at all, and so I think was a typo.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#8
sorry everyone specially josheropex. it seems i was misguided by that site. just ignore what i stated above. thanks.
[Image: lhljdGn.png]
My Steam Profile
Intel i5 3450 @ 3.1ghz~3.5ghz | Nvidia Gtx 980ti 6GB | Corsair Vengence 16gb DDR3 | WD Blue 1tb + Black 2tb hdd | Samsung 850 Evo 250gb SSD | Windows 10 pro

Reply
#9
Passmark test is by all means definetly not bad, alot of big companies use it to test hardware, Tom's Hardware as an example.
Reply
#10
Too long post, let's put it in code mode for easier skipping.
Code:
This thread brought some good questions and could shed some lights on that very confusing segment that is the performance measurement in that insanely dynamic growing segment that is computer hardware.

For example I know that the series 200 was a paradigm change in the ways to make GPUs in relation the older 9000 series. It was a deep structural change that was more than performance wise.

Since them, in the Nvidia's case, the development was more linear in terms of structure and more at the manufacturing level with the scale reducing to each time less nanometers which allowed for more transistors to be crowded together for more speed at lesser power consumption.

That's not shabby feat, the number of cores practically doubled at each major version number all the while the general speed could be kept and even increased.

One thing didn't change though. At the same series, the second digit can be understood as around double the processing cores than the anterior. Not always true but near it at least from the mainstream line and above. So one should expect a x60 to have around double the cores than a x50, the x70 double the cores of x60 and x80 always the top of the series. If you see a 9 at the second digit you know it is a double x80.

Now the big question. Is out of double the GTX 295 was the absolute Nvidia queen at it's time and priced probably more than it's today's equivalent. And is even for today parameters far from a shabby card since it has all the pluses from the top line like a lot of VRAM and enough horse power to fill buffers quickly.

Yet, the newer generation cards evolved so much than the nowadays mainstream+ might outperform it, at least on specific applications. Still I'd expect nothing lesser than a 480 to be at it's level and nothing lesser than a 570 (for PC native games since PCSX2 has no use for SLI).

now, at the 600 segment there was another major push and a 660 may face a 295 head up even in the native games segment due to sheer number of processing cores and speed. The 700 series are a somewhat enhancement in the architecture but mainly another manufacturing process advancement which allowed the base cards to perform the same as the previous one second digit up. Hence the the 750 being similar to the previous 660 and this relation is loosely kept across the segment, a 760 performs only slight worse than a 670 (which I can't find anymore at my local commerce) and so on.

The observation to make from this is, pay attention to the second digit, it is the indicator of the card's segment. For gaming one should avoid a second digit smaller than 6 although 5 is acceptable in many cases. Bellow this is an entry level card and should be avoided altogether if wanting to build a gaming machine. One can say the x60 is the main stream, x50 is the mainstream-, the x70 the mainstream+ and x80 the top of the line with above it meaning double card. Rare exceptions could arise but that is a reasonable accurate rule of thumb.

To try and make clear what it means, think that except on exceptions, the number of cores doubles at each second digit advance and some more spice is added to boot like greater  memory interface numbers (although the clock tends to fall due to heat issues in so many transistors pushed together). Well, maybe not double the number the cores but always a significant greater number of them is to be expected.

Above all, pay attention to suffixes, they might mean a greater improvement or a greater capping, sometimes greater than the the base number ever. If you see a SE after the card model, beware you could be better served by a lesser base card, that would be almost certain if the lesser card has a Ti for suffix.

Don't fall for marketing hypes like announcing a big VRAM in a card which has not near the horse power needed to fill it where it is needed. I can give an example of it. Since is a personal story I'll put it under spoiler mode so you can skip it a bit more easily

One my 560 died recently so I'm after replacement. I don't want just to buy another 560 because it is aging and won't go for a top of line either. I was after a 670 but it is extinct at my local commerce (probably due to this card to have sold the whole importation and now the series 700 is the only being yet imported).

So the GTX 760 became the card of choice, it's affordable and apt to fare well for what I want it. I'm not a numbers freak and due to aging sight can't see most of the small nuances on the ultra specs over the high, well. The point is the 760 looks good and if needed I can always buy another later on and still not expending much more than I'd expend in a top line).

Now that I decided the segment, let's look at the available models...

Two came up immediately. One being a Zotac GTX 760 Amp! with 2GB DDR5 at 6208Mz memory clock and 1111Mz base core clock. The other is a Zotac as well with 4GB VRAM at 6008MHz and 993MHz base clock.

I had already something to look upon but I should not forget the mechanical aspects also, mine is a "hot" country and I don't mean in terms of nice... The Amp! model has a twin fan semi open build with copper ducts while the 4GB is a single fan in an enclosed case.

Now I had all that I need to make a choice but could not resist trying to find a benchmark comparing them. I found one and the results didn't surprise me a bit. In that benchmark both cards were at same speed and (not) surprisingly the 2GB one outperformed at 1080p at high quality specs

Things became a bit better for the 4GB model at 2k+ screen resolution (they performed practically the same with the 4GB having a flatter response) but then the FPS was at the unacceptable side already and increasing yet more the resolution the 4GB shined hard in comparison with the 2GB... well if you think 6FPS average and 10FPS max to be shining.

This sealed the deal, both cards are priced almost the same with the 4GB model just a bit more expensive... to heck with it, the other card is much more appealing to me by far.


Edit: rereading the post, suddenly came to mind that I should invert the things, putting the post into spoiler and letting the story directly visible Smile
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)