The gtx 295 with pcsx2

[Donovan24]

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

My brother, being the idiot he always is, Bought a 4GB GT630 and now he cant understand why he can't run the Witcher 2.

Lol how stupid.

[Shouvanik]

My brother, being the idiot he always is, Bought a 4GB GT630 and now he cant understand why he can't run the Witcher 2.

Lol how stupid.

A friend of mine thinks just exactly like your bro. He is determined to buy a 4gb card after his exams. even after telling him a lot of things about card numbers he thinks more memory=better performance.
these non-techies do weird things and waste their money.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

My brother, being the idiot he always is, Bought a 4GB GT630 and now he cant understand why he can't run the Witcher 2.

Lol how stupid.

Man, putting 4GB of VRAM in a GT 630 should be considered heinous crime. Marketing stops to nothing.
The quoted post was to show it does no real good even on a GTX 760.

Edit: to correct typos.

[Donovan24]

A friend of mine thinks just exactly like your bro. He is determined to buy a 4gb card after his exams. even after telling him a lot of things about card numbers he thinks more memory=better performance.
these non-techies do weird things and waste their money.

The thing is you don't have to be a techie, just use google.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

The thing is you don't have to be a techie, just use google.

Well, there is no mention on the card itself. Top cards can and make use of that VRAM pretty nicely.

[Donovan24]

Well, there is no mention on the card itself. Top cards can and make use of that VRAM pretty nicely.

Not sure what you meant.
I meant you can just google "Is a GT630 4GB good" and you will immediately see how bad it is.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

Not sure what you meant.
I meant you can just google "Is a GT630 4GB good" and you will immediately see how bad it is.

Sorry you thought I was picking on you. Was not about the original statement about the GT630 but to the quote in the last post. It states only the guy's friend is going to buy a 4GB VRAM GPU and this not a bad thing if is a top of line card... who knows? in this case he might be just rich and not exactly dumb.

But I digress, really I had no intention to bring discomfort to anybody. Edit: Even because there is clear indication that friend is going to buy a midrange card or worse for the VRAM amount and this is indeed bad, so my bad too.