The Witcher 3 - GTX 780Ti Could Push 35-45 FPS At Max?

#4800703 Posted on: 04/14/2014 04:26 PM

---

No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.

Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.

And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.

Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.

The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.

What?

#4800732 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:02 PM

---

AA is typically the first thing I turn off. High AA can make a game look nearly photo-real, it's just so computationally demanding it's usually not worth it.

I'd like to see a discreet graphics chip that does nothing but calculate AA, if such a thing is possible (and does not require a dual-GPU-ready motherboard). A discreet card was used to calculate physics (Physx, by AGEIA), and for various reasons that failed, but anti-aliasing is very different than physics simulation. AA just serves to enhance what is already there, which means it could potentially enhance every game, not just ones that are built specifically for it, as with the Physx card.

You can run SLI AA for games...
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2011/SLI_Best_Practices_2011_Feb.pdf

#4800754 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:34 PM

---

I too think AA makes things a bit blurry at times. If I enable it, I only keep it at 2x or 4x. The performance vs visual result ratio is not worth it to me to use AA, so I've been getting away with using mid-range GPUs for a while. Besides, it's pretty easy to get used to no AA at all. There are plenty of old games you can play today and cringe at how ugly they are but after a couple hours you quickly learn to accept the look. It's almost as though your brain fills in the gaps in the details.

I agree with one of the earlier posters though - it would be nice to see a piece of hardware dedicated to processing AA, and maybe the smoothing of shadows too (as far as I'm aware, it's a similar calculation).

#4800763 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:43 PM

---

No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.

Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.

And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.

Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.

The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.
Nobody is forcing you to run the game on max possible settings, you can mess with options and get the visuals/performance how ever you want - its not like the game will be an ugly mess if its not maxed out!

#4800776 Posted on: 04/14/2014 05:59 PM

---

No, thanks. Can't they create games instead that run with an enjoyable performance? If I want slideshows, I'll look at Google Images.

Game devs seem to miss the point of high-end hardware. It's not there in order to raise a game's performance slightly above "barely acceptable." It's there to get enough performance for your 144Hz monitor, your multi-monitor "eyefinity" or whatever setup, etc.

And why are people saying "this game has the best graphics ever?" If the graphics run like crap, guess what, they're bad. Image quality is only one aspect of good graphics. The other is fluidity. If either of those is crap, then the overall result is crap too. Image quality without fluidity is only important for static images.

Unless they actually intend to make sales 4 years from now, since that's the timeframe for the hardware to catch up to this stuff. But by then, the game won't be profitable anymore to begin with.

The Witcher and Crysis - wasting otherwise good PC firepower on unoptimized crap.

well, thing is, playing in highest end graphics, is a luxury. And for luxury my friend, you have to pay
If one 780ti is not enough for max graphics, I am sure, two will be enough. If not, i will still be happy that something is out there which justifies my investment in two 780ti.