Jump to content

How good is GTX 770 for this game?


Recommended Posts

Do not wait. Get what you need to enjoy CM now and in the near future.

4K UHD = 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels is maybe 2 or more years away. Too expensive now for simply gaming. When it becomes available it will be very detailed sweet. Then there will be 8K UHD*which is 7680 pixels ×*4320 pixels (33.2 megapixels), etc., etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hister, I recently upgraded my MB, CPU, RAM, and GPU.

I currently have a 3.5 GHz I7, 16 gig of DDR3, and a GTX 680. I have yet to notice any slow down in CM, with the caveat that I am not the type of person who keeps a FPS meter going while I play, and I don't tend to play Huge maps or scenarios.

One word of warning.....I don't know if your old card is like this, because I upgraded from a Radeon card to my current 680.....but the 680 (and I assume 690 and the 700 series) is freaking HUGE, so make sure you have room for it in your case. I have a full tower Antec case and the 680 was giving me fits trying to fit it in the case. It was about one CM too long to fit. I thought I was going to have to buy a new case, until I removed the outer metal shell of the 680, exposing the heatsinks and pipes, which shaved just enough off the end that I barely got it to fit in the case. Probably voided the warranty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz - THATS your main problem here as CM always depended on CPU power FIRST !

These AMD may run @ 3,5Ghz but its half as fast as every Intel CPU when it comes to fps.

I read all the posts but nearly everyone here compare apples and oranges ....

For example:

I have a Intel Core i5 3570K 3,4 GHz ( 4 Cores )

This CPU is 50 % faster than the AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz ( 6 Cores) when it comes to 3D game rendering (with same GPU of course)

My 3570K runs in OC mode @ 4,5 GHZ without any problems (K means open multiplier - so nearly every 3570K can reach this even with stock cooling)

That makes it 60% faster or even more depending on games etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - I only have an i5-2500K ( 3.3 GHz ) - not even overclocked - and have no trouble with even the largest scenario ( talking about 40+ tanks with battalion of inf vs similar on massive map ).

My Gfx card is a GTX660Ti, but even with my previous GTX260 I had no trouble with any CMBN scenario - ran a 12000 point battle with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I cannot answer your main question hopefully I interpreted your comment about GPU as a question correctly :)

Um, GPU is vid ram, yes??

... GPU stands for General Processing Unit when people use that achronim they typically are talking about the processor on your video card. The video card has a GPU and memory - two separate things.

For example the GPU on the GTX 770 card is listed as a GK104 which operates at 1046 MHz and the card has 2Gb of video memory. According to http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1856/geforce-gtx-770.html - a web site I have never visited before but found this morning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz: Agreed. However, both of my systems run CM just fine right now at 2560x1600. Am thinking ahead to the larger CM scenarios of CM:RS and future modules/families etc.

BTW: Unclear why SSD's would not be a good idea. If you run the OS and games off the same SSD surely that must be faster than a conventional HD.

And thanks for the clarification, Ian. This thread is an education for luddites like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: Unclear why SSD's would not be a good idea. If you run the OS and games off the same SSD surely that must be faster than a conventional HD.

The faster speeds of the SSD drives will help with loading times but CM is a fairly computationally intensive app and faster drives do not help that part. Even during loading of a turn or new scenario, from what Steve has described in the past, CM is doing quite a bit of memory and computationally expensive operations. Just loading the textures models is only a small part of the start up cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSDs provide substantial benefits over traditional hard drives

SSDs are Faster

SSDs can have 100 times greater performance, almost instantaneous data access, quicker boot ups, faster file transfers, and an overall snappier computing experience than hard drives. HDDs can only access the data faster the closer it is from the read write heads, while all parts of the SSD can be accessed at once.

SSDs are More Durable

Solid State Drives feature a non-mechanical design of NAND flash mounted on circuit boards, and are shock resistant up to 1500g/0.5ms. Hard Drives consist of various moving parts making them susceptible to shock and damage.

SSDs Consume Less Power

SSDs use significantly less power at peak load than hard drives, less than 2W vs. 6W for an HDD. Their energy efficiency can deliver longer battery life in notebooks, less power strain on system.

SSDs are Cooler

As an energy-efficient storage upgrade for your desktop or laptop, SSDs require very little power to operate that translates into significantly less heat output by your system.

SSDs are Quieter

With no moving parts, SSDs run at near silent operation and never disturb your computing experience during gaming or movies, unlike loud, whirring hard disc drives.

SSDs require no defragmenting

If you want to believe that loading times with a ssd is minimal check this out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had my desktop built 4 years+ ago I was advised to have one HD for the OS and a 2nd HD for SWAP FILES. Not sure what those are, but it was supposed to make things faster.

Jock noted he has 2 SSD's, one just for the OS. I assumed that SSD's would be so fast that there would be no reason for a 2nd SSD re speed unless it was for storage. My laptop has a 240GB SSD (and no 2nd HD) which seems to make CM run at least as well as on my more powerful desktop. (Altho' I admit I have done no tests.)

Is there a good reason to have two SSD's, one for the OS and one for apps? (I agree that BU 0.5TB-1TB HD would be good for storage etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had my desktop built 4 years+ ago I was advised to have one HD for the OS and a 2nd HD for SWAP FILES. Not sure what those are, but it was supposed to make things faster.

Jock noted he has 2 SSD's, one just for the OS. I assumed that SSD's would be so fast that there would be no reason for a 2nd SSD re speed unless it was for storage. My laptop has a 240GB SSD (and no 2nd HD) which seems to make CM run at least as well as on my more powerful desktop. (Altho' I admit I have done no tests.)

Is there a good reason to have two SSD's, one for the OS and one for apps? (I agree that BU 0.5TB-1TB HD would be good for storage etc.)

I only have 2 because my first (60GB) was a bit too small for putting anything on other than Windows in the long run. I suppose you could argue that if you have two SSDs then it reduces the reads and writes on each eg if you are installing / uninstalling on the games SSD, there are no writes to the OS one but honestly, these days, SSDs have a very long mean time to failure - these disks will outlive this PC probably - so I wouldn't bother setting out to have more than one of them.

One thing that is worth doing is putting your profile, temp etc on the regular HDD so that all those reads/writes - temporary internet files etc - are not on the SSDs.

Page file / swap file - if you have, say, 16GB of RAM you could put a 3GB page file on a RAMDisk created out of spare RAM. There is a a free download on http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk . Paging is when an application starts to run out of address space and writes data into temporary storage for access later. It happens a lot with 32 Bit apps on a 32 Bit OS, it also happens (less often) with 32 Bit apps on a 64 Bit OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a PC boots up 2 minutes quicker on a SSD and you boot your PC up 300 evenings a year to do your PBEM turns, it will save you 10 hours a year.

Personal experience.

I never turn my PC's off. I have the monitor set to turn itself off after 30 minutes, that's it. The computer is always on.

Oh, and the only hard drive failure I have ever had since 1986ish was with the only SSD (Intel brand) that I bought a couple of years ago. It lasted less than a year, then "bricked". All the spinning platter drives that I have ever bought (many) have worked just fine until their capacity limits forced me to buy larger ones.

To be fair, yes, the SSD made a very noticeable difference in booting up the computer. It also made a noticeable difference in some other games, besides the CM2 series. It made almost no difference in CM2 load times, in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hister, How good is GTX 770 for this game?

You should know by now :)

Erwin, Lots of good advice above. I am taking note for my 2014 Hackintosh build. If both of your systems run CM just fine right now at 2560x1600 you are already in the cat bird's seat. Enjoy :) I fully understand future proofing when possible. True 4K monitors are only just rolling out and expensive. In a few years they will become less so and by then you will be purchasing a new CM system for 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz, I'have work related seminars these days in our capital which steal my free time away plus I'm off skiing in the Alps whole next week with school kids (yap, I'm a teacher) - I'm afraid I won't be able to get myself that GPU and post in this thread until I come back. Thank you again guys for being so helpful!

I doubt my CPU is a culprit behind low FPS but I digress. Will get myself that new GPU and let you know how it goes in due time. If FPS won't improve then yeah, I guess I'll have to concede a defeat. Won't be upgrading CPU 'cos I would like to be on Intel eventually and would then have to buy myself also a new mobo. All other games run fine so I won't do any such drastic measures since it hasn't been that long since I purchased those components (minus GPU which I left in from the old build) - was aiming for a budget build thus I went with AMD CPU. Hope it goes OK and if not I'll still be getting higher FPS from other games due to new GPU. Not all will be lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hister, I believe that upgrading your GPU will make a difference in those frame rates.

I upgraded my old Radeon card to my current 680 before I swapped out my MB/CPU/RAM and did notice a difference in CM at that time, though loading screen times were not affected enough for me to notice.

When I upgraded my MB/CPU/RAM CMBN/CMFI loading times were drastically reduced.

So yes, it's certainly not going to hurt anything to swap out your GPU to a better model, as long as your power supply is beefy enough to handle it. You can always replace the MB/CPU/RAM later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSDs provide substantial benefits over traditional hard drives

SSDs are Faster

SSDs can have 100 times greater performance, almost instantaneous data access, quicker boot ups, faster file transfers, and an overall snappier computing experience than hard drives. HDDs can only access the data faster the closer it is from the read write heads, while all parts of the SSD can be accessed at once.

SSDs are More Durable

Solid State Drives feature a non-mechanical design of NAND flash mounted on circuit boards, and are shock resistant up to 1500g/0.5ms. Hard Drives consist of various moving parts making them susceptible to shock and damage.

SSDs Consume Less Power

SSDs use significantly less power at peak load than hard drives, less than 2W vs. 6W for an HDD. Their energy efficiency can deliver longer battery life in notebooks, less power strain on system.

SSDs are Cooler

As an energy-efficient storage upgrade for your desktop or laptop, SSDs require very little power to operate that translates into significantly less heat output by your system.

SSDs are Quieter

With no moving parts, SSDs run at near silent operation and never disturb your computing experience during gaming or movies, unlike loud, whirring hard disc drives.

SSDs require no defragmenting

If you want to believe that loading times with a ssd is minimal check this out

LOL .....

SSD does not help with combat mission gaming performance - THAT was the question (the rest is well known and ... obvious of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL .....

SSD does not help with combat mission gaming performance - THAT was the question (the rest is well known and ... obvious of course)

There is not a single post in this thread asking if a SSD will improve CM. The only question that has been asked is Erwin asking why a SSD wouldn't be a good idea for running his OS and games on.

So rather than jumping on someone who has provided useful comparative info for the uninformed on SSDs versus HDDs, why not wind the neck in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: SSD VS traditional "spinning platter" hard drives

There is no question that SSDs are, in most ways, superior, and the days of the old spinning platter drives, as well as optical disks, are numbered.

Why did I qualify my statement with "in most ways"? Because SSDs are still very expensive, compared to spinning platter drives, in terms of storage capacity.

I purchased my most recent internal HD, a 7200 rpm 2 terabyte model, for around $100 at my local Best Buy, after my more-than-twice-as-expensive 120 gigabyte SSD failed less than a year after install. It was the first drive failure I have experienced since the 1980s.

Since this is a Combat Mission forum, I would imagine we would all be interested in how to improve CM performance. In my personal experience, the SSD did not offer any significant performance boost over my old spinning platter drive, though it did, as I mentioned, offer significantly improved boot times, as well as noticeable improvements in other games.

Bottom line (IMO). Your best bet, at this time, is an SSD for your OS, as well as your page file. I think it's still makes sense to buy a traditional high capacity spinning platter drive for data storage.

For CMBN/CMFI (and RT) it won't make much difference at all.

I would steer clear of Intel brand SSDs......based on my personal experience. Kinda ironic, since I bought the Intel brand because of the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are big differences in SSD's between different brands and models. While hard discs are still cheaper the gap between the two technologies is getting smaller by the day.

When I upgraded to SSD on which CM is installed I only got quicker boot time of scenarios/campaigns and this was also confirmed by the devs to be so.

Some time ago when I purchased SSD Samsung 840 Pro it was considered the best of the best. it's still ranking high and has a nice price to it.

Hister, I believe that upgrading your GPU will make a difference in those frame rates.

I upgraded my old Radeon card to my current 680 before I swapped out my MB/CPU/RAM and did notice a difference in CM at that time, though loading screen times were not affected enough for me to notice.

When I upgraded my MB/CPU/RAM CMBN/CMFI loading times were drastically reduced.

So yes, it's certainly not going to hurt anything to swap out your GPU to a better model, as long as your power supply is beefy enough to handle it. You can always replace the MB/CPU/RAM later.

I do hope so - thank you for encouragement! :D

__________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...