Col Deadmarsh Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I'm about to get a new rig and wanted to know if it matters what brand of video card I get to play the newer games. I thought I heard in the past that AMD cards didn't run the game as well as Nvidia but that was awhile ago. Also, what is your recommendation for vid cards to run the newer games at a good frame rate without busting the bank? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I play with an onboard HD4600 with a HD monitor. That is fast enough on highest settings except for when there are lots of trees swaying in the wind. So my guess is anything half decent will do (unless you have 4k). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Kulin Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I found game load times dramatically improved after I switched from AMD to Nvidia. With the AMD card, load times really choked when higher texture quality settings were selected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I would vote for nVidia as well. They seem to do a better job at OpenGL. I have used AMD/ATI's my whole life until a few months ago. I switched to nVidia and can't believe I didn't do it before. They are more expensive that AMDs, but worth it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysfish Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) AMD implementation of OpenGL is worse than NVidia's. CM is not very well optimized around the fact that OpenGL is state machine and there is a lot of overhead in the drivers when states (e.g. texture) is changed during rendering. Definitely go with Nvidia card if you want to get higher frames per second while playing CM because Nvidia's drivers handle better the rendering implementation of CM. Just as comparison, i have desktop computer with HD 7950 and laptop with Nvidia GT 750m. Even though 7950 performance is much higher in any other game, in CM its performance is much worse. On same settings (Better model quality / Better texture quality) 750M performs much much better and gives me better fps. Processor is not a bottleneck in CM, graphics rendering engine is. Edited September 3, 2015 by alwaysfish 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I would vote for nVidia as well. They seem to do a better job at OpenGL. I have used AMD/ATI's my whole life until a few months ago. I switched to nVidia and can't believe I didn't do it before. They are more expensive that AMDs, but worth it. I agree whole heatedly here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Processor is not a bottleneck in CM, graphics rendering engine is. I don't really agree with this part. Sure, you need a good graphics card and if you buy AMD you are hampering your self a bit (my assessment is that this is due to ATI's unwillingness to spend time on their Open GL drivers and their quality control issues rather than anything BFC is doing). But if I had to choose between a Nvida 760 with a 4Ghz i7 processor vs a 780 and a 3Ghz i5 processor I would take the faster processor and the slightly lessor graphics card. Unlike many games out there the CPU is doing some heavy lifting in CM and to help the game load turns and calculate the turns faster more CPU power is beneficial. I currently have a Nvida 760 with an i5 3.4Ghz processor and have no problems running it with the best quality graphics settings at 1080p. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysfish Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Ian, I would not say a statement about bottleneck if I didn't have supportive hard evidence. Sorry if explanation will seem a little technical, however we are talking about rendering engine. First, my educated guess is that during orders phase, when bullets are not flying, only rendering is done (well, i should add that user input is also handled). Since even during that phase FPS is low, I was curious what was happening. It is really easy to trace what OpenGL calls CM is doing with the help of some open source OGL tracers. Trace log showed that during one frame a huge amount of OGL state changes was done. Anyone doing programming in OGL knows that state change incurs a lot of overhead which in turn reduces fps. It seems that rendering engine doesn't sort geometry by texture, which many optimized rendering engines do. A simple example what happens under the hood and what I mean: Set texture A Render geometry 1 Set texture B Render geometry 2 Set texture A Render geometry 3 This constant change in texture back and forth (and other related OGL states) is fps killer. That's why driver implementation and some optimizations at the driver level is very important if engine itself is not optimized. And like I said, Nvidia's implementation of OGL is much better suited for CM rendering engine. Having said that, CM is a wonderful game even if it is not very well optimized. It is the only game I launch every day and I enjoy every release of it. Optimizing rendering engine takes a lot of effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Ian, I would not say a statement about bottleneck if I didn't have supportive hard evidence. OK, got it - mind you how was I supposed to know you knew more than I do about Open GL At any rate what I really meant was to point out that unlike many games that just get faster when you have a better graphics card CM needs more CPU power too add zip because the LOS system, ballistics tracking etc is CPU bound. In addition the game is single threaded so getting a faster CPU is more important than getting one with multiple cores. You have inside knowledge of how the rendering is done while I have come to realize that this game has a lot of raw processing going on in the background hence our different perspectives, I guess. Sorry if explanation will seem a little technical, however we are talking about rendering engine. First, my educated guess is that during orders phase, when bullets are not flying, only rendering is done (well, i should add that user input is also handled). Since even during that phase FPS is low, I was curious what was happening. It is really easy to trace what OpenGL calls CM is doing with the help of some open source OGL tracers. Trace log showed that during one frame a huge amount of OGL state changes was done. Anyone doing programming in OGL knows that state change incurs a lot of overhead which in turn reduces fps. It seems that rendering engine doesn't sort geometry by texture, which many optimized rendering engines do. A simple example what happens under the hood and what I mean: Set texture A Render geometry 1 Set texture B Render geometry 2 Set texture A Render geometry 3 This constant change in texture back and forth (and other related OGL states) is fps killer. That's why driver implementation and some optimizations at the driver level is very important if engine itself is not optimized. Interesting, thank you. And like I said, Nvidia's implementation of OGL is much better suited for CM rendering engine. Humm, humm, mind you if Nvida's implementation matches better to CM is it really CM that has the issue? Not really an important question since that is not likely to change much in the near future and since it just makes choosing Nvida to play CM stronger. One might not like it but there it is. Having said that, CM is a wonderful game even if it is not very well optimized. It is the only game I launch every day and I enjoy every release of it. Optimizing rendering engine takes a lot of effort. Well on that we agree - it is the only game I play daily as well. While my machine is primarily for my photo hobby certain choices were made to accommodate CM - Nvida being one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Rough cut on graphics cards and CM: Yeah, Nvidia is a bit better than an equally powerful AMD card. AMD cards use more power than equivalent Nvidia cards (and produce more heat as an obvious corollary). AMD cards cost less than an equivalent Nvidia card. The biggest issue on the horizon is DX12. Apparently, AMD's latest generation is better at DX12 than Nvidia. (The see-saw will tip, etc.) If ALL you care about is CM, then Nvidia. In MOST cases, I'd still recommend Nvidia. (I've built and run over a dozen rigs for my own use, and switch back and forth from brands. I'm not a "fanboy" of either party. My only bias is towards greater gpu memory. I'll pay for the 4Gb model over the same model in 2Gb, every time. Others may disagree.) So, once you determine the brand, then you need to determine how much card you want. The biggest factor in that will be your screen resolution and your budget. CM is not a big stressor on cards. You can run a lot of CM on less card than it'd take with some of the first-person shooters which are out there. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 Good info, although I still feel lost in trying to choose one on New Egg. Can someone make some suggestions on what card to get... I'm building a new rig with this motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128627 And this processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113327 Want a mid-level card that will comfortably play CM at the highest settings for the current games that are out. My budget is around $130 for the card. The ones that I'm looking at on New Egg are these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487024&cm_re=geforce_video_card-_-14-487-024-_-Product http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125502&cm_re=geforce_video_card-_-14-125-502-_-Product Stupid question...what does "support GeForce" mean on the product description? I'm interested in knowing if either of these are good choices or if you can recommend something else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) I'm using a Gigabyte GTX660Ti ( also with 2Gb memory ) at the moment and run everything at Best/Best with nary a stutter, so either of those should be fine for CM. ( note, I'm not a fps fanatic - if I can't see the difference with my naked eye, it's good enough for me ) I've not used an EVGA made one before, but as I understand it, Gigabyte have the edge in cooling - which appears to be borne out by those screenshots - the Gigabyte has 2 fans and the EVGA has one. Edited September 8, 2015 by Baneman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysfish Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Stupid question...what does "support GeForce" mean on the product description? You should read it as "G-Sync support" Here is explanation what it is http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync By the way, from the cards you provided, i guess i would choose EVGA if you don't know anything about overclocking. The EVGA card is already overclocked to 1176 MHz base clock, and Gigabyte is overclocked only to 1033 MHz. In theory you should get slightly higher frames per second with EVGA. Edited September 8, 2015 by alwaysfish 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Smash Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I play with an onboard HD4600 with a HD monitor. That is fast enough on highest settings except for when there are lots of trees swaying in the wind. So my guess is anything half decent will do (unless you have 4k). Lucky man. I have an onboard HD4000 and it looks like crap. The OpenGL support is awful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm in a similar situation, so I'm joining the discussion, hoping to get some advice too. My GPU is dying and I'm looking for a replacement. A year ago I discussed options for a new GPU with Schrullenhaft and others on the RT Tech Support Forum (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/115773-need-some-advice-on-out-of-memory-troubles/?hl=bandwidth#entry1543127) I didn´t get a new GPU back then, but now I can´t avoid replacing it and my finances have improved a bit. Judging from the advice I got back then - as well as this thread - it seems that the most important factors when getting a GPU for playing CM (that is almost the only game I play) are: Bandwidth and Nvidia. So I've been looking around and have decided to get this one: ZOTAC GeForce GTX 760 (2 GB) But I'd appreciate to hear any pros and/or cons from you guys before I actually buy it (guess I dont have to ask what IanL thinks ) Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 But I'd appreciate to hear any pros and/or cons from you guys before I actually buy it (guess I dont have to ask what IanL thinks ) LOL I was ready to post my recommendation and you stole my thunder . I am happy with it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Performance-spec-wise this video card should work fine for CM. Reading some reviews from users on Newegg mentions that it does 'run hot' and it isn't the best reference design heatsink in this case. Several customers mention adjusting the 'fan speed control' so that the fans are running at a fairly high RPM to keep it cool. Otherwise it appears to be a good purchase for CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Thanks a lot for the comments. The heating issue worries me a bit, though, so I've been looking around for alternatives. Here are some I found, but I'm a bit out of my depth here: They seem to be different versions of the same card - but with seemingly more/larger (better?) fans. Can any of you tell me if these are better at cooling than the Zotac (couldn't find cooling related reviews)? MSI N760 TwinFrozr 2GD5/OC, 2GB DDR5 Gigabyte GeForce GTX 760 WindForce 3X OC, 2GB GDDR5, 2x DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort Edit: Managed to find reviews of the MSI card. Looks much better heatwise. Any reason not to get this instead (it is actually cheaper here)? Edited September 10, 2015 by umlaut 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Col_Deadmarsh, I would recommend sticking with an Nvidia chipset. Do not get anything less than a GTX 750. They are relatively affordable and nothing really over the top for anyone building a system and expecting to have decent grunt to play CM and many other games. CM is the least of you worries when it comes to finding a suitable gfx card CM is not really the kind of game that plays better even with the latest gfx cards. Gameplay performance in CM seems to be capped by other factors, which I think are inherent to the game and the way it is coded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.