Graphics card question. Should I or shouldn't I?

[misha1967]

Yes, I know, that's a loaded question because we all have our preferences, but I'm asking to hear from people who've done the same as I'm contemplating or something similar. I could have also put it in "General", but really the only reason I'm even thinking about it is because of SH5. It runs just fine on my current setup, but I wouldn't mind a little extra "oomph" to push the FPS up a bit.

My "old" 2 and half year Phenom II X4, 4GB Vista 64 box still runs everything I want quite satisfactorily even though I might not always be able to push it to 8x8 AA (which, at 1920x1080 is a waste if you ask me), and I'm perfectly happy with its 30FPS even when there's a lot going on.

But I was thinking about upgrading my GTX 260 to a GTX 570 since they're so damned cheap and wondering if anybody has done something similar and what their experience was. Yes, I know the GTX 580 is even faster, but then I'd have to get a new PSU due to the power config which, if necessary, I'd be happy to, but I'd rather not if I can avoid it.

And yes, I know that nVidia has a problem with sun flare, I've known that for a decade, but it doesn't really matter all that much to me. What I like about them is that they're generally rock solid out of the box and you don't have to spend a week tweaking and hunting alternate drivers like you have to with a lot of the ATIs, even though I'll be the first to admit that they're bloody awesome GPUs, no fault on that. They kick a certain part of your anatomy once you get them tuned right. :up:

But I know nVidia, I've never been disappointed with them and they're generally quiet, cool and tough.

So, is it worth it? My current 260 runs fine, cool and quiet and the last thing I want is a card that heats up my entire room and sounds like a Boeing wind tunnel.

Oh, my PSU is 800W.

Any thoughts most welcome.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I've recently gone from a GTS 250 to a GTX 560 Ti OC, I'd never played SH5 until I'd got the new card but in other games it's a definate boost. I've been more than happy - and I think you will be too. :yeah:

[Sepp von Ch.]

I had nVIDIA 9800GTX and now I have GTX 560 Ti. Is absolutely great for all modded SH sims. SH5 works now very well by me (and with 64 bit system).

[TheDarkWraith]

any 500 series GTX card you'll be happy with. Just look at the specs of the 200 series compared to the 500 series...it's a no brainer!

[misha1967]

Thanks! I appreciate it :up:

Always nice to hear from somebody who's tried already :DL

[TheDarkWraith]

Thanks! I appreciate it :up:

Always nice to hear from somebody who's tried already :DL

I upgraded from GTX280 to GTX480 then to GTX590. The leap from GTX280 to GTX480 was night and day difference. The next leap to GTX590 was incredible :D

[misha1967]

I upgraded from GTX280 to GTX480 then to GTX590. The leap from GTX280 to GTX480 was night and day difference. The next leap to GTX590 was incredible :D

I've heard good things about the 590, yes.

And I'm fairly certain, just from the numbers alone, that I'll be quite happy going from my old 260 (which still, today, is a pretty damn good card I might add. Churning out 30-35 FPS leaving Kiel with everything but "shadows" cranked up to pretty and OHII installed isn't bad for a three year old card :up:) to a spanking new 570 :D

But numbers are one thing, Liking the card is quite another and, as I'm sure you know, when you research a card on the web reviews go from "hate it" to "best thing since sliced bread". Researching the 500 series alone I had everything from "awesome, runs cool, quiet and beats the snot out of every game I throw at it" to "stuttery, unreliable, hot as an oven, sounds like a jet turbine even at moderate load."

Sometimes I wonder if they're talking about the same card :hmmm:

So that's why I asked the family here at SubSim because I know that we have quite a bit in common and I'd much rather hear from somebody I know who is actually using the thing than some snooty reviewer who just plugged it in and ran it for two hours so he could write a 300 word review. I'd rather ask my friends :DL

I settled on the 570 because it wouldn't require anything from me other than unplugging the old and plugging in the new. I'll rebuild completely one day anyway, and then I'll take it all from top to bottom, but right now I just want better performance with a minimum of hassle, and the 570 is a bloody steal at the price.

So it's in the mail even as we speak. Can't wait :yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

I think you'll be happy. The only 'problem' I've ever had with nVidia cards was the GTX480. That thing ran hot and the fan was loud as hell. The GTX590 is quiet, runs cool, and is a monster of a card.

I was a ATI user before buying my first nVidia card (a 100 series card). After that first nVidia card I've been with nVidia ever since. You just can't beat nVidia. The company I always bought my cards from was BFGTech because they gave lifetime warranty on them. Since they went out of business I now buy all my cards from EVGA since they give a lifetime warrantly with their cards. Warranty is something I consider when I put down large $ on these video cards :yep:

[0rpheus]

I upgraded to a slightly overclocked, extra cooled 570 a month or so ago and love it - you won't be disappointed ;)

[misha1967]

Just to close this one out, I would like to annoy everybody by posting my initial impressions of the 570 that I just got today. I like closure. If it's irrelevant to this forum, please accept my apologies and feel free to lock, move or do whatever you want to this thread. :DL

As I said, it arrived today. Now, since my old card was a 260, I wasn't surprised by the heft and size of the 570. Particularly not the size as I have made a habit of checking the physical dimensions before I order anything for my home-rolled rigs. Nothing sucks worse than having spent days or longer looking forward to plugging a new piece of hardware in, only to find out that it doesn't fit your box. Which is why every box I've built over the last several years (taught by bitter experience) has had the biggest tower I could find without having to tell the family to give up a room of the house. The size of the tower is the least of your expenses. Go for plenty of space. You may need it later. Plus, PCs really like lots of air circulating around their components. But I digress.

I do that a lot. For instance, just the other day as I was driving to work... OK, that's enough. Stop it, Misha! Sorry about that. Voices in my head and all that... :03:

Actually the main reason for settling on the 570 instead of the 580 or 590 was that, physically speaking, it's almost identical to the 260. When I have to build a new rig, I'm upgrading everything. I always do that. Push it until it can be pushed no further, then I build a new one from the bottom up with all the bells and whistles.

Anyway, as you kind people of my Subsim family had told me, I wouldn't be unhappy with upgrading from the 260 to the 570. No brainer, to be sure, but it helps hearing from people you actually trust.

So I pulled the old one out, put the new one in and turned it on. I'll be gracious and skip the boring wait while my system recognized the new card and the fact that I'd finally moved into the 21st century and started using DVI instead of the VGA adapter. I'll skip it mostly because of what I did while waiting. It involves Malaysian midgets, questionable substances and other stuff that is entirely improper for this family-oriented forum. What? You think I'm kidding?

I'll post pictures later.

Then it was time for the field test. Start up SH5 and find out if I'd just burned another part of the kids' college fund for nothing.

Holy, merciful, sweet... I mean... Really?

To provide you with my frame of (highly unstable) mind, I generally say that anything that can push 30 fps reliably is good. That's about the speed that the human brain processes pictures and it has worked and still works fine for the movies, so anything above 30 is just gravy. Dips during high intensity sessions to 20-25 are acceptable to me, provided that it's temporary. It doesn't "ruin" anything. That's my floor level. I like things higher, but that's as far as I will go into the low numbers before starting to get mildly annoyed.

My 260 did that just fine, which isn't bad for a card I've had for two and a half years. Actually, SH5 was the first bit of software to push it down close to the floor, although I've had to push graphics setting down below "Saints preserve us, this is beautiful!" to "good looking" for a year or so.

This baby clocked out a minimum of 80 without me even tweaking it on my previous settings, which weren't bad at all. I found it slightly amusing, though, that my FPS increased when going into the sub as opposed to outside, as the 260 dropped to a quite acceptable 35 below decks but could easily run 50-60 above. I was running 90 below with the 570.

"Alright", I thought to myself, "these are baby settings for a card due to be replaced, let's see how you handle a challenge."

So I started out increasing particles. Not a move in the FPS. Then I yanked the AA up to 4x4. Not as much as a stutter. Now, 4x4 is, in my opinion, as far as you ever need to go if your screen is true HD. Above that, you're just wasting GPU cycles. It's worth it to go to 2x2, even 1x1 will look prettier if your card can handle it and I hate "jaggies", nothing ruins my fun more than zig-zagging lines, but beyond that it's cheaper to blur your vision by putting on your old glasses or buying a pair with the wrong strength at the grocery store. But, undeterred, I kicked it up to 8x8. The card just yawned at me as if to say "is that the best you can do?"

So I turned on the dynamic shadows, the one thing I know will suck up resources in this sim, but it barely made a difference either. Increasingly desperate to prove that I could make this card beg for mercy, I added every single one of the environmental options too. Terrain object density, the sun's flickering on the sub's hull, transparent waves, accurate modeling of the sun's reflection in the drops when Bernard takes a leak over the side of the Wintergarden, anything that damn sim would let me do and I still couldn't get it, even while pushing it above what I even wanted, get it to drop any further than 50, and that was in brief spurts of about a fraction of a second duration. I even tried turning on vsync to deliberately sabotage it for no good reason and it still wouldn't cry uncle and surrender.

All of this just to confirm that what y'all said about me being happy with it was absolutely true. I can't even begin to imagine what two of these things in SLI would do and, really, I have no need to find out.

My only thing is that I can actually hear the fan. Actually hear it as in "if somebody is breathing anywhere near me, I can't hear it anymore", which is a far cry from what some people said in their reviews that it sounded like a wind turbine. But I couldn't hear the 260 at all. Many's the time I thought it was dead. But that's actually an advantage. I can hear that the fan on the 570 is running if I listen really, really closely. And who has time for that with Grossdeutscher Rundfunk running and Bernard farting like he's been eating nothing but bean burritos for a month?

Anyway, this is not really a review, it's just a way of me thanking all of you for chiming in and encouraging an upgrade that I am really, really happy with :up:

[Bothersome]

Well, it all got a good chuckle out of me. :D

Glad you're happy with it. I run my 2 GTX 470 cards in SLI for everything 3D.

I've got my setting turned up to max also, Now, all you need is some mods to make use of all the capabilities that card can crunch.

Real Environment is the prettiest. But Dynamic Environment will make just about any card heat up. NVidia uses variable speed fans on their good cards. So if you want to hear that hair dryer blowing... Put on DE.

DE makes the view distance further out. And other things too I suppose. Drawing a million waves to glitter off the sunlight is gonna create some heat.

My two cards ran so hot, I had to add active cooling to my system.

[misha1967]

Well, it all got a good chuckle out of me. :D

Glad you're happy with it. I run my 2 GTX 470 cards in SLI for everything 3D.

I've got my setting turned up to max also, Now, all you need is some mods to make use of all the capabilities that card can crunch.

Real Environment is the prettiest. But Dynamic Environment will make just about any card heat up. NVidia uses variable speed fans on their good cards. So if you want to hear that hair dryer blowing... Put on DE.

DE makes the view distance further out. And other things too I suppose. Drawing a million waves to glitter off the sunlight is gonna create some heat.

My two cards ran so hot, I had to add active cooling to my system.

Glad you liked it :DL

I do tend to get a little bit long-winded, but I try to make up for it by being light-hearted as well. And, besides, if I'm boring myself just typing it, it's a pretty sure sign that it's not in any way fit for public consumption. :03:

Two 470s in SLI? Is there anything that rig won't run? I'm impressed.

I'm not too concerned about the fan as I would never leave port without DynEnv, and even when the old 260 was struggling, and I do mean struggling, to keep it at 30 with everything on, it still wouldn't as much as whisper. It's a damn good card and now I have one for people looking for an entry card. And the solo 570, even when I deliberately tried to punish it for no good reason other than to prove that I am a bloody sadist, only barely made a hum.

[Bothersome]

Actually, there is one program I've been unable to get this computer to run at all.... Entropia Universe. It will not get to the login screen. But, I don't think it is video card related though.

My brother has the 560, and I was very impressed with it.

[Flam3]

I have recently went from a GTX 465 to 2x GTX 560's in SLI and I have to say i'm extremely happy with the performance and the graphics! I was advised to get 2x GTX 560's instead of the one GTX 570 by a friend of mine who has been working with computers for most of his life so he knew his stuff and i'm happy I took his advice. For the 2 GTX 560's it was only about £10 more than one GTX 570.

[misha1967]

Not to obsessively keep this thread alive, but I've made some interesting observations after the upgrade and I was wondering if anybody else has seen the same.

Like I said, the new card obviously kicks some serious behind compared to the old one, I won't go further into that. My observations are about the reliability of the internal FPS function in the sim itself.

I first had a "what?" moment when I returned to Wilhelmshaven and noticed a "drop" to about 30 fps while seeing nothing that would indicate such a drop when looking around, panning, zooming, doing anything I could think of that would normally (with the old 260) make things slow down and become a bit "jerky." This was still with everything cranked up which I never could with the old one.

I thought nothing of it initially, docked, saved, did the usual in between patrol things, then shut down. Then I loaded it back up and saw that the sim was reporting 28-32 fps in the bunker. That's fine, but it was no better than what I got with the 260 and, even more interesting, my mouse lag was gone and everything was smooth as silk, even though the sim insisted that I was doing no better than before. Oh well, I thought, who cares as long as it play well, but I was still mystified. So I started out a new patrol, left the pen and, once I'd gotten over how beautiful everything looked with everything turned up to max (which is something considering how beautiful this sim looks at the moderate settings I was using before), I noted that it was still reporting "low" fps in the 30 range. I left the pen and it dropped even lower, but performance wise it was perfect. Everything smooth, no tears when panning, no problems at all and the mouse was moving swiftly without lag. Now believe me, I KNOW the difference between 25 and 60 fps, but it was behaving like 60 while reporting 25. Later on, it "dropped even lower, all the way down to 20, but it was still behaving as if it was really running 60-70.

So now I was REALLY curious. I went into the settings and turned off everything, everything that you can turn off and on on the fly without a restart, anyway, particularly the shadows which is a REAL fps killer. It didn't register at all on the internal CTRL+F8 fps counter. Still "stuck at 20-25" with behavior like I was running more like 70.

So I cranked up the setting even further. Everything that I could turn on, shadows cranked to max, every single environmental effect there, and the only effect on the sim was that I almost fainted with admiration at how beautiful it looked but the fps didn't budge an inch even though everything was still running as smooth as silk.

So I'm wondering if that internal fps thingy is really reporting what you're seeing. Funny thing is, when I was on the old 260, I could see the result of my changes immediately. Now I can't.

It's not a "problem", as such, far from it, who cares about the number that the sim churns out as long as everything works like a wonder? I'm just curious and wondering if anybody has seen anything like it. The only thing that I changed other than the card was finally going from VGA to DVI when I put the new card in. I'm wondering if that messes up the way the sim "measures" fps. I know that when the new card went in nVidia Control Panel has it set to HD instead of just the plain old PC 1920x1080. I suppose I could try to switch back to the old DVI to VGA adapter and set the resolution to the old option, but really, why do so? It's working perfectly, I'm just curious is all.

And now I'll stop babbling about my silly card :03:

Bottom line is I'm happy, very happy, I'm just wondering if anybody has seen anything like this just to confirm that I'm not going completely and utterly crazy which, knowing me, is a distinct possibility. :03:

EDIT: And as a reassurance to people who upgrade like I did but take their data from the internal fps counter and might think that they just blew a chunk load of money on nothing at all. It's a field of interest of mine too, which is why I've wasted time on finding out how our eyes and brains process images and, combined with my passion for computers, made me interested in just where the "cut-off point" is where further improvements really don't matter because our brains don't notice anyway, such as the "30 fps" rule. If you see a difference between, say, 40 and 90 fps it's not because you're actually seeing it because your brain can't process the difference (much like going to 16.7 million colors on your computer display quality is pointless as your brain can't tell the difference between that many colors anyway), it's because your eyes and brains pick up on the brief drop below 30 fps while you're panning or zooming, even though you may not pick up on it by looking at the fps counter.

[TheDarkWraith]

sounds like you need the anti-lag mod now :yep:

[THE_MASK]

sounds like you need the anti-lag mod now :yep:yep ,
[config]
RenderAheadLimit=2
FPSlimit=38

[misha1967]

I'll try it. It's dead easy to use but it didn't do anything for me in the past. The thing is, there is nothing wrong with my new card, it's running like a champ, I can't believe the difference, it's just that there is a huge difference between what CTRL+F8 tells me and what I'm actually seeing.

If the in-game fps counter was truthful, I should be seeing jerky movement and changes but I'm not. SH5 has never run better. I don't even have horizontal tear when panning like crazy, but still the game insists that I'm only running at 15-20 fps, which is nonsense. I know what that looks like and I'm not seeing that at all. Even with everything cranked up to maximum everything is running smooth no matter what the game is telling me.

Which is why I think that the game doesn't know how to handle DVI interfaces. Because based on what the game tells me about my frame rates I should be hating it, but the actual truth is that it has never looked better. I just can't crank the settings up high enough to make it stutter now, no matter what CTRL+F8 tells me. Which is obviously not a problem, it's just strange.

But I'll run a test on it, just to satisfy my curiosity. I'll try the anti-lag even though I don't need it, and I'll even try to switch it back to the old DVI to VGA adapter and see if the fps fit better with what I'm seeing but, bottom line, I have never seen it run better than it does now no matter what the game tells me. I'm a very happy camper, my new card has changed everything for the better, I just don't understand the disconnect between the game fps counter and what I'm seeing. Because what I'm seeing is a card that I can't push too hard no matter what I try.

It takes everything I throw at it and laughs at it.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is just how informative the fps counter is. Because I'm seeing performance that I couldn't get with a reported fps of 60 on the old card on a reported 20 fps on the new one, and that just doesn't make sense.

[tonschk]

I just can't crank the settings up high enough to make it stutter now, no matter what CTRL+F8 tells me. Which is obviously not a problem, it's just strange.



If you want to increase even more the dynamic shadows resolution (and kill even more FPS) , change the "HighResolution=1536 " number of the Shadows settings to 5000 or above 5000 and you will see a huge FPS dropping

Ubisoft/Silent Hunter 5/data/Cfg/Shadows

[Shadows]
NumCascades=3
LowResolution=1024
HighResolution=1536

[Interior]
FarPlane=1.0
ExtrudeCamera=5.0
DepthBias=0.0005
DepthSlopeBias=1.0
Split0=0.07
Split1=0.27
Split2=1.0
FilterSizeSplit0=1
FilterSizeSplit1=1
FilterSizeSplit2=1

[Bridge]
FarPlane=15.0
ExtrudeCamera=12.0
DepthBias=0.002
DepthSlopeBias=2.0
Split0=0.07
Split1=0.3
Split2=1.0
FilterSizeSplit0=2
FilterSizeSplit1=1
FilterSizeSplit2=1

[Exterior]
FarPlane=160.0
ExtrudeCamera=50.0
DepthBias=0.0015
DepthSlopeBias=1.0
Split0=0.1
Split1=0.33
Split2=1.0
FilterSizeSplit0=2
FilterSizeSplit1=1
FilterSizeSplit2=1

[TheDarkWraith]

I'll try it. It's dead easy to use but it didn't do anything for me in the past. The thing is, there is nothing wrong with my new card, it's running like a champ, I can't believe the difference, it's just that there is a huge difference between what CTRL+F8 tells me and what I'm actually seeing.

ctrl+F8 works correctly for me (framerates locked at 60 due to having v-sync on). I don't use the anti-lag mod and have a GTX590.

[Swat]

misha1967: Just read your post about your new 570. Looks like money well spent. Enjoy the performance and SH5 with everything maxed out. Just wondering though what is your cpu clock? Because SH 3/4/5 are very cpu demanding especially when there's lots of things going on (harbours especially). I have 560 Ti slightly oveclocked from 900/1800/4200 to 950/1900/4400, but then I got Core i5 760 2,8 GHz set to 4,0 GHz. Nothing special since Intel Core family cpu overclocking is a piece of cake (in most cases) and there are much bigger beasts than my Core i5 760. But with default clock I can be easily minus 10, 12 fps in cpu demanding situations. At 4 GHz everything is butter smooth well few hickups here and there when I load the game first time and walk through the sub first time. After that no problem whatsoever. I have antilag in the game folder set to 45 fps and that's it. I am very immersion addict player, when something's not running the way I want I just don't play it at all. My opinion is that fps hunting is nonsense. The task of a day is to make the game run smooth according to the preferences of the player. !PREFERENCES OF THE PLAYER! So when you say you had 30+ fps with your old card and it was fine for YOU I totally understand. Because I'm same at this point. Of course when something runs at 60 V-Sync On it's good. But with the settings possibilities of the games, settings in control panel of gpu and other utilities it is possible to bring to life nearly any game today. And if anyone tells me that anything below 60 fps is not sufficient then I don't listen, because it's not true (ok, MP player need high fps). I played Fallout 3 in 37-38 frames locked in ini file and I enjoyd 198 hours playthrough. But guess what - I had this framerate in any possible situation, my whole living room could explode and I still had the constant framerate. And for me that's one of the main reasons why I enjoyed it so much. No immersion brakers, no 'what ifs', no switching to menu in the middle of action etc etc. Same with SH now. 45 fps when leaving Kiel, 45 fps when refitting in Wilhelmshaven, 45 fps when being depthcharged and watching it with camera under water...and that's it. Maybe focus on your cpu clock a bit (no harm to oc it little bit especially when you play SH), lock your frames in antilag or nV Inspector, with your 570 maybe you'll be able to go to 50 or even higher. The point is to set the fps limit to the in-game MINIMUM. Than you'll enjoy clean gameplay with no surprises. All right then, I can see that we're two talkative skippers here:yep:

Sink them all:salute:

[misha1967]

All right then, I can see that we're two talkative skippers here:yep:

Sink them all:salute:

Tell me about it! :haha: Everybody I know will say that the biggest problem with me isn't to get me to talk, it's to get me to shut up again once I get started :haha:

Anyway, I know by now that it's the in-game fps counter that is confused by my setup, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the card. If I go to options and turn off everything, and I do mean everything that can be turned off in-game, including zeroing out particle density and environment details, the fps doesn't budge by as much as a frame. It stays ticking along at about close to 30 fps just as it does with everything cranked up to awesome, and the subjective measurement tells me no difference as well. Still smooth as silk, and that's just not possible. There has to be a difference between "all max" and "all off" if the counter is working properly.

Not that this is a "problem." All I care about is that it looks, runs and feels right and boy does it ever. With everything cranked up it is running, by my eyes' measurement, way way higher than 30 no matter what, so who cares what the counter says?

I think I've also sussed out what causes the confusion for the counter. When I switched to pure DVI instead of the adapter, nVidia Control Panel installed a new display setting and switched to it, called "HD 1080i, 1920x1080", as opposed to the old setting with a DVI to VGA adapter, which was "1920x1080 (native)". Also, I can't switch to the old setting anymore. Well, I can, but the Control Panel automatically reverts to the new one whether I accept the old setting or not. Also, and I think that's the real clue here, the new DVI setting that nVidia insists on using now has a refresh rate of, wait for it, 29Hz, as in "29 refreshes per second." Which, when I think about it, is remarkably similar to the "about 30fps" that the counter insists that I'm running in no matter what my lying eyes tell me :03:

I suppose I could confirm by slapping the DVI to VGA adapter back on the card and hooking up my monitor that way but, hey, I'm not sure I even care. OK, I probably will out of silly curiosity, but it's certainly not because I'm concerned or bothered by anything. :DL

EDIT: OK, now I know that something happened to make my CTRL+F8 delusional :haha: I couldn't help myself, so I went back to the VGA adapter just to check it out, and it didn't change a thing. FPS doesn't change a bit no matter how much I play with the settings, and at all settings it runs like a champ. Also, when I went to the nav map (F3) and used TC, my FPS dropped to single digits above TC128, however, it didn't change the actual performance one bit. And I know from previous experience when I'd messed up my mod soup something fierce in the past, that if FPS are in single digits on the nav map, then the controls are sluggish, the movement of your sub stuttery and your keyboard doesn't respond instantly to changes in TC. In this case, however, none of that happened. Still smooth and responsive as ever, even though CTRL+F8 reports frame rates from the 1980s :haha:

I have no idea what I did that caused this, nor is it really that important as everything is running famously well, I guess I'll just have to stop paying attention to what the silly FPS counter is trying to tell me :03:

[misha1967]

I've tried everything I could think of. Re-installing the graphics drivers, re-installing the game, even replacing all of my mods with "clean" ones from download, but this thing keeps acting strange.

(EDIT: It shows the same behavior in "stock" mode prior to enabling any mods, although with a higher FPS, but it still shows no response to changes in graphics settings).

I can't for the life of me push the FPS above 20-30 with high activity and, what is even more strange, I can turn the detail on the options screen in-game up and down from "all low" to "all high" without even the slightest change in FPS. It's as if the game completely ignores my input.

I also checked NVIDIA control panel to make sure it didn't have any overrides, and it doesn't, so everything should be controlled from within the game.

Oh, and I tried anti-lag too. No change from that either other than my mouse moves "jaggedly" when it's enabled. The FPS are unchanged.

:hmmm:

[Swat]

Misha, I hope I'm not missing the point here. But from what I've read it still seems to me that your 570 needs more juice from the cpu. My previous card was 275 combined with Core2Duo E6600 at 2.4 GHz stock clock. I've installed 275 and the boost was not exactly what I've expected. So I've oc'd my cpu one day to 3.24 GHz (anything beyond was unstable + I didn't have sufficient cooling back then). And after that I got performance boost from gpu I was finally happy with.

Then I've upgraded cpu to Core i5 running at 2.8 GHz stock and with Turbo Boost function it's running at some 3.4 (not sure right now and I don't care - will explain later). And 275 performed even better. I was already happy with the boost I got from oc'd Cor2Duo, but this Core i5 took it up couple of notches again.

And finally few months later I bought 560 Ti. Again the gpu performance boost was more than noticable, but I thought there's no harm to squezze the maximum out of my rig. Got the new and bigger case, bought decent cpu cooler and oveclocked Core i5 from 2.8 to 4.07 GHz. New case, new cooler, Turbo Boost Off so it's 4.07 GHz all the time. Temperatures in idle around 40 C°, heavy load around 70 C°. 560 Ti nails anything I throw at her within some reasonable settings of course. I play all my games in 1920x1080 so no need to go crazy with FSAA, but still even this SH5 runs with everything maxed out with 4XFSAA (not sure about the value, but I have that FSAA in-game slider in 3/4 to the right, or could be 4/5? Definitely above above 50% of its range).

I do have noticable framerate differences when I adjust different settings which means the gpu has enough cpu power you know? Because when fiddling with settings and not noticing any framerate differences that's a sign of weak cpu in most cases. And especially in case of SH. It is very cpu demanding game, there's lots of things going on not only around harbours. I'm no programmer or developer, but I can imagine that the engine still has to generate certain events, shipping movement etc. even we don't see it on the screen. My suggestion is that your Phenom X4 is not enough for 570.

[misha1967]

I think you're on to something there, Swat.

It would make sense, after all. In that case it would be a matter of the GPU sitting around waiting for the CPU.

Hmmm... Before I crank open the case and start plopping in new CPUs or even (shudder), start from the bottom and put a new MoBo in there, I think I'll hit the CPU with some OC to see if that makes a diff. If it does, then I've identified the problem. If it makes enough of a diff (and the CPU is still stable), then there's no problem :DL

Thanks for the tip, Swat! :up:

[misha1967]

So far, Swat, it looks like you nailed it!

I guess I should have thought about that, the Phenom 9850 is getting a bit old in the tooth (I could've sworn it was a II), but I'm so old that I'm not used to the CPU being the bottleneck. It used to be that programmers couldn't throw enough at the CPU to tax it (unless it was really, really old), so upgrading usually meant putting in a new GPU and some extra RAM. Those were the days :O:

You're right. SH5 really is CPU intensive. It's also the most beautiful sim I've ever seen.

Anyway, I OC'ed the CPU and managed to squeak it up to almost 2.9GHz (I tried for higher, but that bricked the box :eek:. A bit of CPR brought it back, though), which helped quite a bit. It can get me out of Kiel in the middle of rush hour with both OHII and DynEnv enabled without going below 20FPS and staying comfortably around 25 to 28 most of the time. Outside of port it's smooooth sailing, and I'm not planning to have any naval battles in Kiel anyway. I think the OKM might disapprove.

The OC seems quite stable, I ran SH5 for 3 hours without a hiccup, so I think (touch wood) that I'm good. I guess I'll just have to build a new box around the 570 one day :03:.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :salute:

[0rpheus]

Just another random thought Misha - just noticed this in the OHII thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1856133&postcount=829
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1856203&postcount=830
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1856237&postcount=832


Looks like running the screen capture (intentionally or not) will also give your fps a good kicking as it tries to snap each frame. If your SH5 folder looks like the one in that first link, it might be that - seems CTRL-F11 takes a single screenshot, while SHIFT-F11 starts the screen capture, where it runs until it's switched off by the same key combination.

I never use those keys, but it does occur to me if you're using F8 etc for fps counter, maybe you hit SHIFT-F11 by accident, started the capture (since it only occurred at the end of your patrol) and seen the frames drop?

CPU explanation is also very likely - you want a Core i5 to get the best out of the GTX570 - but figured it couldn't hurt to check this too :salute:

[Swat]

Misha1967: Glad I could help. Now take this as my personal opinion. First I tell you that I'm no particular fan of AMD or Intel. I just want performance and whichever cpu performs better and will be within my financial capabilities then I'll buy it, no matter whether it is AMD or Intel. Honestly your new 570 would deserve some more 'easy going' cpu brother. Because now it seems that all that 570 performance is not available to you. And you've payed for that right? You've payed for performance. Obviously it's non of my concern how much you can afford to spend for some new cpu. But if you decide for cpu upgrade then go for Intel in these days. AMD is cheaper indeed, but you can get Intel's for some reasonable prices today and it will be proper performer for 570. And overclocking of Intel cpu's with some average cooler is easier than you would think. After that I believe that 570 will send that sub off the screen ramming your face. No really it's a shame running this game at 30 fps when you have 570 under the hood. (I mean 'hood, not Hood'):arrgh!:.

Edit: I wouldn't even go for Core i5 that I have any more. I guess Orpheus above me also meant Core i5-2500, you'll be more than happy with that one. Maybe you will not even have to touch it, but if you overclock it little bit then I can guarantee that 570 will go berserk.

[TheDarkWraith]

A good AMD Phenom II X4 or X6 will do it justice also :yep:

Been running AMD for over 15 years. I love the underdog because it's always cheaper ;) My 590 had no problems with an X4 when I was using that CPU.

[0rpheus]

Edit: I wouldn't even go for Core i5 that I have any more. I guess Orpheus above me also meant Core i5-2500, you'll be more than happy with that one. Maybe you will not even have to touch it, but if you overclock it little bit then I can guarantee that 570 will go berserk.


Yeah, sorry, should have made that more clear. An i5 2500 is basically the best gaming CPU (for the price point) at the moment (I don't know about AMD systems though). Pretty much every mag, website and personal recommendation I've seen has been for the 2500 - great stability and good overclocking.

I have a Core i5 750 overclocked to 3.6gig, and it's holding up well, but I think I'll probably move up to the 2500 in a year or so. Copes with SH5 and my 570 just fine though. :up:

[Swat]

Same here. Core i5 760 @ 4.07 GHz + 560Ti @ 950/1900/4400. Can't complain really.:rock:

[THE_MASK]

I run an i5 quad core 2.6 overclocked to 3.2 on the stock cooler . I use the intel speedstep so 95 % of the day its running at the slower speed .

[misha1967]

Great advice all of it, thanks! :DL

Quite needed too when you've been out of the CPU market for a while like I have. Got good service out of that Phenom. And it's still OK. After all, the "low" FPS of 25-30 is in Kiel harbor with all of the traffic, seagulls, buoys, weirdos on the quay flashing my crew etc. :03:. Once I'm away from all of those distractions, she runs quite fine.

But it's still obviously true that she's not living up to her full potential with that CPU, so I'll eventually have to upgrade.

As to AMD vs. Intel, my personal preference for AMD goes back to the day when Intel was pushing Pentiums that couldn't do math out to market. I know, they're not like that anymore, but that just generally pushed me in AMDs direction, and you tend to stick with what you know. Of course, that's not relevant today and hasn't been for a long time, so I'm not particularly "stuck" on one or the other. I just want the best performance.

The other thing, which is relevant today as opposed to those ancient times, is that AMDs, as mentioned, tend to be quite a bit cheaper than Intel's offerings. On the other hand, Intel's chips run really, really cool from what I gather and I do know from personal experience that AMDs tend to get a bit hot under the collar, particularly if you don't install a good aftermarket cooler.

As to OC stability, I haven't had any trouble with the AMDs other than the temp issue which, as I said, is easy to correct with a good fan and heatsink. Except when I'm experimenting, of course, but the point there is to see when it becomes unstable, so it's really not the CPUs fault. Once I found a good setting for this one, it appeared to be rock solid.

And I hear the same thing about the Intels, stability-wise and OC capacity. Lots of headroom above the "stock" frequency.

For now I'll just see how it goes. If I have to do a rebuild I will, but if I can hold it off for a bit (I do so loathe reinstalling everything :o), it'll work.

Thanks again :up:

[misha1967]

Final note, and I'm only including that since it might help somebody doing the same thing that I did, namely upgrading the GPU to get better performance and being disappointed at the results. After this, I'll quit wasting bandwidth on this issue and I thank you all for your input, which has been invaluable. That's why you ask your friends, isn't it?

My problem, other than the obvious one that you were all right in pointing out, which is that my GPU is too good for my CPU, something I'd never run into before as CPUs used to be way better than anything a new GPU could throw at them (unless the MoBo and CPU were so old that you wouldn't be able to fit a new GPU on it in the first place), was that I was comparing apples to oranges.

My old 260 was set, as all new graphics cards are set by default, to the maximum settings that card was able to handle. That wasn't a problem with that one since the 260 and the Phenom 9850 were both cutting edge when I built them. The Phenom had more power than the 260 could handle, even with the nVidia settings maxed out.

That obviously wasn't the case with the 570, which is a much newer card. The factory default settings, which is what it will run at when you install it, was WAY more than my old Phenom could handle. It is also a much better picture than the best a 260 can produce, obviously.

What I was expecting was the same beautiful quality I had with the 260 at a better frame rate. But since the 570 has capabilities far beyond what the 260 can ever do, what I got was an even better picture at frame rates not much different from what I had. I didn't notice that until I compared screenshots taken with both. So when I went into the 570's control panel and adjusted the options for SH5 to fit with what the best my 260 could offer, I got the exact same photographic quality graphics that my old card could produce with enormously better frame rates.

So my conclusion is, now that SH5 runs better than it ever did after the GPU upgrade even though I'm not taxing the new card to its full potential, is that you should never use the factory default settings when you upgrade, at least not if you want to compare, because the default settings are better than what you had. If you want a true comparison, set the profile for the game you're comparing to the same as what your old card could do, THEN look at the difference.

Of course, I will still benefit from upgrading my CPU as well, I'll be able to TRULY get every ounce of additional juice out of my new GPU that way, but the bottom line is that I now have something that looks just as beautiful as the old card did and better at about double the frame rate.

[TheDarkWraith]

You do know that the brain sees fluid motion @ ~ 30fps right? You don't need anything higher than 30fps. Anything over 30fps is really overkill :yep:

[Swat]

I'd agree here with 30 fps theory. Especially in case of SH where everything is going on somehow slower than in other games, clicking UI buttons is definitely fine in 30 fps etc. But still, misha, you should consider doing 570 a favour and get some up to date cpu. That's an old principle that the system can be only that fast as its slowest/weakest component. Wrom what I've read I think you're about to step in the new world - I mean finding out what nowadays cpu's can really do with performance. I've experinced the same couple of years ago when I was upgrading gpu's every 18 months - litteraly. And suddenly as time went by the boosts I was getting were less and less satisfying. I remember when I upgraded my old Athlon 3400 to Core2Duo. I had 8800 GTX back then and I couldn't believe 20 fps gain in Oblivion which I was playing at that time. Since then I started to be aware of not to underestimate the role of good cpu. More new cpu demanding games started to be released, I read few articles on certain websites, tests, reviews etc. and it is more than clear today that cpu power is important in the first place. In the past majority of the games were purely gpu dependant, but today it's different. Sometimes devs implement decent physical system and combined with top notch graphics it takes both components to be good. And even if it's only gpu demanding game that graphic card will only perform to the extent of the cpu capability. Anyway I belive SH5 is comfortably playable on your system and that's important. But you know what.....that cpu goes like this:oops:and 570 goes like this:zzz:. Get the cpu go like this:salute:and 570 will be:rotfl2::arrgh!::lurk:

[misha1967]

You do know that the brain sees fluid motion @ ~ 30fps right? You don't need anything higher than 30fps. Anything over 30fps is really overkill :yep:

Absolutely. What I was trying to do was to get it to run where it had a bottom frame rate of about 30, and I think I've found that now.

But you know what.....that cpu goes like this:oops:and 570 goes like this:zzz:. Get the cpu go like this:salute:and 570 will be:rotfl2::arrgh!::lurk:

:haha:

Yep. That pretty much sums it up. Excellent use of smilies, Swat! :up::DL

A rebuild is definitely next on my list of stuff to do, but now that I've got it to run beautifully by not trying to run the 570 on max settings (which, to be honest, don't make that much of a difference compared to the 260, I had to look really carefully before I noticed and that, by the way, is how I realized that I should have checked those settings from the beginning), I can put it off a bit while still enjoying SH5 more than ever :DL