BoS Preformance

[dburne]

I am amazed to see that my old gtx480 is not any worse in handling BOS then the gtx960 with the new i5 4590. Going to return the 960 and save money till i can afford 970 :D

 

The reason at least in BOS is DX9, it just does not make good full use of the newer video cards like DX 11 does.

You will get more from raw cpu horsepower than anything. A better graphics card helps some, but not near as much as a powerful cpu. 

[Dakpilot]

Please correct me if i am wrong, but at the time the GTX480 was at the top tier, now a GTX960 is 4 from top currently, so it is a bit of a sideways upgrade if you get my drift

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[FuriousMeow]

The reason at least in BOS is DX9, it just does not make good full use of the newer video cards like DX 11 does.

You will get more from raw cpu horsepower than anything. A better graphics card helps some, but not near as much as a powerful cpu. 

 

That is very incorrect.

 

A powerful CPU in single player with more than a couple AI units will help. The more AI units the more the CPU helps. In multiplayer, a more powerful GPU will help considerably. More CPU cycles are taken up in single player by AI. Go fly around on a map by your self, no AI at all, it'll be pretty consistent. Do the same with a GTX480, and then then do the same with a GTX780, and there will be a significant improvement as far as consistent FPS and being able to crank up the graphics higher. The CPU, won't really help that much in that scenario.

 

I ran a first gen i7 870 with RoF and upgraded from a GTX465 to a 570 and it was a tremendous improvement. My i7 870 was at 4.0GHz overclocked at all time. I upgraded from that to a fourth gen i7-4770k and just by myself, decent improvement, much more improvement with tons of AI. Went from the 570 to a 780Ti, and huge improvement with no AI and even better consistent performance with lots of AI. Now running 780Ti SLI with the previous CPU, and never below 60fps Ultra @ 2560x1440, GSync, Ultra settings, 16x Anisotropic, 4x FSAA in BoS. RoF, same settings basically. If I drop down to a single 780Ti, it can be above 60fps in the barren wide open but it will drop big time over Stalingrad, and in  RoF it will drop with lots of aircraft in a small area furball.

 

Of course there are improvements with CPUs, even an i7-870 @ 4.0GHz couldn't do nearly as well as an i7-4770K @ 4.4GHz with the same number of AI planes even though it was only a 400MHz increase, it also has a huge Instructions Per Cycle increase which is a huge boost in performance as well. But when the AI planes dropped, the CPU became less of a bottleneck and the GPU became more of the bottleneck because the CPU isn't really doing so much with just one plane. That's why a 1st gen CPU can actually get away in multiplayer with great performance, so long as the GPUs are up there in performance.

 

I wouldn't sacrifice either, I'd get a happy medium because if anyone wants to play SP with AI then having a CPU that just cuts it without AI units will suffer. A high end GPU is also a waste with a low tier CPU.

 

A 960 is also not a graphics card nearly as capable as the flagship 900s - 970 and 980. The 960 is a GM206. The 970/980 are GM204. The 980Ti is the monster with the GM200, same as the Titan X with a slightly stripped down set.

 

nVidia mis-markets their budget lines with the same number as the great new GPU, but it is not the same as the great new GPU. With the 900 series they are at least mostly the same general features and fab - still stripped down, but older card lines have some models that are using GPUs from several generations ago.

Edited November 5, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Dakpilot]

If you did no research and were unfamiliar with GPu's, it could be possible with AMD to upgrade to the latest model only to find you have bought the exact same card with a 'new' name

 

While Nvidia is also guilty of re-cycling older models AMD has been very confusing sometimes when launching their 'new' model range

 

While a newer model the GTX960 has 128bit interface compared to GTX970+ with 256 and 384bit memory interface

 

Also remember that GTX480 was $500 card with 384bit

 

Bos can be both GPU and CPU intensive depending on situation, having correct balance between performance of CPU and GPU is most cost effective performance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[KoN_]

Overclcock that CPU to 3.8 if you can . return the gtx960 keep your old card until you really need an upgrade ...!!!! your just chasing shadows .

On my specs i am at 43fps on the ground airfields take the biggest hits , in the air 3k , i am at 55fps too 60fps . Combat six players down to 40fps . depends on ping .

GAME is not  optimized just yet , new maps ect new plane set , next patch hope things will improve .

Dont waste your money . or buy second hand cpu or motherboard . ebay is your friend .

[Fishbed64]

Please correct me if i am wrong, but at the time the GTX480 was at the top tier, now a GTX960 is 4 from top currently, so it is a bit of a sideways upgrade if you get my drift

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Yes you are wrong GTX480 is way slower than GTX960,overclocked GTX960 is like GTX680 or in new games even better. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Fishbed64

[Dakpilot]

You miss my point, an upgrade from flagship 80 series to 60 series is a 'sideways' upgrade even if the GTX960 is more modern ​

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[dburne]

Yes you are wrong GTX480 is way slower than GTX960,overclocked GTX960 is like GTX680 or in new games even better. 

 

You are very correct, not to mention I don't believe the 400 series cards  even support DX11.

[Dakpilot]

^^ I never said a GTX480 is more powerful than GTX960...you miss my point the GTX980 is the more modern replacement for GTX480

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Fishbed64]

You are very correct, not to mention I don't believe the 400 series cards  even support DX11.

Yes,Fermi is first Nvidia chip with dx11 support,but GTX480 is just too slow and obsolete GPU for todays games,hire is Watch dogs test with GTX480 in it,its slower than GTX750ti    http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page4.html