PSU for GTX 480

[james.wired]

oh i'm sorry I didn't know my first hand knowledge of owning and using the card wasn't any good..

Ok so if you can back up that statement...do tell me your FPS on Max Details in Metro 2033, Bad Company 2, Crysis )), Just Cause 2, all in at least 1080p. You did say "anything out there" after all. Or did you mean "anything out there, but in a lot of games in in lower resolution and/or on medium details or lower" maxed out? When I had a 4850 I definitely couldn't max everything out.

Not trying to start a riot but at least back up these claims lol...you know what they say, "put up or shut up"

 

[zmatt]

Despite what you say, i disagree that the level of physics nvidias PhysX provides us with can be achieved by a good CPU without being at much expense to performance. If the CPU could do all this real time fluid simulation and the rest of it, why has it never been pulled off to look and behave even half as good as PhysX does ?

I already showed you videos where it was. The fact that you are ignoring facts isn't my problem it's simply one of your own bias coming through and your refusal to look at facts.

I'll pretend for a minute that CPU's can do the task just as well without sacrificing much gameplay performance, that's great and all, but i can still only get it by using a PhysX card. It is essentially pointless to argue whether the CPU can or can not do the task, the fact of the matter is the only way to experience PhysX like physics is by using a nVidia card whether this is because only GPU's are powerful enough or nVidia pays all these devs to restrict the realisticness of there in game physics does not matter, the fact remains the same.

"realisticness" isn't a word. You want realism. I'll pretend for a minute that you aren't a kid who is talking about things you don't understand. That doesn't change my experience with programming on the architecture and using Nvidia cards in an academic environment. I know what the cards can and cannot do, and I know just how much of what Nvidia says is BS. Again, I can't go into too much detail, one because we haven't published yet, and two because there is a lot of stuff that Nvidia and ATI told us in good faith that average joe isn't allowed to know. But if you think for one second that physx and cuda are anything special then you are a fanboy, there is plenty of easily accessible information that makes that point clear.

And zmatt, you are talking about only ever basing your decision off Price/Performance, if this was the same for me i too would of got a 5870. But it isn't, i like what PhysX gives me, and i like what CUDA does, and i actually prefer nvidia over ATI as i'm sure many other people do. Whether all these features are cons or not is again, totally irrelevent, i couldn't get them by getting an ATI card or by getting a better CPU.

Physx adds nothing, the only game that gets any better with physx is Mirror's Edge, all the rest are crap. And even then a lot of the newest games that use havok are just as good.

YouTube - Battlefield Bad Company 2 physics
YouTube - Crysis Physics - Nuke

But for the quantitative data to mean anything to the end user, they must have the correct subjective views. If i define 'fast enough' for me as 5fps, or that i don't care about benchmark, the 4870 immediately becomes fast enough for every game out there, even when you look at the quantitative data. You can look at quantitative data and say "This is fastest" and on the inverse "This is slowest" but you can not say "This is fast enough for me" or "This is to slow for me" to be able to provide those two statements as answers a subjective view on the performance required must be gave.

"correct subjective view"? Actually you can, it's called ratios. watch this

In a benchamrk with Dirt 2 at 2560x1600 high quality 4x aa
5870 52.1fps
GTX 480 56.1fps

not only is that difference smaller than what you can tell with your eye, but the price/performance ratio is better for the ATI card

5870 $7.8 per fps
GTX 480 $8.91 per fps

For each fps you get you pay $1.10 more on the GTX 480 than the HD5870, and for a difference of 4 fps that's a seriously bad deal.

oh i'm sorry I didn't know my first hand knowledge of owning and using the card wasn't any good..

actually I also own 4850s, and I can safely say that saying that they can max out everything is BS. Heck i have 2 of them and some days I wish I had 3. Granted that tends to be in crysis situations, but I can think of several instances in different games where I needed more power.

 

[wafflehammer]

Ok so if you can back up that statement...do tell me your FPS on Max Details in Metro 2033, Bad Company 2, Crysis )), Just Cause 2, all in at least 1080p. You did say "anything out there" after all. Or did you mean "anything out there, but in a lot of games in in lower resolution and/or on medium details or lower" maxed out? When I had a 4850 I definitely couldn't max everything out.

Not trying to start a riot but at least back up these claims lol...you know what they say, "put up or shut up"

Well I don't own a lot of those games but crysis I know fully maxed out (AA included) at 1680x1050(not 1080 but it's close enough, 22" is about the average screen size) I was getting 20-30 fps. Anyone knows anything like 15+ is playable on this game

Played BC2 beta(which seems to be pretty demanding..and runs worse than the real game) and it played very smoothly everything maxed (including AA again) with no lag at all(never did record fps)

Arma 2 or w/e that's called (demo of it) played fine...a bit too fine...all the detailed blurring(like when you run n ****) in that game makes me extremely car sick


So yea, I think I've played enough demanding games to know what's needed.Might be the CPU giving it an extra boost..but meh, still can't say you need top notch cards in order to play anything. I think too many confuse "OMG i gotta max it on 3 50 inch monitors with 200 fps" with "Playable frame rates , maxed detail, on a 22-24 inch monitor" when they're talking about maxing a game out.

 

[james.wired]

Well I don't own a lot of those games but crysis I know fully maxed out (AA included) at 1680x1050(not 1080 but it's close enough, 22" is about the average screen size) I was getting 20-30 fps. Anyone knows anything like 15+ is playable on this game

Played BC2 beta(which seems to be pretty demanding..and runs worse than the real game) and it played very smoothly everything maxed (including AA again) with no lag at all(never did record fps)

Arma 2 or w/e that's called (demo of it) played fine...a bit too fine...all the detailed blurring(like when you run n ****) in that game makes me extremely car sick


So yea, I think I've played enough demanding games to know what's needed.Might be the CPU giving it an extra boost..but meh, still can't say you need top notch cards in order to play anything. I think too many confuse "OMG i gotta max it on 3 50 inch monitors with 200 fps" with "Playable frame rates , maxed detail, on a 22-24 inch monitor" when they're talking about maxing a game out.

"Everything out there, maxed out". Arma 2 and BC2 (which you don't know what FPS you even got). You think these are "enough demanding games to know what's needed" ? Is this a joke?

 

[Oreo]

I already showed you videos where it was. The fact that you are ignoring facts isn't my problem it's simply one of your own bias coming through and your refusal to look at facts.



"realisticness" isn't a word. You want realism. I'll pretend for a minute that you aren't a kid who is talking about things you don't understand. That doesn't change my experience with programming on the architecture and using Nvidia cards in an academic environment. I know what the cards can and cannot do, and I know just how much of what Nvidia says is BS. Again, I can't go into too much detail, one because we haven't published yet, and two because there is a lot of stuff that Nvidia and ATI told us in good faith that average joe isn't allowed to know. But if you think for one second that physx and cuda are anything special then you are a fanboy, there is plenty of easily accessible information that makes that point clear.



Physx adds nothing, the only game that gets any better with physx is Mirror's Edge, all the rest are crap. And even then a lot of the newest games that use havok are just as good.

YouTube - Battlefield Bad Company 2 physics
YouTube - Crysis Physics - Nuke



"correct subjective view"? Actually you can, it's called ratios. watch this

In a benchamrk with Dirt 2 at 2560x1600 high quality 4x aa
5870 52.1fps
GTX 480 56.1fps

not only is that difference smaller than what you can tell with your eye, but the price/performance ratio is better for the ATI card

5870 $7.8 per fps
GTX 480 $8.91 per fps

For each fps you get you pay $1.10 more on the GTX 480 than the HD5870, and for a difference of 4 fps that's a seriously bad deal.




actually I also own 4850s, and I can safely say that saying that they can max out everything is BS. Heck i have 2 of them and some days I wish I had 3. Granted that tends to be in crysis situations, but I can think of several instances in different games where I needed more power.

Wow. That's pretty funny, did you not read my post at all ? I said that whether PhysX is crap or not, i still can not get the same experience by going with an ATI card. Because the feature is nVidia only. Whether it be done on the CPU or not is totally irrelevant, because it ISN'T done.Pixeluxes Digital Molecular Matter alters material properties, and it's good, i give it that. But it still wont simulate water and such,AFAIK

And again, please stop saying what is and isn't crap. I don't like to be repetitious but you really do need to stop with telling people there subjective views are wrong.

And i quite agree, i do not know the technicalities of all this stuff. But i do know about games and the technologies that go to them, and i know what i see. And i don't Havok physics used at all well in games, in any of them, the tech video's from Star Wars about DMM are all well and good but in the 20 to 30minute demo i played, i saw only once it being used, and even then it was half scripted - Again another capable technology that is not implemented well. This is were PhysX differs, atleast in a few games PhysX is used well with noticeable results that differ substantially than playing the game without PhysX.

This is my main point, Physx be it good bad, a total con or gamings biggest revelation - it still delivers clear results in games where devs can be bothered to implement it.

In a benchamrk with Dirt 2 at 2560x1600 high quality 4x aa
5870 52.1fps
GTX 480 56.1fps

not only is that difference smaller than what you can tell with your eye, but the price/performance ratio is better for the ATI card

Again, eh ? I can still make the GTX480 'better' by having the subjective view that anything less than 55fps is unacceptable for a card over £300, therefor making the GTX480 better for me. A ridiculous example i know, but it's making the point that no matter how extremes someones view or situation is they still may have preference of one card over another, no matter how 'bad' that card is.

And asif you linked BC2 as an example of physics. If you pay attention in game, you will notice a scripted effect appears when a grenade hits the wall and then a hole magically forms with the occasional mesh object flying out. The only physics part is when the building semi-realisticly crashes. If you wanted to show off Havok, why not link me RFG ?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pDtzaW7VpY That is the only game in existence that used Havok physics pretty well, and even then it was in conjunction with there own in house physics engine.

Physx adds nothing, the only game that gets any better with physx is Mirror's Edge

This is a miraculous finding, Mirrors Edge improves when using Physx, even though Physx adds nothing ? astonishing.

PS

I've had more ATI cards than nVidia cards. How that makes me an nvidia fanboy i'd love to know.

 

[wafflehammer]

why hasn't this been closed? just another nvidia bash thread by the ATI fanboys. This forum is getting to the point that you can't say anything remotely supportive of nvidia without being flamed and it's getting very old...very fast.

What I said is a fact james, if you can't handle it then shut up and leave it alone. I never insulted you personally, I just stated that the 4850(WHICH IS AN ATI CARD SO QUIT YOUR WHINING) and gtx 260 can max any game out. Which is true. Sure, if you have 3 monitors like you have, you'll need more. But if you'd open up your closed minded world enough to see that a lot of people run at 19-22" then yes, those cards will work.

I'm sorry my facts seem to not be of any use in your world of nothing but opinions.

 

[james.wired]

why hasn't this been closed? just another nvidia bash thread by the ATI fanboys. This forum is getting to the point that you can't say anything remotely supportive of nvidia without being flamed and it's getting very old...very fast.

What I said is a fact james, if you can't handle it then shut up and leave it alone. I never insulted you personally, I just stated that the 4850(WHICH IS AN ATI CARD SO QUIT YOUR WHINING) and gtx 260 can max any game out. Which is true. Sure, if you have 3 monitors like you have, you'll need more. But if you'd open up your closed minded world enough to see that a lot of people run at 19-22" then yes, those cards will work.

I'm sorry my facts seem to not be of any use in your world of nothing but opinions.

lol. I've owned as many nVidia cards as I have ATi. Even after those review threads my mind has changed about the 400 series. Not sure where anywhere in this thread you see me saying the gtx 480 is bad. Like I care if it's an ATi or nVidia card you are talking about, and in this case you were talking about a 4850 AND A 260 and when you say "work" now, before you were saying "maxed out". I think those are two different things...I could be wrong though.

The 650w that 35g700 mentioned would actually work fine, it would allow more than enough power. That's a really good unit. Get the modular model if you want. The gtx 480 is a very good performer with FPS, and from what I have seen the people that have them are more than happy with them. The heat and power draw is up for you to decide on if it's a big deal. The more real world reviews (from actual consumers) that are taking place with them, the less of an issue the heat/power seems to be. 5870 and the 480 are both awesome cards that trade blows with different features. Choose what you want homie..

Read the whole thread before you call someone a fanboy

 

[Kharn]

Right lads closing this before the E-Peen war gets out of hand please forward all complaints to that brick wall over yonder.