Could nvidia or AMD make a really extreme performance card by adding more stuff?
- Thread starter bliz
- Start date
great_big_abyss
Well-known member
I'm sure they could.
I think the problem is power consumption and heat output, as well as price. There are reasonable limits, I'm sure.
Can you explain the "add" part? GPUs aren't like a set of Legos where you can just build upon previous construction. Everything from ROP throughput to memory controllers to inter-phase communications has to be perfectly balanced.
They are hitting the limits of silicone. As far as heat and clock. GPU's are massively parallel unlike CPU's so yes, you can add more transistors and make is faster. But the Titan is already a 7 billion transistor beast.
Multi GPU's on a single card is another answer but for the life of me I don't understand why they still use a crappy interface like SLI for the on board dual gpu solution. If they had a better dual GPU interface we could really rock.
Multi GPU's on a single card is another answer but for the life of me I don't understand why they still use a crappy interface like SLI for the on board dual gpu solution. If they had a better dual GPU interface we could really rock.
But why should they? Probably 75% or more of gamers are still running 1080p screens. A GTX 660 will run any current game at that resolution with lots of eye candy.
Until you see more people adapting 4K screens, or 120 Hz becoming the norm instead of the exception, there's no reason to release anything that's tons better now. Even this new 780 is a cut down Titan, which in turn wasn't released until a year after their commercial GK110 part.
Until you see more people adapting 4K screens, or 120 Hz becoming the norm instead of the exception, there's no reason to release anything that's tons better now. Even this new 780 is a cut down Titan, which in turn wasn't released until a year after their commercial GK110 part.
Why? The GTX780 runs Metro Last Light @2560x1440 res at an average of 49 FPS according to [H]. So at 1920x1080 it's probably more like 65-70 FPS. Anything over 35 FPS is smooth and acceptable to me.
Really? For me,60+ fps is smooth,35fps is damn "laggy" and i do feel a real difference between 60 and 120fps,i have 120hz but it's a small difference.
Btw,the benchmark of Linus says the 780,at 1440p,runs metro last light at 22 fps.
GeForce GTX 780 1440p Performance Review - YouTube at 3:23
what do you mean by according to [H] ????
Btw,the benchmark of Linus says the 780,at 1440p,runs metro last light at 22 fps.
GeForce GTX 780 1440p Performance Review - YouTube at 3:23
what do you mean by according to [H] ????
Last edited:
IRQ Conflict
Well-known member
I think where most problems lie is in the minimum FPS dept. If your min never dips below 30 then your golden. If your average FPS is around 35FPS your minimum is usually going to be much less. The choppyness that can be experienced is usually to do with extreme discrepancies between the lowest and highest frame rates. Enabling vsync will rid you of that and screen tearing as long as your settings permit you to play at a min frame rate of 30.
Constantly going from 24 FPS to 70+ FPS you get a lot of dropped frames and this is where you feel the stutter (I think).
Constantly going from 24 FPS to 70+ FPS you get a lot of dropped frames and this is where you feel the stutter (I think).
