MAX Graphics - on the least possible expensive GPU

[Czevak]

I asked a question yesterday about what to get and most agreed on the GT/GTX 700 Series for high graphics.

 

Question is: Will the GeForce GT 730 run World Of Warships on HIGH settings with all graphics turned onto the HIGHEST possible settings? Without any change/lag of course.

 

I mainly play this game and some others that do not require something like a GT 980 or Titan for that matter... so give me your thoughts below. 

 

[INoCU]

The general consensus yesterday was that a GT 730 could not run this game on high. What you want is an GT(X) Something-50 to run this on high. A GTX 750ti was a good budget recommendation. 

 

game-debate.com is a good baseline to check what game will run on what kind of system

[Czevak]

Hmm alright, I'll see what I can do. Thanks.

[Special_Kay]

Hmm. I was going to offer my experience with the GTX460 (high settings, windowed, 1920x1080: FPS never below 58). Then I looked at the first comparison I found between the GT 730 and my own card, and I found that the GT 730 is actually a large step backwards in every way but clock speed. I had expected the three-generation gap to make a larger difference than it seems to.

 

Judging by Logical Increments, INoCU is correct. You may be able to get away with an R7 360 or R7 250X, if you're willing to look at Radeons.

[klymar8]

I got advice from  someone back almost 18 months ago when I  only had WoT to play .  He said a GTX 660 Ti  2GB was all I needed for max with my rig .  It was cheaper then the 750 ( at the time about the best below Titan ) and so it is what I have used since .  In WoT I run 61 fps and maxed settings ( that I use as I  do not have grass in sniper mode enabled )  and 3-D rendering at 90 % .  In WoWs  I have 71 fps and only reflections not at max .  I do have an only average screen ( Dell ST23 ) .  So your choice should work just fine Or you can go with the possibility that a 660 would be good enough and save yourself money .

[INoCU]

. You may be able to get away with an R7 360 or R7 250X, if you're willing to look at Radeons.

AMD is never a bad option either, they may be cheaper than nvidia too. Just make sure you have the space and power supply for them

[Moksie]

Hmm. I was going to offer my experience with the GTX460 (high settings, windowed, 1920x1080: FPS never below 58). Then I looked at the first comparison I found between the GT 730 and my own card, and I found that the GT 730 is actually a large step backwards in every way but clock speed. I had expected the three-generation gap to make a larger difference than it seems to.

 

Judging by Logical Increments, INoCU is correct. You may be able to get away with an R7 360 or R7 250X, if you're willing to look at Radeons.

 

​Exactly new isn't always better I used to run this fine on an old 5770.  It doesn't need to be new it needs to be "Gaming Quality"

[HBZK100]

A GTX 950 is the best option for you.  I have a gtx 750 ti, and I can barely just hit 60fps on ultra.

[Czevak]

A GTX 950 is the best option for you.  I have a gtx 750 ti, and I can barely just hit 60fps on ultra.

 

That's... odd, why is the GTX 950 and the GTX 750 TI at more or less the same price range?

 

I also found a GTX 750 TI for 160$ and will try to get that... will look into benchmarks.

 

EDIT: Looks like the GTX 950 is much better and only 20$ more.... Well, time to try and convince parents haha.

[iHaveNoIntelligence]

I have the R9 270x runs on high option 50~60 fps

[Special_Kay]

That's... odd, why is the GTX 950 and the GTX 750 TI at more or less the same price range?

 

The GTX750 Ti has almost the same level of hardware, processes at a higher frequency (which impacts production costs), and is likely winding down in terms of production (if it's still in production at all; I'm not one to know how long production runs last), whereas economies of scale often work in favour of the newer generation.

[INoCU]

 

That's... odd, why is the GTX 950 and the GTX 750 TI at more or less the same price range?

 

I also found a GTX 750 TI for 160$ and will try to get that... will look into benchmarks.

 

EDIT: Looks like the GTX 950 is much better and only 20$ more.... Well, time to try and convince parents haha.

 

I think nvidia naming rules is something like, the first number is the generation, second number is the quality/performance and the third number is if there was a revision or something. So a 750 is comparable to a 950, but a 750 is worse than a 660.

 

Good luck with the parents!

[devastator5000]

I have the R9 270x runs on high option 50~60 fps

 

Yeah I'm now running the R9 290 ($200!)and its great, used a 7850 ($200 four years ago)before and still got decent graphics

[Special_Kay]

I think nvidia naming rules is something like, the first number is the generation, second number is the quality/performance and the third number is if there was a revision or something. So a 750 is comparable to a 950, but a 750 is worse than a 660.

 

Good luck with the parents!

 

Yeah. For completeness I went and educated myself a little, so here's the full scoop for GeForce model numbers:

 

The first digit is the series, AKA generation. The middle digit is the market category, i.e., 0/1/2/3 are entry level, 4 is either entry or mid-range, 5 is mid-range, 6 is either mid-range or high-end, 7 and up are high-end. Cards with a Ti are basically the same as their non-Ti siblings but they have extra shader processors and texture mapping units, giving them higher performance. There's also an "enthusiast" category, which IMO are better than you need unless you like bragging. The enthusiast category includes the #80 Ti and the Titans.

 

The letters in front are a whole other kettle of fish. In increasing level of performance, you have G, GS, GT, GTS, and GTX. No series will use all of these, mind you. They have some specific meaning regarding design tradeoffs from what I can gather, and apparently some of those tradeoff balances didn't make sense to produce for a given series. If you care about gaming performance you're often going to look exclusively at the GTXs.

[Moksie]

 

That's... odd, why is the GTX 950 and the GTX 750 TI at more or less the same price range?

 

I also found a GTX 750 TI for 160$ and will try to get that... will look into benchmarks.

 

EDIT: Looks like the GTX 950 is much better and only 20$ more.... Well, time to try and convince parents haha.

 

TI is a higher quality chip it can withstand higher temps and clock speeds.  Also the card generally has higher quality components.

They make chips and test them, some work better than others and can't go to higher performance clocks without failing in some fashion those go into the "lower price range goods section" 

Like my chip was sold under 4 different speeds, it's still the same chip just different thresholds how fast versus how much heat.  Necessitating extra cooling provisions, or warmer areas can't go as high etc.

950 should be considerably better than the 750 yup.  New architecture.  Still just budget cards any will do.  Put a 7,8,9, as the second number of the series and you'll buy yourself another year or 2 and less problems down the road.  And more performance.

Don't waste your money though, research thoroughly, don't be a sucker for advertising look at what the card can do: texture units, texture fill rates, speed, all that. 

[JCC45]

Hmm. I was going to offer my experience with the GTX460 (high settings, windowed, 1920x1080: FPS never below 58). Then I looked at the first comparison I found between the GT 730 and my own card, and I found that the GT 730 is actually a large step backwards in every way but clock speed. I had expected the three-generation gap to make a larger difference than it seems to.

 

Judging by Logical Increments, INoCU is correct. You may be able to get away with an R7 360 or R7 250X, if you're willing to look at Radeons.

 

Whoa...wait a sec... hang on a minute!

 

You mean to tell me I have been running it on Low settings with the same card as you (thinking it was old so it must be bad) when all along I could have been running it on High?

 

Well let's fire that bad boy up and take 'er out for a real  test drive.

[Moksie]

 

Whoa...wait a sec... hang on a minute!

 

You mean to tell me I have been running it on Low settings with the same card as you (thinking it was old so it must be bad) when all along I could have been running it on High?

 

Well let's fire that bad boy up and take 'er out for a real  test drive.

Put it on ultra max bro always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reduce from that.  Shadow and reflections off etc.

Very Important-  Often when you go low the game tells the PC to run badly shifting load from GPU to CPU thinking you have a craptop.  Never go low Never go low Never go low.

Never use a preset. Just look to see what they do.  Shadows and reflections on med or low don't help shut them OFF if needed.

[Special_Kay]

Whoa...wait a sec... hang on a minute!

 

You mean to tell me I have been running it on Low settings with the same card as you (thinking it was old so it must be bad) when all along I could have been running it on High?

 

Well let's fire that bad boy up and take 'er out for a real  test drive.

 

She might even go higher than this, I'm just too lazy to experiment. Frankly, most non-shooter games I load up get bottlenecked by my i5-4670K before my GTX460 gets overwhelmed.

 

 

 

[JCC45]

Put it on ultra max bro always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reduce from that.  Shadow and reflections off etc.

Very Important-  Often when you go low the game tells the PC to run badly shifting load from GPU to CPU thinking you have a craptop.  Never go low Never go low Never go low.

Never use a preset. Just look to see what they do.  Shadows and reflections on med or low don't help shut them OFF if needed.

 

This wouldn't be a clever plan by Moksie to get me into a game with 6 FPS and an easy kill for him, would it?

 

 

[Guest]

Hmm alright, I'll see what I can do. Thanks.

 

I hope you find one that suits your purpose, the game can be demanding at times, and you will notice if your PC isn't a mega-rig o3o. 

[JCC45]

Put it on ultra max bro always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reduce from that.  Shadow and reflections off etc.

Very Important-  Often when you go low the game tells the PC to run badly shifting load from GPU to CPU thinking you have a craptop.  Never go low Never go low Never go low.

Never use a preset. Just look to see what they do.  Shadows and reflections on med or low don't help shut them OFF if needed.

 

 

She might even go higher than this, I'm just too lazy to experiment. Frankly, most non-shooter games I load up get bottlenecked by my i5-4670K before my GTX460 gets overwhelmed.

 

 

 

 

Well dust my bottom and call me Cupcake... it worked like a charm and my GPU never went higher than 68 degrees with a steady 58 FPS.  

 

Lovely game for the first 60 seconds or so, and then the OpFor showed up and I didn't have time to enjoy the scenery at all.   Nice while it lasted though.

 

Thanks for the advice guys.

[Moksie]

Put it on ultra max bro always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reduce from that.  Shadow and reflections off etc.

Very Important-  Often when you go low the game tells the PC to run badly shifting load from GPU to CPU thinking you have a craptop.  Never go low Never go low Never go low.

Never use a preset. Just look to see what they do.  Shadows and reflections on med or low don't help shut them OFF if needed.

 

This wouldn't be a clever plan by Moksie to get me into a game with 6 FPS and an easy kill for him, would it?

 

 

Clever and Moksie in the same sentence isn't proper grammar.