Minimum GPUs for Nvidia options?

[DarklordKyo]

Nvidia's proprietary options look pretty freaking cool, the problem is that they're taxing as crap. Seriously, my rig can run Wolfenstein: The New Order at 1080p 60 on high, yet struggles in Mafia 2 with PhysX on.

As I can assume SLI is relatively-essential for those types of options, which GPUs would you doods say is the minimum?, dual 1070s?, or does it have to be dual 1080s? (not counting the 1060 because it's not an SLI card, and that Mafia 2 test was done with my relatively-recent upgrade to a 1060).

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the specs:

CPU
AMD FX-4300 19 ?C
Vishera 32nm Technology

RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz (11-11-11-28)

Motherboard
MSI 970A-G46 (MS-7693) (CPU 1)

Graphics
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (Undefined)

Yes, I know, most of my rig is holding my GPU back. Most of the rig is several years old, and the 1060 was an upgrade made due to my old GPU being at Death's door (and I needed at least a GPU upgrade to run Witcher 3 eventually).

 

[Elvis Starburst]

SLI/Crossfire isn't always well supported in some games, and in some it even makes the performance worse. In MOST scenarios it helps (with games that are actually well built for PCs. A bad example would be Arkham Knight as SLI barely helped at all before they took it off store fronts), but the GPUs we have coming out these days are insanely powerful and can stand on their own without needing a dual GPU system. Honestly, I'd just go with one 1070 or 1080 and save yourself the money/hassle.

A game's optimization has a lot to do with performance though. You could have dual titan X's and still get 30FPS with a really poorly optimized game. Having the rest of your comps specs might help in that regard as well, just to ensure you don't have a bottleneck somewhere

 

[DarklordKyo]

SLI/Crossfire isn't always well supported in some games, and in some it even makes the performance worse. In MOST scenarios it helps (with games that are actually well built for PCs. A bad example would be Arkham Knight as SLI barely helped at all before they took it off store fronts), but the GPUs we have coming out these days are insanely powerful and can stand on their own without needing a dual GPU system. Honestly, I'd just go with one 1070 or 1080 and save yourself the money/hassle.

A game's optimization has a lot to do with performance though. You could have dual titan X's and still get 30FPS with a really poorly optimized game. Having the rest of your comps specs might help in that regard as well, just to ensure you don't have a bottleneck somewhere

CPU
AMD FX-4300 19 ?C
Vishera 32nm Technology
RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz (11-11-11-28)
Motherboard
MSI 970A-G46 (MS-7693) (CPU 1)
Graphics
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (Undefined)

Yes, I realize most of my rig is holding my GPU back. Most of it is several years old, and the GPU upgrade was mostly because my old AMD HD 7850 was on it's last legs (and I needed at least a GPU upgrade to play Witcher 3).

What I find odd about my rig is that it can run modern games like Wolfenstein: The New Order at 1080p 60 on high to max, yet Skyrim refuses to go above 30 on anything higher than medium. This is despite the fact that, even putting the GPU bottleneck into account, my rig should be massively OP for what Skyrim needs.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Snip

Ahahhh, I think I found part of the issue. For one, yeah, the rig could be a bit stronger in a lot of ways. Your RAM is pretty slow. Like... really slow. 1333/1600 is the standard these days, and even then DDR4 is a thing now and can work a lot faster. The CPU is alright, and not the biggest problem (Though it is still one).

The second issue is something my friend ran into when upgrading his GPU. Your Motherboard is PCI-E 2.0 x16 capable (Which means how much memory can be transferred between the GPU and MOBO), but the GPU is PCI-E 3.0. What this meant for my friend is that the MOBO cannot transfer the entirety of the data between the system and the GPU, cause its maximum is a different PCI-E speed. While it still allows your system to make use of it, you'll never be able to use the maximum potential of your GPU with the MOBO you have.

There's probably all sorts of bottlenecking happening in several places. First Person Shooter games tend to be pretty light and easy to hit high FPS levels. Anything more and your rig is choking. But with point #2... To put it simply, you might only be able to get 75-80% of your GPUs maximum output due to the MOBO not being PCI-E 3.0 capable. For my friend, this forced him to get a new MOBO that was PCI-E 3.0 capable. Since it was a new MOBO, he also had to buy a new copy of Windows.

It sounds like you might need some more upgrading in places if you wanna get the most out of your new parts. My rig has an AMD-8350 and a GTX 760 in there, and I know that if I get a new GPU, I'm gonna have to upgrade most of the rig to make use of it. Unfortunately, AM3 CPU socket MOBOs don't always have PCI-E 3.0, so I might switch back to Intel.

Edit: To better understand the different PCI-E speeds, I'll put it simply. You have up to a max of 2.0 x16. Meanwhile, the GPU is 3.0 x16 capable. Because you don't have 3.0, you might only be able to get 3.0 speeds of x8. So, x12 and x16 are pretty much locked off. As such, you might not be able to get those higher speeds as is, not to mention any other issues it could potentially come with

 

[DarklordKyo]

snip

Unfortunately, better parts aren't really in the cards ([*rimshot*]) unless I can get a part time job (which I've been very unlucky with, unfortunately). Still doesn't make much sense though. Even with the bottlenecks, even with crappy RAM, my rig should still be overpowered for something as old and console-focused as Skyrim.

It recommends a quad core, I have a quad core. It recommends 4gb of RAM, I have 8. It recommends a GTX 260 with 1gb VRAM, I have a GTX 1060 with 6gb of VRAM (which, even with bottlenecking, should still be around a 970 with about 4gb at least).

To give other benchmarks, I can run Mad Max at 1080p 60 on high settings, Crysis 2 at 1080p 60 on ultra (though with dips when there's too much stuff, which is why I lowered it to merely high), Lichdom Battlemage (another CryEngine game) at 1080p 60 at maxed settings, and I've been told I should get Witcher 3 at 1080p 60 on medium.

 

[mad825]

......Apparently it's a known issue [http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2887066] with Mafia 2.

There's nothing really special about PCI-E 3.0 although it does magically give you a few extra FPSs. RAM timings....Well, if was that bad doing anything on the PC would suck no matter what.

 

[baddude1337]

Physx in general just seems to have been poorly optimised and supported by Nvidia, especially in earlier games. If you get lag in games that have it as a feature it's the first thing I'd recommend turning off.

 

[mad825]

Physx in general just seems to have been poorly optimised and supported by Nvidia, especially in earlier games. If you get lag in games that have it as a feature it's the first thing I'd recommend turning off.

what makes it even worse is that the game requires an older version of Physx according to PCgaming wiki

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Snap

WHOOPS, mis-read that as Mafia 3. Well, others were happy to give you a good answer for that game specifically. As for the rest, well, it couldn't hurt to upgrade at some point anyways

 

[DarklordKyo]

Physx in general just seems to have been poorly optimised and supported by Nvidia, especially in earlier games. If you get lag in games that have it as a feature it's the first thing I'd recommend turning off.

How well does Gameworks perform in comparison? I ask because, honestly, that flowing fur on certain animals in Witcher 3 looks cool as hell.

I know I wouldn't be able to even use it with my current rig, but how is it comparatively in general?