Cheers m8, i've heard the Sapphire r9 290/x are the best (by pretty much everyone) but I just can't seem to find one under £260 (strapped for cash) and the Asus gets the job done.
Ay, the Sapphire has the more favourable reviews, but at a price.
Cheers m8, i've heard the Sapphire r9 290/x are the best (by pretty much everyone) but I just can't seem to find one under £260 (strapped for cash) and the Asus gets the job done.
Pretty much why I think the whole controversy is way overblown. If you hadn't heard of the controversy you'd still be loving it. And that DF video just goes to show how extreme measures you need to use to fill up the 3,5GB partion.I was loving it until all the controversy started
I've had AMD CPUs in my last three computers, and they were the only components I never had had any trouble with. As far as GPUs, I can't say much, but my technician warns that, while they're good cards, they tend to burn out rather quickly. I switched to an ASUS nVidia Geforce GTX 970 for The Witcher III on those recommendations.
Hi guys - I'm new here, I'd like to see exactly how 'powerful' my laptop, a Clevo W230SS/Sager NP7338 is and whether it can run TW3 at decent settings.
These are my specs:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-4710MQ @ 2.5 GHz (Turbo Boot, OC to 3.7 GHz)
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M 2GB Maxwell (OCed to 1300 MHz core, 2856 MHz VRAM and a +275 mV overvolt)
- 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM
Note that in The Witcher 2, the autodetect function automatically set my configuration to the lowest possible settings. When I ran it, I got 100+ FPS. I jacked all the settings up except motion blur (I don't like motion blur - gives me a headache), 'Ubersampling', bloom (everything looks too bright with bloom on), and cinematic depth of field. I got a consistent 45-55 FPS. I even installed the 'Extreme Quality Flora' mod, and in the graphically-intensive battlefield outside the Kaedweni camp in Chapter 2, framerates didn't go below 40.
All in all, I'm checking whether my system should be able to run TW3 at medium settings without losing too much detail, and having similar framerates: around 40-50. Heck, even 35 FPS is fine. What do you guys think?
I will just say that being an owner of a GTX 970 since mid March, i think i made the right choice. I might have posted something similar a few pages back but i will summarize just for anyone to have an overview of my experiences with both AMD and Nvidia latest cards.
I had a custom MSI R9 290X before and while it's a pretty powerful card it has 2 major flaws.
(1) The card functions at 94 degrees and that's with the 2 fans at 100% speed which is unsettling and (2) it is a very very noisy card when gaming.
On top of that, when playing DA:I which uses lots of resources, the CPU would be at around 65 degrees.
When i changed to the 970 i saw two improvements.
(1) The card never ever goes over 71 degrees even in full load for hours and (2) it's almost completely silent.
Doing the same test on DA:I with the GTX 970 i saw the CPU cores sitting at 54-55 degrees compared to 65 when i had the 290X. That on it's own would be a reason, for me personally, to get the 970 cause the unneccesary heat inside my system when i had the 290X was just unbelievable.
I'm not advertizing Nvidia or anything since i almost always bought AMD graphics cards but in this instance the differences are huge. I mean the 970 works at 71 degrees in full load and the fans are programmed to function at ONLY 40% which is fantastic. If you add a custom profile for the fans it will even go lower than 71.
Now as for performance, i havent done any specific tests to show but i did try to get an average while playing DA:I. With the exact same settings i was getting about 5-10 fps more with the 970.
The 3.5GB of the 970 should not worry you. There is a post a few pages back with a youtube video from Digital foundry which will solve your questions, i suggest you read it
There is no doubt that Maxwell has proved itself in terms of power efficiency and temperatures output but still it's strange to hear that you reached 94c with your MSI R9 290X. I had Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X and the max I reached with that card is 72 - 74 depending on game and it was really silent while gaming. Now with 2x Gigabyte GTX 980 G1, the temp for top card goes to 75c - 76c max and lower card 64c - 66c max. I had to make custom profile for fans because otherwise the top card reaches 80c and then does thermal throttling, the custom profile made them slightly audible during games but nothing unbearable.
As far as performance is concerned I am also very satisfied from the switch to 980s, there is no game right now that goes below 60 fps mark even at highest settings + DSR to 2560x1440 (Maybe TW3 will change that lol), they have nice factory OC and still have room to do more.
As for 970, it is quite clear now that there are no big issues from 3.5 GB fiasco however it got more severe after Nvidia revealed the corrected specs. we cannot argue with customers who say Nvidia did false advertising and to me it's a big blunder from Nvidia to have such a communication gap between marketing and engineering departments. I also don't understand the fact that even if it was a mistake then how come no one from engineering ever noticed the difference after release ? it's very unlikely that all of them didn't even saw any of the reviews that published wrong specs.
Hi guys - I'm new here, I'd like to see exactly how 'powerful' my laptop, a Clevo W230SS/Sager NP7338 is and whether it can run TW3 at decent settings.
These are my specs:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-4710MQ @ 2.5 GHz (Turbo Boot, OC to 3.7 GHz)
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M 2GB Maxwell (OCed to 1300 MHz core, 2856 MHz VRAM and a +275 mV overvolt)
- 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM
Note that in The Witcher 2, the autodetect function automatically set my configuration to the lowest possible settings. When I ran it, I got 100+ FPS. I jacked all the settings up except motion blur (I don't like motion blur - gives me a headache), 'Ubersampling', bloom (everything looks too bright with bloom on), and cinematic depth of field. I got a consistent 45-55 FPS. I even installed the 'Extreme Quality Flora' mod, and in the graphically-intensive battlefield outside the Kaedweni camp in Chapter 2, framerates didn't go below 40.
All in all, I'm checking whether my system should be able to run TW3 at medium settings without losing too much detail, and having similar framerates: around 40-50. Heck, even 35 FPS is fine. What do you guys think?