What to look for when choosing a video card.
You may have read similar topics about choice many times, but it will still be beneficial for beginners.It means like this:
1) Memory bus - how much data the video card processes per unit of time. That is, this is the most important factor that you need to pay attention to. (Dropping GTX 960). Modern games need a bus conductivity of at least 256-bit so that the sellers don't push you there, but this is really so.
2) Memory frequency (GPU) - you can read in more detail on the Internet, it is too long to describe.
3) The amount of video memory - many people think that this is the most important point, but it is not. For example, if you have a video card with 2 gigabytes, but with a 64-bit bus, then there will be no sense from these 2 gigabytes. :)
And also, to all the clever guys who claim that 2 gigabytes are not enough for modern games, I send a categorical "no". In fact, even the same GTA 5 at low settings does not require more than 1 gigabyte and hardly uses such a large amount of video memory. What the scale of your video memory shows you is how many resources the game consumes, but not how much is being used at the moment.
4) The type of graphics memory - the most ideal, of course, GDDR 5.
ps For the feedback - thanks, if I wrote something wrong, I can discuss it.
That is, this is the most important factor that you need to pay attention to.
Memory frequency (GPU) - you can read in more detail on the Internet, it would take too long to describe.
the drain is accepted. for a video card, such a concept as its own isolated bandwidth of a video card is appropriate. it is expressed, however, mostly quantitatively by the bus, but for the render buffers and the final mathematical rendering performance, the memory frequency of the video card is of greater importance. the bus will act as a fps limiter when using large amounts of memory and a large buffer to revert to memory, which is only at high resolutions. and the higher the resolution, the higher the requirement for this buffer. in the case of 2 or more video cards, it starts to work a little differently.
what is worth looking at when choosing a card pitch is the frequency and the number of shader processors. the truth is, it is very difficult to describe this because each card has its own architecture and therefore the obvious things in practice may be completely different from what is expected. before, you just had to look at the number of vertex and pyxel shadyrs in. it permeates almost all of the game graph in its purest form.
further by the number of rops and texture units. rops are responsible for shorter performance in high definition roughly speaking. texture units for working with texture samples, blending, blending, etc. This is not a joke, because in dx11 there are 128 samples stored and the textures are now thick under 4k and higher, probably. plus static lighting in some games.
after that it is already necessary to stick memory and so on into the bus.
In fact, even the same GTA 5 at low settings does not require more than 1 gigabyte and hardly uses such a large amount of video memory.
GTA 5 can be run on a map with 512 mb gddr. but I think no one is interested in cards that already now cannot reach the ultramaximum maximum maximum, even together, three ... therefore, even 4 gigabyte cards with 256-512 lul bus should be looked at with a grain of contempt.
MunchkiN 616
I only agree that the number of texture units plays a significant role, but at least 256 or 384 buses are needed for high resolutions. Thanks for the description of what ROPs are and so on, but I know all this.
Bus - this parameter is one of the main ones that affects the performance of a video card and its price. For example, a 128-bit bus. The memory bus bandwidth is calculated by the formula: [memory bus width] * [memory frequency] = [x bits skip] / [bits per byte (8bit)], you get it?
The memory bus width directly affects the memory bandwidth. A larger value for the memory width allows more data to be transferred from the memory of the video card for processing to the graphics processing unit (GPU). Logically speaking, it is possible to transfer 2 times more data through a 128-bit bus than through a 64-bit bus. However, in practice, this value is slightly lower than two times.
Sspk,
abstractly speaking, for games, the card will not be selected via the bus, the bus will usually be 192-256 bits, with the exception of the aforementioned 960,
and even if, say, a budget card is selected, its performance will still rather rest on the chip than on the memory. other plugs for gambling are not adapted in any way. there is no point in what to take.
the only exception is the recent mad max where the tire advantage takes place to affect performance.
in turn, the pitch is not for games - I personally don't care how many bits my tire is.
about the fact that the bus is not so important as the shader performance I already wrote comparing the 285 githforce (one of the most powerful single-chip of its time with a 512-bit bus) and a deeply budgetary and not even gaming 650 192-bit bus, where this card demonstrated an almost unconditional advantage in all, even in dx9-10 games of epic antiquity, naturally. in turn, its performance was simply stupidly limited in comparison with the practically unlimited (in relation to both cards and the processor limit) performance of 690.
And finally, the card should be chosen stupidly from the results of games and semi-technical like 3D marks. which one is bigger and better. and so it is rather simple food for empirical reasoning about how this or that card should behave.
MunchkiN 616
absolutely all statements of the author are refuted by only one company - Ubisoft :)
Memory bus =) can be compensated for by a high memory frequency, or with a cache, which Nvidia successfully did by having Fat HBM with its 4096 Bit bus ...
2 gigabytes, but with a 64-bit bus ... Where can you find such happiness?
When choosing a video card, you need to pay attention to the price =) more expensive, faster, cheaper, slower that's all ... You can endlessly fart about texture blocks about restart blocks, the bus, the Gpu architecture and other crap, but everything is stupid to come down to the budget ... You want to play cool on max, lay out the money, everything is stupid and simple.
bloomm
It seems to me that your answer will not be better here. They wrote everything off correctly.
bloomm
When choosing a video card, you need to pay attention to the price =) more expensive, faster, cheaper, slower at
all. even without taking into account professional video cards and complex graphons, and simple games of the current time are not always more expensive than they are. a good example of titanium x and 980ti for example.
bloomm
When choosing a video card, you need to pay attention to the price =) more expensive, faster, cheaper, slower that's all ...
I took 7950 for 9240 rubles, and the Radeon 280 is a little faster than it, but its price tag is 3-4 thousand higher
Sspk
I think which is better than your answer here. They wrote everything off correctly.
Price
Performance
As old as the world
[Denis Aleksandrovich]
Faster more expensive, slower cheaper ... Even in the case of non-game solutions titanium ... It doesn't matter for a lot or a little 1fps or 2 ... A stitched nerd will always find a compromise between performance and price + rely on overclocking and that who does not care about the price and wants to play at the maximum do not care at all. Yes, you can play on makismum, for example, on 2X 970 2560X1400p, but for such a brow it is essential that there would be 2 980ti and that's it! Spent on 250-300k Do you think he cares about some 3-4 thousand? I've met quite a few of these ...
bloomm
Do you think he cares about some 3-4 thousand? I've met quite a few of these ...
Where?
An old nerd will always find a compromise between
performance and price.
It is also worth considering that ultra settings are for large screens. Let's say a 22-24 "monica piss deeply at ultra 1920x1080
bloomm is
more expensive = better it works but not always. rather, this is what an inexperienced user should be guided by.
and this is not only an example of titanium-tee and a number of some other cards where different more interesting alternatives are offered.
for example, I believe that the 7970 (GHz) was better than the 680 competitor, while it was cheaper. true and 680 was a version that is better radical, but that's another story. I even wanted a couple of 7970GHz referents, but for a number of reasons I abandoned this venture in favor of Nvidia-two-chip. and 7970 cross will be more relevant than if the usual reference 680.
In the field of any catching end shit there are even more such examples, but it is not interesting to me, therefore, to say something specific in this area is a bunch.
Sspk is
ok where it works. atoms cross often does not work in tests.
from my own experience 4870x2 I will say that it still works more often than not (although for some reason there is no Internet in other reviews). thus, a certain increase is observed.
but the map itself was, as far as I remember, not very much. thick and uncomfortable unlike, though 3-layer, but still more comfortable thetan zeta. unless of course to score on the price however. separate tinats for price and performance would be better ..
you open the gpu test, hrch and you look like "aha, here is the norm, but here it is not the norm" and you go and order the one that is normal.