Atomic Systems

I've right now nVidia GTX 680 2GB video card installed on x79 based motherboad. The total experience with most routes is rather good with sporadic drops in frame rate.
My question is: Is it worth to upgrade to GTX 980 4GB video card, will this upgrade contribute to smoother gameplay.

Thanks for your opinion.

Adam

Not really, or at least not a cost effective improvement. Are you running a huge or multiple monitors?

gptech wrote:Not really, or at least not a cost effective improvement. Are you running a huge or multiple monitors?

Right now I have 23.3" Dell 24 Ultra HD 4K Monitor – P2415Q.

OK, so you have a lot of pixels to light up which is easier the more vRAM you have. Moving to a 4 GB card would make sense but wouldn't necessarily bring smoother gameplay---what CPU and how much system RAM do you have?

A word of warning. I have found upgrading video cards makes absolutely zero difference in performance in TS.

Depends on what you're upgrading from and to Rich , but on the whole I'd agree with you---from my own observations and posts from others, the game runs as good as it ever will on a x60 card regardless of which revision level it's at. Peter Hayes has stated that on his machines he can see no appreciable difference between a 960 and a 970 but of course the specs of the hardware play a big part in this.
Adam, http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... &sk=t&sd=a might make interesting reading, if only to see a wider range of opinions.

Do you play other games that would/could benefit from a GPU upgrade?....in which case it could be justifiable, but solely for TS I'd advocate waiting to see what TS2016 brings before re-evaluating what could be improved upon in your machine--despite being an older card the 680 stacks up reasonably well against a 980; http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-980 ... ce-GTX-680 and don't forget that when we're looking at it from purely a TS point of view the game can't take advantage of many of the higher features that newer cards support.

Doesn't one of the variants of the GTX 980 have 6GB VRAM?
As I understand it to run a 4K UHD monitor you need at least 4GB VRAM on a modest size monitor and at least 6GB on a 4K UHD one?
I doubt that increasing the VRAM or the spec of the card would improve TS2015 performance per se significantly, except to keep it smooth on these new monitors, ie allowing very high video settings without the stuttering penalty.
As Gary says on my GTX 960 and GTX 970 both 4GB VRAM powering 27" GSync Monitors, 4.2GHz i5's OC'd cpu, 2100Hz 16GB RAM, 3x3 SSAA in TS2015 the "performance" difference in TS 2015 is negligible - both give smooth video with very little stuttering. The only thing I have noticed is that there is slightly more shimmer and Moire with the GTX 960, but that could be due to in card variation, because as we all know a GTX 960 could be a 970 that never made the grade.

With a 4K monitor you won't regret moving to a 980 (make sure you get enough VRAM) as the Maxwell cards have improved over the previous FERMI versions.
pH

Many thanks for your kind input. Upgrading the GPU doesn't improve significantly the smoothness of TS2015 game play, maybe my ego will improve knowing that I have a strong video card installed.

Cheers,

Adam

I upgraded from a GTX 560TI 1gb to a GTX 960 2gb and find TS runs a lot better and smoother after playing around with the settings in Nvidia control panel.

gptech wrote:the game runs as good as it ever will on a x60 card regardless of which revision level it's at...

Beg to differ, Gary - I'm certain my GTX 260 is my weak link!

(Yes, I know, it's considered ancient these days...)

I'll differ with your differing and point to your CPU
certainly if you're running at stock speeds.

gptech wrote:I'll differ with your differing and point to your CPU
certainly if you're running at stock speeds.

My 30 fps limit regularly has the GPU sitting at 98-99% (1x2 SSAA, no shadows). That CPU is not the weak link - it often sits below 40% (so 80% of one core) while I'm thrashing along the WCML - and yes, it's at stock speeds. If you believe Passmark, it's up there with the fastest i3s and most of the i7s - there are only about 30 faster CPUs listed.

I just can't quite justify spending a couple of hundred quid, just so I can have shadows and a bit less catenary and fence shimmer... it runs well enough for me if I'm honest, but there's definitely (a little) more available from a newer card.

Yeah, I belive Passmark...it gives it a score of 4000 and an overall ranking of 489th, on par with an i3-2125 or mobile versions of the i7 running at around 2GHz.
It's certainly a different story when/if you overclock it:

When clocked at 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 is among the fastest CPUs you can buy in terms of single-threaded performance.

(http://techreport.com/review/26735/over ... rocessor/3 ) but at stock speeds it isn't going to set the world alight; this is borne out by every review you'll find, http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/over ... m-g3258-ae for example.

It's not a bad CPU, I'm not saying that, but an x60 card-even an older 'family' variant such as the 260-shouldn't be the first suspect when evaluating what's *weak*.

Anne Robinson might know! On a more serious note I have a 4970k at stock paired with a GTX 980 running TS from an SSD. I still get some stuttering from time to time but one thing the 980 does seem to let me do is run at higher resolutions whilst maintaining a decent smooth capped frame rate of 30fps.

Regards,

Len

gptech wrote:Yeah, I belive Passmark...it gives it a score of 4000 and an overall ranking of 489th, on par with an i3-2125 or mobile versions of the i7 running at around 2GHz.

Those ratings are for a multi-threaded benchmark, whereas we know that TS only fully loads one core. I'm looking at the single-thread scores.

My numbers above suggest that it is the GPU - and it's definitely the GPU that's preventing me from turning the AA up any further. Sticking to the original point, a GTX 260 has 192 cores running at 576 MHz, while a GTX 560 (still not the latest and greatest) has 336 cores at 810 MHz or more; Passmark scores (again!) are 1115 for the 260 and 3116 for the 560.

Therefore, a 560 would let me get closer to running "as good as it ever will" than my 260 does, and all x60s are not equal.