CoD4. 4800x1200. GPU(s)?

[TIGR]

Bottom Line
What Nvidia 400 series GPU or SLI'd GPUs could maintain a minimum 85fps framerate in CoD4 at 4800x1200 with 4x AA? Gotta be Nvidia for Folding@home.

Details
Due to the economics and performance of Folding@home on 400 series cards, I would prefer to SLI two or more lower-end 400s as opposed to running a single high-end 400 or 500 series.

I'm running CoD4 across three monitors using Nvidia 3D Surround and Widescreen Fixer. Benching with two GTS 450s in SLI (at 900/1800/2100), I get the following framerate results with no AA:

Minimum FPS: 18
Average FPS: 67
Maximum FPS: 401
Standard deviation: 40

In fairness, I threw smoke grenades and ran through them a few times for half of the benchmark. But that happens in games and I am a bit competitive in CoD4 so don't want anything to be able to happen in-game to make in unplayable, even in the most graphically intense situations likely to be encountered.

I have other cards to test but they're tied up in business benching. This is just for personal use which is not a priority so I just wanted to see if anyone else is running Nvidia 400 series GPUs in CoD4 at high resolutions. Keep in mind that 4800x1200 contains three times more pixels than 1920x1080. I really am talking about high resolutions here.

 

[Over_Lord]

Umm, 2x GTX460 is good as it consumes lower power than the GTX470 SLi(GTX470 has gotten cheap nowadays)

Grab the 1GB version, actually try to rope in 2xGTX460 eVGA FTW

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Aren't you shooting too high with that "minimum 85fps" @ 4800*1200 4xAA?

I'm not even sure that's feasible with today's hardware. You could always throw in an extra GTX580 until you get there, but min fps may start to decrease with SLI.

Nonetheless, I'd say you'll definitely need cards with more than 1GB, at that resolution.

 

[Wyverex]

Aren't you shooting too high with that "minimum 85fps" @ 4800*1200 4xAA?

Yes, I agree that TIGR is either shooting too high or that his requirement line better wording.


TIGR, are you aiming at a) "a minimum of 85 for average fps" or b) "the minimum fps of 85"?
If it's the a) than it's quite doable, probably with a set of SLI GTX 470, maybe even SLI GTX 460 (1 GB versions, of course)
but if it's b) that you're after - I doubt that even quad SLI of GTX 580 would do the trick (I could be severely mistaken, of course)

 

[GSquadron]

The human eye, only gets 30 fps, which means that more than that you will not get any enjoyable difference.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The human eye, only gets 30 fps, which means that more than that you will not get any enjoyable difference.

Thats not even remotely true.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The human eye, only gets 30 fps, which means that more than that you will not get any enjoyable difference.

1995 called, they want their statistics back. the human eye can see far beyond 30 fps. on topic, that game is fairly old. i would go with 2x 460s if you really want to keep your FPS steady.

 

[3volvedcombat]

2 GTX 470's.

Will do that. Garentee'd

at 250 a pop!

overall your getting for 550 dollars, two 14,000 ppd cards, and in sli at that resolution in "call of duty 4" should get a average of 85 fps.

If fps is to low, Just crank the cores on both 470's to 700-750 and watch the frame rates boost in-front of your eyes sir. and boost buy 30% to.

And that beats out the GTX 580 idea, because your getting more power for your buck in gaming and folding at home by far.



Just a tad on the wattage side, but a 750 watt acceptable power supply should handle it.

 

[theonedub]

Judging by the capabilities of a 460 1GB SLI setup @ 2560*1600, I think they would be up to the task if OCed a healthy amount (doing that anyway for F@H, right?). 2 470s would get it done as well.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Umm, 2x GTX460 is good as it consumes lower power than the GTX470 SLi(GTX470 has gotten cheap nowadays)

Grab the 1GB version, actually try to rope in 2xGTX460 eVGA FTW

no. GTX470 SLI all the way

or get 2 HD6870s

 

[overclocking101]

no. GTX470 SLI all the way

or get 2 HD6870s

ati cards fold like shit bro. i would get cards with 2gb or at least 1.5gb of ram on them. thats seriously what is holding you back at your resolution

 

[MxPhenom 216]

ati cards fold like shit bro. i would get cards with 2gb or at least 1.5gb of ram on them. thats seriously what is holding you back at your resolution

oh i didnt realize he was folding. whoops!

GTX470s then.

 

[TIGR]

Aren't you shooting too high with that "minimum 85fps" @ 4800*1200 4xAA....

What, it's too much to ask for a system that renders a mere five hundred million pixels per second in CoD4 with AA even when running through grass and smoke?

....TIGR, are you aiming at a) "a minimum of 85 for average fps" or b) "the minimum fps of 85"....

I'm aiming for a, a minimum FPS of 85. I don't want it dropping below that. I have com_maxfps set to limit frame rate right at 85 (my monitors are 85Hz). If it's not feasible, I can handle 75fps.

The human eye, only gets 30 fps, which means that more than that you will not get any enjoyable difference.

A while back I did a small test with seven friends who play CoD4 (actually am gonna do this again some time with more people). I had each one sit at the computer playing CoD4 for thirty-second intervals. Between each interval, I had them look away while I typed something into the computer. I told them I may or may not be changing the "frame rate limiter" (com_maxfps). So they didn't know whether I was changing the frame rate at all and had to tell me what difference they noticed, if any.

7 groaned about how choppy it was at 30fps.
7 could tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
5 could tell the difference between 60fps and 85fps.
1 could tell the difference between 85fps and 100fps.
0 could tell the difference between 100fps and anything higher (tried up to 150fps).

This was done on a system that will maintain a minimum 150FPS at the settings I was using (1600x1200, no AA) if no limit is placed on the frame rate. I verified the frame rates during the experiment were what they should have been, by checking through Fraps frametimes logs of the whole ordeal (damn "paperwork") later. One curiosity is that my monitor was set to a 85Hz refresh rate. Do you think the one who could detect the difference between 85fps and 100fps was a fluke? That probably deserves its own topic. This should be done again with a 120Hz LCD.

Human vision can't be measured simply in frames per second. The dorsal stream and visual cortical areas of the brain utilize complex mechanisms to detect and analyze objects, movement, etc. in the visual field. I propose that these mechanisms can become highly tuned in the brains of twitch gamers. It's already been shown that some gamers react to visual stimuli almost as fast as fighter jet pilots. So we're already dealing with a group of people whose ability to process visual information is above average.

Judging by the capabilities of a 460 1GB SLI setup @ 2560*1600, I think they would be up to the task if OCed a healthy amount (doing that anyway for F@H, right?). 2 470s would get it done as well.

Yep, overclocked of course. I'm surprised at how well the 450s handle it to be honest. If I stay away from grass and smoke (heh), it's just about playable without AA at 4800x1200. I can at least work around it. I wish one could run three-way SLI with 460s. But then, considering this, maybe it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

What, it's too much to ask for a system that renders a mere five hundred million pixels per second in CoD4 with AA even when running through grass and smoke?



I'm aiming for a, a minimum FPS of 85. I don't want it dropping below that. I have com_maxfps set to limit frame rate right at 85 (my monitors are 85Hz). If it's not feasible, I can handle 75fps.



A while back I did a small test with seven friends who play CoD4 (actually am gonna do this again some time with more people). I had each one sit at the computer playing CoD4 for thirty-second intervals. Between each interval, I had them look away while I typed something into the computer. I told them I may or may not be changing the "frame rate limiter" (com_maxfps). So they didn't know whether I was changing the frame rate at all and had to tell me what difference they noticed, if any.

7 groaned about how choppy it was at 30fps.
7 could tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
5 could tell the difference between 60fps and 85fps.
1 could tell the difference between 85fps and 100fps.
0 could tell the difference between 100fps and anything higher (tried up to 150fps).

This was done on a system that will maintain a minimum 150FPS at the settings I was using (1600x1200, no AA) if no limit is placed on the frame rate. I verified the frame rates during the experiment were what they should have been, by checking through Fraps frametimes logs of the whole ordeal (damn "paperwork") later. One curiosity is that my monitor was set to a 85Hz refresh rate. Do you think the one who could detect the difference between 85fps and 100fps was a fluke? That probably deserves its own topic. This should be done again with a 120Hz LCD.

Human vision can't be measured simply in frames per second. The dorsal stream and visual cortical areas of the brain utilize complex mechanisms to detect and analyze objects, movement, etc. in the visual field. I propose that these mechanisms can become highly tuned in the brains of twitch gamers. It's already been shown that some gamers react to visual stimuli almost as fast as fighter jet pilots. So we're already dealing with a group of people whose ability to process visual information is above average.



Yep, overclocked of course. I'm surprised at how well the 450s handle it to be honest. If I stay away from grass and smoke (heh), it's just about playable without AA at 4800x1200. I can at least work around it. I wish one could run three-way SLI with 460s. But then, considering this, maybe it wouldn't matter anyway.

avg and max fps isnt what matters for smooth gaming. its the minimum FPS. i can almost guarentee a dual GPU set up at 60FPS is going to feel choppier then a single GPU set up at 40FPS. Do to the low FPS spikes dual GPU's get.

and a minimum of 85fps at that res will not happen

 

[TIGR]

avg and max fps isnt what matters for smooth gaming. its the minimum FPS

You're right, minimum fps is the main thing. That's why I asked what setup "could maintain a minimum 85fps framerate".

i can almost guarentee a dual GPU set up at 60FPS is going to feel choppier then a single GPU set up at 40FPS. Do to the low FPS spikes dual GPU's get.

In some configurations (especially older cards and drivers), microstutter may result from the alternate frame rendering in multi-GPU setups. But not in all. I've been noticing over the past year that microstutter is not the issue it once was. At any rate, when I bench, I log every single frame, meaning that the minimum frame rate may have occurred only once. That's why I also check standard deviation (from the average fps) to determine the consistency of the frame rate and get a feel for the overall magnitude of frame rate spiking.

It's not universally (or even commonly, in my experience) true these days that "a dual GPU set up at 60FPS is going to feel choppier then a single GPU set up at 40FPS".

 

[MxPhenom 216]

You're right, minimum fps is the main thing. That's why I asked what setup "could maintain a minimum 85fps framerate".



In some configurations (especially older cards and drivers), microstutter may result from the alternate frame rendering in multi-GPU setups. But not in all. I've been noticing over the past year that microstutter is not the issue it once was. At any rate, when I bench, I log every single frame, meaning that the minimum frame rate may have occurred only once. That's why I also check standard deviation (from the average fps) to determine the consistency of the frame rate and get a feel for the overall magnitude of frame rate spiking.

either way it does matter. multi gpu setup will never always give you smooth fps because games wont take advantage of both gpus like they should. thats why a single high end GPU is always better then 2 lower mid end gpus

I had 2 GTX260 sli and when i went to this GTX470 everything felt way smoother!

But i would try to get SLI GTX470 or 580s

 

[mlee49]

Alright after reading through everyones suggestions and debate over noticable frames per second I'm going to suggest 3x SLI 470's.

A) they scale well
B) Price is good and turn great ppd for F@H
C) 96xAA is only available in Tri-SLI Yes you can show tha off

That is if your mainboard has 3x PCI-E slots and your psu can handle it.

 

[theonedub]

He posted this link: http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-2-3-way-sli-review/9

a couple posts up about how crappy TRI SLI is for his use

 

[MxPhenom 216]

He posted this link: http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-2-3-way-sli-review/9

a couple posts up about how crappy TRI SLI is for his use

anything higher then 2 GPU is just pointless and terrible. just get 2 higher end gpu like 480s or 580s and you will be good

 

[3volvedcombat]

I think my GTX 470 sli idea is perfect.

No reason to get 580's when they cost twice as much as GTX 470's

480's are a joke for 400 bucks still

at low as 230 each, a pair of GTX 470's will do the job. And its garentee'd because a GTX 470 dosnt have to stay at a small 600 core.

Thats why i have my 470 at 800+ core sometimes.

there literally that fast.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

I think my GTX 470 sli idea is perfect.

No reason to get 580's when they cost twice as much as GTX 470's

480's are a joke for 400 bucks still

at low as 230 each, a pair of GTX 470's will do the job. And its garentee'd because a GTX 470 dosnt have to stay at a small 600 core.

Thats why i have my 470 at 800+ core sometimes.

there literally that fast.

what?? all fermi cards can overclock. saying that you can have 800+ sometimes and their that fast is irrelavent. of course they can get up to 800+ and be fast. fermi cards are some of the best overclocking cards out on the market right now. nothing has to stay at their stock clock. and nothing is gaurenteed with technology.

OP if you get 470s. id look at getting a non factory overclocked EVGa or a Twin Frozr II msi card

 

[char[] rager]

There is a huge difference between 30 fps and 100 fps.

 

[theonedub]

There are two Vanilla EVGA 470s FS @ OCN at $205/each or $405 for both. Looks like it was meant just for you

 

[MxPhenom 216]

there are two vanilla evga 470s fs @ ocn at $205/each or $405 for both. Looks like it was meant just for you :d

perfect!

Do it op!

 

[TIGR]

either way it does matter. multi gpu setup will never always give you smooth fps because games wont take advantage of both gpus like they should. thats why a single high end GPU is always better then 2 lower mid end gpus

I had 2 GTX260 sli and when i went to this GTX470 everything felt way smoother!

The three 5870s in one of my rigs provide a very smooth gaming experience.

anything higher then 2 GPU is just pointless and terrible. just get 2 higher end gpu like 480s or 580s and you will be good

Respectfully—

Biased blanket statements like the ones you're making are dangerous and often inaccurate. I've built systems with three-way SLI setups where the third card provided a significant, much-needed boost to run games at desired settings (for myself or for clients). I rarely recommend tri- or quad-SLI but one must consider graphics configuration on a case by case basis. SLI scaling is not the same across all GPUs and drivers. I generally prefer to do the job with the smallest number of GPUs possible, but a single high-end GPU is not always better than two lower-end ones as you say.

In my case, I'm using a board that can do quad SLI and I'm going to have ≥4 cards installed anyway. I should have mentioned that in the OP. At any rate the question is, what group of one to four cards will provide the best gaming (particularly high-res) and FAH performance per dollar? I suspect it will be a dual-GPU SLI setup.

The switch from 260s to a 470 is a jump to a different series and architecture, and more info would be needed (system config, exact frametime comparisons, etc.—more than "felt way smoother") for that to provide a useful insight.

There are two Vanilla EVGA 470s FS @ OCN at $205/each or $405 for both. Looks like it was meant just for you

Thanks—I will take a look and see if they're still available. Sounds promising.