Support NeoGAF

[1st Course]

Specs:

Benchmarks:

3x Titan SLI Gaming Benchmarks, 3840x2160 (4K), Max Settings.

Crysis 3 3x Titan SLI 2560x1440 Frame-Rate Tests

Conclusion:

It's difficult to fully assess this remarkable array of PC componentry. On paper we may well have the computational might to offer a next generation leap over the PlayStation 4, but the reality is that we don't have the dedicated software to actually put that power to the best possible use.

We are taking current-gen games and scaling them up as much as we can via higher quality presets, and in many cases the sheer computational effort required isn't directly proportional to the increased quality in the overall experience. Take Sleeping Dogs for example: it's combining super-sampling anti-aliasing with post-process AA for an ultra-pristine presentation - at 4K no less - but we'll never see such an approach in a console game where cost is always measured against the quality of the result. If game coders were actually targeting 15TFLOPs, those resources will be deployed elsewhere - indeed, the horsepower is there to deploy entirely new rendering paradigms.

More benchmarks and other thoughts at the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-ultimate-gaming-pc

 

[Dragon1893]

The PS4 comparisons aren't why this article is interesting, there's good stuff in there. This is one monstrous rig.

the law of diminishing returns kicks in at three Titans, with the introduction of a fourth being borderline pointless in most applications.

This monster drinks at least 160W at idle, scaling up according to load. Across all of our testing we hit about 980W at the max - enough to keep the room heated during the recent cold snap.

With a sweetspot in price vs. performance defined by using two cards in SLI, the chances are that you can attain Titan-level frame-rates on a great many games by operating a dual GTX 660 Ti set-up. We reckon that's a saving of around £420.

Run Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 at the very high (maximum) preset with 8x MSAA or 4x TXAA and you'll do so with a marked hit to performance. In our tests, we could only achieve 40-45 frames per second

At 2560x1440 and full settings, some older games still manage to give a single Titan a good workout. Metro 2033 was just shy of 30 fps and Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs barely crossed the 30 fps threshold.

 

[googleplex]

The PS4 comparisons aren't why this article is interesting, there's good stuff in there. This is one monstrous rig.

It's a goddamned ridiculous rig.

 

[Toxa]

It's a goddamned ridiculous rig.

 

[Radec]

How much does that monstrous rig cost? Goddamn.

 

[Tenck]

The GPUs alone set you back at least $3k if you buy it at MSRP. I WANT THAT RIG.

 

[MWS Natural]

Conclusion:

So basically high end gaming PCs need console advancement to make their purchase worth while.

 

[Kun Aguero]

Insane rig, bet there wouldn't be much change out of £4000 to build that.

 

[Dragon1893]

It's a goddamned ridiculous rig.

Yeah, but the title of the article is obvious click bait. There's interesting stuff in there though but like he says at the end of the article it would've been more interesting to do this test a year from now to run next gen games on it.
With the exception of Crysis 3, it's a matter of running current gen assets at ridiculous HQ.

This pretty much sums it up:

If game coders were actually targeting 15TFLOPs, those resources will be deployed elsewhere - indeed, the horsepower is there to deploy entirely new rendering paradigms.

How much does that monstrous rig cost? Goddamn.

It's in the article:

will probably set you back well over £4,000.

It's funny how Nvidia sent this rig to DF for testing at this time. Combined with the sensationalist title I can't help but wonder about their real intentions...

 

[Triple U]

They could only get Crysis 3 to 45FPS with this thing?

Run Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 at the very high (maximum) preset with 8x MSAA or 4x TXAA and you'll do so with a marked hit to performance. In our tests, we could only achieve 40-45 frames per second - not quite what we expect from an enormously expensive PC that is effectively the most powerful piece of consumer-level gaming machinery money can buy. Scaling things down to 2x SMAA reduces the computational load and still offers excellent reduction of aliasing, and here is where you get a measure of return on your investment.

That's gotta be some new floor for efficiency.

 

[Canis lupus]

€5000 for the pc and another €6000 for a 4K tv and not even 60fps with most of the games tested. It'll be interesting once 1 card can offer the same performance as 3 titans.

 

[catabarez]

So basically high end gaming PCs need console advancement to make their purchase worth while.

Only because the games have to cater to the less powerful consoles. PC exclusive games could push it.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

those specs are rigdiculous

 

[bee]

much rather have 3D surround (11520 x 1080 or above) than 4k, i think that gives a real reason to upgrade personally, tomb raider for example running in this mode is in a completely different league to its console counterpart. also 670 sli is enough for this (£650 ish) rather than tri sli titan (£2700 ish)

 

[ShinobiFist]

PC gaming is going to keep getting better, especially for up coming mid range cards down the road. Is going to be a while when 4K will be the norm. 1080p will do for a lot folks for years to come.

 

[lynux3]

PC gaming is going to keep getting better, especially for up coming mid range cards down the road. Is going to be a while when 4K will be the norm. 1080p will do for a lot folks for years to come.

While I agree it's cool to have a nice framerate and higher level of visuals, but there is nothing "better" about having to continually upgrade your components to keep up when there is dedicated hardware there that's more than satisfactory.

 

[Perkel]

They could only get Crysis 3 to 45FPS with this thing?



That's gotta be some new floor for efficiency.

And people are still discusing that efficiency is myth and don't believe in console optimizations.

both amd and nvidia release new drivers that improve performance by 10~20% sometimes 40% and people don't believe same hardware may be much better in closed box beating stronger hardware.

PC hardwdre will always be inefficient because of share variety of hardware and unified software that need to be written for it.

 

[Quasar]

That is one interesting article.

Certainly no wonder Sony was saying a big no to 4k gaming on the PS4.

And 38fps for Crysis 3 at 4k...so is it the GPU or CPU holding it back at that point?

 

[Qassim]

There is a limit you hit because of the lack of advancement in consoles. But the article hits on the point why I prefer to get all games I can on PC over than my consoles:

I can play how I want, graphically, performance, control, etc. To justify a rig like this for gaming, you of course will have to be doing some huge resolution gaming which is fine, there will be people out there that would - but for graphical fidelity, unless PC gaming somehow becomes the mainstream for this tier of "core" gaming, it'll forever be limited by the consoles.

So we should see a sizeable jump on PC because of the next-generation of consoles, we'll have already had all the ultra high resolution stuff, best anti aliasing, etc on PC, but we'll see more in terms of physics, particles, lighting, etc because of the new consoles.

 

[SneakyStephan]

While I agree it's cool to have a nice framerate and higher level of visuals, but there is nothing "better" about having to continually upgrade your components to keep up when there is dedicated hardware there that's more than satisfactory.

Nothing satisfactory about 30 fps no AA 50 degree fov and a controller imo.

 

[jerd]

While I agree it's cool to have a nice framerate and higher level of visuals, but there is nothing "better" about having to continually upgrade your components to keep up when there is dedicated hardware there that's more than satisfactory.

Are we seriously starting this nonsense already?

 

[The Janitor]

And people are still discusing that efficiency is myth and don't believe in console optimizations.

both amd and nvidia release new drivers that improve performance by 10~20% sometimes 40% and people don't believe same hardware may be much better in closed box beating stronger hardware.

PC hardwdre will always be inefficient because of share variety of hardware and unified software that need to be written for it.

A lot of those games have frame killing options that you might as well turn off. You can easily tweak the games for a much higher framrate. Take Metro for example, turn off advanced DoF and you can go from 30 to 60 fps.

 

[theytookourjobz]

While I agree it's cool to have a nice framerate and higher level of visuals, but there is nothing "better" about having to continually upgrade your components to keep up when there is dedicated hardware there that's more than satisfactory.

Most probably believe better framerates and higher visual fidelity paired with cheaper games is "better".

 

[1st Course]

They could only get Crysis 3 to 45FPS with this thing?



That's gotta be some new floor for efficiency.

8XMSAA is a very big performance hog.

much rather have 3D surround (11520 x 1080 or above) than 4k, i think that gives a real reason to upgrade personally, tomb raider for example running in this mode is in a completely different league to its console counterpart. also 670 sli is enough for this (£650 ish) rather than tri sli titan (£2700 ish)

670 SLI is not even as good as a single 690 let alone 3 titans.

 

[Sibylus]

While I agree it's cool to have a nice framerate and higher level of visuals, but there is nothing "better" about having to continually upgrade your components to keep up when there is dedicated hardware there that's more than satisfactory.

You have a funny way of using "having", as if compliance to a yearly upgrade cycle is non-negotiable.

 

[Momentary]

People are seriously talking about efficiency when these games are running at resolutions and with effects that would cause next gen consoles to have to kick back to 720p just to run at 30fps. With games that have "all dem graphics", 4k resolution won't even be possible with these new consoles... Unless people want to ditch the cinematic experience for a slide show experience.

4k games on next gen consoles will not be very demanding in the graphics department. Think Geometry Wars.

Hopefully by 2016 we'll have single cards that can perform as well as 2 Titans at 680 and 7970 prices. Nevertheless this was pretty impressive. Too bad YouTube videos can't do this justice.

 

[jerd]

You have a funny way of using "having", as if compliance to a yearly upgrade cycle is non-negotiable.

Well you have to if you want to keep up with the consoles.

 

[catabarez]

8XMSAA is a very big performance hog.



670 SLI is not even as good as a single 690 let alone 3 titans.

Without an OC it would barely be worse than a 690. Barely.

 

[Hypron]

Well you have to if you want to keep up with the consoles.

... Not really.

 

[DonMigs85]

That is one interesting article.

Certainly no wonder Sony was saying a big no to 4k gaming on the PS4.

And 38fps for Crysis 3 at 4k...so is it the GPU or CPU holding it back at that point?

More likely the GPU, just not enough fillrate and memory bandwidth

 

[Thorgal]

as was expected

yes this monster would run circles around my laptop .gaming pc and soon to be PS4 COMBINED but you won't get games suddenly running at avatar level graphics even if you downsample them from 8000p to 1080 on it at 60 FPS.

 

[Baleoce]

Only because the games have to cater to the less powerful consoles. PC exclusive games could push it.

Sadly there is no such thing these days. There are PC exclusives, but none that are prepared to have a budget that would push top end hardware. Not in the consumer market anyway.

 

[Sibylus]

Well you have to if you want to keep up with the consoles.

I guess, but that's a personal finances problem, less so a PC problem

I made it seven years with a dedicated graphics card upgrade here and there and still mightily enjoyed games. It isn't a platform you have to run the wheels off year in, year out to get your money's worth.

 

[jerd]

... Not really.

I guess, but that's a personal finances problem, less so a PC problem

I made it seven years with a dedicated graphics card upgrade here and there and still mightily enjoyed games. It isn't a platform you have to run the wheels off year in, year out to get your money's worth.

I was actually poking fun at the post that was originally quoted, because I disagree with the idea that a gaming PC would be struggling to break even with a console.

 

[Sibylus]

Well, I can buy that one given PC that starts the next gen ahead of the fidelity of the consoles could finish the generation behind them (especially in a decade-long development process on a closed box), but parity even in that case is largely unimportant. You can squeeze so much blood out of an old PC that it isn't even funny.

 

[Backfoggen]

Where are dey 4k monitors at.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

What a rig.

 

[Momentary]

Sadly there is no such thing these days. There are PC exclusives, but none that are prepared to have a budget that would push top end hardware. Not in the consumer market anyway.

Yeah. These days PC exclusives are made to run on almost anything just so they can reach a wider audience to gain the most profit.

And people are still discusing that efficiency is myth and don't believe in console optimizations.

You're talking about games that have so many stupid graphical options turned on and running at resolutions so high that it would cause consoles to burn buildings down. I can optimize games on my PC too... it's called moving the sliders to the left.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Well you have to if you want to keep up with the consoles.

Hah, no.

You could stop upgrading in 2008-2009 and still play games at higher than console settings at 1080p with 16xAF at 40-50 fps.

Sure you couldn't max the games anymore but they'll still look better than the console port and still run at higher res at twice the framerate.

 

[Waaghals]

And people are still discusing that efficiency is myth and don't believe in console optimizations.

both amd and nvidia release new drivers that improve performance by 10~20% sometimes 40% and people don't believe same hardware may be much better in closed box beating stronger hardware.

PC hardwdre will always be inefficient because of share variety of hardware and unified software that need to be written for it.

They were running 8x MSAA in Crysis 3. MSAA in games with modern lightning engines is incredibly inefficient, even adding 2x MSAA can cause a large drop in performance.

Running 8x is ridiculous , they should have used just SMAA which is as good but much cheaper.

There won't be many next gen games with any form for MSAA that's for sure.

 

[Jinko]

4k is kind of pointless IMO, I would much prefer they put the extra horsepower into geometry and effects.

Obviously that PC is way ahead of its time (and most peoples wallets) and is using 4k as a benchmark nothing more.

 

[Sethos]

 

[plainr_]

Where are dey 4k monitors at.

We'll be getting 4k on phones first.

 

[shinobi602]

This monstrosity could only get 40-45fps in Crysis 3 maxed out? Dafuq

 

[plainr_]

This monstrosity could only get 40-45fps in Crysis 3 maxed out? Dafuq

One more Titan should do.

 

[Gav47]

Where are dey 4k monitors at.

Sharp released one at the start of the year, its $5000.

 

[Minsc]

This monstrosity could only get 40-45fps in Crysis 3 maxed out? Dafuq

Run Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 at the very high (maximum) preset with 8x MSAA or 4x TXAA and you'll do so with a marked hit to performance. In our tests, we could only achieve 40-45 frames per second - not quite what we expect from an enormously expensive PC that is effectively the most powerful piece of consumer-level gaming machinery money can buy. Scaling things down to 2x SMAA reduces the computational load and still offers excellent reduction of aliasing, and here is where you get a measure of return on your investment.

AA + resolution. You can take a rig from 50 years in the future and probably still cripple it with older games if you crank up the AA and resolution to levels it can't process.

 

[Waaghals]

This monstrosity could only get 40-45fps in Crysis 3 maxed out? Dafuq

8X MSAA, kills performance, and won't deal with all jaggies.

It's almost as if Leadbetter wanted to make his test as inefficient as possible.

 

[smr00]

People are seriously talking about efficiency when these games are running at resolutions and with effects that would cause next gen consoles to have to kick back to 720p just to run at 30fps. With games that have "all dem graphics", 4k resolution won't even be possible with these new consoles... Unless people want to ditch the cinematic experience for a slide show experience.

4k games on next gen consoles will not be very demanding in the graphics department. Think Geometry Wars.

Hopefully by 2016 we'll have single cards that can perform as well as 2 Titans at 680 and 7970 prices. Nevertheless this was pretty impressive. Too bad YouTube videos can't do this justice.

Wouldn't hold your breath about having a single card being $499 that runs as well as a $2000 sli setup in 3 years.

We will have a single card that is as equal as a titan for $499 but sli? nope.

 

[amdnv]

We'll be getting 4k on phones first.

And that right there is the sad truth. It's f-ing ridiculous. Phones are getting pixel densities beyond what's perceivable to anyone whose nose isn't touching the display, and computer screens stagnate.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that a few years from now I'll end up buying a 4K 50 inch TV set to use as a monitor because monitor panels just don't seem to evolve.