Nvidia videocard for CiV?

Sherlock

Just one more turn...
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
1,347
Location
Eagle, Idaho
AMD makes nice hardware but I just hate their drivers. I went to dload a driver the other day and it's 300meg with a ton of crap I don't want.

So I'm thinking of updating my HD6970 with a $400 - $500 Nvidia card.

Any suggestions?
 
GTX 780 should fit that price bracket. I'd also consider two GTX770s for close to same price.
 
Even a GTX 660 or GTX 760 would play Civ5 with ease. If you're just buying for Civ5, then there's no need to spend that much on a GPU.
 
Even a GTX 660 or GTX 760 would play Civ5 with ease. If you're just buying for Civ5, then there's no need to spend that much on a GPU.

My old GTS 250 would play CiV on high settings. I'm presuming he's not gonna spend $400-$500 just to play civ :p
 
Two things. First: both Nvidia and Amd drivers are huge ~300MB. Second: what "tons of crap" you have in mind? I am just curious.
 
nvidia drivers are about 400 mb even through windows update.

civ is a cpu heavy game afterall.
 
GTX 760. There's no reason to throw down $500 on a card. The 760 will run basically everything out there today on Ultra.
 
I'm not into FPS's, but I will be playing Star Citizen when it comes out.

That's going to require a killer system for sure.
 
GTX 760. There's no reason to throw down $500 on a card. The 760 will run basically everything out there today on Ultra.

I have two 760s and I can only barely run everything on ultra.
Of course, if you disable anti-aliasing completely, then what you say is true.
Some games like Crysis 3 or Metro:Last Light are too much for a single 760 unless
you reduce your graphics settings heavily. M:LL I can only use x2 AA with
overclocked 760s and a 4770k :mischief:

For Civ V, you don't really need much. It's a 2010 game after all.
Nut of course you want to build for the future too if you are building a new rig.
 
Depends on his monitor.

Oh, right. I forgot that 1920x1080 is for some reason not enough for people.

Yeah, I suppose if you're running 3 monitors or some bizarre 4k resolution because shiny then yeah, go ahead.

But I think it's excessive.

I just checked my Last Light settings. AA is off. Everything else is on max. Are you sure this isn't one of those "Gold plated audio cables" things? Because there's basically no visual difference, only a performance hit. Yeah, you might not be able to run full shadows either, but that doesn't mean you can't run the game with it looking great.

Whatever makes you happy I suppose. But you really don't NEED a $500 graphics card to game or for it to look amazing.
 
I'm playing with a GTX 670. 1920*1080 all details set on high. No lag, even on Deity. I'm ogling on a 2560*1600 monitor.
 
I just checked my Last Light settings. AA is off. Everything else is on max. Are you sure this isn't one of those "Gold plated audio cables" things? Because there's basically no visual difference, only a performance hit.

Hang on, are you saying you can't distinguish the difference between no-AA and, say, 8xMSAA? That seems... surprising. Or did I misunderstand?
 
Hang on, are you saying you can't distinguish the difference between no-AA and, say, 8xMSAA? That seems... surprising. Or did I misunderstand?

I don't see a difference worth complaining about, to be honest. Absolutely not in any fast paced game where you're not sitting around staring at details anyway. It's entirely overblown and unnecessary, and frequently used as a justification for 'needing' a better graphics card.

Maybe I just still remember the 8 bit days and know better than to complain about trivial junk like interpixel jagged edges, but in my opinion, people need better things to do with their time than worrying about it.
 
I see the difference clearly and I do want to have my AA and shadows... But then I am a perfectionist anyway. It's true a GTX 760 will run everything today with reasonable settings, but some games can force a Titan on its knees and for me the most cost-effective way of maximising video performance was dual 760s.
 
I see the difference clearly and I do want to have my AA and shadows... But then I am a perfectionist anyway. It's true a GTX 760 will run everything today with reasonable settings, but some games can force a Titan on its knees and for me the most cost-effective way of maximising video performance was dual 760s.

And that's where the "gold plated audio cables" comment came in. There used to be this huge "audiophile" movement where a lot of people claimed that the cables you used to connect your stereo and your speakers needed to be these ridiculously high end, expensive, gold plated cables because according to them it produced "higher quality sound." Until a test was done with these people involving their ridiculously high end cables on one setup and a bent coat hanger on the other, and they failed to pick out the high end cables every single time.

All of the pictures I see on google comparing AA settings are indistinguishable to me, because I'm not looking at detail with that much intensity in any realistic, graphic heavy game. I'm not standing around staring at the environment, I"m shooting things in the face. Whether or not pixel edges are smoothed out by a microscopic amount is irrelevant to my enjoyment of the game.

If you feel it's necessary, by all means, go for it. But spending that much is entirely unnecessary to "run" games on high end settings.
 
Game (or computer) runs OK , do not change anything, it works. If you need sth more, think if it is cpu or gpu you need to change (or everything :)). And I do not understand, CIV V is a problem or star citizen is?
 
Top Bottom