Horizons How a gtx 960 performs with Horizons?

stoney

S
Hi,

My spec (gaming laptop):

Processor (CPU) - Intel® Core™ i7 Quad Core Processor 6700HQ (2.6GHz, 3.5GHz Turbo)
Memory (RAM) - 12GB Kingston SODIMM DDR3 1600MHz (1 x 8GB, 1 x 4GB)
Graphics Card - NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 960M - 2.0GB DDR5 Video RAM - DirectX® 12
SSD Drive - 256GB M.2 2280, SATA 6Gb/s (564MB/R, 400MB/W)
Operating System - Windows 10 Home 64 Bit

Performance:

On preset quality high graphics settings I am getting about 50fps without lights on in SRV and 40fps with lights on.

On preset quality ultra I get a drop of around 5fps.

I‘m very happy with the GTX960m tbh, I think it offers great value for money.
 

Franta Zombik

Franta Zombik
LKx said:
Hi, i have an old desktop (2.5 GHz quad core Q9300, 8GB RAM, GTX 460 1GB VRAM).
It performs quite well in space (30 to 60 FPS on high settings), but down on the planets i have to set the terrain options to low to have a good playability in all situations (and avoid blurry textures, probably caused by the 1GB VRAM).

I'd like to increase a bit the visual quality without spending too much on this old desktop (so i exclude the upgrade to a gtx n70+, which might also require an upgrade of the power supply), so i was wondering, how a gtx 960 4GB VRAM would perform with Horizons?
Click to expand...

GTX 960 work perfectly, almost full ultra including planets, but not without at least i7-3,7 GHz, 16GB RAM and SSD. Upgrading only graphics in otherwise toaster isn´t worth the money.
 

Cynaqq

Cynaqq
Chris Simon said:
You will be more than happy with GTX960. Unless you want to play on multiple monitors or/and 4k resolutions, it'll be more than enough.

I've got 4GB 960OC and playing in 1920x1080 on Ultra and with graphic mods on. It stays over 50 everywhere, even garden stations.
Click to expand...

Same here, never going lower than 50. I have a new system with everything last gen though, 3.2 GHz 14nm processor and 16GB ddr4 ram.
 
Last edited:

CMDR M Kozak

C
Im playing on ultra settings 1080p - terrain work set to max.

I5 4460, 8GB ram, GTX 960 2GB version

Space and stations FPS 60+ (I run vsynced)
Planets (when landed) 45-55 fps. I dont recall seing numbers below 45.
 
Last edited:

MoarDan

MoarDan
i made the mistake of owning a laptop, no matter what i cant get ed to use my geforce....a guy can dream cant he lol
 

DasUnding

D
2gb of vram can now not handle more then texturequality=medium terrainquality=medium if you chose more then that you will have significant performance drop. its not a case of computing its a case of vram management

Two GTX 770 has so much computing power but drops from 60 frames with vsync to 10 frames per sec if you come to the limit of the vram

What i learned about that case is that i would never again buy a graphics card and save money by the vram. There are only a des games well optimised in vram management for exampel the witcher 3 using ~1gb and runs absolutly smooth
 
Last edited:

DasUnding

D
Even a gtx960 should be able to compute ultra and even the terrain slider maxed out excluding texturequality=medium terrainquality=medium
 

Jon flint

Jon flint
A gtx 960 in most situations will be about 20fps lower than a gtx 970.

So around 40-45 fps on planet surfaces (1080p/ultra). Lowering a few settings should get you 60fps. The gtx960 is great value for money and a good choice if you don't want to wait for pascal.
 

BigF

BigF
I had/have a similar set up to you and just a few days ago switched out to a GTX980 with 4gb Vram.

What a transformation it works so much better than my previous SLI 680 cards did, so smooth and graphics frame rates are much higher. No jaggies or missing bits.
I can only speculate that a GTX960 is going to be much the similar jump in abilities.
 

DasUnding

D
Whit my optimisation i learned in the hard way i discribed i get smooth 60 frames with the two GTX 770 @gb that are really only these two options which effects the performance significant i will made a few screens
 

Sandal

S
I built a new pc in the beginning of this year to play Elite.
i5, ssd and 16gb ram.
Could play full ultra on 1200p, rarely dropped below 60fps.
Last week I had to replace my monitor and bought a 4k display.
Running fine with about 60fps on high, on planets it drops to about 30fps.
Deep space exploration atm, so no SRV values.
It may be that i have do drop res or quality when I return to the bubble to be on the safe side.
High quality on 4k looks way better than ultra on 1200p btw.

When Pascal hits next year I might get an upgrade to play on ultra again.

Cheers

Sandal
 
Last edited:

LKx

L
For the records, i finally had to go for the 960 (MSI 960 GAMING 4GB) because my old 460 died, and the results have been quite interesting.

I can run ULTRA details (with terrain work slide all to the right) down on planets at 40-50 fps (1680*1050), which i consider quite impressive on my 7-8 years old rig (Q9300, ASUS P5E, 8 GB Ram)!

PS: noticed that Elite fills all the 4GB of VRAM!
 
Last edited:

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
FYI, I used to own an Intel Core 2 Quad, Q6600 @ 3.0ghz (Overclocked), and that was still bottlenecking the hell out of my old AMD Radeon HD 6870 1GB.
I upgraded to an AMD FX-8320 before Elite was released, so I can't give you a before and after.
However, Arma 3 was running at about 15-30fps on a mix of very low, to medium settings at 1080p, before the upgrade, nkw it runs at around 45+FPS on medium to high settings.

But for reference, my HD 6780 currently gets about 55fps in space, and 30+FPS on planets, all settings are either ultra or high, with the exception of the terrain is set fairly low.
I do get odd texture issues, due to the 1gb vram though.
 

cygnusa

cygnusa
My current box is an rather old E8500 dual 3.16ghz w/8GB. All stock, no overclocking. The game ran quite well with my old 560ti even on planets, generally speaking. I kept things at medium settings for the most part I threw in a 970/OC Strix 4G a few months back and it made a very noticeable difference, though I could see where things were being CPU bound in Horizons. Mostly set to high now. The game just looked better and some jitter I had in certain places completely went away. My thoughts are you'll do just fine with the 960. You may be able to try squeezing a small bit of extra performance out with a modest vid overclock.

I'm now upping my CPU to an I7-6700k w/16gb.. just waiting for my PSU, SSD and memory to arrive today/tomorrow. A painful expense for me at this time.. but it's tax return season. I'm dying to get into VR by end of year. I'll let pascal make its way into the market and let the hype settle before upgrading on that end.
 

Privitaire

Privitaire
My Rig i5 4th Gen, £36 quid Asus H81 board, 16 Gig Mem (I run VM's for work), EVGA GTX 960 4Gig Gaming. Custom in-game Nvidia Supersample resolution on a 37" Panasonic Vera TV of 2560 x 1440. I'm an Elite Racer and we recently started Surface Racing in planets, I often record the action here is the result:
[video=youtube;gS-HybKnpYk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS-HybKnpYk&index=3&list=PL8s8yJodOQok9b5Rr1VLE7VZ1wY6Fzasw[/video]
 
Last edited:

Bran Tse Mallory

Bran Tse Mallory
Bertak said:
The problem with Horizons is optimization. I have a 970sc overclocked slightly, I5 2500K overclocked to 4.5 ghz. Graphic settings maxed out with super sampling X1. On some planets and around some stations on planets my GPU is running 97-99% while my cpu is running 25%-35%. I am getting fps drops that shouldn't be happening when the cpu is barely being used. Witcher 3 is much more graphically intensive than Horizons and yet the lowest FPS I get in Witcher 3 (40 fps) is equal to the lowest I get around stations on land in horizons. Something isn't right here....
Click to expand...

Simple, Witcher 3 is not using shader compute units to generate the landscape while in Elite it does. Your GPU is doing this work not your CPU (Much slower at doing the math than your GPU). Hence why you see the usage you do and also why your GPU will drop frames... It cannot draw what it has not yet created.

I kept it simple for everyone :)

On a side note I have an R9 390 8GB and with the settings at max I use approx 4.3GB VRAM.
 

TheDayman

TheDayman
Does anyone have an R9 270x (paired with an FX-8350/8 GBs RAM)? I have one that I run at high settings at 760 res (old hand me down monitor). I like to get 60 FPS which it normally does (I have it capped at 60 FPS) and I run everything at high. I get FPS drops to about 45-50 in RES but not on planets. I've never tackled ultra though just because I don't think she can take it so i'm wondering if anyone else has this card. But I have noticed that I don't use all of my 2 GBs of VRAM so I'm thinking I can bump it up to Ultra but I really want to try and maintain 60 FPS so I'm curious as to how others with this card have faired.

Since I'm in the market for a new monitor, do you think it could run at 1080p on Ultra?

Also, is the FPS cap worth it? Should I remove the 60 FPS cap and just let it run?

I do want a 980 or an R9 380, but no funds available at the moment :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom