Horizons How a gtx 960 performs with Horizons?

LKx

L
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?

Update:
LKx said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

babelfisch

babelfisch
LKx said:
Hi, i have an hold 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...

Don't know how the GTX 960 performs, but the GTX 970 requieres ~ the same/less power than your GTX 460.
 

Roybe

Roybe
babelfisch said:
Don't know how the GTX 960 performs, but the GTX 970 requieres ~ the same/less power than your GTX 460.
Click to expand...


I just put a 960 into my machine and am happy...I wish I could have afforded more...but a 960 'gets the job done'.

Running 8 gigs of ram
Intel I7

60 FPS in space
50-60 FPS in stations (with a wierd tank to 30 every so often)
40-50 on planets

Power demands of the 960 were way less than a 560ti.

Here's the card I got:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121929
 
Last edited:

RG-870

RG-870
The GTX 960 requires very low power, it's one of those cards with the best fps per watt ratios. I run a GTX 960 2GB with an Intel i5 3570K and 16GB RAM. I play Horizons at 1920x1200 with max / ultra Details and 1x SSAA at 60fps (locked @60). Higher SSAA settings look better but the fps drop then is significant (40fps @1.25x, 22fps @2x).
The problem on your machine will be the CPU. That old Core2 quad will slow down the machine no matter what GPU you use, at least on games which stress the CPU. So I would not advise that upgrade unless you also have the money to upgrade the mainboard, RAM and CPU in case the GTX 960 alone will not work.

I tried something similar three years ago and put a new graphics card (Radeon 7950) in my old Core2Duo E6300 system. The result were games running at the same low fps rates as before but with beautiful graphics as I could use max setting without any drop in fps because the CPU was the limiting factor.
 

LKx

L
Thanks for the answers.
What i worry about is the fact that the 1GB of VRAM of the 460 looks to be a very limiting factor for horizons.
Wouldn't a 960 help anyway (in this specific case) due the fact the procedural generation is on the GPU?

I don't want to spend too much on this, because i'm saving for a "gaming" laptop (i know, it's not really a thing ;P), since i don't have access to my desktop for most of the week anyway :p
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
LKx said:
Thanks for the answers.
What i worry about is the fact that the 1GB of VRAM of the 460 looks to be a very limiting factor for horizons.
Wouldn't a 960 help anyway (in this specific case) due the fact the procedural generation is on the GPU?

I don't want to spend too much on this, because i'm saving for a "gaming" laptop (i know, it's not really a thing ;P), since i don't have access to my desktop for most of the week anyway :p
Click to expand...
I would never recommend a gaming laptop, but if it's your only option you should not buy a new graphics card at all and invest the money in an even better gaming laptop ;)
 

Chris Simon

Chris Simon
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.
 
Last edited:

Martind Forlon

Martind Forlon
Have older cpu AMD Phenom II X4 945, 8GB Ram 1333 MHz, and GTX 960 GAMING 2G and use default (high) settings at 1920 × 1080. FPS capped on 60 and in space all time constant 63+ fps and on ground 50-60+. Works smoothly like a charm. Very surprised and happy with such result for upgrading only ram an gpu for pc build from 2008 :)
 
Last edited:

Micha

Micha
I recently bought a GTX 960 (purely for ED - Frontier should get a cut from NVidia!). I did get the 4GB VRAM version though, which apparently is highly recommended for Horizons. 2GB might be pushing things a little.

I run it on a triple-monitor setup (3x1600x1200 - 4800x1200) which probably loses me quite a few FPS.
In space I get a pretty steady 60fps - when I get time to glance at the indicator! I did tweak some of the settings slightly, it's somewhere between High and Ultra IIRC. On planets I get 30-40fps, which, for me, is more than good enough (haven't really done any ground-based combat, I'm an explorer at heart). If I need more FPS, I can either drop a monitor, or drop some video quality settings.

There's a thread listing which graphics settings most affect the framerate here.

EDIT: Relevant System Specs
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black (3.4GHz - bought for KSP)
8GB RAM
GTX 960 4GB - I bought it for £160.
3x iiyama 1600x1200 monitors (old, non-gaming, some colour-blur, especially when landed)
 
Last edited:

Starender

Starender
60 FPS with my gtx 660, sometimes 50 FPS.

But i just bought an SSD for my system to smooth things a little :p if i can give you an advice, it's that you're right, buy the 960 with the extra 4 gigs memory it's more than enough for now but next year maybe you'll need all that memory with the next extension. (and then i'll need a new card xD )

Edit: and if you're system is getting old, do not hésitate to buy an SSD it changed everything for my setup, the best right now is the Samsung 850 evo.
 
Last edited:

peteuplink

peteuplink
Roybe said:
I just put a 960 into my machine and am happy...I wish I could have afforded more...but a 960 'gets the job done'.

Running 8 gigs of ram
Intel I7

60 FPS in space
50-60 FPS in stations (with a wierd tank to 30 every so often)
40-50 on planets

Power demands of the 960 were way less than a 560ti.

Here's the card I got:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121929
Click to expand...

Yep, those are the frame rates I'm getting with a GTX 960, too.
 

Zarconian

Zarconian
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...


i3 4160 + GTX 960 2gb + 8gb ram (W10 64bits)

1920x870 (Custom resolution) - Ultra preset, except terrain settings turned down from ultra to high - Adaptive Vsync on - 60 fps everywhere - Driving the SRV 50/60 fps (headlights off)
 

LKx

L
Thanks again for the answers, i'll seriously consider to go for the 960 to patch up the desktop while waiting to save enough for something more "portable"!
 
Last edited:

Neo-ST

Neo-ST
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...

Just switched from GTX580 to GTX960 until Pascal series gets released.
You will be satisfied with performance, at least on a 1080p monitor, and if your proc doesn't turn out to be a bottleneck.
Bear in mind that I have an i7-2600K processor, which runs at 4.2ghz and is quite a bit stronger than Q9300@2.5.
With such configuration, I'm getting over 60fps in space and 40-50 with occasional dips to 35 on planets, with max settings @ 1920x1200.
 

Jigsaw

Jigsaw
As I wrote in another topic:

Jigsaw said:
It's good for me. After all the horror stories about the performance I was worried but then I was pleasantly surprised:

My system:

AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3GHz
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 Windforce2 OC 4GB
8 GB RAM
Windows 7

With Terrain Quality and Terrain Material Quality on Ultra and the Terrain Work slider about three quarters to the right I get between 40-60 fps on and around planets and 30-50 around settlements at 1920x1200. I'm happy with the result.
Click to expand...
 

DasUnding

D
Hello,

for everyone who uses 2gb vram cards

the solution for the bad performance on surface:

texturquality=medium
terrainquality=medium


rest depends on your card

my framerates getting up from (5-10)frames/sec ->> 60frames/sec in every situation

consider i am using 2xGTX770 in SLI and i had (5-10)frames/sec without that changes you can also maximis terrain-brechungsrate dont know the word in english
 
Last edited:

Bertak

B
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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom