I’ve been out of the game for personal reasons for several years, coming back to Odyssey now. I use a GSX 1080, and play either virtual reality or more usually in 4k. My query is that now Frontier are recommending a GSX 1070 for hi res, should I upgrade my 1080 for use at 4k? I have not been keeping up to date with gpu’s so not sure of what I should go up to. Will spend around £1k i suppose if needed. Any advice gratefully received!
Upgrade info request - gpu
- Thread starter Mikevet
- Start date
As far as I know, FDev stated that Oddysey was optimised for current system uses, so shouldn't be too dissimilar to Horizons (planets notwithstanding).
I'm currently playing 1440p at 144hz on an old 980ti, mostly high settings.
Ultimately it depends on your Monitor, what refresh rate you're expecting from your 'mostly 4k' experience.
I'd think that a GTX 1080 would play 4k on mostly medium at 60hz.
If I were you I'd see how ED currently performs with your hardware and settings and go from there.
Currently it's not really the best time to get a new GPU, even though there are some fantastic cards out there, availability has driven prices higher than Msrp, if they're even available at all.
For you, going from a GTX 1080 (non Ti I'm assuming), a decent upgrade would be an RTX 3070 or RX 6700 XT from the Red team if you wanted new. If you're looking at used, again the market is a bit off there too.
Hardware Unboxed on YouTube has some great GPU comparison videos so you can see the rough performance increase to what you have currently, or if you're not bothered about all that you could just grab yourself an RTX 3080 or RX 6800 XT and be done with it, assuming you can find one and is under the cost of a Kidney.
Best of luck!
I'm currently playing 1440p at 144hz on an old 980ti, mostly high settings.
Ultimately it depends on your Monitor, what refresh rate you're expecting from your 'mostly 4k' experience.
I'd think that a GTX 1080 would play 4k on mostly medium at 60hz.
If I were you I'd see how ED currently performs with your hardware and settings and go from there.
Currently it's not really the best time to get a new GPU, even though there are some fantastic cards out there, availability has driven prices higher than Msrp, if they're even available at all.
For you, going from a GTX 1080 (non Ti I'm assuming), a decent upgrade would be an RTX 3070 or RX 6700 XT from the Red team if you wanted new. If you're looking at used, again the market is a bit off there too.
Hardware Unboxed on YouTube has some great GPU comparison videos so you can see the rough performance increase to what you have currently, or if you're not bothered about all that you could just grab yourself an RTX 3080 or RX 6800 XT and be done with it, assuming you can find one and is under the cost of a Kidney.
Best of luck!
A GTX 1080 is a little bit on the low side for 4k in more demanding areas, at least without reducing details. How Odyssey performance will be still remains to be seen.
That said, it's doubtful that you'll be able to find a worthwhile upgrade within your budget anyway. Supplies are tight and demand is high...prices are correspondingly elevated.
That said, it's doubtful that you'll be able to find a worthwhile upgrade within your budget anyway. Supplies are tight and demand is high...prices are correspondingly elevated.
I've also been thinking of an upgrade from my GTX1080 but the prices are just insane at the moment. No way will I pay 2-3x the MSRP.
In a way I wish all cryptocurrencies would crash; it is the single most wasteful "enterprise" our species has embarked on to date; we are literally burning electricity (still largely generated by fossil fuels) to calculate nonsensical data. Apart from attaching some arbitrary value to those calculations there is nothing of use that comes out of it at all. At least most of our other endeavours actually produce something even if the value of that something is hotly debated.
In a way I wish all cryptocurrencies would crash; it is the single most wasteful "enterprise" our species has embarked on to date; we are literally burning electricity (still largely generated by fossil fuels) to calculate nonsensical data. Apart from attaching some arbitrary value to those calculations there is nothing of use that comes out of it at all. At least most of our other endeavours actually produce something even if the value of that something is hotly debated.
Mining demand eats into wafer allotments and GPU supply, but probably not as much as you're assuming. In the case of a protracted crash in GPU minable cryptos would result in an influx of second hand parts that would cause prices to fall, but mining is far from the only factor responsible for current pricing.
This is a mix of gross exaggeration and fallacy. I can think of quite a few expenditures of energy that exceed crypto mining in scale and return less...actual waste (where the energy is produced but not put to any use at all), or current central banking infrastructures that involves printing/minting, transporting, tracking, and securing more conventional forms of money, wouldn't be the least among them.
Also, the value of those calculations is not arbitrary, it's pure supply and demand. Consensus mechanisms, even ones as expensive on a per-transaction level as PoW can be, also have clear utility.
FWIW, here's a critical look at it : https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawren...y-charged-debate--whos-right/?sh=376f28987e78
Pros and cons, but I maintain that, purely apart from having arbitrary value (which, tbh, is true of modern physical currencies too as alluded to by @Morbad), there is no other value which is produced from "mining" cryptocurrencies. Claiming that cryptomining will become greener in future, well, that same green energy could instead be used for other things such as air conditioning (I mention this only since it was mentioned in the article I linked). That said sure, I don't live in a situation where I have to fear that my money will get frozen or stolen by a regulatory power (legally or illegally), so I do see the value in an unregulated currency for those that do, and I accept that traditional currencies have difficulty supporting such use cases.
The holy grail would be if the "proof-of-work" calculations supporting cryptocurrencies (or blockchains in general) could be actually useful, such as protein folding.
Pros and cons, but I maintain that, purely apart from having arbitrary value (which, tbh, is true of modern physical currencies too as alluded to by @Morbad), there is no other value which is produced from "mining" cryptocurrencies. Claiming that cryptomining will become greener in future, well, that same green energy could instead be used for other things such as air conditioning (I mention this only since it was mentioned in the article I linked). That said sure, I don't live in a situation where I have to fear that my money will get frozen or stolen by a regulatory power (legally or illegally), so I do see the value in an unregulated currency for those that do, and I accept that traditional currencies have difficulty supporting such use cases.
The holy grail would be if the "proof-of-work" calculations supporting cryptocurrencies (or blockchains in general) could be actually useful, such as protein folding.
Arbitrary means the value is set by whim or decree. This applies less to roof-of-work cryptocurrencies than it does to fiat.
As for tangential values, that would depend on specific circumstances and how abstract one is willing to go.
Mining won't consume less energy (though proportionally fewer cryptos will be mineable as proof-of-work is supplanted by other consensus mechanisms), but energy itself will become greener in the future. And it doesn't matter what it could be used for, because it will be used for that too. Almost no one mines except where electricity is cheap and plentiful...and most places outside of Inner Mongolia or Iran, it's green energy that is cheapest.
I use the energy (hydroelectric) transformed (into heat) by my modest mining setup to heat my home five or six months out of the year. This electricity also isn't depriving anyone of anything. There is enormous surplus capacity in my area and this is reflected in the ~$0.10 per KW/h I pay for it regardless of season or time of day.
By the metrics of decentralization, egalitarianism, privacy, and resistance to regulation that drove it's creation, Bitcoin is an enormous failure, and any potential alternatives have been marginalized by Bitcoin's success within the framework of mainstream finance.
You cannot get the benefits of a proof-of-work blockchain this way. Either your work goes toward securing the blockchain and controlling the issuance of it's value tokens, or it goes to something else. You can be rewarded for that something else, but that something else is not going to be a blockchain.
Take FoldingCoin and CureCoin, for example. FoldingCoin just rides on Bitcoin and is essentially a speculative asset that people can buy to incentivize Folding by donating to Folders who participate in FoldingCoin. It requires Bitcoin to exist and for people to buy the FoldingCoin token to give it value. CureCoin, on the otherhand, is now a proof-of-stake blockchain that ultimately incentivizes Folding the same way that FoldingCoin does.
If you don't care about or are willing to sacrifice the areas were PoW is advantageous, then you should just use a different concencus mechanism, rather than try to shoehorn work not suited to task into some centralized pseudo PoW system. Just use proof-of-stake and forget the work. Likewise, if the goal is to incentivise Folding (or whatever), there are countless ways to do this. Regardless, you'll always be competing for computational power with other networks.
Why not? As long as the work done is difficult to perform, but easy to verify, one should be able to build a system on top of it.
A system, sure, but not one that can do what a cryptocurrency blockchain can do.
Folding@Home is, by necessity, under the control of one central authority that decides what work is worth doing and how much that work is worth. It's also not self-sufficient, there is a huge amount of managerial work requires a lot of managerial work. I'm not sure there would be a good way to automatically control the supply of the value tokens either. Any of these would introduce major uncertainties about it's utility as a store of value or medium of exchange.
The whole point of something like Bitcoin is decentralized, trustless, issuance and governance. PoW as a consensus mechanism is what it is for a very good reason. The work isn't trivial, it's a constraint that gives a PoW chain's value tokens demonstrable scarcity. You cannot have that with a central authority. Conversely, you cannot have a distributed computing project that does meaningful 'real' work without some form of centralized authority...leaving Folders to choose what to Fold would not be in the interest of the project.
Prices are a nightmare at the moment.
I play on 3440x1440p ultra locked 75hz with 1080ti X3 (4670k@4.2Ghz and 16GB-DDR3-1600) with noctua N1 paste and never see any drop in fps.
Untill last year i played with a RX480 8GB and that ran fine other than planets and mining ice rings, then it took a deep plunge in frames.
I play on 3440x1440p ultra locked 75hz with 1080ti X3 (4670k@4.2Ghz and 16GB-DDR3-1600) with noctua N1 paste and never see any drop in fps.
Untill last year i played with a RX480 8GB and that ran fine other than planets and mining ice rings, then it took a deep plunge in frames.
oh so glad i upgraded my gpu late summer last yr.
not currently played EDH on the 2060. though it handles cyberpunk 2077 no problem.
my last was 1060 played it well. as with other games. though all my equipment was liquid cooled.
real shame cant cool the 2060 the same way currently
not currently played EDH on the 2060. though it handles cyberpunk 2077 no problem.
my last was 1060 played it well. as with other games. though all my equipment was liquid cooled.
real shame cant cool the 2060 the same way currently
I'm sorry you took my "pulled out of the air" example so literally as a potential use case but I see your point that most any computations "of value" probably need to be administered in some way. Then again, you also asserted that cryptocurrencies failed in their decentralisation etc. aims.
Ultimately the trustless part of blockchains is that we don't rely on a central authority (somewhat undermined, pun not entirely unintended, by big mining conglomerates) to verify the results; so as long as the "work" done can be verified independantly, it doesn't matter whether or not the results are also "useful" in some other way than purely proving the scarcity requirements of the blockchain.
Whether or not it's actually possible to come up with some "work" which is both "useful" as well as being able to fulfil the other requirements for a cryptocurrency is beyond my paygrade. It may very well be non trivial so my suggestion is, for all intents and purposes, useless.
60fps is not high for gaming.. in fact I'd assert that's the minimum requirement for action games. Furthermore for VR you want stable 90fps (yes, ASW/reprojection but neither are great and, at least for me, are nausea inducing).
A GTX 1060-6gb can do 4k with ultra details at 30 fps (mine does). User Benchmarks rates a 1080 as 1.5 times better than a 1060-6gb, so expect 45 fps at 4k with the same settings. I recommend running at 1080p. And for VR with reduced details, especially shadows. Max details and VR at 1080p per eye is impossible because you won't reach the required 90 fps. It also depends on the VR HMD resolution.
It's just an example that I'm familiar with. You could replace it with almost any distributed computing project.
Perhaps permissioned vs. permissionlessness is more precise terminology for what I'm I'm thinking of.
Even a conventional blockchain that has suffered from consolidation of hashing power is still permissionless, as long as no one entity has more than half of the hashing power. However, this is not possible if there is a central authority responsible for issuing all work.
A distributed computing project could not replace Bitcoin for the same reasons centralized cryptocurrencies could not replace Bitcoin.
I just think from the use case and value proposition perspectives, tempered by Occam's Razor.
The value proposition of 'real' work is the utility of the work itself and the value proposition of a hypothetical token issued to those who participate in it is to incentivize that participation. None of this requires a PoW based blockchain, just a market for those tokens. Indeed, go a step further and those tokens themsevles are redundant, since we already have a million other mediums of exchange to chose from. If incentivising Folding (again, just an example, replace it with any project doing real work) is important, why would I complicate things by trying to build a cryptocurrency around it, or on top of it, when I could just pay Folders a portion of what I was making off their contributions (in the cases where project data could be licensed or profited from), or crowd-source donations and simply divide it among participants? Let the project do what it was designed to do and, as far as funding allows, pay out in Dollars, or BTC, or whatever.
All those cryptocurrencies and other blockchain projects that can tolerate the centralization implicit in other distributed computing projects are better served by non-PoW consensus mechanisms; most never had mining or are intent on moving away from it now that they've achieved a certain critical mass. Those that will retain PoW get something out of it that would be lost by having work that wasn't intrinsic to the blockchain itself and required outside governance.