4K DSR+3D Vision on GTX760? I can't seem to find a game old enough.
Hi I just tried Serious Sam 2 ([b]NOT[/b] Second Encounter). It almost works - I can maintain 60fps at around 2x the pixel count of my native resolution (1080p). But at 2160p I get around 30fps, which might be 31 or 50, since it's a twitch shooter - I turned triple buffering off. I tried a few other games, also old, with uncomplicated graphics. Still no go. I wonder if it is a bug, something wrong with the software, or the memory bandwidth is holding my card [b]that[/b] much. I mean - Sure, there is bigger difference in pixel count than it is in ROP/bandwidth values between GF7600gt and GTX760, but this is a game frome "pre-X360/ps" era. I played this game on 7600gt at 800x600 2D, constant 85fps. And on GTX760, my rig ends up around 1700p with lowered details. Maybe someone has this game and could try it out? It would also help if someone checked it on something more powerful - i.e. 780/970. Thanx in advance.
Hi

I just tried Serious Sam 2 (NOT Second Encounter).

It almost works - I can maintain 60fps at around 2x the pixel count of my native resolution (1080p).
But at 2160p I get around 30fps, which might be 31 or 50, since it's a twitch shooter - I turned triple buffering off.

I tried a few other games, also old, with uncomplicated graphics.
Still no go.

I wonder if it is a bug, something wrong with the software, or the memory bandwidth is holding my card that much.
I mean - Sure, there is bigger difference in pixel count than it is in ROP/bandwidth values between GF7600gt and GTX760, but this is a game frome "pre-X360/ps" era.
I played this game on 7600gt at 800x600 2D, constant 85fps.

And on GTX760, my rig ends up around 1700p with lowered details.

Maybe someone has this game and could try it out? It would also help if someone checked it on something more powerful - i.e. 780/970.
Thanx in advance.

#1
Posted 11/16/2014 11:03 AM   
The game is a single threaded, CPU biased title. A "modern" / higher-performance GPU will make little to ZERO impact. Even so; running "any" title in 3d @ 4k is going to cap your Vram rather quickly. On a side note: If your looking to go 3D @ 4k...your going to need a higher end GPU + hefty core system bud.
The game is a single threaded, CPU biased title. A "modern" / higher-performance GPU will make little to ZERO impact. Even so; running "any" title in 3d @ 4k is going to cap your Vram rather quickly.

On a side note:
If your looking to go 3D @ 4k...your going to need a higher end GPU + hefty core system bud.

Facebook PC parts Trade/Sales page

MrInfinit3's Conan Exiles Public Server information

Help fight Cancer, Diabetes, Neuro-degenerative, and other disease's while you sleep!


MS-Physics (Thermal Dynamics)/BA-IT/BS-Electronic Engineering
Asus and MSI mobile service center RETIRED

My main rig:
100% Hard-line Custom tri-pump (pmp-500) liquid Cooled
OS- Win10 Pro v1803
CPU- i7-4790k @ 4.8Ghz 1.289v (Turbo OFF) Liquid Cooled
RAM-16GB TEAM Xtreme DDR3 @ 2400Mhz (9-12-11-30)1.625v
Motherboard- Gigabyte Z97X Gamer GT (vF6)
Main Graphics- 2-way SLI PNY XLR8 OC GTX1070 (v388.13)
OS SSD: 3x 240Gb Kingston HyperX 3K RAID 0 = 720Gb
Game SSDs- 3x 240Gb Mushkin Reactors (D,E,F drives)
Backup HDD- 3Tb Seagate Cuda (ST3000DM001)
Power Supply- Corsair RM-1000i (~3yrs old)
3x Surround Samsung 27" via DP (7680 x 1440p)
1x MVR 1440px2 @ 90hz headset


HWbot Overclocking results

#2
Posted 11/16/2014 11:05 AM   
Well.. Not. I played at 85fps on Athlon 64 and C2D 2,4GHz, so I should be able to maintain 60fps or 2x60fps on 2500K OCed to 4,4GHz. This should not be a problem, especially when I can maintain 2x60fps easily by lowering the resolution. The resolution itself should have no impact on CPU usage. This is not a game that uses deferred engine and dynamic levels of details. As to the advice that I need a better card - I know it. I know I'll need something HBM based when Rift CV1 comes out, since DK2 killed my rig easily in many demos/games. But I don't have the money, and won't have in next year or two, to upgrade. I decided I'll wait for CV1, but in the meantime, I'd like to know about games that could be played at 60fps on cards from 2004. Is it driver issue? OS issue? Or it simply needs more ROP/bandwidth? Can I play anything at 4K 3D on gtx760, that is better looking than CoD 1? These are interesting questions.
Well..
Not.

I played at 85fps on Athlon 64 and C2D 2,4GHz, so I should be able to maintain 60fps or 2x60fps on 2500K OCed to 4,4GHz.
This should not be a problem, especially when I can maintain 2x60fps easily by lowering the resolution.
The resolution itself should have no impact on CPU usage. This is not a game that uses deferred engine and dynamic levels of details.

As to the advice that I need a better card - I know it. I know I'll need something HBM based when Rift CV1 comes out, since DK2 killed my rig easily in many demos/games.
But I don't have the money, and won't have in next year or two, to upgrade. I decided I'll wait for CV1, but in the meantime, I'd like to know about games that could be played at 60fps on cards from 2004.
Is it driver issue? OS issue? Or it simply needs more ROP/bandwidth? Can I play anything at 4K 3D on gtx760, that is better looking than CoD 1?
These are interesting questions.

#3
Posted 11/16/2014 11:50 AM   
On that card, you'll probably have to be content with 1080p. DSR requires vastly more power.
On that card, you'll probably have to be content with 1080p. DSR requires vastly more power.

#4
Posted 11/16/2014 11:55 AM   
Not sure why you'd want to run 4K, but it's interesting. Right now I don't think there is any 4K 3D. As far as I know 3D TV Play won't go that high. The 760 is a fine card, I have two of them, one for each eye. But I don't think they are up to the task of 4K. By straight pixel pumping, 4K is roughly 4x the amount of work of a 1080p screen right? That means that you need to be able to run the game at 1080p at 4x the frame rate you are targeting. If that's 60 fps, you need to be able to deliver 240 fps for 2D, and 480 for 3D. There are some older games that you can possibly hit 240 fps on. To do this, you'll probably need to turn down the graphic settings though. Which brings me full circle to, if that's necessary, then 4K doesn't seem worth it. Higher resolution with less eye candy seems like a bad tradeoff. But, YMMV.
Not sure why you'd want to run 4K, but it's interesting. Right now I don't think there is any 4K 3D. As far as I know 3D TV Play won't go that high.

The 760 is a fine card, I have two of them, one for each eye. But I don't think they are up to the task of 4K.

By straight pixel pumping, 4K is roughly 4x the amount of work of a 1080p screen right? That means that you need to be able to run the game at 1080p at 4x the frame rate you are targeting. If that's 60 fps, you need to be able to deliver 240 fps for 2D, and 480 for 3D. There are some older games that you can possibly hit 240 fps on.

To do this, you'll probably need to turn down the graphic settings though. Which brings me full circle to, if that's necessary, then 4K doesn't seem worth it. Higher resolution with less eye candy seems like a bad tradeoff. But, YMMV.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#5
Posted 11/16/2014 12:42 PM   
bo3b You can downsample and have benefits of 2160p on 1080p displays. Not all, of course, but in terms of aliasing - it really helps a lot. I tried some 2D games before: NFS:Rivals (30fps at 2160p at lowered details, 20-25 at max). Trials Fusion (30-60fps and it looks much better, I prefer stable 60fps though) No, you don't need 240fps. The game itself run either at 60fps or 120fps (I'm still not 100% sure about that, investigating). You don't have to caclulate physics, AI, and all that stuff. You just render the scene that is ready, again, for the second eye. Yes - 4K means 4x the pixel amount. 8ROP at 550MHz on 7600gt gave me 800x600 at stable 85fps, sometimes 1024x768. 32ROP at 1200MHz on gtx760 is not equally bigger to the increased pixel fillrate required for 2x 3840x2160 at 60Hz. But the GPU nowadays are different, that's one thing, and the pixel fillrate is something that I still don't know enough about. How much it actually needs? Not theoretically, but in practice? How big difference makes the fact that in SS2 there is far less geometry and textures in comparison to present games? Is it really that bad, that GPU with billions of transistors cannot render the game, that was run at steady 85fps on GPUs with 100-200 millions of transistors, just because there is 34x more pixels? That will help me predict how much will we gain from incoming HBM cards (my 760 has around 200-230GBps memory, we'll get 500 in 2015 and 1TBps in 2016/17 thanx to HBM memory). We'll need every bit. Oculus Rift at 4K will show pixel density comparable to 720p TV/monitor display. We need more. 2880p at least. And then we need to add 30-50% to this, since you need to render more pixels in order to avoid pixelation after you apply the anti-distortion transformation to correct the image going through the "bending" lenses. And all that at 90-120fps. If my gtx760 cannot handle such simple game at 2x2160p then the wait for "HD" display in VR will be very long. And I don't think we'll ever get OLED 2160p 3D Vision displays in monitors/TVs.
bo3b

You can downsample and have benefits of 2160p on 1080p displays. Not all, of course, but in terms of aliasing - it really helps a lot.
I tried some 2D games before: NFS:Rivals (30fps at 2160p at lowered details, 20-25 at max). Trials Fusion (30-60fps and it looks much better, I prefer stable 60fps though)

No, you don't need 240fps.
The game itself run either at 60fps or 120fps (I'm still not 100% sure about that, investigating). You don't have to caclulate physics, AI, and all that stuff. You just render the scene that is ready, again, for the second eye.
Yes - 4K means 4x the pixel amount.
8ROP at 550MHz on 7600gt gave me 800x600 at stable 85fps, sometimes 1024x768.
32ROP at 1200MHz on gtx760 is not equally bigger to the increased pixel fillrate required for 2x 3840x2160 at 60Hz.
But the GPU nowadays are different, that's one thing, and the pixel fillrate is something that I still don't know enough about. How much it actually needs? Not theoretically, but in practice?
How big difference makes the fact that in SS2 there is far less geometry and textures in comparison to present games?
Is it really that bad, that GPU with billions of transistors cannot render the game, that was run at steady 85fps on GPUs with 100-200 millions of transistors, just because there is 34x more pixels?

That will help me predict how much will we gain from incoming HBM cards (my 760 has around 200-230GBps memory, we'll get 500 in 2015 and 1TBps in 2016/17 thanx to HBM memory).
We'll need every bit. Oculus Rift at 4K will show pixel density comparable to 720p TV/monitor display. We need more. 2880p at least. And then we need to add 30-50% to this, since you need to render more pixels in order to avoid pixelation after you apply the anti-distortion transformation to correct the image going through the "bending" lenses. And all that at 90-120fps.
If my gtx760 cannot handle such simple game at 2x2160p then the wait for "HD" display in VR will be very long.
And I don't think we'll ever get OLED 2160p 3D Vision displays in monitors/TVs.

#6
Posted 11/16/2014 01:08 PM   
That's a very good point about the future for Oculus. The resolution really does need to be 4K there in order to be viable. That doesn't need to to be 2x though for each eye, it would likely be side-by-side 4K. Once you get to that resolution, the arc-seconds of visual acuity will be roughly comparable to current monitors and thus probably acceptable. For any given performance problem, the real question is always what is the bottleneck? It can vary depending upon what the task is, moving from CPU to GPU ROPs, to texel fill rate, to PCI bandwidth. Lots of factors. For your example of SSam2, I agree that mostly none of the other pieces should matter. The CPU shouldn't be limited because of the simple models, same with bandwidth on the bus, with lowish res textures. If you take the TextureFillRate, that's 94 billion/second for the 760. So, for 60 frames per second, that's 94x10^9/60 = 1.5 billion per frame. For 8.2 million pixels, that doesn't seem like a stretch, even if every single pixel were a texel. Not sure what the bottleneck would be here. Can always be something unrelated to the GPU, but in this case I assume the CPU is not fully used even for a single core, and the GPU is running at 100%. The 760 is a relatively weak card relative to others, and typically comes in below cards like a GTX 680. Here's some of the best background you can get on this card: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review
That's a very good point about the future for Oculus. The resolution really does need to be 4K there in order to be viable. That doesn't need to to be 2x though for each eye, it would likely be side-by-side 4K. Once you get to that resolution, the arc-seconds of visual acuity will be roughly comparable to current monitors and thus probably acceptable.

For any given performance problem, the real question is always what is the bottleneck? It can vary depending upon what the task is, moving from CPU to GPU ROPs, to texel fill rate, to PCI bandwidth. Lots of factors.

For your example of SSam2, I agree that mostly none of the other pieces should matter. The CPU shouldn't be limited because of the simple models, same with bandwidth on the bus, with lowish res textures.

If you take the TextureFillRate, that's 94 billion/second for the 760. So, for 60 frames per second, that's 94x10^9/60 = 1.5 billion per frame. For 8.2 million pixels, that doesn't seem like a stretch, even if every single pixel were a texel.


Not sure what the bottleneck would be here. Can always be something unrelated to the GPU, but in this case I assume the CPU is not fully used even for a single core, and the GPU is running at 100%.

The 760 is a relatively weak card relative to others, and typically comes in below cards like a GTX 680.

Here's some of the best background you can get on this card:


http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#7
Posted 11/16/2014 01:49 PM   
Scroll To Top