Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dual R9 290's

  • 09-01-2014 9:13pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 970 ✭✭✭


    Would 700 watt Be Quiet be enough for dual R9 290's. I know there pretty power hungry. Have a 4670K overclocked to 4.2 Ghz as well. I see some sites say 800 watt minimum. I would have no intention of overclocking them in crossfire.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 319 ✭✭Slksht


    Do y really need two of them? Singularly, is there any game you can't max?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 970 ✭✭✭yawhat!


    Slksht wrote: »
    Do y really need two of them? Singularly, is there any game you can't max?

    Not at 1440P. Battlefield 4 with resolution scale at 200% gives 20-30 FPS maxed out. Most other games with AA give 30 FPS-40FPS with 2 times AA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 319 ✭✭Slksht


    yawhat! wrote: »
    Not at 1440P.

    Ah here is the bit I was missing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef


    Why do you want to use a resolution scale of 200%?

    I know it makes it look very nice an all but im sure if you paired it back to even 150% you should be fine.

    Also wait for mantle, could make a big difference.



    http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/09/battlefield-4-demoed-with-amds-mantle-during-ces-conference-runs-up-to-45-faster


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 970 ✭✭✭yawhat!


    EoinHef wrote: »
    Why do you want to use a resolution scale of 200%?

    I know it makes it look very nice an all but im sure if you paired it back to even 150% you should be fine.

    Also wait for mantle, could make a big difference.



    http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/09/battlefield-4-demoed-with-amds-mantle-during-ces-conference-runs-up-to-45-faster

    Need More Power!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef


    yawhat! wrote: »
    Need More Power!

    Sell the 290 and grab a 780ti:)

    I joke but who knows if that would even be enough for 200% resolution at 1440p!! Thats askin a lot I reckon


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭dwighet


    EoinHef wrote: »
    Sell the 290 and grab a 780ti:)

    I joke but who knows if that would even be enough for 200% resolution at 1440p!! Thats askin a lot I reckon

    Whats this 200% res lads...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef


    dwighet wrote: »
    Whats this 200% res lads...

    Not sure exactly what it is but from having a check around it seems to be some form of AA super sampling.Not loads of info on it but it seems to be a frostbite 3 feature

    Its a resoure hog, but it does make the game look better imo(if thats possible at 1440p:)).
    I have it set to 110%, but ive really only had a little mess with it

    Its under resolution scaling in the video options of the game


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 878 ✭✭✭Luck100


    It's the most expensive AA possible.

    If you set it at 200% you're rendering with double resolution (4 x the pixels!!!) and then filtering down to your display resolution. So basically it's 4 times the workload to do 200% vs 100%.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭dwighet


    Thanks lads...must check it out..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef


    Ye I just gave it a little bump, any higher and I was getting frame drops below 60fps at ultra.

    From reading around a lot of people are going with 2xMSAA, a bump in the res slider and ultra for what they consider the best image.

    Do watch your vrm temps if you do bump it up, seems to hammer the memory.
    I read somewhere that setting it to 200% is like rendering 4k resolution for yor gpu!!

    As a side note other games have the resolution slider aswell, Arma 2 being one off the top of my head.
    Bump that a bit playing dayz(mod) and the game looks awsome, or should I say more awesome:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭dwighet


    EoinHef wrote: »
    Ye I just gave it a little bump, any higher and I was getting frame drops below 60fps at ultra.

    From reading around a lot of people are going with 2xMSAA, a bump in the res slider and ultra for what they consider the best image.

    Do watch your vrm temps if you do bump it up, seems to hammer the memory.
    I read somewhere that setting it to 200% is like rendering 4k resolution for yor gpu!!

    As a side note other games have the resolution slider aswell, Arma 2 being one off the top of my head.
    Bump that a bit playing dayz(mod) and the game looks awsome, or should I say more awesome:)
    I tried 200%...major fail...140-150 is good for me.. Never dropped under 60 fps... To be honest didnt really notice much diff to 100%..
    Mind you my eyes are gettn auld and mouldy..:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭EoinHef


    dwighet wrote: »
    I tried 200%...major fail...140-150 is good for me.. Never dropped under 60 fps... To be honest didnt really notice much diff to 100%..
    Mind you my eyes are gettn auld and mouldy..:(

    Yeah im not noticing a major difference,but everybody is different I suppose.

    If I put it over 110% the frame rate take the odd dip to about 50 so ill leave it at 110%, have nothing else left to turn up anyway!


Advertisement