Video card (GPU) requirements?

[MisterCommander]

I have seen the requirements on the website for a GPU, such as a GeForce 10x0.

 

I am currently running an Intel Core i-5 (6 cores) 8th generation CPU with the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630.  It actually does a pretty decent job. I was surprised of its quality for being integrated.  Frame rates are in the 40-50s.  I also have 32GB of RAM and it can share up to 16GB for video, so, RAM is not an issue.  I have never seen the entire system use more than 8GB during the game.

 

My problem though is that display seems a bit herky-jerky at times since I have installed version 4.162 of SB.  And sometimes the video will freeze for about a second, but everything else, like audio, keeps going without stutter.  I have the graphics settings in the game about as low as they can go and still have an image, and in terms of visual quality I am fine with this.

 

I am not a frame rate whore, so 60+fps at full graphics detail is not my goal, but I am willing to try a GeForce 1050 or 1060, (maybe even a 1030), if you think it is worth the $200 or so.  So, I am wondering what a few of you are running that you are happy with.  If you tell me that I need to spend $500+ for a GPU alone, that is not going to happen.  I know that I will already need to upgrade my power supply if I put in a higher-end GPU.

[Gibsonm]

Pretty sure there is at least one thread about GPUs here where lots of people posted their specs.

[Ssnake]

Don't waste your money on a 1030 or 1050. A 1060 might offer some gains, yes, but if you can get your hands on a 970 that is still within your budget, go for it. I saw one on Amazon for 170 EUR; not saying that you should try and get specifically that one, but it suggests that there are cards on offer that have the necessary power and which still fall within your budget range. Given the choice between a plain 1060 and a 980 or 970, I'd probably pick the higher end card of the older generation in this case. With a 1060Ti, well, the line's becoming blurry.

[stormrider_sp]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Don't waste your money on a 1030 or 1050. A 1060 might offer some gains, yes, but if you can get your hands on a 970 that is still within your budget, go for it. I saw one on Amazon for 170 EUR; not saying that you should try and get specifically that one, but it suggests that there are cards on offer that have the necessary power and which still fall within your budget range. Given the choice between a plain 1060 and a 980 or 970, I'd probably pick the higher end card of the older generation in this case. With a 1060Ti, well, the line's becoming blurry.

+1

 

The 970 is a little beast and quite a bargain these days. I bought mine last year for 120 pounds, used, on ebay and resold it for a little less, about 5 months later.  It could give me solid frame rates on low-medium settings when playing oculus rift games. Then, by luck, I found yet another bargain on ebay, a 1070 TI for about 150.

 

For SB, the 970 worked great and I highly recommend it.

[inexus]

On 12/22/2019 at 8:08 AM, MisterCommander said:

I have seen the requirements on the website for a GPU, such as a GeForce 10x0.

 

I am currently running an Intel Core i-5 (6 cores) 8th generation CPU with the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630.  It actually does a pretty decent job. I was surprised of its quality for being integrated.  Frame rates are in the 40-50s.  I also have 32GB of RAM and it can share up to 16GB for video, so, RAM is not an issue.  I have never seen the entire system use more than 8GB during the game.

 

My problem though is that display seems a bit herky-jerky at times since I have installed version 4.162 of SB.  And sometimes the video will freeze for about a second, but everything else, like audio, keeps going without stutter.  I have the graphics settings in the game about as low as they can go and still have an image, and in terms of visual quality I am fine with this.

 

I am not a frame rate whore, so 60+fps at full graphics detail is not my goal, but I am willing to try a GeForce 1050 or 1060, (maybe even a 1030), if you think it is worth the $200 or so.  So, I am wondering what a few of you are running that you are happy with.  If you tell me that I need to spend $500+ for a GPU alone, that is not going to happen.  I know that I will already need to upgrade my power supply if I put in a higher-end GPU.

 

If the only thing you play is sbpro then I suggest you may save some money by buying an older GPU. But if you have any interest in any other games and future games then consider the nvidia 10* series of cards. A 1060 as Ssnake suggest is a good middle ground. 

 

I'm running a 2080TI, 9900KF@5ghz and the game is very CPU limited and has little time to refresh the screen. As soon as units start driving the fps drops a fair bit. 

[MisterCommander]

Thanks to all who have replied.

SBPro is the only thing I play that needs a 3D card.

 

The GTX 970 has some sweet specs.   Maybe I can get a used one on the cheap or do a 1060.

 

Thanks again.

[MisterCommander]

Here is an update.

I did search around and found some other old posts.  One of the suggestions was to reduce the resolution.  I checked mine and it was way high, so I reduced it to 1350x768, (or something like that), and performance improved greatly.  My fps was 50-60 most of the time.  However, since I was running it windowed it was so small on the screen that it was unpleasant.

 

I switched it to full screen and it was much more pleasant.  I also enabled the VSYNC and that put the fps down to 30 most of the time, but it was a solid 30, however, sometimes it would jump up to 60fps for a few seconds and then back to a solid 30.  I have yet to figure out why it jumps though.  It can do it in a busy screen or a non-busy one.

 

I can confirm that setting the resolution to something that your card can better handle can go a long way to improving performance.

 

I like windowed for network play, so I will just switch my resolution lower in the OS closer to the game's resolution and still do windowed.  When playing solo, I will just do full screen.

 

I checked ebay for some GTX 970s and boy are they cheap compared to a new one.  Prices on bids ranged from like 35 - 85 USD.  Buy it now prices were in the range of 100 - 120 USD.  If they are not faulty this seems like a great deal considering that new ones range 250-510 USD at newegg.

[Ssnake]

VSync will hold off pushing a new frame to the screen until the screen is ready (rather's it's sent to a buffer). Suppose your graphics card could generate (randomly) between 52 and 62 Frames per second and the screen has a fixed refresh rate of exactly 60 fps:

time [ms] ...   GPU   ... screen ...   update?
     0    ... frame 0 ...   yes  ... yes: frame 0
   16.7   ...  buffer ...   yes  ...  no: repeat frame 0
   19.2	  ... frame 1 ...   no   
   33.3   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 1
   35.6   ... frame 2 ...   no   
   50.0   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 2
   52.9   ... frame 3 ...   no   
   66.7   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 3
   71.0   ... frame 4 ...   no   
   83.3   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 4
   87.7	  ... frame 5 ...   no
  100.0   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 5
  105.3	  ... frame 6 ...   no
  116.7   ...  buffer ...   yes  ... yes: frame 6

As one can see, as long as the graphics card needs more than 16.667 milliseconds to render a new frame, the previous frame will be repeated. But if it lags behind just a little bit, it will take a couple of frames before a frame needs to be repeated again because the graphics card hasn't yet rendered a new frame. So, for a while the frame rate will appear to be like 60 fps, just "one frame off". But if the GPU's render time is closer to 30 milliseconds, only every other screen refresh (33.333ms) will show a new frame - until there's a lucky overlap or the scene suddenly renders much faster (e.g. if you look at the sky, or there's not many trees and grass in the scene), in which case the screen refresh is just in time to show a new frame as well, so the frame rate now appears to be 60, otherwise half of it.

 

On other words, with VSync on the frame rate can vary only in multiples of screen refresh time; with a refresh rate of 60, effective frame rates could be 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, ...

The frame rates will generally be lower, usually more stable, and you won't have tearing when panning the view across vertical edges (such as tree trunks, house corners, traffic sign posts). Conversely, without VSync the screen will receive the updates whenever the GPU is ready, so it offers the highest (but somewhat variable) frame rate possible.

[stormrider_sp]

7 hours ago, MisterCommander said:

Here is an update.

I did search around and found some other old posts.  One of the suggestions was to reduce the resolution.  I checked mine and it was way high, so I reduced it to 1350x768, (or something like that), and performance improved greatly.  My fps was 50-60 most of the time.  However, since I was running it windowed it was so small on the screen that it was unpleasant.

 

I switched it to full screen and it was much more pleasant.  I also enabled the VSYNC and that put the fps down to 30 most of the time, but it was a solid 30, however, sometimes it would jump up to 60fps for a few seconds and then back to a solid 30.  I have yet to figure out why it jumps though.  It can do it in a busy screen or a non-busy one.

 

I can confirm that setting the resolution to something that your card can better handle can go a long way to improving performance.

 

I like windowed for network play, so I will just switch my resolution lower in the OS closer to the game's resolution and still do windowed.  When playing solo, I will just do full screen.

 

I checked ebay for some GTX 970s and boy are they cheap compared to a new one.  Prices on bids ranged from like 35 - 85 USD.  Buy it now prices were in the range of 100 - 120 USD.  If they are not faulty this seems like a great deal considering that new ones range 250-510 USD at newegg.

I once won a bid on a motherboard that came with bent cpu socket pins. I was soon refunded when Ebay intervened. As long as you make sure that its not described as faulty anywhere in the offer, including in small letters somewhere in the description, Ebay will make sure you get your money back. Also, make sure that you pay via PayPal or credit card and get it delivered to you as opposed to cash and pick up at seller's location.

 

When I won the bid for my current monitor, the seller decided, after my payment that the price wasnt enough for him. Obviously ebay intervened since I had won the bid cleanly. The problem was that the delivery method was pick up, so I had to go there and face the angry seller. Lots could had gone wrong since there wouldnt be any proof of delivery. The only thing on my side was that I had paid via PayPal.

Edited December 23, 2019 by stormrider_sp