nvidea or ati?
Actually I have a decent cooling system, a case with a good air flow and graphics is cooled with DirectCU II from ASUS which is also a decent cooling system (for air) and I am sure it can do the job until I get it on water.
I use MSI afterburner since long time, in fact is how I check gpu and cpu cores temperature, video memory usage, ram usage and fps.
Full screen rendering, setting the details, smoke and mirrors to maximum (with reflections and PP disabled) gpu temps are about 65 degrees celsius. Enabling also reflections with max settings gpu temp jumps to near 75/80 degrees. Enabling also PP with max settings gpu temp jump to 90.
This means that with all graphic settings at maximum graphics card is being pushed to insane llimits in a constant way.
The only application that I know that push so much for a graphics card is FurMark which is basically a burning tool.
Also with my old GTX780 which was water cooled the situation is basically the same.
Just as a matter of example, with Arma 3 (which is also a demanding game in matters of graphics) with all graphic setiings pushed to max, 4x antialiasing also set to max quality and VD at 5000, gpu temperature never exceeds 75 degrees celsiius.
AC requirements, in particular reflections, are insanely demanding for the quality provided, I am quite sure that some optimization is needed on these matters, otherwise some graphics card will burn.
Even with a GTX980, with everything maxed in game after 30 minutes you will have one of 2 options.
Graphics card will throttle lowering the speed in an attempt to cool down and you will get lower fps and some lag, or simply it i'll burn.
AC is the first game where I can't have everything maxed as default for a regular gameplay.
Actually a valid point.I've given up trying to make AC useable. My new rig is a i7 5820k 6-core, GTX 980 4G, running off a 512GB SSD, with 16GB RAM. Still looks crappy. I can get high frame rates, as I'm running 144 hz monitors, but I'm done messing with it to make it visually acceptable. GSCE all the way for me.
Try the same settings in a grid where you have 24 cars.
@Remik
Try the same settings in a grid where you have 24 cars.
That would be a HUGE CPU load. What purpose would it serve other than to give you a warning message about 95% usage. No one shouldbe running 24 car fields in AC, it just struggles with CPU usage with that many cars.Actually a valid point.
While in matters of detail level in some aspects such as cars interior or engines (the ones we can see) Assetto Corsa is awesomely detailed with high quality, in some other aspects is quite poor, for instance the brake disks are very low detailed (not really important, but should match with overall quality).
To me the weak points are basically related with shadows, reflections and now after RC1.0 also the antialiasing.
Shadowing is quite poor in AC, does not work properly according to distances and/or lighting angle.
Reflections are also kinda of weird, requiring a high gpu usage and giving a output bellow average with some visible flaws.
So, if I was to buy a graphics card only because AC I would wait for the final product before making my decision, at this stage probably I would be disappointed no matter what I could chose..
@Remik
Try the same settings in a grid where you have 24 cars.
I disagree. Surely if no-one should be running a 24 car field, then why would AC include it? It's like having a Fifa game and saying, ok the game looks nice but to play at a reasonable perfomance you can only play five a side.... ( I hate football so wouldn't care anyway, but you get my point)That would be a HUGE CPU load. What purpose would it serve other than to give you a warning message about 95% usage. No one shouldbe running 24 car fields in AC, it just struggles with CPU usage with that many cars.
I disagree. Surely if no-one should be running a 24 car field, then why would AC include it? It's like having a Fifa game and saying, ok the game looks nice but to play at a reasonable perfomance you can only play five a side.... ( I hate football so wouldn't care anyway, but you get my point)
Well, I have only tested this once (after the RC came out) but running a full 24 car LaFerrari grid at Spa did not give me a cpu usage warning.
In order to run AC off of an SSD, you'd have to get the entire valve directory on it, right?I run a gtx 770 and have no issues running the game maxxed out on 1080p screen ,,on a side note another good little gain if your not doing so is use solidstate harddrives
@Blkout
If U have good coolers and motherboard... i5 2500k will be stable 4.8 - 5 GHz all the time
... running 2 years with that clock ( using only air )
Nope. I have Steam on my SSD and my entire library is on a 2TB drive. When you go to install a game, you have the option to change the install location, and you can create a custom directory on a different drive. So you can keep Steam on drive X and install any games on drive Y.In order to run AC off of an SSD, you'd have to get the entire valve directory on it, right?
Never had that 95% cpu warning, In fact with all game graphic settings maxed/ultra but having reflections and PP disabled, a 24 car grid runs smoothly at 60 fps as if were only 1 car, do not see difference.That would be a HUGE CPU load. What purpose would it serve other than to give you a warning message about 95% usage. No one shouldbe running 24 car fields in AC, it just struggles with CPU usage with that many cars.