Support NeoGAF

[Cipherr]

hmm... UT66 has a point. Long time ago, there was a vast difference between console games and PC games. Ten years ago, PC games used to be adventures that went beyond the realms of what was possible in a console, with gameplay that just could not be emulated. Now, 80% of PC games are based around console specs, and the few ones that are not, Tropico, Spore, Football Manager, etc do not really benefit a lot from powerful hardware.

Something to do perhaps with desiring portability? PC gaming market has taken its lumps with the evolution of broadband speeds torrents and filesharing in general. The world is literally a smaller place nowadays and piracy is a bitch. I can understand why they would develop for portability possibilities.

 

[evlcookie]

It will be good for PC gaming if all pc developers can agree for one common minimum system requirement. Define RAM, CPU, and GPU specs. Name it like, let's say, PGS (PC Gaming Specification) 1.0 and so on for future versions. Update it every 3-4 yrs. Develop some branding logo and put it on hardware packaging that complies standard to help decide consumers what to buy to play all games which will run 99% same on all PCs. Add in software protocol specs for all kind of online gaming features. Basically do something like USB, HDMI and lots of other standard specs.

This is what the pc gaming alliance was mean't to be about, well i thought it was anyway. Unfortunately it looks like they haven't done a single thing.

There is nothing wrong with creating a baseline for developers, it's how it should be in all honesty. If i want to play the game at all then i go with the baseline, if i want more power because im an enthusiest then i buy more power.

 

[godhandiscen]

Something to do perhaps with desiring portability? PC gaming market has taken its lumps with the evolution of broadband speeds torrents and filesharing in general. The world is literally a smaller place nowadays and piracy is a bitch. I can understand why they would develop for portability possibilities.

Read my post above you. I agree with your comment. I am just saying, that UT66 isnt out of his fucking mind like some people here want to believe.

 

[Blackface]

Read my post above you. I agree with your comment. I am just saying, that UT66 isnt out of his fucking mind like some people here want to believe.

Yes he is and you are a fool if you think they could actually make an entire game like that work on a broad range of PC's so long as that PC only has a 4870X2.

I refuse to believe there are so many flat out retarded people posting here on Neogaf.

 

[Firestorm]

Read my post above you. I agree with your comment. I am just saying, that UT66 isnt out of his fucking mind like some people here want to believe.

He isn't? The guy who shows bullshots that look good because of AA added that won't be in the final game but then says AA, AF, and resolution don't matter? Really? He has no clue what he's talking about.

The reason games aren't optimized for particular video cards is because there are so damn few of them. 10% of Steam users have an 8800GT? How is that even possible to make a profit on? What are you going to do when they upgrade? Software emulation for all games made the previous year?

If you want a console, buy a console. Or do what I do. Get both.

 

[Sleeker]

Those fancy numbers mean shit. At the end of the day you are still playing a console game at higher resolution. Yes it runs, and looks better, but who gives a shit.

I do, and I'm willing to pay for it.

 

[godhandiscen]

Yes he is and you are a fool if you think they could actually make an entire game like that work on a broad range of PC's so long as that PC only has a 4870X2.

I refuse to believe there are so many flat out retarded people posting here on Neogaf.

smh...

I was never saying I agreed with him. I said he had a point. That current videocards can actually pull better graphics and that currently they are not taken full advantage of due to the fact that developers have to work with engines that work across a multiple range of architectures. No need to be offensive.

 

[mutantmagnet]

It will be good for PC gaming if all pc developers can agree for one common minimum system requirement. Define RAM, CPU, and GPU specs.

That won't work because CPU and GPU can and usually do use different architectures. RAM used to have this problem but the closest competitors to DDR eventually fell out of disfavor.

 

[Firestorm]

smh...

I was never saying I agreed with him. I said he had a point. That current videocards can actually pull better graphics and that currently they are not taken full advantage of due to the fact that developers have to work with engines that work across a multiple range of architectures. No need to be offensive.

But it's not practical. His argument is "MAKE GAMES FOR ME ME ME ME ME ME ME". I say, fuck him, make games for my GTX 275 instead. My friend says, screw you, I want games for my GTX 280 in SLI.

 

[MirageDwarf]

And sell nothing? Why would they make The Sims or WoW run on nothing by 8800s? On the same level, why bother aiming Fallout 3 at Intel GMA950 users?

Idea is that once you start targeting common minimum specs, more people will be willing to buy it because it's hassle free. More sales means more games means more gamers and so on. It has to start somewhere. Companies should be able join in gradually.

By standard I mean something like this:

Imaginary standard 1.0 GPU (on-board or stand-alone) has to support, let's say, shader model 5.0, 1GB VRAM, DX 20.0, OpenGL 5.0, 8xAA at 720P/1080P (it can support standard pc resolutions but for standardization something has to be agreed upon) etc. Same goes for CPU and RAM speed.

Then why would you aim GMA950 if it doesn't support standard? If it supports, then why not?

That won't work because CPU and GPU can and usually do use different architectures. RAM used to have this problem but the closest competitors to DDR eventually fell out of disfavor.

They can use any architecture they want as long as it supports all features as I said in imaginary example above.

 

[godhandiscen]

He isn't? The guy who shows bullshots that look good because of AA added that won't be in the final game but then says AA, AF, and resolution don't matter? Really? He has no clue what he's talking about.

The reason games aren't optimized for particular video cards is because there are so damn few of them. 10% of Steam users have an 8800GT? How is that even possible to make a profit on? What are you going to do when they upgrade? Software emulation for all games made the previous year?

If you want a console, buy a console. Or do what I do. Get both.

You too.

I believe we all understand why developers cannot optmize for a single videocard. It would be a horrible business practice that would imply the creation of one engine per computer configuration, aka a waste of time. However, he isn't completely retarded in saying that us PC gamers mostly playing console games in higuer resolution. As I said before, there was a time when developers on the PC would take more risks and craft gameplay that actually took advantage of the hardware, and I am not talking about only graphics, however those times are long gone. And those games that play to the advatages of the PC as a platform are dissapearing, with MMOs being the exception, and even then.

But it's not practical. His argument is "MAKE GAMES FOR ME ME ME ME ME ME ME". I say, fuck him, make games for my GTX 275 instead. My friend says, screw you, I want games for my GTX 280 in SLI.

That was not his only one argument. He was also saying that we expected too little out of our powerful machines, which is accurate. Nowadays, not a single game uses over a 2GB (including OS) and a good chunk of PC gamers have over 3GB of memory according to the Steam survey, maybe a PC oriented developer should notice that extra memory and develop gameplay that takes advantage of it.

 

[Firestorm]

godhandiscen, the thing is, all he wants ARE console games with better graphics and resolution and then he says he doesn't. His Killzone 2 comment makes it quite clear. I WANT GAMES TO LOOK AND PLAY LIKE THIS ON PC. Yeah? There are games that look better and play like Killzone (if not better) on PC. Then he says the things that make it look better don't matter. Either he doesn't understand the terminology, or he's a raving lunatic.

Idea is that once you start targeting common minimum specs, more people will be willing to buy it because it's hassle free. More sales means more games means more gamers and so on. It has to start somewhere. Companies should be able join in gradually.

By standard I mean something like this:

Imaginary standard 1.0 GPU (on-board or stand-alone) has to support, let's say, shader model 5.0, 1GB VRAM, DX 20.0, OpenGL 5.0, 8xAA at 720P/1080P (it can support stand pc resolution but for standardization something has to be agreed upon) etc.

Then why would you aim GMA950 if it doesn't support standard? If it supports, then why not?

You'd aim for it because your game is played a lot by college students killing time on their laptops. If you're saying all GPUs have to support that, that's one thing. Although that would probably increase costs too high.

 

[MirageDwarf]

You'd aim for it because your game is played a lot by college students killing time on their laptops. If you're saying all GPUs have to support that, that's one thing. Although that would probably increase costs too high.

Again, it has to start somewhere. You're thinking in terms of PC gaming market right now. All GPUs have to support that if they want to be compatible for that specs. That was just one example. It doesn't have to be so high that it costs too much. Affordable baseline can be agreed upon.

 

[godhandiscen]

godhandiscen, the thing is, all he wants ARE console games with better graphics and resolution and then he says he doesn't. His Killzone 2 comment makes it quite clear. I WANT GAMES TO LOOK AND PLAY LIKE THIS ON PC. Yeah? There are games that look better and play like Killzone (if not better) on PC. Then he says the things that make it look better don't matter. Either he doesn't understand the terminology, or he's a raving lunatic.You'd aim for it because your game is played a lot by college students killing time on their laptops. If you're saying all GPUs have to support that, that's one thing. Although that would probably increase costs too high.

I said he had a point, not that he was right. I do not agree with all he said, but he made me realize that I expect too little out of my PC. He is right, all I use my PC are to play console games at a higuer framerate and a higuer resolution, and the eventual MMO. However, I wish that more developers would actually take advantage of the unique hardware us PC gamers have and develop gameplay experiences based on it. Spore is a perfect example. It is a unique experience that takes advantage of the strenghts of the PC hardware (out of order processing of instructions + vast memory) without being an MMO, or requiring a beefy videocard.

 

[Firestorm]

Again, it has to start somewhere. You're thinking in terms of PC gaming market right now. All GPUs have to support that if they want to be compatible for that specs. That was just one example. It doesn't have to be so high that it costs too much. Affordable baseline can be agreed upon.

But then it would still need to scale down to it, bringing us back where we started, no? We also still have two competing GPU manufacturers (thank god) who have different architectures to build on. Last Remnant on ATI cards doesn't run the same as it does on nVidia cards.

PC Gaming is just too customizable to apply a console philosophy to.

 

[UT66]

im glad to find some open and informed posters over here. that's refreshing. I tend to give the opposite impression with my sexy English, but i think my point stands.

"His argument is "MAKE GAMES FOR ME ME ME ME ME ME ME". I say, fuck him, make games for my GTX 275"

:lol see? that's not what i meant at all. is not ME ME ME, is US. the problem? your card is just waaaaay to powerful, like stupid powerful, ( how much watts does it eat) Show me a game that uses 40% of your gtx 275 (don't say crysis or talk about silly things like resolution and AA) and ill run to the nearest store right now

 

[godhandiscen]

Next generation

Spoiler

of consoles

is where its at. lol

 

[ZoddGutts]

Next generation

Spoiler

of consoles

is where its at. lol

Anyone got the trailer/video for that tech demo?

 

[MirageDwarf]

But then it would still need to scale down to it, bringing us back where we started, no? We also still have two competing GPU manufacturers (thank god) who have different architectures to build on. Last Remnant on ATI cards doesn't run the same as it does on nVidia cards.

PC Gaming is just too customizable to apply a console philosophy to.

That where "companies should be able join in gradually" comes in. If company doesn't seem it profitable they can choose to ignore the spec. Their games won't be standard compliant. It will be no different than what's going on right now. When people won't see it on box, they can decide what to do. At one point, market can be big enough that company will prefer to support rather than not and lose money because people are skipping a game without standard logo on box.

It's not about applying strong console philosophy. It is something that will assure customers what to expect when they buy it without worrying about all kind of different hardware, software tweaks. It's a guarantee from developers that says if you have hardware that supports this standard, you will get streamlined experience highly optimized for your hardware capability.

 

[tokkun]

hmm... UT66 has a point. Long time ago, there was a vast difference between console games and PC games. Ten years ago, PC games used to be adventures that went beyond the realms of what was possible in a console, with gameplay that just could not be emulated. Now, 80% of PC games are based around console specs, and the few ones that are not, Tropico, Spore, Football Manager, etc do not really benefit a lot from powerful hardware.

Tim Sweeney recently made the argument that the reason that PC games barely look better than console games really derives from the limitations of the so-called 'Z-buffer'-centric graphics architecture that has been dominant for so long. Even with additional flexibility of shaders, programmer productivity is holding things back. In order for PC games to take a leap beyond the console, they need a more general-purpose GPU architecture so they can go back to what is more or less a software renderer.

So I think his response would be, even if you wanted to target a game directly at the GTX275 (or whatever), it would not be cost-effective to do it since the investment in development costs yields diminishing returns in terms of improved graphical fidelity.

 

[eggandI]

Next generation

Spoiler

of consoles

is where its at. lol

I wish that were real and I wish that's what next gen is going to look like...

 

[artist]

Nonsense. Ask Carmack. DOOM3 was a GeForce 6800 / 6600 game.

DOOM3 was OpenGL and back then if NV40 was way better at OpenGL than R420. So much dumb shit by a Junior...

No.
UT66 is right again.
http://i27.tinypic.com/2vru7g5.jpg

This demo is running in real time on a 4870x2. It is amazing what can be achieved when developers actually optimize for a single architecture.

A lot of us here don;t want to open our eyes and realize that the hardware on our machines could do much more. However, from a business point of view it doesn't make sense for developers to optimize for a specific videocard, therefore we get games that only achieve 70% or less of the theoretical performance.

You do know that demo is HIGHLY scripted? It has no AI among a lot of other things missing. I'm not dissing the demo, ATI's demos have always been spectacular more than Nvidia's but its hardly an example in your case.

People using photos of screen not actual screenshots are AWESOME

Spoiler

ly stupid.

 

[Ceebs]

If we wanted a standardized system we would buy a console. The open of nature of the PC is it's greatest strength.

 

[godhandiscen]

DOOM3 was OpenGL and back then if NV40 was way better at OpenGL than R420. So much dumb shit by a Junior...

You do know that demo is HIGHLY scripted? It has no AI among a lot of other things missing. I'm not dissing the demo, ATI's demos have always been spectacular more than Nvidia's but its hardly an example in your case.

I do realize it is heavily scripted, however that demo is running on a Phenom 9600 BE and 3GB of ram. IF and only IF (and I am not saying a developer should, I am only saying, that it is fucking possible) a decided to optimize a game for a 4870x2/Core i7 combo he could get an actual game that looked this good. Obviously this is only conceptual since it would be totally pointless and no developer in his right mind should do it.

People using photos of screen not actual screenshots are AWESOME

Spoiler

ly stupid.

Ohh yeah, the actual screen looks a fuckload better.

 

[UT66]

godhandiscen, the thing is, all he wants ARE console games with better graphics and resolution and then he says he doesn't. His Killzone 2 comment makes it quite clear. I WANT GAMES TO LOOK AND PLAY LIKE THIS ON PC. Yeah? There are games that look better and play like Killzone (if not better) on PC.

No, you got it all wrong. kZ2 is "impressive" because it is running on ps3 hardware. I don't actually want a console game like that on my pc. EA, Activision, UBI, etc, i want them to put similar levels of commitment, budget, time, resources, on a exclusive pc game. The result? That ATI real time demo looking twice as good.

 

[Firestorm]

That where "companies should be able join in gradually" comes in. If company doesn't seem it profitable they can choose to ignore the spec. Their games won't be standard compliant. It will be no different than what's going on right now. When people won't see it on box, they can decide what to do. At one point, market can be big enough that company will prefer to support rather than not and lose money because people are skipping a game without standard logo on box.

It's not about applying strong console philosophy. It is something that will assure customers what to expect when they buy it without worrying about all kind of different hardware, software tweaks. It's a guarantee from developers that says if you have hardware that supports this standard, you will get streamlined experience highly optimized for your hardware capability.

But that seems a lot like what we have now but with an abritrary standard of what an acceptable card is. This wouldn't make any games look better than they already do.

No, you got it all wrong. kZ2 is "impressive" because it is running on ps3 hardware. I don't actually want a console game like that on my pc. EA, Activision, UBI, etc, i want them to put similar levels of commitment, budget, time, resources, on a exclusive pc game. The result? That ATI real time demo looking twice as good.

and the company that made the game going out of business.

 

[tokkun]

Ohh yeah, the actual screen looks a fuckload better.

You know, that screenshot reminds me a lot of those early shots released from the Project Gotham 3 website. Anyone remember those? I think racing games have taught us that you can make a scripted sequence that look far better than the actual gameplay. If you ask me, that sort of demo is really pretty meaningless. There are graphic card demos from a couple generations ago that still look better than modern games.

 

[godhandiscen]

and the company that made the game going out of business.

Fuck... I am not UT66's lawyer, but if only what he is putting on that post is what he is standing for then he is also making a good point.

"i want them to put similar levels of commitment, budget, time, resources, on a exclusive pc game."

As I mentioned earlier, look at Spore, a game with very low hardware requirements, that so far has not been emulated on the Pc because the developer (EA/Maxis) was committed to the PC as a platform. And lo and behold, Spore is a million seller. However, I will not say you are wrong because EA/Maxis just suffered job cuts and it could be due to their innability to do anything but great PC games whereas the money is in the console business.

You know, that screenshot reminds me a lot of those early shots released from the Project Gotham 3 website. Anyone remember those? I think racing games have taught us that you can make a scripted sequence that look far better than the actual gameplay. If you ask me, that sort of demo is really pretty meaningless. There are graphic card demos from a couple generations ago that still look better than modern games.

Uncharted 2 running on a gimped 7600gs looks on par with the Nvidia Gforce 7 generation tech demos. As I said before, that demo was running scripted on a Phenom I 9600, which is a piece of shit processor compared to a Core i7. It is not under the realm of possibility that millions of dollars in research could make that demo playable on a 4870x2/Core i7 combo, however, no developer should since it would be a stupid business practice.

 

[UT66]

Ohh yeah, the actual screen looks a fuckload better.

Jesus Christ godhandiscen, that's mean! :lol You just cant post screens like that , even from a 08 ati demo, it doesn't work like that over here! Shit like that only fuels anger. Don do it again, por favor, because the angry tears are breaking my heart.

edit btw, your post.. they have way too much logic. try to tone that down.

 

[Cipherr]

EA, Activision, UBI, etc, i want them to put similar levels of commitment, budget, time, resources, on a exclusive pc game. .

Not gonna happen.

 

[UT66]

o shit, the stupid gif army is here ... im bailing out.

 

[eggandI]

o shit, the stupid gif army is here ... im bailing out.

 

[Nemo]

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn210/Pepe343/fifty-wtf.gif[IMG]

Not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
oh shit :lol that reversing is genius

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Nonsense. Ask Carmack. DOOM3 was a GeForce 6800 / 6600 game.

Just because the 6800 ran it best at the time it came out does not mean it was a "6800" game. They spent like 4 years or more developing Doom 3 and did not know the exact specs of what the 6800 would be much less actually test the game on one of the devices until very late in the development cycle.

 

[naldo]

Why don't AMD/Nvidia themselves make games that truly show off the hardware? I can understand why other developers/publishers wouldn't want to bother (for the reasons mentioned by many in this thread) because they need to make money off the game, but AMD/Nvidia make their money solely off the hardware, and it seems to me that the chip makers would benefit from providing a truly impressive looking game that could only be run on their latest and greatest. For example AMD making a game thats super optimized for 4800 series cards, then making a game that was super optimized for 5800 series cards, etc.

It would almost be like the wii and wii sports. Nothing super high budget or far reaching, just a solid game that truly shows of what their product can do.

 

[Sutanreyu]

I love you AMD (as of recent, anyway). I wish XFX had a step-up program like EVGA. I bought a 4890 not too long ago. I'll hold off though until the 2nd gen DX11 cards unless the performance is off the wall or an uber DX11 game comes out.

 

[godhandiscen]

Why don't AMD/Nvidia themselves make games that truly show off the hardware? I can understand why other developers/publishers wouldn't want to bother (for the reasons mentioned by many in this thread) because they need to make money off the game, but AMD/Nvidia make their money solely off the hardware, and it seems to me that the chip makers would benefit from providing a truly impressive looking game that could only be run on their latest and greatest. For example AMD making a game thats super optimized for 4800 series cards, then making a game that was super optimized for 5800 series cards, etc.

It would almost be like the wii and wii sports. Nothing super high budget or far reaching, just a solid game that truly shows of what their product can do.

Nvidia tried this with Cell Factor, and it turns out that ATI cards could run the game just as well, so Nvidia put code to cripple the performance unless PhysX hardware was detected. Nvidia is doing it again with Cryostasis, a game that really needs PhysX hardware for the high setting effects, but the game isn't as popular, and the improvement that PhysX have brought up to the table have been just cosmetic up until now. The problem is that a videocard no matter how powerful it is cannot make gameplay better unless the game is a slideshow even in low settings. Wii Sports is a solid demostration of what the Wii can bring to the table in terms of gameplay thanks to the motion controls. I am pretty sure there are ways to benefit gameplay through graphics but it would take a team of artists devising a gameplay that involved shaders and what not.

 

[tehbear]

Visual fideality is not limited to just higher resolution textures and more AA slapped on either. I feel like we are getting diminishing returns on the resolution end of things anyways.

Crysis was impressive to be sure, but the illusion has it's limits. Sure it's trees and rocks have a lot of polys, but how much further can we improve that? There's still no true deformation, no debris, no good simulation of matter when it falls to pieces.

It's still too much of a lego world. Admitly every year we get to see fancier legos, and perhaps to ask for otherwise is just foolhardy. But really I would be fine if the escalation in technology went elsewhere to produce some frameworks that makes the world more than just legos. To make objects in our games more than just a shape with textures washed over with fancy lighting technique creating that beautiful illusion that breaks the minute you find ur rocket unable to scratch it's pristine surface.

 

[longdi]

video of the ruby demo
http://download.amd.com/Corporate/AMD_RUBY_S04.mov

it must be bullshot, prerendered or some fakery. if not why has it not been released to hd48xx users?

 

[Firestorm]

Visual fideality is not limited to just higher resolution textures and more AA slapped on either. I feel like we are getting diminishing returns on the resolution end of things anyways.

Crysis was impressive to be sure, but the illusion has it's limits. Sure it's trees and rocks have a lot of polys, but how much further can we improve that? There's still no true deformation, no debris, no good simulation of matter when it falls to pieces.

It's still too much of a lego world. Admitly every year we get to see fancier legos, and perhaps to ask for otherwise is just foolhardy. But really I would be fine if the escalation in technology went elsewhere to produce some frameworks that makes the world more than just legos. To make objects in our games more than just a shape with textures washed over with fancy lighting technique creating that beautiful illusion that breaks the minute you find ur rocket unable to scratch it's pristine surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGTkPv_gxw

 

[Dennis]

Visual fideality is not limited to just higher resolution textures and more AA slapped on either. I feel like we are getting diminishing returns on the resolution end of things anyways.

Crysis was impressive to be sure, but the illusion has it's limits. Sure it's trees and rocks have a lot of polys, but how much further can we improve that? There's still no true deformation, no debris, no good simulation of matter when it falls to pieces.

It's still too much of a lego world. Admitly every year we get to see fancier legos, and perhaps to ask for otherwise is just foolhardy. But really I would be fine if the escalation in technology went elsewhere to produce some frameworks that makes the world more than just legos. To make objects in our games more than just a shape with textures washed over with fancy lighting technique creating that beautiful illusion that breaks the minute you find ur rocket unable to scratch it's pristine surface.

We are making great strides in Physics right now in games. I am not sure what you expect, really. Physics is very processing intensive so it will be a long time before games will be anything other than "Lego".

 

[tehbear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGTkPv_gxw

The flags and glass are nice, but again it's just a few newer pieces of very impressive legos. I won't want to come across as saying that stuff isn't impressive, I just know it'll be many generations of radeons and advancement in computer science before we begin to make progress on some of the more difficult parts.

We are making great strides in Physics right now in games. I am not sure what you expect, really. Physics is very processing intensive so it will be a long time before games will be anything other than "Lego".

I don't expect much actually. Today's tech is already very impressive, I am just saying we are hitting diminishing returns with these cards because of the exponential amount of power you need to have for improvements in some areas.

 

[Firestorm]

The flags and glass are nice, but again it's just a few newer pieces of very impressive legos. I won't want to come across as saying that stuff isn't impressive, I just know it'll be many generations of radeons and advancement in computer science before we begin to make progress on some of the more difficult parts.



I don't expect much actually. Today's tech is already very impressive, I am just saying we are hitting diminishing returns with these cards because of the exponential amount of power you need to have for improvements in some areas.

Well, for those who've made the jump to 3D, I'm sure the extra power is appreciated. The framerate is effectively cut in half since each eye needs to be accounted for separately. The new sweetspot is 120fps, not 60fps.

 

[Dennis]

GPUs need to get a lot more powerful.

I look forward to running my games at 120 fps with 32xAA supersampling and 16xAF on a 120Hz 30" 2560x1600 monitor in glorious 3D.

Forward the future.

 

[Stink]

Talk of specs and standards is console nonsense.

The beauty of PC games are the scalable engines. Spending what you want and getting the IQ to match.

 

[Dizzan]

This thread needs videos showing off what DirectX 11 will do/look like.

 

[Mr.Potato Head]

Yeah i really agree on the peeps saying the pc platform REALLY needs a big kick in the butt to take more advantage of videogames. I've always invested into cutting edge gear, i love building pc's for myself and for friends/family but its starting to come to a time now for me that its just not worth spending bucks on high end gear any more when there is only a game or two actually taking advantage of my gear. Im a pretty pc savvy gamer but most average people are not...

By now i would of BEEN HAD a corei7 rig built but no way in hell am im gonna do that for something my QX9650/4870X2/4GB DDR3 ram cant already handle...its just not as "fun" as use to be for me. I still love building cutting edge gear and all that jazz but damn it..give us some visually stunning mind blowing games to put our gear to use.. Crysis is the only thing thats really out there that truely takes advantage of cutting edge gear and its about two years old now aint it? There is a nice mix of things that is causing this though..

I know piracy has a bit to do with it but its NOT the only reason behind the lack of pc games taking advantage of high end gear and its also NOT the biggest reason behind it, i wish people would stop saying piracy is why..its NOT! Its part Intels fault with the crap integrated graphics bullshit and the fact that Microsoft has yet to address the "user friendliness" missing from the pc platform as a gaming platform for that "average not to pc savvy gamer"...pc gaming now days is not like how it once was back in the C64 days and stuff like that where even i could pop in a floppy disc and play a game (i was around 12 years back in the C64 days)...so...if anything its more complex to the average user now days with computers..i think MS and PC Developers need to make things much more simple for the "average joe" that dont know about how to trouble shoot driver issues, game crashes,etc,etc..i mean hell if i were to bring one of my friends over my house and ask him to setup Crysis properly..he would be lost totally, most average people wouldnt....wouldnt know what resolution to use, wouldnt know to use Dx9 or Dx10,wouldnt know what to do if the game wouldnt boot up or if it was a slide show,etc... you see, now days..people want "convenience" and the pc platform just isnt it when you got games that look damn stunning like killzone2, gears of war2,etc on consoles which is a simple pop in the disc and play kind of platform..THATS what us lazy humans what in this present day and age...the average person dont got the time for all the tedious bullshit anymore..

 

[procrastinator]

Have there been any actual performance benchmarks released yet? Saying the card has 2 teraflops or whatever is pretty much meaningless in comparison to what it can do in terms of real world performance.

 

[brain_stew]

I think it will be interesting to see how this new generation of GPUs performs when compared to the last-gen midrange cards in SLI/Crossfire. There are a lot of people out there who own a single 4870 or GTX260. Dropping in a 2nd card will cost about $120, provided you have a compatible board/PSU, and I think it will be really tough for the new cards to compete on a price/performance ratio with that upgrade. The whole 2-card thing was great for manufacturers when it could convince people to spend twice as much money, but I think it's poised to backfire on them.

Well if SLI/Crossfire worked as advertised you might have a point, but they don't and will forever be a horrible upgrade path.

 

[Ceebs]

Well, for those who've made the jump to 3D, I'm sure the extra power is appreciated. The framerate is effectively cut in half since each eye needs to be accounted for separately. The new sweetspot is 120fps, not 60fps.

As someone who cannot see 3D properly I look forward to the 120fps movement. It will mean 60 FPS will be easier to come by at high settings.