@rainofwalrus: When did a games console cost $1000? I'm in the UK and even at their peak a games console was far cheaper than a decent gpu.... not to mention that you need to spend a grand on a decent cpu if you want it to be worth the money.
@rainofwalrus: I bought my 360 on sale for about $250 - which included a HD and two games. At this point you could by with a PS3 and a 360 for less than the cost of this card.
Besides, it would be pointless to plug this card into some dog of a PC, os it's not just $600 for a card. Your other components better be up to par and you better have a massive display to reap the benefits.
@Jekht: May I ask where you are getting your information from? My current PC which would cost around $600 at todays prices allows me to max all the most recent games, the only one it has had some trouble with so far is Crysis at higher resolutions and Shattered Horizon, but as I understand that game is murder on any PC.
Having to pay 1k+ for a decent gaming rig along with the upgrading every 6 months stereotype has been disproven so many times and for quite some time now I might add, yet people continue to prattle on about something they frankly know nothing about.
@jomama22: If that average consumer base only cares for the basics of a PC as you describe them, and I know they do, a $10 video card would mean nothing let alone a $600 one.
Anyone who spends that much money on a video card most likely gets the full use of a PC and yet not very many people know Blu-Ray exist. Go figure.
@DrunkAus: Yes, todays prices. The consoles have dropped in price as well. If we did a comparrison of the price of your PC, pre-made (because although you and me might build ourselves, most people can't, and aren't interested in learning) vs. the cost of both the 360 and the PS3, your PC would come off the dearer.
Part of this reason is that it will out perform the consoles. Hell even MW2 runs at only 600p on consoles, in comparrison to 1920x1200 on my PC.
I never implied that you had to upgrade every 6 months. Another post in this very topic I've made says that I've been running my 8800GTX for some time now and havn't had to even think about upgrading.
I consider my PC a more worthwhile investment than my console. Mainly because I can do a hell of a lot more on it and maintaining it is fun, so I think you're preaching to the wrong guy....
@Jekht: I do agree that compared to today's prices, consoles come off the winners in the price war.
I never implied that you implied, I'm merely stating the excuse that normally comes with these PC vs. Console arguments/discussions.
But yea sorry I sounded like a dick it's just your post came off to me as something a anti-pc console fanboy would say, respect to you fellow PC brethren :)
@rainofwalrus: launch prices? it was $600 for a PS3. This is $600 dollars for the card alone.
If you just did a goddamned break down in your own head you wouldn't make stupid statements like this. Instead, daddy here will walk you through it:
We'll pick the most expensive console at launch to do this.
PS3 - $600
Extra controller - $60
2 games $120
------------------------------
Total: $780
For the PC we'll have to build it with premium parts as not to bottle neck this crazy video card. Got the prices off Newegg.com, and I didn't even pick the most expensive ones.
video card $600
820W PSU ~$120
core i7+mobo ~$500
6gb DDR1600 ram ~$120
case ~$100
Mouse+keyboard ~$80
soundcard ~$50 (let's put this in to make it equal b/c PS3 supports 7.1 sound)
500Gb HDD ~$75
2 games - $100
-----------------------------------
Total: $1745
So we're comparing the top of the line console price at launch with the top of the line gaming PC "at launch". Oh also I'm not adding in the cost of speakers even though most LCDs don't have built in speakers when HDTVs do.
Additionally, spending $400 for an xbox 360, then spending $600 on a ps3 a year later isn't comparable to dropping $1500 all at once on a PC.
If you said people picking up a $600 PS3 + $400 xbox 360 at the same time have no right to complain about a $600 video card, then I'd agree with you. But rarely do people ever go into the store and buy a PS3 and 360 and a bunch of games for both systems simultaneously.
Picking an extreme example to support your argument is weak.
@rainofwalrus: are you kidding me. you can't make comparisons of 2 products at different times in their life cycles. If we're going to talk about the prices of the newest consoles then we're going to compare them to the prices of the newest PC components.
You're pointing at 4 year old PC tech and comparing them to the prices of the consoles at launch.
@rainofwalrus: The PS3 does come with a computer, I can install linux on mine, hook up a mouse and keyboard, i can hook up a webcam. There's even a Printer setting under the Settings menu.
Yeah, we're not even talking about the monitor or speakers required for the computer yet. Fine, if you just want to talk graphics card, the RSX is an Nvidia 7 series card which was probably worth ~$100 at launch. This graphics card is $600 by itself.
Your argument is so retarded I can't believe you just won't give up. I'm probably being trolled by you. If that is the case, kudos.
@Adhominem: trolled? I don't think that word means what you think it means. besides, using words like "troll" and "retarded" usually, but not always, mean you're losing or have already lost the argument.
@rainofwalrus: I can't lose an argument when I'm just representing commonly known facts to you. You're the one bitching that no one has the right to complain about the price of a $600 video card.
It's simply a fact that people purchase consoles because PC gaming is by far a more expensive hobby. To maintain the same video quality on a console you don't have to do anything over the life span of the console. To maintain a playable FPS at a similar graphics setting on a PC, there is a need to upgrade at least once over the same time as the lifespan of a console.
@Adhominem: incorrect, I implied anyone who spent a combined $1000 on a Launch-X360 and a Launch-PS3 had waived their right to complain about a $600 graphics card.
And you flipped out. Started insulting me. Nice job, tough guy.
@rainofwalrus: I didn't flip out. You're still wrong about that whole waiving the right to complain bit. Because it's still 2 consoles vs 1 graphics card. Are you going to sit in front of the $600 card and stare at it?
@Adhominem: lol. no. the PS2 is a very good point. you own a PS2 and don't need to upgrade your console. you don't need the X360/PS3 graphics capability (that's what you're really upgrading, lets be honest). you don't need to drop $1000--at launch--for NEW graphics.
but you do, you spend $1000 to upgrade your console graphics and then log onto kotaku and complain about a $600 graphic upgrade that doesn't play games by itself.
I'm not wrong. And you seem to keep missing my point.
@heretrix: I have 2 machines running both ATI and Nvidia and while I gotto admit I like Nvidia driver better. I never have such problems with my ATI driver, you just gotto know how to do it the right way.
@heretrix: I usually go through these steps whenever uninstall driver for my video card.
1. Uninstall the driver in Control Panel-- Add, remove program.
2. Reboot in Safe mode and run DriverSweeper (it's free) to get rid of the remainders in the registry. Take a couple secs to clean.
3.Reboot into Windows (regular mode) again and install new driver.
Yeah, WHENEVER is the keyword here..Lol. I think their Catalyst suite is pure garbage. Also what's the point? Nvidia seems to get all of the extra shit applied to their cards anyway..
I know, bells and whistles...
But I like bells and whistles.
They aren't terrible cards, in fact they make damn good hardware. But I always seem to have issues with the drivers.Either the install package fails or there is some weird error and I have to do an cleaner/reinstall and hope the thing runs properly. I've had this happen on several PCs that I have built. I've never had this problem with the Nvidia cards. Sure there is always some issues with games, but that is to be expected. But I'm talking simple hardware install.
@heretrix: ATI has definitely improved their drivers over the last few years, but overall, yeah, I'd agree nVidia has better support (this coming from someone with a 4870 in the desktop and a 9600GT in the laptop).
I don't mind switching back and forth between the two brands though, especially with the recent improvement ATI has gone through with their drivers. Whoever can come out with the best performance/dollar card is who gets my money. I never bother with the overkill monster cards like the 5970.
@iTravis: I never have to go through all of that nonsense with Nvida cards. Which is my point. ATI drivers blow. If you have to go through all of that to upgrade your drivers, something is wrong.
It should be a simple process:
Download driver, install software, done. In the scope of things, It isn't rocket science, but it is inelegant and unnecessary and ATI SHOULD be better at it given their amount of time in the industry. I have the same problem with Creative and their sound cards, which is another company I no longer deal with.
@Sir-Lucius does anything for Dethklok: Yeah, you can get some great performance from the lower end cards that used to be the high end last year...I used to bounce back and forth until I realized that I could just wait until the card I wanted dropped in price. At that point the only thing that matters is stability. It's pretty much why I just go for the Nvidia stuff. All of the speed jockeying doesn't really matter, I'm just buying what makes me comfortable.
@heretrix: Nope, there's absolutely nothing wrong with going through those steps. Pretty much the enthusiast community encourage you to do it since that would be best to avoid all the problems that you might have run into later on. It looks like it's hassle but the whole thing doesn't take that long, just one more step to boot into safe mode and clean the registry. I've heard a lot of people having problem with ATI like you and they prefer Nvidia but for me, it would be a no brainer to get a card with such better performance while offers a lower price, and that's exactly how ATI gain success with their cards. I like Nvidia myself but I just don't like the way they overprice their card, not to mention the whole rename, rebrand, giving such misleading info....and such. For me I just simply care about price/performance more than anything. Driver? Once again I never have such problems with either.
No offense, but either you're doing something wrong, or you've been REALLY unlucky.
Don't tell you me don't remember the nvlddmkm display driver error that plagued Vista users for months (me included). That particular error was the largest cause of ALL Vista crashes.
ATI's problem is bad launch drivers, after that they are pretty much golden.
Price isn't the problem here since I don't buy a new card every 6 months. I'm perfectly fine waiting until a new card's price drop to where I'm comfortable. So the price issue is null and void.
The fastest until the 300 series is released anyway. I'm very interested in seen some solid 100% confirmed specs for the 300 series in the coming months and benchmarks to go with them.
All that said, ATI and AMD have come up in leaps and bounds in the last few years and it really is starting to boil down to a matter of personal preference for the most part.
The only real performance number here is 520 GFlops - 630 GFlops in double precision, which is certainly better than the 544 GFlops of the Radeon 5870, but not worlds apart.
The card shown here is a sandwich card with two GPUs in it, capable of 928 GFlops in double. So in a sense this will be the fastest "single" card for awhile.
@-MasterDex-: Indeed. The first graphics card I had was an ATI one, X300, swapped it out for an 1800 XT and was failr happy with it, but couldn't reallly get what i wanted out of it. Switched over to nvidia last year and am quite happy with them. But, the recent benchmarks on the ATI cards coming out in recent months have made me think about getting an ATI card the next time I upgrade. Made me stand up and take notice of them again anyway.
@Lokno: Yeah, I;ve seen those specs already. The Tesla cards will be some powerhouses for the professional market for sure.
What I'm looking for is cold, hard specs for the first line of 300 cards which so far have been vague at the most. I'm sure this will prompt Nvidia to loosen their tongues though.
@kearneybobs: Yeah, I find myself in a similiar position. I won't be changing cards until the end of next year though so by then, I should be able to get a good mid-range card pretty cheap.
@Paradox me: Isn't it still the fasest single GPU card? I have the same one.
You're right about Crysis still being top dog, I've yet to see its superior. THere's no reason for us to upgrade, perhaps the next wave 8 months from now?
@KaneRobot:
If you're into gaming just throw in $100 more and buy a 360 or PS3. Any of them should last more than 3 years from now and you won't waste your time upgrading drivers and the like.
Can we stop pretending Crysis is the be all and end all of graphics? I was able to run on max settings at 1280x1024 on the 8800gt, thats like 3 year old hardware. Nowadays a Radeon 4870 @ under $150 wipes the floor with Crysis.
@qwerty: There's no pretending. There doesn't exist a game that can visually top it, and scales relatively well. By Max settings, I'm sure you mean High, and not Very High. I had an 8800GT as well, and also a 9800GX2, and even then running at my default resolution at the time (1680x1050) wasn't very smooth.
Consider these benchmarks for my Radeon 4890 (also, E6550@2.6GHz, and 4GB of DDR2 @ 1000MHz): Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 21.73
Run #2- DX10 1920x1080 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 19.895
Run #3- DX10 1920x1080 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 19.09
Run #4- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 24.8
Run #5- DX10 1680x1050 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 22.71
Run #6- DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 21.755
Run #7- DX10 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 35.975
Run #8- DX10 1280x720 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 34.005
Run #9- DX10 1280x720 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 32.935
I think my framerates will be a bit higher when I get my new Phenom II X3 720 and overclock the crap out of it. Hopefully, later on I can snag another 4890 (unless these 5000 series kick ass).
I don't consider Crysis conquered until we reach a steady 60fps at 1080p, and clearly this is not possible with even a 250$ card. Not to mention there are mods that make Crysis look even better, and of course have a significant performance impact.
@qwerty: I ran Crysis fine at 1920x1200 on an 880GT too. With the slowest Core 2 Duo they ever made, and 3GB of RAM, in an otherwise stock Gateway. It might not have been maximum settings, but close... up until that zero-G section, at which point I had to turn a couple of things down a notch and then it ran fine again.
The 8800GT is fine and all, but as soon as you step up above 1600x1050 (even then it starts to get iffy), it takes a huge dive. The 512mb memory on the 8800gt really hurts it.
A simple upgrade to similar 260 would do worlds of improvements for people with larger displays.
All in all, it's not that surprising. DX11 has been talked about for some time. Given that DX10 was 2 years ago, it makes sense that a new API is put out.
11/20/09
Oh well, it was a fun 8 months!
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
Here you are putting $600 on something that is necessary for playing games, but can't play the games by itself.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
Besides, it would be pointless to plug this card into some dog of a PC, os it's not just $600 for a card. Your other components better be up to par and you better have a massive display to reap the benefits.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
so does the ps3...wasnt that their point?
obviously it cant do a tenth of what a computer can do but to the average consumer, a computer is a calculator, a word processor, and the internet.
11/19/09
Having to pay 1k+ for a decent gaming rig along with the upgrading every 6 months stereotype has been disproven so many times and for quite some time now I might add, yet people continue to prattle on about something they frankly know nothing about.
11/19/09
Anyone who spends that much money on a video card most likely gets the full use of a PC and yet not very many people know Blu-Ray exist. Go figure.
11/19/09
Part of this reason is that it will out perform the consoles. Hell even MW2 runs at only 600p on consoles, in comparrison to 1920x1200 on my PC.
I never implied that you had to upgrade every 6 months. Another post in this very topic I've made says that I've been running my 8800GTX for some time now and havn't had to even think about upgrading.
I consider my PC a more worthwhile investment than my console. Mainly because I can do a hell of a lot more on it and maintaining it is fun, so I think you're preaching to the wrong guy....
11/19/09
I never implied that you implied, I'm merely stating the excuse that normally comes with these PC vs. Console arguments/discussions.
But yea sorry I sounded like a dick it's just your post came off to me as something a anti-pc console fanboy would say, respect to you fellow PC brethren :)
11/19/09
I'm giving you the credit of trolling, because the only way anybody would seriously make that comparison is if they're a farking moron.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
Seriously, people who spent $1000 on two consoles (and I am one of those people) have no right to complain about a $600 videocard.
period.
#speakup
11/19/09
If you just did a goddamned break down in your own head you wouldn't make stupid statements like this. Instead, daddy here will walk you through it:
We'll pick the most expensive console at launch to do this.
PS3 - $600
Extra controller - $60
2 games $120
------------------------------
Total: $780
For the PC we'll have to build it with premium parts as not to bottle neck this crazy video card. Got the prices off Newegg.com, and I didn't even pick the most expensive ones.
video card $600
820W PSU ~$120
core i7+mobo ~$500
6gb DDR1600 ram ~$120
case ~$100
Mouse+keyboard ~$80
soundcard ~$50 (let's put this in to make it equal b/c PS3 supports 7.1 sound)
500Gb HDD ~$75
2 games - $100
-----------------------------------
Total: $1745
So we're comparing the top of the line console price at launch with the top of the line gaming PC "at launch". Oh also I'm not adding in the cost of speakers even though most LCDs don't have built in speakers when HDTVs do.
Additionally, spending $400 for an xbox 360, then spending $600 on a ps3 a year later isn't comparable to dropping $1500 all at once on a PC.
If you said people picking up a $600 PS3 + $400 xbox 360 at the same time have no right to complain about a $600 video card, then I'd agree with you. But rarely do people ever go into the store and buy a PS3 and 360 and a bunch of games for both systems simultaneously.
Picking an extreme example to support your argument is weak.
#speakup
11/20/09
[www.newegg.com]
+
$600 video card.
11/20/09
You're pointing at 4 year old PC tech and comparing them to the prices of the consoles at launch.
#speakup
11/20/09
PS3 doesn't come with an HDTV and Videocard doesn't come with a Computer.
I doesn't even appear that we're arguing. you have no case.
#speakup
11/20/09
Yeah, we're not even talking about the monitor or speakers required for the computer yet. Fine, if you just want to talk graphics card, the RSX is an Nvidia 7 series card which was probably worth ~$100 at launch. This graphics card is $600 by itself.
Your argument is so retarded I can't believe you just won't give up. I'm probably being trolled by you. If that is the case, kudos.
#speakup
11/20/09
#speakup
11/20/09
It's simply a fact that people purchase consoles because PC gaming is by far a more expensive hobby. To maintain the same video quality on a console you don't have to do anything over the life span of the console. To maintain a playable FPS at a similar graphics setting on a PC, there is a need to upgrade at least once over the same time as the lifespan of a console.
#speakup
11/20/09
And you flipped out. Started insulting me. Nice job, tough guy.
#speakup
11/20/09
#speakup
11/21/09
#speakup
11/21/09
Thanks for the discussion.
#speakup
11/23/09
but you do, you spend $1000 to upgrade your console graphics and then log onto kotaku and complain about a $600 graphic upgrade that doesn't play games by itself.
I'm not wrong. And you seem to keep missing my point.
#speakup
11/19/09
I'll pass. I've long since sworn off ATI cards.
11/19/09
11/19/09
-Nevermind, I thought you said "when I bought an ATI card", as in once.
11/19/09
Such as downloading the driver and running the install program? Really, am I missing something here?
11/19/09
1. Uninstall the driver in Control Panel-- Add, remove program.
2. Reboot in Safe mode and run DriverSweeper (it's free) to get rid of the remainders in the registry. Take a couple secs to clean.
3.Reboot into Windows (regular mode) again and install new driver.
11/19/09
Yeah, WHENEVER is the keyword here..Lol. I think their Catalyst suite is pure garbage. Also what's the point? Nvidia seems to get all of the extra shit applied to their cards anyway..
I know, bells and whistles...
But I like bells and whistles.
They aren't terrible cards, in fact they make damn good hardware. But I always seem to have issues with the drivers.Either the install package fails or there is some weird error and I have to do an cleaner/reinstall and hope the thing runs properly. I've had this happen on several PCs that I have built. I've never had this problem with the Nvidia cards. Sure there is always some issues with games, but that is to be expected. But I'm talking simple hardware install.
11/19/09
11/19/09
I don't mind switching back and forth between the two brands though, especially with the recent improvement ATI has gone through with their drivers. Whoever can come out with the best performance/dollar card is who gets my money. I never bother with the overkill monster cards like the 5970.
11/19/09
11/19/09
It should be a simple process:
Download driver, install software, done. In the scope of things, It isn't rocket science, but it is inelegant and unnecessary and ATI SHOULD be better at it given their amount of time in the industry. I have the same problem with Creative and their sound cards, which is another company I no longer deal with.
11/19/09
"Unless you really REALLY want to run Arkham Asylum at 150+ fps."
Ooooh. That sounds awesome. lol.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
No offense, but either you're doing something wrong, or you've been REALLY unlucky.
Don't tell you me don't remember the nvlddmkm display driver error that plagued Vista users for months (me included). That particular error was the largest cause of ALL Vista crashes.
ATI's problem is bad launch drivers, after that they are pretty much golden.
11/19/09
Price isn't the problem here since I don't buy a new card every 6 months. I'm perfectly fine waiting until a new card's price drop to where I'm comfortable. So the price issue is null and void.
11/19/09
I'm not doing anything wrong, I just don't think their drivers are as stable as Nvidias are.
11/19/09
11/19/09
If you've got two of these suckers, you actually be running Quadfire, no?
11/19/09
Hmm, methinks you're on to something...
11/19/09
All that said, ATI and AMD have come up in leaps and bounds in the last few years and it really is starting to boil down to a matter of personal preference for the most part.
11/19/09
[www.nvidia.com]
The only real performance number here is 520 GFlops - 630 GFlops in double precision, which is certainly better than the 544 GFlops of the Radeon 5870, but not worlds apart.
The card shown here is a sandwich card with two GPUs in it, capable of 928 GFlops in double. So in a sense this will be the fastest "single" card for awhile.
11/19/09
11/19/09
What I'm looking for is cold, hard specs for the first line of 300 cards which so far have been vague at the most. I'm sure this will prompt Nvidia to loosen their tongues though.
11/19/09
#speakup
11/19/09
What a glorious year(ish) it had been. Damn you, 58xx series and better!
Now if only we had games other than Crysis that actually put these things to work.
11/19/09
You're right about Crysis still being top dog, I've yet to see its superior. THere's no reason for us to upgrade, perhaps the next wave 8 months from now?
11/19/09
How much faster it is than the 285 I haven't the foggiest, don't really follow PC hardware much these days.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
Awesome, I've had enough trying to get any girl to do that.
11/19/09
11/19/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Best graphics card for $200 (give or take 50 bucks)?
09/02/09
If you're into gaming just throw in $100 more and buy a 360 or PS3. Any of them should last more than 3 years from now and you won't waste your time upgrading drivers and the like.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Consider these benchmarks for my Radeon 4890 (also, E6550@2.6GHz, and 4GB of DDR2 @ 1000MHz): Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 21.73
Run #2- DX10 1920x1080 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 19.895
Run #3- DX10 1920x1080 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 19.09
Run #4- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 24.8
Run #5- DX10 1680x1050 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 22.71
Run #6- DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 21.755
Run #7- DX10 1280x720 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 35.975
Run #8- DX10 1280x720 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 34.005
Run #9- DX10 1280x720 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~
Overall Average FPS: 32.935
I think my framerates will be a bit higher when I get my new Phenom II X3 720 and overclock the crap out of it. Hopefully, later on I can snag another 4890 (unless these 5000 series kick ass).
I don't consider Crysis conquered until we reach a steady 60fps at 1080p, and clearly this is not possible with even a 250$ card. Not to mention there are mods that make Crysis look even better, and of course have a significant performance impact.
09/02/09
09/02/09
A simple upgrade to similar 260 would do worlds of improvements for people with larger displays.
All in all, it's not that surprising. DX11 has been talked about for some time. Given that DX10 was 2 years ago, it makes sense that a new API is put out.
09/02/09
09/02/09
They sell 1gb 8800gt's, but the performance gain was so marginal, it was wasted money.