@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.
That 8800GT is still fine. Theres nothing really taking advantage of the power in the Radeon 4800 series and the GeForce 200 series with nothing on the horizon that looks like it will really push them.
And maybe I'm just out of the loop but I haven't heard of any dx11 game being announced yet.
EDIT: Ok there are a couple, notably BF:BC2 (although I doubt 11 will give it any new effects, just that it is confirmed as compatible with 11) and surprise surprise... Crysis 2.
I was wondering when they were going to arrive. I just put together an i7 920 @3.8 with a gtx285. I suspect it will last for some time to come.
I wouldnt go rushing for a first gen dx11 card though. I'd be looking for comparisons, noise levels, heat etc. There's not many to benchmark against on launch.
@Roarrr: I did too, though I didn't overclock my 920 yet, and I have two 285s. I don't think I will be upgrading anytime soon. Also, DX10 hardware will be able to play DX11 games, just not with every feature enabled.
@dLMN8R: Looking at NPD's Top 20, I don't really see anything that an 8800GT can't handle and that card is at least 2 generations old; hence, the sarcastic comment.
@Paradox me: Yeah it's a browser thing. Kotaku has been so cluttered for a while now that I left, but then I installed Safari and it works perfectly. So much faster. Kinda like Safari as a browser more than firefox but firefox is more familiar.
This is why I don't bother with PC's. They tell you to get a dual core processor then a quad comes out, they tell you to get direct x 10 cards cos you need the direct x support the x 11 comes out, they tell you to get something (forgot what it is) then i7 processors come out. By the time I've waited for this shit to come down in price something new has replaced it and it's not worth getting.
That's not even mentioning windows 7 which quickly replaced Vista.
Paradox me promoted this comment
Edited by xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx at 09/02/09 1:59 AM
xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx was starred
xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx was unstarred
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: Its really not so bad, unless you're the kind of person that absolutely has to stay up-to-date with all the latest hardware. Otherwise, you can generally get by on the same gaming rig for 5+ years, even longer if you're willing to scale down some options.
DX11 won't become the standard right away, and it definitely won't become mandatory any time soon. Also, a Core2 Duo or Phenom II will be more than enough for some time to come.
Again, it really all depends on your own standards - they can have you upgrading every month or twice a decade.
@Paradox me: I don't have to stay up to date because I know the older stuff would work anyway and run stuff pretty well but I don't like having to upgrade so often to be able to handle games or the idea of paying £200 or something just for a graphics card that then gets beaten in 40 days.
I'm just not good enough with PC's to know where and when I can upgrade to get the most out of them >
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: This comment is ridiculous. You think those things are needed just because they exist? If you look at how things work you'll know that a X3 720 CPU is equal to a Core i7 in gameperformance with a single GPU, such as a Geforce 285GTX, the most powerful GPU in the world.
And how many games are there that actually support more than one core? A few. Many don't get much of any performance boost from it.
Then you complain about price? You realise that the mid-end hardware is enough to run everything? The only reason you want the really highend stuff, where the really big CPUs aren't needed anyway, is if you own a 30" PC monitor, not a "HDTV", a 30" PC monitor is 2560x1600 res. That's where you start to need the really highend GPUs. For everything less, there's PLENTY of performance in a mid-range card.
And yes, something new will replace i7 for example when it's actually required. At which point the i7 will still be powerful enough to compete, but be old tech wiht lack of support for more modern things. So the only reason ot buy the highend would be if you really need that performance for something, like if you do 3D rendering etc..
You obviously have no clue about how to work with upgrading PCs, so how about you get that before you whine about something you don't know about?
@Poul Wrist: I just don't want to buy something when it's already been surpassed and then it be surpassed again later. I feel like if I buy it when it's not new then it'll not last long since it's already not the top end and it'll be surpassed constantly. Looking at the kind of games I'd want I'd prefer a bit more power so I can run them well too.
Ofcourse I complain about price if I think it's going to cost more to get the desired results I want. All I'm asking for is a PC that lasts as long as my console and can run new games well but mid-range PC's aren't guaranteed to run all new games for 5 or 7 years so that's why the price point comes into factor. I can see I don't need the higher end GPU's as you pointed out though as I'd just run it on a lower resolution to get more frames per second and slightly higher graphics settings.
I never said I did know but who cares? If you in your mighty wisdom can show me a UK rig that costs less than a 360 and will run new games for 5 to 7 years then do so and I'll be happy and you'll have proved me wrong. IF you can't then I'll ignore your words as fools talk.
I'll make it easier too. I don't need a new mouse, screen or desk so just a tower that can run games for 5 to 7 years with medium settings as that's what I'm wanting otherwise I'd not be getting a better result than my console. And yes 1280x720 along with 30fps or more is fine by me so long as it's not dropping below 30fps by too much.
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: But that's a silly viewpoint. There's a reason why there are many levels of hardware. You don't NEED the very highend super expensive equipment to run games. You need a mid-range CPU to do that, and you need a mid-to-good GPU to keep on doing it. Both of these are quite affordable.
I could probably make you a PC that could run games for the next 5-7 years if we're not particular about what we mean about "games" for the cost of an Xbox, but an Xbox won't last you 5-7 years from today. If on the other hand we say the price of the Xbox at launch, then we could set up a system that would no doubt be able to run games for the next 5 years, at declining levels of visual fidelity relative to the game of the future.
There may be games that you won't be able to run at all, because of the lack of hardware level support, but that's how technology works. This is the same for consoles, of course, and you'd need a new one to overcome that obstacle. But that's also the beauty of the PC, then you can upgrade your PC for a very small sum, as the current price vs performance of PC hardware is manyfold higher than it ever was before.
And you say it's expensive? Well, let's say you buy 10 new console games a year. The price difference between those console titles and the same titles on PC will easily save you the money every year for a sizable upgrade to your graphics card.
So... your point? That you can't buy a PC for the tiny cost of the current Xbox? No, you can't buy anything very decent for that, but the Xbox 360 is over 3 years old and has had a sizable price reduction over its lifetime. The visual fidelity on it has not received much of any increase either in the last long time, and you would be hard pressed to say the same thing for the PC.
@dowingba: Not really. I have consoles. I play on consoles. I know how a PC works, I know how to get the most out of it. And I can't STAND when some idiot comes out saying WAAAAAAH PC GAMING IS EXPENSIVE AND STUPID!!!
So, you think I'm pretentious? Well, I think you're an ignorant prick.
@Poul Wrist: Not true. I have a PC. I play on PC. I know how a console works, I know how to get the most out of it. And I can't STAND when some idiot comes out saying WAHHHH CONSOLE GAMING IS EXPENSIVE AND STUPID.
So you think I'm ignorant? Well, that's what pretentious people call folks. So we're in agreement.
@Poul Wrist: Well when I see one that's very affordable then I'll probably buy it but I've not been seeing that.
So if it's not running game games then what is it your expecting me to run on a PC? I mean what's these other kind of games that we're talking about when we get particular on the matter? Yeah launch price is what I meant as it is unfair on the PC if I was judging it by current prices.
I agree on that subject about the PC games being cheaper (currently buying around 15 games a year on 360) but that would only be an upgrade to the graphics card and it may need more down the line.
I'm not talking about the current price, I'm talking about launch price. But I'll let you go above that so it can be £400 for just the tower and if that's still not possible then I think I proved my point why I don't bother with PC's. A mix of price, needing to upgrade and having a console be able to do it just fine if I'm not willing to pay for the max settings etc. of PC's.
So like I said recommend me the hardware that'll last 5 years (we'll forget the up to 7 years thing) you could get for £400 or I'll consider it false info.
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: Games don't require i7 CPUs, for example. So you don't even need to look at it.
Games that are easy to run in 5-7 years could be something that wasn't new and triple A, for instance.
[snake-oil.eu] is an example for a build I made for some guy in the US who didn't believe you could get a good PC for about 500$. I don't know where you would look for hardware prices in Britain, but you can look at that list and find the same parts. You may want to look for a decent power supply unit instead of the one in that tower, since that was just an exercise in finding something that would run... but I am pretty sure that same build would be pretty cheap in the UK as well.
If by "400£ for just the tower" you mean the case and all the hardware inside, then well, that's what a PC is... a keyboard and mouse are cheap so I didn't bother including those, as most people also have some lying around. And you need a monitor? Well, if that's included in the price, then a HDTV is included in the price of a Xbox 360 as well, is it not? And you could just use your TV for the PC if all you want to do is game.
@dowingba: I'm sorry, you must have confused your post with an actual argument. I never said anything of the sort, and your post is simply just a ridiculous flame that makes no sense. Console gaming is more expensive than PC gaming if you don't buy only used games, and even then it could be as well. But of course, you could just buy used games for the PC as well. Or just through digital distribution.
So, if you want to make sense, please do so. Otherwise, don't post at all, you contribute nothing, and only prove my point of ignorance.
@Poul Wrist: I'll try and price them up and see if I can get a similar rig going for the price I'm looking at then. I'll be sure to look for a better power supply too then. Thanks for the help then and I'll look into it.
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: Anytime :) I think you should be able to get things going at that price range in the UK.
I am sorry if I came off a bit crass. Still working my way through the first pot of coffee at the office :p
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.
09/02/09
Even on my HDTV with a 1920 x 1080 resolution. Now that's value right there.
09/02/09
And maybe I'm just out of the loop but I haven't heard of any dx11 game being announced yet.
EDIT: Ok there are a couple, notably BF:BC2 (although I doubt 11 will give it any new effects, just that it is confirmed as compatible with 11) and surprise surprise... Crysis 2.
09/02/09
I wouldnt go rushing for a first gen dx11 card though. I'd be looking for comparisons, noise levels, heat etc. There's not many to benchmark against on launch.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I can run nearly every game bar crysis on absolute max. Its a good feeling, though it should be given the cost of the thing.
24" hIPS panel is probably the single biggest cost.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Suppose I can reinstall Firefox, perhaps its a browser issue.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
That's not even mentioning windows 7 which quickly replaced Vista.
09/02/09
DX11 won't become the standard right away, and it definitely won't become mandatory any time soon. Also, a Core2 Duo or Phenom II will be more than enough for some time to come.
Again, it really all depends on your own standards - they can have you upgrading every month or twice a decade.
09/02/09
I'm just not good enough with PC's to know where and when I can upgrade to get the most out of them >
09/02/09
5 years is stretching it...
2 years is very realistic though for the base machine.
As for DX11... Look where we are, DX10 is still not "The letter of the law" for gaming.
09/02/09
And how many games are there that actually support more than one core? A few. Many don't get much of any performance boost from it.
Then you complain about price? You realise that the mid-end hardware is enough to run everything? The only reason you want the really highend stuff, where the really big CPUs aren't needed anyway, is if you own a 30" PC monitor, not a "HDTV", a 30" PC monitor is 2560x1600 res. That's where you start to need the really highend GPUs. For everything less, there's PLENTY of performance in a mid-range card.
And yes, something new will replace i7 for example when it's actually required. At which point the i7 will still be powerful enough to compete, but be old tech wiht lack of support for more modern things. So the only reason ot buy the highend would be if you really need that performance for something, like if you do 3D rendering etc..
You obviously have no clue about how to work with upgrading PCs, so how about you get that before you whine about something you don't know about?
09/02/09
Ofcourse I complain about price if I think it's going to cost more to get the desired results I want. All I'm asking for is a PC that lasts as long as my console and can run new games well but mid-range PC's aren't guaranteed to run all new games for 5 or 7 years so that's why the price point comes into factor. I can see I don't need the higher end GPU's as you pointed out though as I'd just run it on a lower resolution to get more frames per second and slightly higher graphics settings.
I never said I did know but who cares? If you in your mighty wisdom can show me a UK rig that costs less than a 360 and will run new games for 5 to 7 years then do so and I'll be happy and you'll have proved me wrong. IF you can't then I'll ignore your words as fools talk.
I'll make it easier too. I don't need a new mouse, screen or desk so just a tower that can run games for 5 to 7 years with medium settings as that's what I'm wanting otherwise I'd not be getting a better result than my console. And yes 1280x720 along with 30fps or more is fine by me so long as it's not dropping below 30fps by too much.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I could probably make you a PC that could run games for the next 5-7 years if we're not particular about what we mean about "games" for the cost of an Xbox, but an Xbox won't last you 5-7 years from today. If on the other hand we say the price of the Xbox at launch, then we could set up a system that would no doubt be able to run games for the next 5 years, at declining levels of visual fidelity relative to the game of the future.
There may be games that you won't be able to run at all, because of the lack of hardware level support, but that's how technology works. This is the same for consoles, of course, and you'd need a new one to overcome that obstacle. But that's also the beauty of the PC, then you can upgrade your PC for a very small sum, as the current price vs performance of PC hardware is manyfold higher than it ever was before.
And you say it's expensive? Well, let's say you buy 10 new console games a year. The price difference between those console titles and the same titles on PC will easily save you the money every year for a sizable upgrade to your graphics card.
So... your point? That you can't buy a PC for the tiny cost of the current Xbox? No, you can't buy anything very decent for that, but the Xbox 360 is over 3 years old and has had a sizable price reduction over its lifetime. The visual fidelity on it has not received much of any increase either in the last long time, and you would be hard pressed to say the same thing for the PC.
09/02/09
So, you think I'm pretentious? Well, I think you're an ignorant prick.
09/02/09
So you think I'm ignorant? Well, that's what pretentious people call folks. So we're in agreement.
09/02/09
So if it's not running game games then what is it your expecting me to run on a PC? I mean what's these other kind of games that we're talking about when we get particular on the matter? Yeah launch price is what I meant as it is unfair on the PC if I was judging it by current prices.
I agree on that subject about the PC games being cheaper (currently buying around 15 games a year on 360) but that would only be an upgrade to the graphics card and it may need more down the line.
I'm not talking about the current price, I'm talking about launch price. But I'll let you go above that so it can be £400 for just the tower and if that's still not possible then I think I proved my point why I don't bother with PC's. A mix of price, needing to upgrade and having a console be able to do it just fine if I'm not willing to pay for the max settings etc. of PC's.
So like I said recommend me the hardware that'll last 5 years (we'll forget the up to 7 years thing) you could get for £400 or I'll consider it false info.
09/02/09
Games that are easy to run in 5-7 years could be something that wasn't new and triple A, for instance.
[snake-oil.eu] is an example for a build I made for some guy in the US who didn't believe you could get a good PC for about 500$. I don't know where you would look for hardware prices in Britain, but you can look at that list and find the same parts. You may want to look for a decent power supply unit instead of the one in that tower, since that was just an exercise in finding something that would run... but I am pretty sure that same build would be pretty cheap in the UK as well.
If by "400£ for just the tower" you mean the case and all the hardware inside, then well, that's what a PC is... a keyboard and mouse are cheap so I didn't bother including those, as most people also have some lying around. And you need a monitor? Well, if that's included in the price, then a HDTV is included in the price of a Xbox 360 as well, is it not? And you could just use your TV for the PC if all you want to do is game.
09/02/09
So, if you want to make sense, please do so. Otherwise, don't post at all, you contribute nothing, and only prove my point of ignorance.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I am sorry if I came off a bit crass. Still working my way through the first pot of coffee at the office :p
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09