Also Titan has already fallen £80 within weeks of launch. Prices are falling already due to poor sales. Consumer wins when you vote with your wallet.
30-40% slower than high end, shareholders are still getting theirs off you :thumbsup:
Yes and that is called screen tearing.
Why would someone want to up the visual quality and then put up with horrific screen tearing.
Choose and argument and stick to it.
You have not specified a requirement to call it a fact.
If your requirement is to play Crysis 3 at max settings on 1440p, then all you have to do is be able to play Crysis 3 at max settings on 1440p. 60 FPS is not a requirement.
Seriously go to school.
I must have missed it. Can you post the source for Titan sales number?
Maybe that is the problem. Is English your first language?I think you need to go to school. I cant understand any of that you just wrote.
30-40% slower than high end, shareholders are still getting theirs off you :thumbsup:
30-40% slower than high end, shareholders are still getting theirs off you :thumbsup:
Maybe that is the problem. Is English your first language?
Yes i was born here.
Considering its our language im pretty sure i understand it well enough.
Obviously not. You still don't know what a fact or opinion is.
If your PC cant run a game at 60 FPS. Then your system isnt powerful enough.
This is a Fact.
Can you give indisputable evidence that it takes 60 FPS to be powerful enough?
Yes.
More powerful GPU/CPU/Memory = More FPS
Do you want me to prove the moon landing happened and the world is round next?
Yes, a more powerful computer, assuming it is designed to play games, can generate more FPS, but you have not proven what is considered powerful enough.
Since a monitor is capped at 60fps unless its 120hz. 60 FPS is a key metric of performance.
So basically you need to spec up your system to play the games at 60fps or turn down the graphics so you can maintain 60 FPS.
Its a pretty simple concept.
You mean 18-35% slower. :hmm:
I guess if you consider $1000 the new high-end then you are correct. Personally I would consider that uber high-end much like the 8800 Ultra and 6800 Ultra Extreme.
I also would not recommend anyone use more than 4x MSAA on demanding games, and I'm perfectly fine with sacrificing some settings for 80+ FPS, but I'm not so self absorbed to think that my opinion is the only opinion. Unfortunately, I don't believe Fx1 and possibly a couple others here would consider 80+ FPS to be acceptable (yes, I have a 120hz monitor), as it hurts their AMD is perfect ideal.
Dont know what this has to do with AMD. But I agree with FX1 playing below 60 fps sucks, it´s just not smooth. I will sacrifice image quality any day to stay at 60 or better, and if the game is not sensitive to input lag I will choose vsync on always.
Or -5-exponentially% faster, whatever works for you though I couldn't care less.
I would rather choose to look at hardware specs and performance while ignoring price.
I wouldn't want to approach hardware as an ignorant consumer, I don't think we should at a tech site in a tech discussion.
Dont know what this has to do with AMD. But I agree with FX1 playing below 60 fps sucks, it´s just not smooth. I will sacrifice image quality any day to stay at 60 or better, and if the game is not sensitive to input lag I will choose vsync on always.
Like I said, I personally sacrifice to reach 80 FPS, unless in 3D Vision, then it is 60 FPS. However, not everyone has the same opinion as me. Some people are perfectly happy at 40 FPS.
The only reason the topic started, was a review was done that showed AMD had microstutter issues below 60 FPS. To Fx1, the review was invalid, as they weren't playing at the "right" FPS. They way I play, at 80+ FPS, is also wrong in Fx1's opinion, because it is not at 60 FPS with v-sync on. (but he doesn't recognize it as an opinion. He called it a scientific fact earlier).