The point of ATi's/nVidia's new video cards?

[Rezist]

I know this has probably been done to death in the past, but right now it applies even more so. Why are we so excited for new video cards when we really have nothing to use them for except benchmarks? PC gaming has really declined in the last couple of years due to the consoles and now more then ever the PC is the one getting shafted with the port.

What games are you playing in which your unhappy with the performance and are willing to shell out the money to upgrade?

 

[WraithETC]

But i nedz like 2000 fps for woW ya no'

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Rezist
I know this has probably been done to death in the past, but right now it applies even more so. Why are we so excited for new video cards when we really have nothing to use them for except benchmarks? PC gaming has really declined in the last couple of years due to the consoles and now more then ever the PC is the one getting shafted with the port.

What games are you playing in which your unhappy with the performance and are willing to shell out the money to upgrade?

I'm gonna insert the obligatory Crysis post. I actually do like the game. I haven't played it in over a year but I will definately again when I can run on very high with 4xaa @ 1920x1200.

other than that, now that i can set up games to run in triple widescreen i need more power than the gtx280 has

 

[FalseChristian]

Originally posted by: WraithETC
But i nedz like 2000 fps for woW ya no'

LOL! And I'ze need 2000 fps in GLQuake.

 

[sgrinavi]

What game? The E-PEIN game of course!

 

[Elfear]

For those with bigger monitors who like to play the latest and greatest games, the new cards couldn't come soon enough. All the games I've been playing lately (Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, STALKER: CS) all run pretty choppy at max res and eye-candy. I have to turn both Crysis games down to 1920x1200 and run custom cvar files to make it run semi-smooth. STALKER: CS looks gorgeous at full res and eye-candy but has lots of slow down which really makes immersion suffer and kinda gives me a headache because of how jerky movement becomes.

I think your question is valid for most gamers as I believe 22" monitors at 1680x1050 are the most popular right now. But for those running 1920x1200 and higher who like their eye-candy, the more power the better.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Well actually this new generation brings DX11 which means a bunch of new tech and all

You have to think in reverse... these cards will be the platform for the games to come

 

[imported_Shaq]

ummm..maybe 3D and PhysX at the same time at 1920 with AA? That requires 3 high end cards right now and it is still too slow. And Crysis/Cryostasis is still too slow with SLI without 3D.

For most people what we have now is good enough until a new console comes out and pushes the graphic envelope again.

 

[Idontcare]

I want new tech to come so the price of existing tech goes down. It doesn't always happen, but it sure as hell won't be happening if new tech never comes.

 

[Hauk]

Because the Creed calls on me again..

Eye candy.. fast eye candy please..

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Elfear
For those with bigger monitors who like to play the latest and greatest games, the new cards couldn't come soon enough. All the games I've been playing lately (Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, STALKER: CS) all run pretty choppy at max res and eye-candy. I have to turn both Crysis games down to 1920x1200 and run custom cvar files to make it run semi-smooth. STALKER: CS looks gorgeous at full res and eye-candy but has lots of slow down which really makes immersion suffer and kinda gives me a headache because of how jerky movement becomes.

I think your question is valid for most gamers as I believe 22" monitors at 1680x1050 are the most popular right now. But for those running 1920x1200 and higher who like their eye-candy, the more power the better.

The only game that today high end cards can' handle @ 1920x1200 is Crysis.
Now as for the other .05% of people that have 30 inch monitors, they might need a 5850x2 or gt300.

So I see what the op is saying.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I bought a 4870 512MB when I had a 22" monitor, and it was perfect, everything ran smooth as butter with 4xAA. I had no plans on upgrading my monitor as I was happy with what I had, but then I suddenly ran into some extra money from a bonus at work that I knew nothing about. I was at Best Buy and they had the 26" monitor in my sig on clearance for very near half it's original price.... now I could use more than 512MB of video memory and don't see any reason to buy a 4890/GTX285 when faster parts are right around the corner. Not to mention I should have all I need when DX11 games show up.

A lot of us are just techy geeks, it's a hobby. We want newer faster parts just because they exist. When you look at the monney a person spends on a hobby, it often doesn't make practical sense. Why do I need a bigger turbo charger on my car when it already does the speed limit and is fast in the quarter mile? Why do we want a bigger TV when a 27" would suffice? Why do I need a new bowling ball if the one I have works perfectly? Etc. etc.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

More POWER! Rah rah rah /Tim "The Toolman" Taylor

There are also a lot of games, besides Crysis, which would benefit from faster cards. Ideally I like my games to never dip below 60 fps. Playing a game over 60 fps is a different (better) experience than playing one in the 30-60 range or even one that dips into that 30-60 range. And this is especially important for online multiplayer games. I want that competitive edge.

 

[happy medium]

Assassins Creed 2 System Requirements:

Supported OS: Windows XP / Vista (only)
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0?compliant video card or DirectX 9.0?compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive
Hard Drive Space: 12 GB
Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)


Bioshock 2 System Requirements:

Minimum Requirements

Quote:
CPU - Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processor
System RAM - 1GB
Video Card - Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).
Sound Card - 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
Hard disc space - 10GB free space


Recommended Requirements

Quote:
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo processor / AMD Athlon X2
System RAM - 3GB/4GB
Video card - DX9 - Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT or better) / DX10 - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 or better
Sound Card - Sound Blaster X-Fi series (Optimized for use with Creative Labs EAX ADVANCED HD 4.0 or EAX ADVANCED HD 5.0 compatible sound cards)

Seems no better then a x-box 360 ha?
I personnally don't think we are gonna see any new games for a good while that won't be just x-box ports.
Anyone else?

 

[Qbah]

I'd say to have something like this rendered in real-time at an acceptable framerate? Link from PC Gaming forums

 

[happy medium]

That engine should be ready to be ported to pc from the x-box 720/Ps4 in 2012. By then the shrunk down 32nm 5870/gt300 will be in the new consoles.

 

[Kakkoii]

There is always a need for more power. If Nvidia/ATI don't make new cards like this. Then the dev's won't have any reason to push new games graphics any higher. Nvidia/ATI set the foundation for developers to build on.

Plus, DX11 and these new cards bring support for GPGPU computing through DX11 on the cards. And also these cards will support OpenCL!

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Anyone else?

LOL - There's a difference in running a game with minimum system requirements vs. running a game in HD with max detail. Port or not...

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Qbah
I'd say to have something like this rendered in real-time at an acceptable framerate? Link from PC Gaming forums

Maybe with the 5870x2!

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Qbah
I'd say to have something like this rendered in real-time at an acceptable framerate? Link from PC Gaming forums

I find it funny that people keep saying, graphical quality is stagnant. When you get to the point of Crysis, there really is little place to go and the wall of diminishing returns comes in. Vegetation and lighting already looks so lifelike. The nanosuit looks great, hell almost all character models look realistic (ignoring human faces, which man has never been able to artifically duplicate in any medium convincingly). The only place in improvements might come into play that really tend to break the immersion are human face textures which will almost be impossible.

If the 5870 or GT300 allow gamers to run high rez, high detail smoothly in games that look like Crysis, I really thing that beyond that, purely graphical wise, there's little reason to upgrade any further in the foreseeable future.

 

[Udgnim]

since neither company is supposed to collude, they need to constantly invest in R&D to improve on technology so that neither sides gains a definitive advantage in performance and value

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: happy medium
Anyone else?

LOL - There's a difference in running a game with minimum system requirements vs. running a game in HD with max detail. Port or not...

That was the recommended settings Athlon x2 4400, 2/3gb ram and a shader model 3 card with 512mb ram. (7900gtx/1900xt).

A normal everyday c2d @ 2.8 with 4gb ram and a 4870 1gb/260gtx will more then likely max that game easy @ 1900x1080.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Qbah
I'd say to have something like this rendered in real-time at an acceptable framerate? Link from PC Gaming forums

I find it funny that people keep saying, graphical quality is stagnant. When you get to the point of Crysis, there really is little place to go and the wall of diminishing returns comes in. Vegetation and lighting already looks so lifelike. The nanosuit looks great, hell almost all character models look realistic (ignoring human faces, which man has never been able to artifically duplicate in any medium convincingly). The only place in improvements might come into play that really tend to break the immersion are human face textures which will almost be impossible.

If the 5870 or GT300 allow gamers to run high rez, high detail smoothly in games that look like Crysis, I really thing that beyond that, purely graphical wise, there's little reason to upgrade any further in the foreseeable future.

Sigh... You are sooo wrong.


You may think things look about as good as their going to get, but truly there is a lot more room for improvement. Things like particle physics & physics in general are horrible in most games currently. It takes a lot of processing power to do properly. The more processing power we have, the closer to replicating reality we come. There's no wall of diminishing returns. Just a wall of processing power.

And I don't know where you've been the past 8 years, but human faces have been replicated perfectly. Nvidia even has a tech demo for 2009 that is quite convincing, if you showed it to someone who had never seen it before, most would think it's a real person.

Nvidia 88000 Tech Demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGWAYS5uRw&fmt=18

PS3 Alfred Molina demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9QbYWEd7AE&fmt=18

Image Metrics CG Facial Animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4&fmt=22

Pendulum Studios Alter Ego division
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...fmt=18&feature=related

Liam Kemp's facial animation test
http://www.liamkemp.com/photoshoot.htm

And that's animated stuff. 3D modelers can make perfectly real looking models.

Ultra realistic korean singer model
http://maxedwin.cgsociety.org/gallery/399499/

http://features.cgsociety.org/..._1110764412_medium.jpg



It's processing power that is holding us back. When we have the power to realistically light a scene, things will look so much more real. Whether it's by ray-tracing or something similar. Right now though it takes a bit to much processing power. But ray-tracing on a GPU is making great progress and performance already.

 

[IlllI]

i think the Op is on to something. why ~DO~ we need new video cards? introducing new ones is pointless because i mean.. we ALL play minesweeper and solitaire.. right?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Qbah
I'd say to have something like this rendered in real-time at an acceptable framerate? Link from PC Gaming forums

I find it funny that people keep saying, graphical quality is stagnant. When you get to the point of Crysis, there really is little place to go and the wall of diminishing returns comes in. Vegetation and lighting already looks so lifelike. The nanosuit looks great, hell almost all character models look realistic (ignoring human faces, which man has never been able to artifically duplicate in any medium convincingly). The only place in improvements might come into play that really tend to break the immersion are human face textures which will almost be impossible.

If the 5870 or GT300 allow gamers to run high rez, high detail smoothly in games that look like Crysis, I really thing that beyond that, purely graphical wise, there's little reason to upgrade any further in the foreseeable future.

Sigh... You are sooo wrong.


You may think things look about as good as their going to get, but truly there is a lot more room for improvement. Things like particle physics & physics in general are horrible in most games currently. It takes a lot of processing power to do properly. The more processing power we have, the closer to replicating reality we come. There's no wall of diminishing returns. Just a wall of processing power.

And I don't know where you've been the past 8 years, but human faces have been replicated perfectly. Nvidia even has a tech demo for 2009 that is quite convincing, if you showed it to someone who had never seen it before, most would think it's a real person.

Nvidia 88000 Tech Demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIGWAYS5uRw&fmt=18

PS3 Alfred Molina demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9QbYWEd7AE&fmt=18

Image Metrics CG Facial Animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4&fmt=22

Pendulum Studios Alter Ego division
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...fmt=18&feature=related

Liam Kemp's facial animation test
http://www.liamkemp.com/photoshoot.htm

And that's animated stuff. 3D modelers can make perfectly real looking models.

Ultra realistic korean singer model
http://maxedwin.cgsociety.org/gallery/399499/

http://features.cgsociety.org/..._1110764412_medium.jpg



It's processing power that is holding us back. When we have the power to realistically light a scene, things will look so much more real. Whether it's by ray-tracing or something similar. Right now though it takes a bit to much processing power. But ray-tracing on a GPU is making great progress and performance already.

Sigh... someone needs to learn how to read. That's why I mentioned diminishing returns right at the beginning. You can put 100x more processing power for a moderately better looking image, but at that point, the cost and time required to do so make it uneconomically feasible anyways. Yeah, chain 5 million 4870s together. You'll get your real life graphical quality, but you'll never find a dev house that can do it on an economical basis to create a game for it. Art costs money and time. AAA titles today can cost up to $100million to develop already, who is going to put in the exponentially higher cost and time to make something look like that?

I won't go even into detail about why I need to draw a line between animated and static modeling. I think it should be patently obvious the difference and challenges the former that the latter can so easily avoid from a psychological perspective.

It' not power holding us back. A couple more generations an it'll be the practicality of the real world holding us back.