Why Today's Graphics Card Market Sucks

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Trevante

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much was your CPU? You probably gained less from that purchase than you would with an 8800GTS 320 and I am willing to bet the 8800GTS 320 is cheaper than what you paid for that 6600.

Doubt it...

8800 320 is about $300

6600 is about $220. Yes he might have gained less, but at the same time, even if he had picked an e4300 instead, that's still another $200 he'd have to drop just to get the 8800.

xDarc, just wondering, what case and CPU fan do you have?

he said he has been upgrading over the course of time. The 6600 only recently got a price drop from ~320 bucks.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Trevante

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much was your CPU? You probably gained less from that purchase than you would with an 8800GTS 320 and I am willing to bet the 8800GTS 320 is cheaper than what you paid for that 6600.

Doubt it...

8800 320 is about $300

6600 is about $220. Yes he might have gained less, but at the same time, even if he had picked an e4300 instead, that's still another $200 he'd have to drop just to get the 8800.

xDarc, just wondering, what case and CPU fan do you have?

he said he has been upgrading over the course of time. The 6600 only recently got a price drop from ~320 bucks.

Yeah, and if it was before the price cuts, that would put the E6600 squarely at @ 316.00.
Oops, you just said that didn't you. LOL sorry.

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: Trevante

xDarc, just wondering, what case and CPU fan do you have?

A cheap Antec case very similiar to this one: Clicky Identical in size/design. Can't remember the exact model number. I have modded the case though with a two new 80mm fans on the sides- and the drive conversion bay that takes up the top 3 5.25" bays has a 120mm fan in front of it. So there's a nice wind tunnel effect going on from the front to the rear of the case; and the CPU is a right in the middle. I'm using an arctic freezer 7 pro on the CPU.

And yeah- I paid 320 for it; which is still probably less than what an 8800 anything cost when they showed up. About the same as what I paid for a P4 3ghz single core some years back. The difference in performance is phenomenal. Longest I've ever waited to upgrade a CPU and even after the 100 dollar price drop a few months later I feel it was well worth it. Now I'm waiting to see what's gonna happen with Penryn.

 

[xDarc]

Oh- and I completely forgot to mention the X2900XT. Right now it's a lame duck. I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it again... Some folks feel there's a cap to how much performance you can gain from improving drivers; and I agree. Other folks feel the drivers that x2900XT debuted with were absolutely horrible; and I agree.

I'm interested seeing if the x2900XT will actually become something other than an underperforming/overpriced 8800GTS when it's drivers mature and it's benched against Crysis w/ the 8800 cards in a round-up.

I have a suspicion it may turn it's image around on DX10 games- those 320 streaming processors have got to be good for something...

 

[Matt2]

I dont see what the problem. As others have said before, this is the way it has always been in the graphics market. When you wait for seven months after a GPU's initial release (G80) of course there's going to be something better coming up soon.

Had you bought an 8800GTX seven months ago, it would have been the best video card investment in years. Early adopters of 8800GTX have had a card for more than half a year that is still unchallenged and can run pretty much any game at any resolution and settings.

IMO, the fact that 8800GTX is a 90nm product doesnt matter at all. I like the fact that Nvidia stuck with their mature 90nm process instead of taking a chance on 80 or 65nm. Had Nvidia opted to go with either of those processes, G80 could have been delayed for a long time while the process matured.

Furthermore, I dont get why you bought a 700w PSU and are complaining about power requirements? Are you concerned about the extra $2 a month on your power bill?

 

[Munky]

It's not the graphics card market that sucks, its the lack of good games to put those cards to use. The only game from this year that has so far kept me interested is Stalker, and even that is a buggy game that crashes far more often that what I'm used to. The new generation hardware itself is a big leap in features and performance over last gen hardware. The g80 was a solid performer from the start, and if I was using a resolution that my x1900xt had difficulty with, I would have bought one months ago. The 2900xt, while not living up to the hype, has more to gain from mature drivers than the g80 cards, so in a few months it will offer more competitive performance.

About the whole DX10 issue, you guys would stop complaining about the lack of DX10 games if you realized that DX10 will not magically make your games look 10x better, and will not make them run 10x faster. DX10 is nothing more than a tool for the developers to use, and it's still up to the devs to use those tools effectively. DX10 will enable some new features, like doing MSAA with deferred shading, but don't expect it to magically turn Farcry into Crysis. And please stop with the whole "DX10 from the ground up" argument; you guys would never mention it if you actually did any 3D game development.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
A great buy with DX10 and no DX10 showcase? [

Absolutely. Seeing as how it's DX9 performance was amazing, it was a great buy.

I'm betting that these cards will have low performance in DX10 vs the cards that will be out later this year.

I'm betting that everyone agrees with you. That's the thing, how many people bought a G80 card for DX10? No one. Anyone who knew anything about what they were buying picked one up for DX9 performance.

There is NO and I mean NO game that I don't get at least 30fps in on my X1900xt.

I must ask: at what resolution?

Aside from that I agree that you have no reason to upgrade at this point simply because of the fact that there will be a refresh soon and some games that actually will take advantage of DX10. It would be pointless to buy G80 now knowing that DX10 will be getting usage and it won't be able to handle it. But if you bought G80 8 months ago knowing that it would be for DX9 performance, then you lost nothing and gained better FPS and IQ to boot.

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: Matt2

...I dont get why you bought a 700w PSU and are complaining about power requirements? Are you concerned about the extra $2 a month on your power bill?

Because the more power a component uses; the more heat it produces- and I like my components to stay cool with the least amount of effort. Who doesn't?

And I have a 700W PSU for the same reason I have a mobo which supports both xFire AND SLI- I like to have options... and who doesn't?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

But you're not grasping the main point I think.

See current new cards on the market are NOT so much faster to justify the price.

an 8800GTS almost doubled the performance of the 7series and x1900.. for $400, so i hardly think that's a valid point.[/quote]

The fact that the major feature to upgrade for (DX10) hasn't shown anything yet. That makes me feel like the 8800 generation of cards is a big waste of time.[/quote]

again, it almost doubled the performance of DX9 games... as far as DX10, i still don't see the point as when r300 came out supporting DX9, there was no big differential between DX8 & DX9. what made r300 so great was it doubled the performance of the DX8 cards; just like g80 did for DX9.

I used to say what you just said, but look at it this way. You have a x1900 that you bought last year. The games released in the past few months haven't really shown themselves to be unplayable on it.

i did have an XT, and i replaced it as there were some games which it struggled with (R6:vegas, CoH to name 2) and problem solved with an upgrade to a GTS. right now it's nice to be able to run the highest settings in SupCom as well, which is what i mostly play right now.

You want to upgrade for DX10 but the games that will take advantage of it aren't going to be available for a few months yet. By the time the new DX10 games are released there will be a new card to basically replace the 8800 at the high end. For someone like me, it's an easy decision at this point. Wait and see.

see, that's where i think you expect too much. g80 will do just fine in Crysis, the only REAL DX10 app everyone is waiting for. will it run it at the highest settings? I doubt it.. but by then g80 will be a year old (which is still a great run for a gfx card) and newer, faster hardware will be out.

frankly, that's my problem with the 2900xt. it's "high end" lifespan will be half that of the g80....

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

But you're not grasping the main point I think.

See current new cards on the market are NOT so much faster to justify the price.

an 8800GTS almost doubled the performance of the 7series and x1900.. for $400, so i hardly think that's a valid point.

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series. What more do you need to understand that the 8800 is a step and not a leap?

Furthermore- my E6600 has got to be 8-10 times more powerful than my old P4 3GHz... but did it cost me 8-10 times more??? NO!!! That is not how it traditionally works. The graphics card market's pricing is FUBAR; and you folks are being taken for a ride.

Let's not forget about the 51 lawsuits against these graphics card "pimps" alleging price fixing...

P.S. If you feel there's nothing wrong with the current pricing scheme; than expect to pay 1200-1800 dollars for a card that will no doubt be twice as powerful as an 8800GTX this time next year.

When does the madness end?

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series.

Link?

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: xDarc

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series.

Link?

where would these benches be, I would also like to know

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: xDarc

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series.

Link?

... please see, and possibly read... the original post for all sorts of links to benchmarks.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
There is NO and I mean NO game that I don't get at least 30fps in on my X1900xt.

at 1024 or 1280 perhaps...

@1600x1200 the XT can't even avg 20fps in R6:Vegas without turning everything way down. not only that, but while there are some games even 20fps is enough, in others 30fps just isn't.

you really need to qualify your expectations. many of us don't enjoy lower gfx settings or resolutions...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I dont see what the problem. As others have said before, this is the way it has always been in the graphics market. When you wait for seven months after a GPU's initial release (G80) of course there's going to be something better coming up soon.

Had you bought an 8800GTX seven months ago, it would have been the best video card investment in years. Early adopters of 8800GTX have had a card for more than half a year that is still unchallenged and can run pretty much any game at any resolution and settings.

IMO, the fact that 8800GTX is a 90nm product doesnt matter at all. I like the fact that Nvidia stuck with their mature 90nm process instead of taking a chance on 80 or 65nm. Had Nvidia opted to go with either of those processes, G80 could have been delayed for a long time while the process matured.

Furthermore, I dont get why you bought a 700w PSU and are complaining about power requirements? Are you concerned about the extra $2 a month on your power bill?

The problem for me is the one feature that puts it above other cards before it is DX10 and when DX10 matters it will be considered old and slow.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: munky
It's not the graphics card market that sucks, its the lack of good games to put those cards to use. The only game from this year that has so far kept me interested is Stalker, and even that is a buggy game that crashes far more often that what I'm used to. The new generation hardware itself is a big leap in features and performance over last gen hardware. The g80 was a solid performer from the start, and if I was using a resolution that my x1900xt had difficulty with, I would have bought one months ago. The 2900xt, while not living up to the hype, has more to gain from mature drivers than the g80 cards, so in a few months it will offer more competitive performance.

About the whole DX10 issue, you guys would stop complaining about the lack of DX10 games if you realized that DX10 will not magically make your games look 10x better, and will not make them run 10x faster. DX10 is nothing more than a tool for the developers to use, and it's still up to the devs to use those tools effectively. DX10 will enable some new features, like doing MSAA with deferred shading, but don't expect it to magically turn Farcry into Crysis. And please stop with the whole "DX10 from the ground up" argument; you guys would never mention it if you actually did any 3D game development.

I do know people who do game development and it's actually easier for them to start over with DX10 than to try to code DX9 and then write some DX10 features in and support both through updates. The problem is...games patched to run with DX10 do not show much benefit yet over DX9 and run horribly slow on current hardware.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
There is NO and I mean NO game that I don't get at least 30fps in on my X1900xt.

at 1024 or 1280 perhaps...

@1600x1200 the XT can't even avg 20fps in R6:Vegas without turning everything way down. not only that, but while there are some games even 20fps is enough, in others 30fps just isn't.

you really need to qualify your expectations. many of us don't enjoy lower gfx settings or resolutions...

A poor example because that game is a port and a very bad one at that. I am not running at low graphics. I always turn everything up and everything is 100% playable and smooth. No jittery movement or stutters. Back a year or so ago that wasn't the case. Turning things up would cause jitters in the latest games using an older card. This isn't really the case.

You can harp on DX9 performance all you want, but the best examples of DX9 that I've seen like Oblivion and maybe F.E.A.R to some extent etc all run perfectly well on a x1900 or 7900. And no they aren't dumbed down to medium.

Also do remember that the top cards last generation that were not 2 cards glued together did not cost over $500 at retail for 8+ months.

 

[swtethan]

You are only talking about the crippled 320 version, when you have the 640 version in there(for about $50 more) it blows away a lot of SLI high end dx9 rigs.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
There is NO and I mean NO game that I don't get at least 30fps in on my X1900xt.

at 1024 or 1280 perhaps...

@1600x1200 the XT can't even avg 20fps in R6:Vegas without turning everything way down. not only that, but while there are some games even 20fps is enough, in others 30fps just isn't.

you really need to qualify your expectations. many of us don't enjoy lower gfx settings or resolutions...

A poor example because that game is a port and a very bad one at that.

So what? Its still a video game that many people like to play. You cannot excuse a game because a video card does poorly in it (no matter how badly coded it is).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: swtethan
You are only talking about the crippled 320 version, when you have the 640 version in there(for about $50 more) it blows away a lot of SLI high end dx9 rigs.

Look at it this way, not everyone plays on a 30" monitor to see a big difference between the 2 cards. That kinda makes it easier to understand. The resolutions you see tested by the various websites is not the most widely used resolution(s). It's becomming more popular, but I don't think it's the baseline quite yet. I just know that now, after thinking hard, that buying any 8800 card now will be bad for me because I cannot afford to drop another $500 on a new card in november.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
There is NO and I mean NO game that I don't get at least 30fps in on my X1900xt.

at 1024 or 1280 perhaps...

@1600x1200 the XT can't even avg 20fps in R6:Vegas without turning everything way down. not only that, but while there are some games even 20fps is enough, in others 30fps just isn't.

you really need to qualify your expectations. many of us don't enjoy lower gfx settings or resolutions...

A poor example because that game is a port and a very bad one at that.

So what? Its still a video game that many people like to play. You cannot excuse a game because a video card does poorly in it (no matter how badly coded it is).

yes you can when the HD2900xt beats the 8800GTS in that one game alone but totally blows in every other game. That alone tells me it's a bad example of anything.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: xDarc

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series.

Link?

... please see, and possibly read... the original post for all sorts of links to benchmarks.

huh? like this link you provided where, ath the highest texture settings and resolutions the 320mb version beats the 7series handily? do you even read the links you provide?

regarding quake 4, why not compare it to a 256mb 7900? your examples are highly selective to your point of view. for instance, i can provide links showing at "high quality" textrue settings the "budget" version of the GTS is as fast as 7series in SLI or a GX2 (or even the 512mb x1959xt):

http://www.hothardware.com/pri...cle.aspx?articleid=930

like a few others have said, your rant was certainly well written, but while i'd give you an "A" for your presentation, i would fail you for your content...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: xDarc

Did you check the benchmarks? 8800 series cards have been beaten often by high end 7900 series cards; and in some cases- X1900/1950 series.

Link?

... please see, and possibly read... the original post for all sorts of links to benchmarks.

huh? like this link you provided where, ath the highest texture settings and resolutions the 320mb version beats the 7series handily? do you even read the links you provide?

regarding quake 4, why not compare it to a 256mb 7900? your examples are highly selective to your point of view. for instance, i can provide links showing at "high quality" textrue settings the "budget" version of the GTS is as fast as 7series in SLI or a GX2 (or even the 512mb x1959xt):

http://www.hothardware.com/pri...cle.aspx?articleid=930

like a few others have said, your rant was certainly well written, but while i'd give you an "A" for your presentation, i would fail you for your content...

Let me ask just one question...what FPS would you consider a game to be playable at? Then tell me where you think that a x1950xt or 7900 would be unplayable? That's my concern, playability. I'm not here to increase my e-penis by showing off numbers in some benchmark.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
A poor example because that game is a port and a very bad one at that.

why, because it doesn't support your statement? it avgs 30+fps on my GTS; it was nowhere near that on my XT it replaced.

and it's a port from a title designed for ati gfx hardware to boot....

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Let me ask just one question...what FPS would you consider a game to be playable at? Then tell me where you think that a x1950xt or 7900 would be unplayable? That's my concern, playability. I'm not here to increase my e-penis by showing off numbers in some benchmark.

aside from the fact your response has little to do with what i had written, if actually read any of my post i've already provided the answer to that: it depends on the game.

in DX10, CoH is smooth averaging 25-30fps. SupCom (DX9) is quite playable at those framerates as well. i'd go far as to say even STALKER is ok with those framerates. i'm almost positive that wouldn't be the case with Crysis; it sure isn't with say, Quake4 or FEAR. Most "twitch" shooters (at least for me) require 40-60fps for it to feel "smooth".