Why Today's Graphics Card Market Sucks

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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".

Ok and do any of the older cards not achieve those FPS numbers? Cause my system plays F.E.A.R at around 57fps average with everything maxed except soft shadows 1280x1024 and 16xaf 6xaa. That's playable for me. That's also in Vista if that matters at all.

Point is, when DX10 matters I don't want an 8800 or an HD2900xt. I want whatever comes out that is faster than them and it will definately be faster in DX9 too. I was all set to buy an 8800gtx and decided not because I wanted it for DX10 and like I said... DX10 doesn't matter now.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: 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.

As a Cyberathlete Amateur Leage (CAL) player (CS:S), FPS is a very important thing to me, and a lot of players I know. A minimum of 60fps (not average, minimum) is required when you have 1/100ths of a second to react. Also, I like to turn up the settings. Its great to see that my game runs 150fps minimum, 220fps average and 300fps max when my old 1950pro did 100fps average and 30fps minimum.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: 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.

As a Cyberathlete Amateur Leage (CAL) player (CS:S), FPS is a very important thing to me, and a lot of players I know. A minimum of 60fps (not average, minimum) is required when you have 1/100ths of a second to react. Also, I like to turn up the settings. Its great to see that my game runs 150fps minimum, 220fps average and 300fps max when my old 1950pro did 100fps average and 30fps minimum.

At over 100fps average the playability difference is beyond unnoticable. Your eyes cannot keep up with movement that quick and your monitor surely doesn't refresh at those speeds. The smoothness is the same. A good player is a good player with 100fps or 200fps.

I remember all this FPS talk from the Quake3 days where you turned everything off and hacked the .cfg file to turn off more stuff to get an extra 2fps. After a time it didn't matter and the good players could win because of superior hardware and turn everything up still cruising at over 100fps.

I just hope you can see my point from where I'm at. Everything plays fine, (if I played CS:S it would also be fine) and I have no complaints. I wanted an 8800 for DX10 but by the time DX10 matters it will not be the card I want to have (if current DX10 demonstrations are any indication of future performance, and I can't answer that 100% yet).

That's all. I'm not trying to tell you it's a bad card, you made a bad decision. I'm just saying that from my standpoint there is no point and it is a waste of my money.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: 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".

Ok and do any of the older cards not achieve those FPS numbers? Cause my system plays F.E.A.R at around 57fps average with everything maxed except soft shadows 1280x1024 and 16xaf 6xaa. That's playable for me. That's also in Vista if that matters at all.

Point is, when DX10 matters I don't want an 8800 or an HD2900xt. I want whatever comes out that is faster than them and it will definately be faster in DX9 too. I was all set to buy an 8800gtx and decided not because I wanted it for DX10 and like I said... DX10 doesn't matter now.

umm.. okay.. but show me where i ever said DX10 performance mattered?

while i'm sure it's a concern for some, many ppl who bought g80 hardware did so to run DX9 their games at the highest quality & resolutions; DX10 capability was a bonus. i think most would agree that Crysis will really be the first app that matters, and we'll have to judge g80 performance on that in the future.

still, following your logic, as i'm sure g80 owners could simply turn down the settings/resolutions to make it quite playable, one could argue your same point for the next gen which you seem intent on purchasing.

the whole point in my reply to the original post pretty much sums that up - you can make that argument every generation. this one is no different. irregardless, g80 offered an performance upgrade unseen since r300 repl gf4 as performance king. that certainly is nothing to whine about.

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
huh? like this link you provided where, even at utlra texture settings and highest resolutions the 320mb version beats the 7series handily? do you even read the links you provide?

Check the other benchmarks in that review. That's the conclusion page- but Doom3 also happens to be there; and happens to be the only benchmark that the 8800 won conclusively in. It gets beat in at least one configuration in every other title.

And yeah- benchmarks are going to be very different from title to title; with different rig setups; and game configurations... and could show a wide margins of difference. The point is- the 8800's victory over all is not conclusive; is not unanimous- and is certainly not offering "almost double the performance" (as someone else put it) all of the time; or even often- over high end cards from the 7 series and x1K series.

The point is that there's nothing really revolutionary about the performance these cards deliver- and I don't feel they were ever worth unusually high prices.

 

[Matt2]

Sorry OP, but your agrument is losing credibility by the second. I can't believe that you are trying to sit here and tell us that G80 is not worth $550.

People paid $600 for a X1900XTX a year ago and 8800GTX doubles the perfomance of X1900XTX.

7900GTX didnt even come close to doubling the performance of 7800GTX and yet people thought it was worth $500. X1900XTX didnt double the performance of X1800XT and people thought it was worth $500. 7900GTX and X1900XTX were "steps" in perfomance, but 8800GTX is indeed a leap. new architectures should be leaps, refreshes should be steps.

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
still, following your logic, as i'm sure g80 owners could simply turn down the settings/resolutions to make it quite playable, one could argue your same point for the next gen which you seem intent on purchasing.

the whole point in my reply to the original post pretty much sums that up - you can make that argument every generation. this one is no different.

I find myself turning down the settings on new games so my X1900GT can keep up too... difference between what I'm doing now and what you'll be doing with a G80 in 6 months to a year?

I paid 200 bucks for mine. What'd you pay for yours?

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
huh? like this link you provided where, even at utlra texture settings and highest resolutions the 320mb version beats the 7series handily? do you even read the links you provide?

Check the other benchmarks in that review. That's the conclusion page- but Doom3 also happens to be there; and happens to be the only benchmark that the 8800 won conclusively in. It gets beat in at least one configuration in every other title.

And yeah- benchmarks are going to be very different from title to title; with different rig setups; and game configurations... and could show a wide margins of difference. The point is- the 8800's victory over all is not conclusive; is not unanimous- and is certainly not offering "almost double the performance" (as someone else put it) all of the time; or even often- over high end cards from the 7 series and x1K series.

The point is that there's nothing really revolutionary about the performance these cards deliver- and I don't feel they were ever worth unusually high prices.

Dude, what is so ahrd to understand that you are looking at a 8800GTS 320mb vs a 7900GTX 512mb? The GTS spanks the 7900GTX in all situations EXCEPT at high resolutions and AA. Anyone who knows anything about video cards knows that you do not buy an 8800GTS 320mb for high resolution gaming. There is simply not enough memory for those high resolutions. An 8800GTS 320mb should be the card of choice for gamers who play at 1280x1024 and MAYBE 1680x1050.

Your comparison absolutely useless.

WWYBYWB?

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Sorry OP, but your agrument is losing credibility by the second. I can't believe that you are trying to sit here and tell us that G80 is not worth $550.

I really don't think any graphics card is worth that. I'd never spend that much on one. Now we are seeing them pass 800 dollars, 900 dollars- when's it gonna stop? This price gouging didn't start with the 8800 series cards no, but it is certainly becoming out of control now.

 

[yuppiejr]

For someone entering the graphics card arena right now with no existing video card, or something 2-3 generations old, the 8800gts 640 meg card for $330 or so is a great buy from a price/performance standpoint. For someone who's got a decent DX9 card in the 78xx/79xx series or ATI 18xx/19xx family it's not as cut and dry. Frankly, I don't consider it a bad thing that my 12 month old gen1 1900GT card that I paid $200 for can still hang in there with the games that I'm playing... I'm ok with skipping a generation and getting the most of of my video card investment before I jump into a DX10 part from whoever offers the best price/performance offering in my budget range.

As a previous poster said, some technology jumps are truly revolutionary - and others are just an evolution. The 8xxx architecture certainly made HUGE strides over the previous generation of products, but I wouldn't say it was revolutionary like the P4 Netburst to C2D architecture jump. I don't consider $330 for an 8800 GTS/640 meg card that is just a few tics behind the best in class card out there today to be a bad deal - especially when a bit of overclocking can narrow the gap even more. That said, if I were sitting on a last generation DX9 card I wouldn't be making the upgrade just yet, these cards still have some life left - at least until the next generation of games and card refreshes hit from ATI and nvidia.

I actually consider the MSI x1950 Pro 512 meg (575 core, 1400 mem - 12/36) card for $159 plus some freight at Newegg one of the best buys out there today in midrange video card land. A LOT of card with a nice quiet cooler and plenty of onboard memory to run current generation games and those on the horizon that will run just fine on DX9 hardware.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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?

Ummmmmm... A lot of things you are saying throughout this thread, Do Not Add Up...

First criticizing power usage, but then say you bought a motherboard that supports both SLI and Xfire. Now THERE is a way to conserve power.

And this,

"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?"

Is utter crap. So what's your story?

 

[swtethan]

xDarc is paid by ATI :Q

 

[terentenet]

xDrac, what res are you playing at? I find it hard to believe that a $200 card can keep up with the actual crop of cards. Not at the res and IQ current gen cards play at.
HD2900XT and 8800GTS 640/GTX are a HUGE improvement compared to 1900XTX and 7900GTX. If you play games at high res and lots of eye candy. Because that's how games are meant to be played.
And if you're building a new system, the display is the component you're going to stare at everyday. So get a good one, 24" 1920x1200 minimum. And for that you'll find a 2900XT, 8800GTS 640 or 8800GTX most welcomed.

Is it a smart buy right now? Perhaps not, it's just bad timing. You want to build a computer in a transition period. The huge DX9-DX10 switch..... baaad timing.

As many posters said, G80 was to be adopted months ago and it would have been a GREAT buy. If HD2900XT were to be released on time, around G80's launch, it would have been a GREAT buy too. It's hard to recommend any of the 2 now, next gen cards are coming closer.

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.

Now THAT I have to see. I don't know if it's true or not, but I find it hard to believe. P4 3GHz - 8-10 times slower than a C2D E6600? Perhaps it's in a single test, if that. I think C2D E6600 could be 2 times more powerfull (core per core since we don't get many multithreaded apps anyway), but 8 times?
That would make my C2Q @ 3.6GHz 20-30 times more powerfull!!! My e-peeenus is growing bigger and bigger by the day

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: swtethan
xDarc is paid by ATI :Q

Finally! I can add "Known ATI/AMD viral marketer: xDarc" to my sig!

j/k

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And this,

"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?"

Is utter crap. So what's your story?

How is that utter crap? Some guy said the 8800 series offers double the performance of anything from the 7 series or x1K series. I told him he was full of crap; and what easier way is there to do it than to show benches in which an 8800 series card LOSES to a 7 series or x1K series card?

Did I make the benches? Nope- just pointing to em'.

There's also a rather useful benchmark of every 8800 series card with an x1900xtx and 7900GTX thrown in for comparison- and the only thing that comes close to offering double the performance over either of the earlier gen cards is the 8800GTX. See if I can find that one again.

P.S. I have SLI/xFire capability "just in case" it actually becomes worthy to have some day in the distant future. options, options, options... keep em' open.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And this,

"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?"

Is utter crap. So what's your story?

How is that utter crap? Some guy said the 8800 series offers double the performance of anything from the 7 series or x1K series. I told him he was full of crap; and what easier way is there to do it than to show benches in which an 8800 series card LOSES to a 7 series or x1K series card?

Did I make the benches? Nope- just pointing to em'.

There's also a rather useful benchmark of every 8800 series card with an x1900xtx and 7900GTX thrown in for comparison- and the only thing that comes close to offering double the performance over either of the earlier gen cards is the 8800GTX. See if I can find that one again.

We're talking about the 8800GTX smart guy. :disgust:

EDIT: I already explained to you why the 8800GTS 320mb loses to the 7900GTX at 1920x1200 4xAA, but you are obviously not willing to listen.

This thread is now officially useless and you are obviously just trolling to incite a flamewar. I'm really interested to know who you were before you were banned.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And this,

"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?"

Is utter crap. So what's your story?

How is that utter crap? Some guy said the 8800 series offers double the performance of anything from the 7 series or x1K series. I told him he was full of crap; and what easier way is there to do it than to show benches in which an 8800 series card LOSES to a 7 series or x1K series card?

Did I make the benches? Nope- just pointing to em'.

There's also a rather useful benchmark of every 8800 series card with an x1900xtx and 7900GTX thrown in for comparison- and the only thing that comes close to offering double the performance over either of the earlier gen cards is the 8800GTX. See if I can find that one again.

We're talking about the 8800GTX smart guy. :disgust:

he also chooses to use the 320MB version,

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: terentenet
xDrac, what res are you playing at? I find it hard to believe that a $200 card can keep up with the actual crop of cards.

Eh? I said it can keep up with the current crop of games by turning down the settings. Same thing all these 8800 victims will be doing in a short while... only they'll be turning down those settings a hell of a lot more grudingly knowning they spent 450-600 dollars when those cards launched.

 

[swtethan]

sorry if its not DOUBLE, but i'd say 40% is a lot.


http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=21

 

[xDarc]

And now it's the 8800 GTX Whatever happened to 8800 Series that cainam mentioned when you decided to piggy back on his post; jump me- and put words in my mouth? Pffft. Whatever.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: terentenet
xDrac, what res are you playing at? I find it hard to believe that a $200 card can keep up with the actual crop of cards.

Eh? I said it can keep up with the current crop of games by turning down the settings. Same thing all these 8800 victims will be doing in a short while... only they'll be turning down those settings a hell of a lot more grudingly knowning they spent 450-600 dollars when those cards launched.

magically my cs:s, bf2, bf2142, coh, supcom, stalker, hl2 etc games I will have to turn the settings down cause something about them will change! OMG!

edit: I buy cards to play games NOW, sorry

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM


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

And does anyone remember this one two pages ago?

 

[terentenet]

Originally posted by: xDarc

Originally posted by: terentenet
xDrac, what res are you playing at? I find it hard to believe that a $200 card can keep up with the actual crop of cards.

Eh? I said it can keep up with the current crop of games by turning down the settings. Same thing all these 8800 victims will be doing in a short while... only they'll be turning down those settings a hell of a lot more grudingly knowning they spent 450-600 dollars when those cards launched.

Victims? You're the victim my friend. Me and other early adopters of new technology, be it 8800GTS 320, 8800GTS 640, 8800GTX, even HD2900XT (even if late to the party) have huge smiles on our faces NOW, as we play current games at maximum resolution, with all eye candy enabled, at 2560x1600 even!!! with playable framerates (over 40).
cmdrdredd said something about FEAR at 57FPS average? That's lower than my minimum FPS @ 2560x1600 with all at max in game and 16xAA, 16xAF in CPL + TRAA (65/148/404 last time I checked). That's only to show what current gen cards can do.
CoH is the only game I drop under 40FPS @ 2560x1600 (because I can't use SLI).

 

[xDarc]

Originally posted by: terentenet
You said something about FEAR at 57FPS average?

Nope- wasn't me. Never said it.

 

[CaiNaM]

bah.. doubled up...