Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

G.R.A.W. + video card =SCAM!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 5, 2006 2:49:41 AM

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO THE PC GAMING WORLD! You cant even run ghost recon at hight settings unless you buy a 500 dollar 512mb video card!? Cod2 and oblivion look better than this IMO ..and the people who are running this game at high with a 512 card..are only getting max 32 fps and say things like "i get 32 fps with no slow down" how is 32 fps not slow down? 60 fps is smooth game play, anything under that in considered a slow down. its pathetic that society spends 500+ dollars on these new graphics cards, and you get low fps. a shame.

More about : video card scam

May 5, 2006 3:33:29 AM

What are you system specss anyway ?

Are your mainboard chipset + video card + audio device drivers installed ?, and installed correctly ?
May 5, 2006 3:37:48 AM

Damn you must hate movies then. 30 FPS is fine.
Related resources
May 5, 2006 3:42:22 AM

my specs are 7800gtx OC, fx 55, 2 gigs of ram, xfi platinum. Theres no excuse for prducers to charge this much just to play video games,especially at these frame rates. Everythign is installed correctly...these new cards should cost no more than 200 bucks. 30 fps is fine...if you didnt spend a crapload for a gaming pc. it doesnt cut it if you have the newest technology and you only get a max 32 fps...you said it yourself...30 fps is "fine" ...fine isnt good enough when a video card these days costs 500 bucks, you should expect and recieve atleast a stead 50fps or higher.
May 5, 2006 3:46:12 AM

:roll: Settings?
May 5, 2006 3:48:52 AM

welcome to the world of technology. you obviously had the money to spend on a $500+ video card. Also nobody ever said you had to run everything at high setting you can attempt to run them at low setting, nobody has to know.

Newer content needs newer hardware, just face it
May 5, 2006 4:03:47 AM

ok, well if put it that way, why not get a nex gen consol? instead of paying 500 bucks on a video card to have it run at low or medium settings to get smooth gameplay, when you could just buy a 360 for 400 bucks?
May 5, 2006 4:35:43 AM

OK, u know a thing Called Directx

ok ok u do

now Directx is a program or "code" for Developers to make 3d animations, sound ... whole mess of stuff



they can make games look soo realistic u would crap your pants

- one problem


it aint F*cking easy for chipmakers Ati, Nvidia to make a Gpu they would run those types of 3d apps

it aint easy coming up with a new Core

-physics play a big part of this

now a Console is just for games , so they would optimize a console to play games , becuase a console doesnt do anything else


now with a PC

u dont just play games on it , u do mutiple apps on it , so that y Cpu,gpu Company kinda give a little Leway towards the products they make


- consoles run games at 30-40 fps u know

u just dont notice becuase your running it on a Dam T.v

-even with a high Def T.v

it takes time dood

-Ex remember Quake 3

the hardware back then could run it , but at a slight decent rate

now look at it today

u can run it at 600fps if u wanted to

-it takes time and alot of brain work too

it aint no scam, it just the way it is -companys can do whatever they want :/ 
May 5, 2006 12:07:11 PM

in a year or so all modern PCs will be able to run ghost recon / oblivion etc happily.

tho if i had the money id happy buy a £500 GFX Card :p  my 6800GT is starting to show its age :(  *sulk*
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2006 12:17:19 PM

Quote:
Damn you must hate movies then. 30 FPS is fine.




Are you insane? Firstly thats not comparable. And second: 30fps is absolutely awful in a fps. Ok I admit there seem to be people that are satisfied with it but comeon!
May 5, 2006 12:33:41 PM

Quote:
Damn you must hate movies then. 30 FPS is fine.


Hahaha yeah as long as it doesnt drop bellow 25, if you dont have the FPS counter showing you will never know.
May 5, 2006 12:34:19 PM

Quote:
Damn you must hate movies then. 30 FPS is fine.




Are you insane? Firstly thats not comparable. And second: 30fps is absolutely awful in a fps. Ok I admit there seem to be people that are satisfied with it but comeon!

Well, Movies are shot at 24 frames per socond, so what he's saying is if you cant stand 35 frames, then how can you watch a movie?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2006 1:38:29 PM

So you're telling me that there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps?

The comparison to the movies is totally misplaced here. Of course you can only see 24 fps; but the smooth gameplay you get with 60 or more fps IS different.

I somewhat miss the perfection-demanding gamers in this discussion here... :twisted:
May 5, 2006 1:47:05 PM

Because double buffering, (or even more) is used in OpenGL and Direct3D one is always 'at least' one frame behind.

1000ms / 25 fps = 40 ms draw time per frame, and 40 ms behind.

1000ms / 60 fps = 16.667 ms draw time per frame, and 16.667 ms behind.

Most computer games require frequent, low delay, fast reaction times. Movies do not require the same level of interaction. (Select a menu item, load a menu item, change camera angle / text, etc.... if they take 100ms you don't care). Anything that 24 fps won't capture is just speed blurred anyway, which is a desirable effect in film, and often done in digital these days.

You simply can't compare the two.
(Well, you can, but it is a rather pointless conversation to have, once people realise the above anyway :p ).

If I want to glace to a corner of a room, then glance back quickly, I don't want to do it in 100 ms and only get 2-3 frames drawn, if I can do it in 67 ms and get 4 frames drawn instead. 8) (More frames in a shorter timespan).

In most combat 2ms can be the difference between life and death, In 20ms+ much can happen, but you wouldn't notice it if a frame takes 40ms to render.

Some sports are filmed at 60 fps, and then converted back to a lower frame rate, you can see the frame merge / blur in slow motion, but at normal playback speeds it makes it look better.
May 5, 2006 1:57:33 PM

Here's a f*cking clue. Turn down your settings!

Of course you're not going to be able to play the latest games at the highest settings with anything but the best hardware.

And 30 fps is perfectly playable. If you don't like it, either turn down your settings or don't play the game. You going to whine how new stuff comes out every 6 months now too? You don't like that? Another clue. Don't buy it! Get a console if you don't want to have to continously upgrade your system every 1-2 years to play the best games at high settings.
May 5, 2006 2:19:19 PM

Wait till Gears of War comes out. G.R.A.W. will be childs play to your system compared to GoW. I can't wait.
May 5, 2006 2:24:16 PM

I have to agree with most of the ppl here. It's always been this way, if you don't like it then don't play the game, I don't just mean GRAW either, I mean don't play the upgrade game with computers and just buy a console. If a game is worth playing it will still be worth playing 1-2 years from now when technology catches up, CS to CS:S for example.

I would suggest that you just compromise, there are a lot of settings that you can turn down which you really won't notice in a FPS since you are very focused on the opponents, the number of ripples in water and how well it reflects shouldn't really affect your game play.
May 5, 2006 2:25:05 PM

Quote:
Here's a f*cking clue. Turn down your settings!


MMMMMMM logic
May 5, 2006 2:35:03 PM

So from what you're saying you'd prefer that the games are just released with their max settings being lower so the game can be run at 60 fps rather than having the option to increase the graphics as new generations of cards come out?

Or is your only complaint about cost which is governed entirely by supply-demand, and since you bought a $500 card obviosly you believe that the card is worth more than $500 to you or you would have kept the money.

Or is your complaint that graphics cards aren't increasing in speed quickly enough for you? Frankly, with how competitive ATI and NVidia have been over the last few years I doubt highly that they're able to increase the performance any quicker than they have been. Not like the monopoly Microsoft has that keeps the innovation curve down.

So... what's your problem? If you need 60 fps to be happy, drop Oblivion's settings. Game developers are giving longer life to their games by giving high enough settings to still appear graphically appealing a year or two down the road and thus make games that may not run that well at max on today's hardware. So play the game at medium. What you're seeing is what the game would be at maxed out specs if devs listened to you. Now when you buy a card in a year, the game will still look exactly the same. Thankfully the game developers have an even higher setting so I can maintain my framerate and at the same time bump my visual quality rather than just going from 60 fps to 100 fps which is basically just wasted frames.
May 5, 2006 3:14:36 PM

Quote:
So from what you're saying you'd prefer that the games are just released with their max settings being lower so the game can be run at 60 fps rather than having the option to increase the graphics as new generations of cards come out?

Or is your only complaint about cost which is governed entirely by supply-demand, and since you bought a $500 card obviosly you believe that the card is worth more than $500 to you or you would have kept the money.

Or is your complaint that graphics cards aren't increasing in speed quickly enough for you? Frankly, with how competitive ATI and NVidia have been over the last few years I doubt highly that they're able to increase the performance any quicker than they have been. Not like the monopoly Microsoft has that keeps the innovation curve down.


So... what's your problem? If you need 60 fps to be happy, drop Oblivion's settings. Game developers are giving longer life to their games by giving high enough settings to still appear graphically appealing a year or two down the road and thus make games that may not run that well at max on today's hardware. So play the game at medium. What you're seeing is what the game would be at maxed out specs if devs listened to you. Now when you buy a card in a year, the game will still look exactly the same. Thankfully the game developers have an even higher setting so I can maintain my framerate and at the same time bump my visual quality rather than just going from 60 fps to 100 fps which is basically just wasted frames.


I know what your saying, but, first, what im saying is if these new games come out that are next gen, they are mainly called next gen because of their Graphics, im not going to buy a game, to put it on low settings, i want to see all the eye candy without getting 20 fps the whole game. What annoys me is, i know companies like Nvidia have the technology and money to create cards that can run far past the ones that are out now. We have an Nvidia Rep that works at my store, and the answer he gives me when i say that is "man, you should see the technology we have, and you ask why we dont release them now? becuase thats marketing for you" I bought a 480 dollar card, because it was only my second build, and i thought it would be that much better than my old one, thats the only reason. and i was wrong. Oblivion is even a joke, its so choppy in outside environments , and that game is known for its graphics, the last thing i want to do is turn them down.

Quote:
Here's a f*cking clue. Turn down your settings!

its funny how mad you get, its like im putting down your family or something, im stating an opinion, so calm down

Quote:
Are you insane? Firstly thats not comparable. And second: 30fps is absolutely awful in a fps. Ok I admit there seem to be people that are satisfied with it but comeon!


exactly what im saying.
Quote:

it aint F*cking easy for chipmakers Ati, Nvidia to make a Gpu they would run those types of 3d apps

And you know that for a fact? There is demo videos out for crytek 2 engine and crysis, which probably the most insane graphics that will come to pc for awhile..what do you think there running that with? a crappy 7900 or 1900 at that smooth stable framerate? why not release the cards they are using to run that game? the 7900 is just a revision of the 7800, higher clock speeds is one of the only differences in it. why not boost them higher or instead of going from 24 pipeline in the 7800 to, oh, what was it in the 7900 a HUGE jump to , 24 pipelnes. Why not 32? why not 48, again, thats marketing, thats the only answer i get.
May 5, 2006 8:28:10 PM

Quote:
my specs are 7800gtx OC, fx 55, 2 gigs of ram, xfi platinum. Theres no excuse for prducers to charge this much just to play video games,especially at these frame rates. Everythign is installed correctly...these new cards should cost no more than 200 bucks. 30 fps is fine...if you didnt spend a crapload for a gaming pc. it doesnt cut it if you have the newest technology and you only get a max 32 fps...you said it yourself...30 fps is "fine" ...fine isnt good enough when a video card these days costs 500 bucks, you should expect and recieve atleast a stead 50fps or higher.


The human eye from my research can not tell the difference after 35fps. Now given it is important to have high fps in games, because of changing elements, such as enviroments in game, system processes and etc... this is so your system doesn't drop dramatically to something low and cause choppy behaviour.
May 5, 2006 8:48:22 PM

I'd say 60+ FPS is unnoticeable, but over time my eyes feel better at the higher framerates.
May 5, 2006 8:48:26 PM

Quote:
my specs are 7800gtx OC, fx 55, 2 gigs of ram, xfi platinum. Theres no excuse for prducers to charge this much just to play video games,especially at these frame rates. Everythign is installed correctly...these new cards should cost no more than 200 bucks. 30 fps is fine...if you didnt spend a crapload for a gaming pc. it doesnt cut it if you have the newest technology and you only get a max 32 fps...you said it yourself...30 fps is "fine" ...fine isnt good enough when a video card these days costs 500 bucks, you should expect and recieve atleast a stead 50fps or higher.


The human eye from my research can not tell the difference after 35fps. Now given it is important to have high fps in games, because of changing elements, such as enviroments in game, system processes and etc... this is so your system doesn't drop dramatically to something low and cause choppy behaviour.
Yes, you can't really notice above 30-40+ fps, but, I found with higher framerates, my eyes feel better after a longer time. Playing a 30fps gets my eyes tired after a while, but at higher fps, my eyes don't get as tired.

Yes, it'm my feeling, but I think this applies to everyone in most cases.


So whats the complaint about? Why is thread starter a flammer? I mean why complain about something that is fine and my only bother afew. Crap or get off the pot, buy the card that gives you the results or stop complaining, the game is what it is.
May 5, 2006 8:51:46 PM

It was a joke. 30FPS is fine, only bitches complain about 30fps.
May 5, 2006 9:33:56 PM

Quote:
Damn you must hate movies then. 30 FPS is fine.




Are you insane? Firstly thats not comparable. And second: 30fps is absolutely awful in a fps. Ok I admit there seem to be people that are satisfied with it but comeon!

I'm satisfied with 20FPS playing TS2 with my X600. When I play Sim City 4, it can get down to 5 FPS when I'm moving around a big city.
May 6, 2006 5:28:11 PM

Quote:
It was a joke. 30FPS is fine, only bitches complain about 30fps.


and only nerds take opinions so seriously that they have to put someone down with name calling. now thats a joke.
!