Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Ndvia wants us to spend 1200 Euro to play a DX10 game in a normal way?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
January 9, 2008 12:39:58 AM

Just wondering what kind of future we are heading too. While DX10 makes the entrance into the gaming industry, Crysis allready shows that Nvidia (the leader in the moment) can't make a good DX10 card yet that is able to let people play the game with a normal FPS rate. Even the most expensive cards that cost you unbelievable much money can't do the job. Screw that money making machine. They let you pay 600 euro for a card that can't even do the job right. In the meanwhile they are trying to make SLI look attractive instead. Like are they really on the limits of their graphics performance? Do we realy need SLI? Spending like 2 times 600 euro to play crysis a little better is totally crazy. It's insane. 1200 euro? The new 9800 GX2 Nvidia card needs 2 gpu's to gain only 30 procent performance increase upon a single 8800 ultra level. WOW >NOT<. There goes 2008 ladies and gentlemen. Have patience....yeah right. Guess we need to wait a long time before dx10 is finally on track. The history showed something different....it has never been so worse as it is now. Anyways, By the time things get better and payable people who keep on hating Vista can allready get the new OS by Microsoft called Vienna that will be way better (I really hope so). So would it not be wise to wait two more years instead of spending like an insanely high 1200 Euro's or more for a graphics solution atm and just wait? My Sapphire X1950XT is still able to run all DX9 games at full settings. :)  Let's get real....Spending like 1200 Euro's for a >>>little bit<<< more beautifull smoke and fire and water.....hehe what if the graphics were nice and the at the end the game would suck.....you might as well have trown your money into the sea. So, what is nvidia doing atm? The 9800 gx2 doesn't look promising to me. It will cost us way too much money for that only a little bit more performance.

More about : ndvia spend 1200 euro play dx10 game normal

January 9, 2008 1:00:06 AM

I got lost reading your rambling's half way through...
a c 224 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 1:18:27 AM

And the point to this is? How is this Nvidia's/AMD's fault? First, if you don't have the hardware to play Crysis, then turn down the settings. If you want to play it at LCD resolutions with settings maxed, you are going to need some serious hardware. This isn't Nvidia's or AMD's fault however. The high end cards are more then enough to play most games. We are simply at the point now where the software has caught up with the hardware, and its the hardware thats now behind.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 1:19:29 AM

How about you stop whining like a 6 year old girl, learn to use paragraphs, and come back when you can appreciate the value of a dollar.
January 9, 2008 1:33:26 AM

that bs! this thread is bs!

i am playing crysis for $200 EU for the video card - it plays fine! its a little slow but no major lag or slowness

i bought a $382 msi 8800GTS 512mb 730mhz factory oc in e6750, 2 gb 4-4-3-10 (running 4-4-3-9) running 400fsb 3.4ghz. 2 rapators in raid0 in a micro atx box!

the whole computer was less then $1200EU

settings are all high and 2aa with no issues - maybe 5 or so the entire game!!!!


its not the video card its your system! and nvidia did not make the game crytek did thats an EU company!

cryteck wants you spend $1200 EU


this thread is P U (that means it stinks)
January 9, 2008 2:04:46 AM

i agree witrh topic starter. nvidia and ati should be getting their hardware better instead of just adding on more cards, costing the customer more, rather than bringing innovations to the cards and staying in the sub-$400 range.
January 9, 2008 2:22:15 AM

This is the kind of stupid threads that drive people away from PC gaming... Seriously could you just put lid on that manhole that you call your mouth and stop talking nonsense? I played crysis maxed out on my GTS 320 OC'ed at 1440x900 JUST fine! If you're stupid enough to waste over $2000 on GRAPHICS CARDS and still you can't get your games to work like they should on a $1000-1500 SYSTEM, then please by all means have someone else tune your computer for you.

Instead of spending so much money on graphics cards, you might want to consider going down the local store and ordering a few pounds of intelligence... you might get a rebate on that if you're lucky.
January 9, 2008 2:44:29 AM

Crysis is not optimized , really...blame crytek and ea a little too maybe?
January 9, 2008 3:31:14 AM

Although, I agree that not Nvidia but its Crytek whose askin for a 1200E+++ system to play it. But its a fact that Nvidia has stagneted, resulting SLI to be the new card upgrade(which means 2x money of a single card) where lies the problem :(  And those who are bashing the OP for a stupid thread, can you tell me that you agree to SLI being the only EFFECTIVE way of getting to play games in 2-3yrs??(by that i mean a single card today wont be worth it after 2-3yrs and force you to go sli??)
January 9, 2008 3:58:10 AM

I planned to upgrade my graphics card in a year or so (that would make it 2 years owning a GTS) so it works out fine with my plans. The thing you have to remember is that PC gaming is SCALABLE, if you want ALL the bells and whistles you are going to have to pay for it. Also Crysis is an extreme example of what games are demanding nowadays, I could easily ask what about UT3 or COD4, both are beautiful games that don't require more than a single card to play in 1920x1200.

The thing with Crysis that you have to remember is that it is a title ahead of our time as far as hardware goes, it's also trying to showcase the new engine therefore using as much of it as it possibly can within our hardware limitations, meaning that this engine has a lot more to offer on the upcoming years.

If you want to you could blame hardware stagnation on anyone, you could blame AMD for not being competitive on the high end, blame most of the game studios for consolizing all games and not innovating (Something that Crytek is at least trying to do, and I give them props for that), or you could blame Nvidia for not releasing a new high end (Which isn't a stupid decision from an economical standpoint, why rush out an unfinished chip when you can keep milking the current G80/G92s)

What really gets me is the kind of retarded titles that these type of apocalyptic threads have, this IS the kind of crap that gets console people saying how it is far more affordable to get a console ($400-600) than to get a new PC ($700-900), since PC gaming needs to keep spending $1500-2000 every year according to them to keep up, which ISN'T true, but with people like him spreading it like the plague then we have to deal with these misguided commentaries not too long after this type of threads start to surface.

EDIT: And actually I'm happy that nvidia decided not to release G100 or whatever they're planning to call it any time soon, because to be honest AMD needs time to get the R700 and they cannot afford to be so FAR behind on both CPU and GPU, right now they are competitive on the GPU front on the price segments that matter the most and I thank god for that, and you should be too, because if you're complaining about $500 a pop GTX cards imagine what would it be if AMD was a WHOLE generation behind and the 10600GTS could perform similar to the HD4800Pro/XT, we would have 10800GT and GTS cards going for $700-800 a pop, not to mention $1000+ GTXs.
a c 143 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 4:01:28 AM

Guys, keep in mind that the OP is in Europe and things are more expensive there.
January 9, 2008 4:09:37 AM

PC gaming is more expensive in general, but you don't have to spend 2000$ to play some good games. If you have to play Crysis maxed out, let some patches and new hardware come out, the game is ahead of the curve...I've always had a hard time believeing that people can always see huge differences in high settings with or without AA and some of the other "whistles" turned on.
January 9, 2008 4:10:01 AM

Yeah I noticed aevm, the point I'm trying to make is not about prices, but about common sense, why would anyone want AMD to be left behind like that? Why would anyone want complete software stagnation? Isn't he aware that Crysis is a graphical beast and there's not a single setup that can run it at 2560x1600 maxed out, and that the reason for this is that the software is ahead of our hardware. More importantly, isn't he aware that there is a SETTINGS option on the game menu where you can tune down your settings instead of buying new graphics cards? After all this isn't a console we're talking about.
January 9, 2008 4:12:33 AM

if you can afford the $1500 for the 2500p set up you can afford the $1200 for the dual cards! right?
January 9, 2008 4:19:56 AM

High frames per second.
High resolutions.
Cheap.

pick any two.
a c 143 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 4:32:07 AM

I'll pick high resolutions and cheap, and play Solitaire :) 

Now seriously, yeah, the OP should just pick a resolution and level of eye-candy that his hardware can support. I think Crysis is designed to work very well at high resolutions on 2009's high-end cards, just like Oblivion does on 2007's high-end cards. Good games are designed like that, it gives them a longer life.
a c 131 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 6:45:55 AM

I think the op is just getting frustrated at the way Nvidia are just rehashing the same tec, They have obviously taken the decision to milk the existing market with the existing GPU's and why not ? This is the price we pay for lack of competition. While its true that you could move the argument to anybodys door as far as whos fault it is that we cant play newer games at the res/fps that we could the last generation of DX9 games you have to remember that if the software didnt chalenge the hardware we would stagnate that way also.
Personally i feel that MS pushed out Vista about a year early as they knew the graphics companies were having problems with it even before launch and should have given them more time to develope the hardware.
Of course that was never going to MS wanted it out there to make money (well it is a business after all) and everybody is now playing catch up.
However there is an option and its the way i have decided to go. Dont buy vista treat all GPU's as DX9 and buy your upgrades on a price vs performance basis. That way you can buy a whole system that will run Crysis at god fps,it will still look good and will cosy about Half what the op says is required just for the DX10 graphics cards.
Mactronix
a c 224 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 6:59:49 AM

Quote:
I think the op is just getting frustrated at the way Nvidia are just rehashing the same tec, They have obviously taken the decision to milk the existing market with the existing GPU's and why not ? This is the price we pay for lack of competition. While its true that you could move the argument to anybodys door as far as whos fault it is that we cant play newer games at the res/fps that we could the last generation of DX9 games you have to remember that if the software didnt chalenge the hardware we would stagnate that way also.


Its not just Nvidia that isn't releasing any new harddware. I think I read on Anand that AMD isn't releasing anything new this year either, at least for the highend. They are only going to release a dual 3870 card, much like Nvidia is doing. (many new mid and low end cards will come out however.)
January 9, 2008 7:38:25 AM

hrmm did you know the electric goods (cards, cpu etc) production cost is cost just a fraction of its cost?, they might says "the manufacture cost", but the truth they only send the reference design & let already established factory manufacture it

picture this (analogy) + this is fact, read it in >2005 news week
the cost of production (plus cover) for music cd is = 5cent while cassette is 20 c.

i got friend who own steel factory (they made utensils & cooking stuff) and the prod. cost is less than 10% of the price store.

so i agree, they should make a board that can be officially / supported to be upgraded (ram, gpu, sink) because its just too expensive and its soon to obsolete.
a c 131 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 8:08:56 AM


Quote:

Its not just Nvidia that isn't releasing any new harddware. I think I read on Anand that AMD isn't releasing anything new this year either, at least for the highend. They are only going to release a dual 3870 card, much like Nvidia is doing. (many new mid and low end cards will come out however.)

I wasnt meaning to single out Nvidia, just replying to what the op was saying. It may well be the case that neither camp have plans to release any new tec this year but when was the last time Nvidia did release some thing new?(now im picking on them :)  ) As far as i can see ATI/AMD have had the 2000 series and now the 3000 series while Nvidia are still selling what is basically a G80 core, isnt it?
Mid to low end is where the main money is made so i guess it makes sence that they concentrate on that sector, its just hard to beleive that there truly isnt a card in the wings that has some kind of real performance inprovement in it.
mactronix


January 9, 2008 8:47:59 AM

Quote:
Just wondering what kind of future we are heading too. While DX10 makes the entrance into the gaming industry, Crysis allready shows that Nvidia (the leader in the moment) can't make a good DX10 card yet that is able to let people play the game with a normal FPS rate.


My opinion is that GPU's will become multicore like CPU's. The prices for the cards will remain the same at each price range because that's how the market works. Enthusiasts spend too much money to get the best graphics in their favorite games, while budget gamers go for affordable cards and medium settings. Occasional gamers go for low cost cards and low settings.

I'm in the budget gamer category. Don't sweat DX10. Games will get optimized, drivers will get optimized, Vista will get fixed by SP2, and dual core cards at all price ranges will arrive in the next couple of years. Alongside quad core in the mainstream, it will make gaming DX10.1 titles quite enjoyable.

Then again, I play mostly CRPG's and RTS, I don't expect framerates above 30 fps. As an example, I first played Oblivion with a P4 2.8 Northwood and a Radeon 9800 Pro in medium settings. Then I upgraded to a 7600GS and when I get a 3850, I'll give Middle Earth Online a go as it has a DX10 patch, and it looks alot more interesting than WoW.

I do sympathize with people playing FPS, they seem to stress graphics cards more than CRPGs, though Hellgate London might stress out the current AMD and Nvidia offerings as well.
January 9, 2008 12:04:24 PM

skittle said:
How about you stop whining like a 6 year old girl, learn to use paragraphs, and come back when you can appreciate the value of a dollar.

Harsh, but made me laugh.

makotech222 said:
i agree witrh topic starter. nvidia and ati should be getting their hardware better instead of just adding on more cards, costing the customer more, rather than bringing innovations to the cards and staying in the sub-$400 range.

...Except that nVidia hasn't been in the sub-$400US range for their top-end cards since like the day of the GeForce 4 Ti. One must learn that the prices of the top will be dictated by what those with bottomless pockets will pay, but things are also governed by the law of diminishing returns; you don't need to buy the most expensive hardware to play; you could likely spend half as much and still get >75% of the power.

dariushro said:
Crysis is not optimized , really...blame crytek and ea a little too maybe?

"Not optimized?" With most of the games I see this claim made on, it really is just someone saying "my hardware isn't good enough for fully maxed settings and a good framerate. Coincidentally, I have hardware that's at least a little outdated."

aevm said:
Guys, keep in mind that the OP is in Europe and things are more expensive there.

I'd note that this isn't really all that much the fault of the hardware makers, so much toward the European governments for their tariffs as well as slapping on that VAT, which while it varies from country to country, is rather high. (whereas in the USA, sales tax cannot apply to inter-state commerce, which tends to be the case when you shop online)

metrazol said:
High frames per second.
High resolutions.
Cheap.

pick any two.

I actually don't strictly take any of them perhaps save for the first. I don't know why people insist on going to resolutions like 1680x1050; I've played at 1024x768 since like the days of Jedi Knight, and have been fine with it. Likewise, I'm willing to splash out a few hundred bucks when I actually buy my video cards, to make sure that they'll be solid and last me for a bit. (my X800XT's still going fairly strong, though Crysis is clearly going to be the undoing of it)

mactronix said:
I think the op is just getting frustrated at the way Nvidia are just rehashing the same tec, They have obviously taken the decision to milk the existing market with the existing GPU's and why not ? This is the price we pay for lack of competition. While its true that you could move the argument to anybodys door as far as whos fault it is that we cant play newer games at the res/fps that we could the last generation of DX9 games you have to remember that if the software didnt chalenge the hardware we would stagnate that way also.
Personally i feel that MS pushed out Vista about a year early as they knew the graphics companies were having problems with it even before launch and should have given them more time to develope the hardware.

Actually, I've come to the conclusion that nVidia's not trying to do that at all; they ARE producing new tech, after all... And it is working to lower prices. The GeForce 8800GT comes to mind very sharply; we suddenly get 8800GTX-equivalent performance for what, suddenly around 2/3 the cost? It's only been a bit over a year (since late 2006) when we saw the first GeForce 8800 come out... Yet already we've seen the price slashed nearly in half. Likewise, we have attractive options below it, in the form of AMD's Radeon 3850 and 3870 cards.

spotless said:
hrmm did you know the electric goods (cards, cpu etc) production cost is cost just a fraction of its cost?, they might says "the manufacture cost", but the truth they only send the reference design & let already established factory manufacture it

Discrete graphics card production can't really be equated to stamped-sheet steel manufacturing. Obviously, the production cost of almost ANY product is less than the price it sells for; that's how companies make a profit and stay in business. And likewise, you could phrase that lower cost as "a fraction."

However, advanced semiconductor logic fabrication isn't a cheap process in the very least; you're talking a form of production that, unlike stamping sheet metal, has pretty much zero tolerance for error by comparison. And even when it appears to physically be perfect, a lot of chips wind up being rejects for not being able to run at full spec and remain stable.

yipsl said:
My opinion is that GPU's will become multicore like CPU's. The prices for the cards will remain the same at each price range because that's how the market works. Enthusiasts spend too much money to get the best graphics in their favorite games, while budget gamers go for affordable cards and medium settings. Occasional gamers go for low cost cards and low settings.

I'm in the budget gamer category. Don't sweat DX10. Games will get optimized, drivers will get optimized, Vista will get fixed by SP2, and dual core cards at all price ranges will arrive in the next couple of years. Alongside quad core in the mainstream, it will make gaming DX10.1 titles quite enjoyable.

Heya, yipsl; long time no see.

At any rate, you're right: prices aren't going to radically change for different levels, though this also has to do with the fact that the production costs are liable to remain the same for each certain level of video card: high-end cards may typically use a rather large CPU die and 8 or 16 chips of GDDR3 or GDDR4, which is going to remain roughly the same cost; advances in technology are going to be parlayed into packing more transistors on; the result is that the amount of silicon remains the same, which tends to lend to about the same production costs.

And I agree, that DX10 is over-rated. Given that Crysis doesn't really seem to improve from it, I wouldn't worry about it. A simple edit of the game will let you use the highest detail settings in DX9 anyway, without having to deal with quirky drivers.
a c 131 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 2:30:14 PM

To nottheking
But they are clearly not producing anything truly new tec if you go read some reviews then you will see that the G92 is just a die shrunk G80 with a couple of modifications, ATI on the other hand have given us a whole new architecture and a die shrunk and modified version since Nov 2006 when the G80 first came out.
That's the whole reason why the price has come down they haven't changed the chip that much so there are no costs incurred modifying the process and they have shrunk the die which equals less silicon which in turn makes it physically cheaper to make.
January 9, 2008 3:05:27 PM

Actually, the OP is correct.

NVIDIA "WANTS" us to spend all of our free money on their cards.
They are a company to make profits.
However, we can CHOOSE to play Crysis on Cheaper Cards.
We can CHOOSE to play different games.

We can CHOOSE to only by GPUs from Non-Profit Hardware manufacturers. (Oh Wait, Maybe there are not any....)
a c 143 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 4:24:21 PM

:lol:  :lol:  If a company loses 611 million in a quarter, does it qualify as a non-profit?
January 9, 2008 5:24:05 PM

nottheking said:

I actually don't strictly take any of them perhaps save for the first. I don't know why people insist on going to resolutions like 1680x1050; I've played at 1024x768 since like the days of Jedi Knight, and have been fine with it. Likewise, I'm willing to splash out a few hundred bucks when I actually buy my video cards, to make sure that they'll be solid and last me for a bit. (my X800XT's still going fairly strong, though Crysis is clearly going to be the undoing of it)


Its because people have larger monitors than a 17" CRT. I have a 22" widescreen with native resolution of 1680x1050... I could play in 1024x768 with massively high FPS... but the image quality would be crap because my computer would be stretching the image to fit my monitor size.

People who have the money to get larger monitors should be smart enough to get better GPUs to support the new resolutions... some dont, but most do.
January 9, 2008 7:32:55 PM

You need to check the Crysis website. They have admitted they have performance issues with their code (who doesn't). They just released on 1/8 a patch to address some of this. Now I don't expect this to make it fly on a Pentium 3 computer but who would. Also Crysis is not interested so much in making money from the game as they want to sell the engine. So they put every option they could in the game to make it look great (Awesome game); this is the same as when Far Cry came out. It will also take a while to get really great drivers and DX 10 engine from both MSFT, NVidia and AMD. Here is some info on the Crysis patch:

The long awaited Patch 1.1 for Crysis is available for download! The 140MB sized file can be downloaded from one of the sources further below. The patch mainly addresses the performance of Crysis. Additionally it includes quite a few bug fixes and tweaks for the Multiplayer part to provide a more balanced gameplay.

Please find here the complete change log:

Fixes

Fixed: Potential crash in D3D10
Fixed: Orange boxes apearing when hispec savegame loaded into lowspec game.
Fixed: Inconsistent damage dealt to vehicles when shot by LAW.
Fixed: Reflection resolution on D3D10, MultiGPU reflection update fix
Fixed: Memory leak with FSAA modes
Fixed: Infinite ammo hacks.
Fixed: Memory leak in D3D10 when switching screen modes
Fixed: Muti optimizations
Fixed: When player melees during gun raise animation, their gun will be in a permanantly raised position.
Fixed: Crash when loading savegame with level exported recently by editor
Fixed: Virtual keyboard does not function properly when a game pad is connected
Fixed: Users can lose the ability to look around with the Right Stick
Fixed: Setting screen resolution to "default" stops user from selecting last resolution
Fixed: Bug when changing resolution in D3D10
Fixed: Issues with Depth of field and water droplets in D3D10
Fixed: Crash on NaN warning
a b U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 10:06:19 PM

SyPheR said:
Just wondering what kind of future we are heading too.


A shinnier more transparent future, just like ever previous generation.

I'd cut and past my answer to this same whine from the weeks before the GF3 - > GF4 - R9700 - > GF6800 -> GF7800 -> X1900 -> GF8800 , but I don't care enough to use my wayback machine.

Back to the depth with ye luddites, if you don't want to pay, no one is forcing you. Learn how to move the sliders to the LEFT !! :kaola: 
January 10, 2008 4:41:03 AM

i still say after nvidia hit the jack pot with the 8800 series that the 9800 may be problematic -

i must say i am confused by nvidia

maybe they are waiting to hit the dual gpu, hd 3870 x2, which will run in crossfire in intel mobos.

sapphire releases the dual gpu x1950 pro so they have worked the bugs out of this - its superior to the nvidia sandwich due too cooling issues and technical reasons of location of parts
January 10, 2008 5:38:12 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

Back to the depth with ye luddites, if you don't want to pay, no one is forcing you. Learn how to move the sliders to the LEFT !! :kaola: 


LOL. damn right. :lol: 
January 10, 2008 5:46:08 AM

welcome to the world of electronic bureaucratic bullship, notice how the ape didn't include 3dfx card in his list. I remember when bf2 came out, every bf player I know went to play all excited and then we found out the computers would hardly play it until we upgraded. Software companies and Intel have a thing, how to sell the next line of hardware quickly.
January 10, 2008 6:57:37 AM

gomerpile said:
welcome to the world of electronic bureaucratic bullship, notice how the ape didn't include 3dfx card in his list. I remember when bf2 came out, every bf player I know went to play all excited and then we found out the computers would hardly play it until we upgraded. Software companies and Intel have a thing, how to sell the next line of hardware quickly.


I remember aspiring to 800x600 resolution when my graphics card was only capable of 640x480 in windows :D  Who remembers having to upgrade from CGA to VGA cards if they wanted any decent graphics :lol:  ah dreaming of graphics cards witha whole 512k of memory thats half a megabyte of memory on a videocard :o 

I remember having to upgrade from my soundblaster to soundblaster pro when spacehulk came out in order to hear the actual real voice!!!

Crysis performance ISNT a DX10 problem DX10 isnt a big issue, Crysis slays systems even in DX9 mode and the 8800 GTX is one of the best DX9 cards ever made, but even that cant run crysis in dx9 mode properly. Crysis just has awesome visuals which hit a system no matter what DX version or card you are using. an 8800GTX is as good a DX10 card as you get DX10 doesnt require GTX's in SLI, Crysis is what requires that whether its DX9 or 10, its just a super demanding game, if you want bleeding edge visuals you're going to need bleeding edge equipment, thats just the way of things. People knew long before crysis was released that it was being basically a tech demo for engine which is supposed to scale way into the future. As it is Crysis performance isnt as bad as it could it be all things considered.

You just have to look at a face up close with all settings on high and compare the face to oblivion faces up close... Crysis standard graphics are what we can expext to be looking at for maybe 3-4 years in other games by which time your bargain basement cards should be able to get 120fps under DX10 on crysis.

Im 100% certain that a less pushing the limits DX10 game would run perfectly well on current cards. Crysis is a graphical monster under DX9 or 10. However Crysis does have graphics options that allow you to scale back the settings from maximum and still play the game, it actually scales quite well.

a c 131 U Graphics card
January 10, 2008 7:04:26 AM

It scales very well in my opinion i have to run it at 1024x768 wiyh no AA to get it to run smoothly on my old AGP system but it does it well and looks nearly as good as Far Cry used to maxed out.
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2008 7:19:50 AM

sbower said:
The long awaited Patch 1.1 for Crysis is available for download! The 140MB sized file can be downloaded from one of the sources further below. The patch mainly addresses the performance of Crysis.

It's 140Mb of useless code courtesy of crytek. For most people, it doesn't improve FPS, though some say it made the game smoother (wishful thinking IMO). For me... well I'm reverting to 1.0 so I can actually play the game again. No multiplayer for me. *Golf clap*
January 10, 2008 7:29:06 AM

why can we not just get a game and play it without a zillion and one updates that are 300 to 1 gig in size. Sales sales sales its ready, sell it now, but sir the aa is not working", markerter, SO'S
January 10, 2008 8:25:05 AM

nottheking said:
Harsh, but made me laugh.


...Except that nVidia hasn't been in the sub-$400US range for their top-end cards since like the day of the GeForce 4 Ti. One must learn that the prices of the top will be dictated by what those with bottomless pockets will pay, but things are also governed by the law of diminishing returns; you don't need to buy the most expensive hardware to play; you could likely spend half as much and still get >75% of the power.


"Not optimized?" With most of the games I see this claim made on, it really is just someone saying "my hardware isn't good enough for fully maxed settings and a good framerate. Coincidentally, I have hardware that's at least a little outdated."


I'd note that this isn't really all that much the fault of the hardware makers, so much toward the European governments for their tariffs as well as slapping on that VAT, which while it varies from country to country, is rather high. (whereas in the USA, sales tax cannot apply to inter-state commerce, which tends to be the case when you shop online)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/01...
I actually don't strictly take any of them perhaps save for the first. I don't know why people insist on going to resolutions like 1680x1050; I've played at 1024x768 since like the days of Jedi Knight, and have been fine with it. Likewise, I'm willing to splash out a few hundred bucks when I actually buy my video cards, to make sure that they'll be solid and last me for a bit. (my X800XT's still going fairly strong, though Crysis is clearly going to be the undoing of it)


Actually, I've come to the conclusion that nVidia's not trying to do that at all; they ARE producing new tech, after all... And it is working to lower prices. The GeForce 8800GT comes to mind very sharply; we suddenly get 8800GTX-equivalent performance for what, suddenly around 2/3 the cost? It's only been a bit over a year (since late 2006) when we saw the first GeForce 8800 come out... Yet already we've seen the price slashed nearly in half. Likewise, we have attractive options below it, in the form of AMD's Radeon 3850 and 3870 cards.


Discrete graphics card production can't really be equated to stamped-sheet steel manufacturing. Obviously, the production cost of almost ANY product is less than the price it sells for; that's how companies make a profit and stay in business. And likewise, you could phrase that lower cost as "a fraction."

However, advanced semiconductor logic fabrication isn't a cheap process in the very least; you're talking a form of production that, unlike stamping sheet metal, has pretty much zero tolerance for error by comparison. And even when it appears to physically be perfect, a lot of chips wind up being rejects for not being able to run at full spec and remain stable.


Heya, yipsl; long time no see.

At any rate, you're right: prices aren't going to radically change for different levels, though this also has to do with the fact that the production costs are liable to remain the same for each certain level of video card: high-end cards may typically use a rather large CPU die and 8 or 16 chips of GDDR3 or GDDR4, which is going to remain roughly the same cost; advances in technology are going to be parlayed into packing more transistors on; the result is that the amount of silicon remains the same, which tends to lend to about the same production costs.

And I agree, that DX10 is over-rated. Given that Crysis doesn't really seem to improve from it, I wouldn't worry about it. A simple edit of the game will let you use the highest detail settings in DX9 anyway, without having to deal with quirky drivers.


"I'd note that this isn't really all that much the fault of the hardware makers" Mate i cannot believe u said that, have you not seen the prices of hardware here in the u.k? We get ripped a new bum-hole left right and center for pc components. And its not just 17.5% more expensive (our VAT), its more like change the u.s dollar price into pounds and there you have the u.k price! Check out ps3 u.k. launch prices. Failing that:


January 10, 2008 8:25:46 AM

Tri SLI = sell a kidney, end of
a c 131 U Graphics card
January 10, 2008 8:59:06 AM

Im right with you there spoonboy with the currant exchange rates about 2-1 (dont all start its only roughly for the sake of the topic) i would look at reviews and see a part listed at say $250 and think ok about half =125 + a little tax etc should be mine for about £150-£160 then you go look and they want £190-£200 for it, Daylight robbery pure and simple and dont all start about shipping costs either because the goverment actually pays a subsidy on imports to attract business.
Mactronix
January 10, 2008 9:07:17 AM

if crysis wasn't hard on your system everyone woulda cried about that too. aw man wtf got crysis and i'm gettin 200fps, did they even try?
it's only next gen if i only get 5fps with sli ultras. now i gotta wait for a real game to come out to test my system with. ect.....
January 10, 2008 9:08:59 AM

aevm said:
Guys, keep in mind that the OP is in Europe and things are more expensive there.


Not really substantially...
January 10, 2008 9:10:36 AM

Yep were just a huge 60 million people strong cash cow in the u.k. A big black and white one with a huge bell on.

Check out ps3 launch price, they didnt make a loss on that one I know:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

What was it in pounds again? 450 quid? Poor sony, soo hard done by. Gits.

January 10, 2008 9:14:28 AM

aziraphale said:
Not really substantially...


You are having an absolute laugh mate!

check out these places, and these are the better ones:

www.scan.co.uk

www.overclockers.co.uk

www.novatech.co.uk

even with the dollar sliding into monopoly money value, our prices have stayed the same.

PcWorld wants like silly money for (the day before) yesterdays tech.
January 10, 2008 9:20:16 AM

I agree Nvidia sucks they should give a Porshe free with every 9800 or whatever next is coming out .

Also they should buy us a ticket around the world specially China, i love China .
January 10, 2008 3:17:05 PM

spoonboy said:
You are having an absolute laugh mate!

check out these places, and these are the better ones:

www.scan.co.uk

www.overclockers.co.uk

www.novatech.co.uk

even with the dollar sliding into monopoly money value, our prices have stayed the same.

PcWorld wants like silly money for (the day before) yesterdays tech.


You know Europe... There's like a few dozen countries more in europe... I'm living in Switzerland and the prices are very comparable, sometimes even cheap when you know where to buy. Maybe the island is a little expensive though...
January 10, 2008 3:25:20 PM

Those websites are the ones to buy from, plus perhaps www.ebuyer.co.uk www.dabs.co.uk and of course ebay.co.uk. I never thought i wud here someone call switzeland cheap lol
January 11, 2008 4:12:37 AM

I sympathize with the original poster. It's all a scam to milk more money. I won't bash Crytek (or whoever made Crysis) for making a game ahead of its time. But I sure as hell believe nVidia could be putting out better cards for the money. And everyone else does too, because everywhere I read there is disappointment in the performance increases of these newer cards. And I see a lot of marketing push on this sli crap too. For you folks who have the money for the sli rigs then more power to ya. But the fact remains that sli is a terrible return for your money. Period.

January 11, 2008 4:56:19 AM

Everything is ... software OPTIMIZATION- all bugs, nasty corporate policy (Microsoft... they are showing us 'beautiful' clocks, menus ONLY eye candy) poor software support. OMG a new card ... You buy it and then what... First 1-2 weeks only moded drivers, then betas, etc. and finally only 30% performance gain... Nowadays SOFTWARE CAN'T really USE the HARDWARE in a PROPER WAY. What happened whit those years when ATI were making new drivers so often ... that users got tired of updating them. What happened with those days when COMPUTERS were machines for work and fun. If you catch up with companies /MS as example/, you will turn your PC in a money pit.
January 11, 2008 5:20:24 AM

i'm 25 yearold, i didn't played a game so enthusiastic as crysis in a very very long time!
especially if i did it in 70H without sleep.
i love this game!
i play it on a crappy pc that i can't call a rig.
e2160 1.8 @ 2.52
2GB 667 @ 715
wd 250 8MB! (s-u-c-k-s!)
and a 7600GS 256MB AGP!!!! 400/800 OC 550/960
1024x768 AAx2 = 24FPS. medium settings (physics on max).

i hope i'll get to play more games like that very soon coz i really miss the feeling of that.

i already busted my a-s-s for the DEll's 27" Monitor. (1500$ in israel... :(  )

currently i'm saving for a new rig round 2000-2500$
waiting for the 780i & the x48 & some new VGA cards do decide to go CF or SLI (for an upgrade in a 1/2 a year or so).

I hope FarCry 2 will be that good.
so i don't complain, bring it on so we can enjoy more!
the more the market will grow, the more good HW will get in less money.

let's hope ATI will bring a good card to compete with Nvidia so we won't be stuck like with the GTX still at high price.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2008 6:35:47 AM

You know what's funny? Hardware keeps getting faster but software keeps getting bigger (hence 1TB hard drives) and slower. Windows XP takes just as long to load on todays hardware as the OS on a first gen mac took back then. Software progresses negatively while hardware progresses positively, so we end up just as well off (or bad off) as we started.
January 11, 2008 3:51:44 PM

makotech222 said:
nvidia and ati should be getting their hardware better instead of just adding on more cards, costing the customer more, rather than bringing innovations to the cards and staying in the sub-$400 range.


Brilliant, i bet they never thought of making better hardware...

Yeah, they come out with a new card, see what the market will pay sell it for a while then come out with sometihng new and sell the first one cheaper. Think the new cards cost too much, just wait then. You don't need the latest and greatest all the time.

I used to come down on the game makers for making programs that can't run on any average (read 2 year old or so) system. Yeah, it is a problem when your low settings can't work on 2 year old technology, but that hasn't been a problem lately. As far as they high system not being able to run on anything out there, or only the best, well, they start making the games years before they are released. To a certain extent they just have to guess what the average computer will support when the game will finally come out.

PS - i had 2 voodoo2's running in whatever they called SLI - don't even want to think about what i spent for that....

Bottom line, is it fun and can you run it on 3 year old technology? If so, good job game makers.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest