Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Graphics Cards Not Good Enough!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 9, 2009 12:22:09 PM

Sorry for the LOUD title.
But, I think the statement isnt that wrong. All over the forums people argue that you don't need a 2GPU card or sli etc., except if you have a massive screen. But this is simply not true. To even play a game like Crysis on full setting at 1680 full AA etc, no single card can actually do the job (285 averages 28FPS), which is a joke if you ask me. The game is now old. These cards should be destroying that game. The reason for this is obviously because when the next big game comes out, what the hell do you do?You paid $300 plus for a card it should PERFORM for a while at least. Does anyone else get my point, multi-gpu set ups are not great but they are the only things that can actually deal with the software.
Agree, Disagree?

More about : graphics cards good

a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2009 3:59:57 PM

Crysis is a special case; bad coding + using every GFX feature avaliable. Crysis gave us the features most people wouldn't have put into games for another few years, so its no shock performance stutters.

My 9800GX2 can still take everything not names Crysis at 1920x1200, very high settings for the most part (Far Cry 2 only gets to high settings, but a 280GTX should be plenty for it).

Your complaining about one game, which was designed from the start to have overkill graphics. Turn down settings and PLAY, or did you buy a game simply because it looks good?
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2009 4:31:59 PM

And figure in too, look at other games besides crysis. Guys are getting cards for 100 bucks that will do almost every other game pretty well. If there's one good thing about video cards right now is the pricing.
Related resources
February 9, 2009 5:57:11 PM

Forgive me for sounding like a loser only interested in the hardware and what settings I can put it on, but this is only because of my dilemma with buying a card. I know people will argue that a good 4850 or the alike will be fine for whatever I need and I should just upgrade soon, but I don't have that option to upgrade, mine is a tactic well worn out in these forums of being funded only once for a build to have the longest legs. This is why I was just a little put off that all the top cards didn't trounce big games of today and thus give me peace of mind to enjoy games for sometime. I promise once its bought and being used, I'll be all about the games. But I hope you can sympathize a little with my confusion with the antipathy towards multi-gpu solutions as they seem to have the best 'future-proofing'.
February 9, 2009 6:14:34 PM

future proof doesn't exist in computer language. sorry to tell you that, i'm just a pentium 4 user who is waiting for his birthday tomorrow :p 
February 9, 2009 6:51:56 PM

There is no need to go crossfire or SLI right away. A top of the range card wont be top of the range for that long but it will perform well for a few years. The 9800GX2 is quite and old card for example but its still killing it. Plus when a better card comes out prices will drop so you can double up pretty cheaply.
February 9, 2009 7:44:14 PM

I have to agree gamerk316, Crysis is a special case, and it is buggy coding and overkill. Every other game I have played does extremely well on my recently replace 8800 GTS 640 card, and everygame with the exception of Crysis on my new GTX 285.

If the only thing you care about is whether you can play a single game, Crysis, maybe you should cut back on food, cut back on driving, turn the thermostat whichever direction saves you money, sell your car, get a job, do some overtime, get a second third or fourth job depending on what job number you are doing now and buy the needed hardware to get the job done. I hear maybe $10,000 should be able to get you a cascading phase change cooler for your soon to be new Intel i7 p965 extreme with 24GB of ram.

The thing that I think you should not be doing is ripping the Video Card Manufacturers because they did not build a card to handle Crysis. The fact of the matter is that the developer for Crysis is to blame for your problem. To be totally honest, I have played the game on maximum settings, and it is really not that great. It might be 5% prettier than other titles, but that prettyness comes at an extraordinary expense. It does not have great physics, almost every bit of the game is solid blocking, from the hair, to the clothes, to everything. The storyline is gay and totally linear, the ending blows chunks of cottage cheese, and the frequent game crashes make it game I would rather not waste more than a single run through on. But hey, if it is your cup of tea, by all means suffer the intollerable problems with the game and either put up the money, or turn down the setting, or live with the FPS you are getting. It is not AMD or nVidia's fault your game does not get 2,000 FPS.
February 9, 2009 8:03:45 PM

I totally agree with the posts in this forum (other than the OP). Another factor you have to consider is the development time for games. If a game is in the works for 18 months, they are guessing on the perfomance of hardware at release. Some games knowingly (Crysis?) have higher requirements than are realistic, also knowing in time hardware will catch up with their game and perhaps keep it relevant for a bit longer. I think your rant is a bit overboard. With the economy and current competition of manufacturers, I think we are enjoying one of the best times ever to purchase good performing relatively inexpensive hardware.
February 9, 2009 8:35:28 PM

HEY GUYS, please dont write me off as a guy rating everything in the world in regard to how well it plays Crysis. But when it comes to buying hardware, it just baffled me how this one game is such a hog. Personally, I find the aesthetics of other games far more appealing than Crysis, and I dont know how much I might even play it for I thought it was boring as hell. I am only use it as an anomaly to GPU performance. But let me ask another question then, WHY DO PEOPLE HATE MULTI-GPUs??? I did some research of microstuttering, and saw a worrying benchmark about min FPS vs Avg FPS, but that was for one card. Please also understand that without knowing that Crysis is coded to be the bane of GPU engineers' lives, most uniformed people like me are a little confused that a $400 plus graphics solution can still suffer at the hands of oldish software. Great responses generally!
February 9, 2009 9:19:15 PM

People don't "hate" multi-GPUs. They just know that multi-gpu solutions have some issues that single gpu's don't. Microstuttering, abnormally low min FPS, crossfire/SLI support, they take more power, and they put out more heat. Multi-gpu solutions can do well, and add longevity to an old system, but for building from scratch going single-gpu has advantages.

And some people make a big deal out of multi-gpu solutions because they're Nvidia fanboys and the HD 4870X2 made them cry. (Just a few, though).
February 9, 2009 9:28:48 PM

Because of the success of the 4870x2 (the fact that it was AMAZING) and that Nvidia have answered with their own versions, it seems that the development of GPU's is changing somewhat to one where crossfire and SLI comes in the form of one card. Instantly you have the advantages of multiple cards, and none of the disadvantages, apart from an increase in heat. I think we will be seeing a lot less SLI/crossfire systems in the future.
February 9, 2009 9:34:58 PM

Quick question - what are the disadvantages of multi card sli/cross fire vs. single card multi-gpu - besides taking up room and draining a little more power?
(Side note - BTW - I was leaning a lot towards getting a 4870X2, but for some reason I might end up getting a 285 with SLI in future, any thoughts) - this type of insanity comes around when you get your first chance at making a monster system, can never stop worrying about getting it 'perfect'
February 9, 2009 9:40:02 PM

I've seen more questions from people in the forums about Crossfire/SLI than just about any other topic. Most of the time it's something like ...blah blah why am I having problems just getting it to work', to ' 'why am I not seeing double the fps'... blah blah blah. All the more reason why I will NEVER use more than one card. Who really has the money to blow on something like that? My 4850 plays 'Crysis' at very respectable rates, and cost me maybe $120, these people that are never happy, and think they need the 'BEST' that they can waste their money on... Some people just have no common sense. There's more to life than a few more fps ....
February 9, 2009 9:42:20 PM

faridakoi said:
Quick question - what are the disadvantages of multi card sli/cross fire vs. single card multi-gpu - besides taking up room and draining a little more power?
(Side note - BTW - I was leaning a lot towards getting a 4870X2, but for some reason I might end up getting a 285 with SLI in future, any thoughts) - this type of insanity comes around when you get your first chance at making a monster system, can never stop worrying about getting it 'perfect'


Mostly it's stability man. One card will always be more stable than getting two to work in tandem. And like you said, more power, resulting in more heat, which affects stability/performance. Just something else to go wrong and cause a lockup/BSOD
February 9, 2009 9:46:04 PM

I respect what your're saying dude doormatderek, but even tho a card like the 285 is overpriced right now, at least theres a decent scalability that SLI/Xfire allows that is getting better and doesn't mean that when your 4850 can - sadly - not play Far Cry X or Red Alert 290^2, you can pick up a cheap 4850 and get a little bit more out of your system, sure it wont be double the performance, but at least it will cost a lot less than buying another $120 card.
February 9, 2009 9:47:55 PM

Alright, even tho you've pointed out that you HATE to spend that much money on a mutli-GPU solution, would you rather get a 285 for sli in the future or a 4870X2... sorry for throwing that at you, but be pleased at how much I value your opinion :) 
February 9, 2009 9:47:59 PM

Sorry to go off on a 'rant' there... :)  I would also think one x2 card would work better than 2 separate cards..
Actually, I did buy a Crossfire mobo awhile back.. NEVER got a chance to use the other slot, figuring it was cheaper to just buy a newer better videocard than another mediocre one.
February 9, 2009 9:50:43 PM

Someone with a little more knowledge than me.. isn't a x2 card basically seen as 1? As in you could 'crossfire/SLI' two x2's and technically be doin QUAD crossfire/SLI ?
February 9, 2009 9:52:39 PM

Most of the "blame" goes to sh1tty software. Not the hardware.
February 9, 2009 9:55:30 PM

Yup spathotan. I'm also a cheap bastard and don't like dealing with that crap that can bring up those kind of issues. 'Best bang for my buck', and like it to work the first time.
Seems like Crossfire/SLI is always waiting for a 'hot fix' or the next driver update....
February 9, 2009 9:58:29 PM

Yeah I'm pretty sure that you can go quad on sli or cross fire, but I've also heard that a simple sli is quite refined and performance wise, 2 285 are better than 2 260/280s. The other thing is that an X2 is quite expensive, and I keep hearing things that freak me out like some dude who had bad AA, another one with terrible min FPS. Also, the whole quad thing is really not that refined at the moment, which actually leaves a better upgrade path in getting 3 285s in the future - I know it sounds like overkill, but I'm talking about in 2 years of something when it'll be in the bargain bin. On the other hand I read a really cool article on Anandtech about the risks and successes that the guys at ATI took to develop the RV700 - chip in the 4800 series. Don't know GOING MAD, but please do continue commenting.
My argument against the software being bad is whether 'future' software coded well will have legs on these cards when they are a bit more aged?
February 9, 2009 10:05:27 PM

Honestly man, I don't think much of anything has much more than a 1 year life span anymore. I say just spend whatever you're willing to spend. I wouldn't count on buying the same video card to crossfire/SLI after much more than 6 months down the line let alone a year or two..
February 9, 2009 10:09:42 PM

Yeah you might be right... maybe go for a good cheap card, save the cash, then pick up a cheap 4950 in a year etc... if a 4850 handles the majority of the games so well, then why bother... I do see that argument as well. How long have you had ur 4850 for? - if you don't mind me asking - what did you have before, and when/what are you thinking about upgrading to? Really don't have to answer any/all of that, but this is my first real build so its interesting seeing a longer term perspective.
February 9, 2009 10:14:57 PM

I'm only gaming at 1440x900 with hardly any AA at all, at least with Crysis. It handles everything else I throw at it very nicely. Something around the performance of a 4870 or x2 or Nvidia equivalent should be more than enough for ya..
www.newegg.com is a good place to go and compare prices.
February 9, 2009 10:18:30 PM

The problem is the next "breakthrough" or next line of cards is usually blowing away the previous version. (However the 9 series wasn't very impressive at all, just the G92 all over again) The problem is there isn't something like the 8800GTX/Ultra that holds first place for over a year+. Now a card holds it's place, but gets surpassed by the next gen, so there really isn't an easy way to future proof other than 2X the power(SLI/XF, or a Dual card) because you simply don't see 2X the performance from generation to generation so 2X285's or a 295 will still compete with the next gen (360/380 I would assume) BUT when the "395" comes out so to say the 2X285s or the 295 WILL be surpassed again. You can't win unless you have a money tree or a time machine. I'm sorry =/

But yes I do prefer something like an OC'd GTX260 216 rather than my previous 2X8800GT OC. The performance is better anyway, but there also isn't scaling and there's no microstutter or driver/game issues. (For the most part....)

And I would have to agree that Crysis isn't amazingly coded. It uses so many resource-killing effects that I don't think add much to it, but I think the explosions top Far Cry 2 and like games, but still, I can run Far Cry 2 at 1680x1050, A mix of Ultra/Very/ normal highs, so pretty much maxed, with 2xAA and get a constant 40FPS. This is with a single GTX260 216@740/1550/1080 core/shader/mem. BUT on Crysis I run mostly high/some medium at 1680x1050 and no AA without going below 30 constant. But I do get 40 constant//for the most part.
February 9, 2009 10:25:34 PM

Thats the problem, I'd be satisfied with a card that can EASILY deal with most games - except Crysis - but not cost an arm and a leg and yet be a single GPU. But whats the options? A 285 is hardly an improvement over the 280 (and overpriced), the 4870 is great but <280. And the rest are multi-GPU solutions. If there was a stupidly priced card that was single GPU 'revolutionary' for at least 2 months :)  then I'd be able to get some satisfaction that the debt I'm going to be in is WORTH the money, but I dont feel that anything in the 'higher end' deserves the cash. By the way Brendano, how well does you 260 Oc'd compare to a stock 280?
Note: but then maybe ATI will reveal something a little better in March... here's to hoping.
!