Do we really need these next gen flagship cards?

I was thinking about the gt 300 and how I can not wait till it comes out since I am planning to get a new computer towards the end of the year. I was thinking though... what games are going to really use the extra power of this card? I mean, barely any games can slow down the gtx 295. The only game is crysis. at 1920x1200 Very High, 4xAA, 8XAF a gtx 295 gets 29.6 FPS. SLI gets 56 FPS. On far cry 2 a single GTX 295 gets over 80 FPS on max settings.

So why would we need a more powerful card? When you can just buy a gtx 295 or a gtx 280 3x sli which is even better than quad gtx295. I know that the enthusiasts will always want the most powerful stuff, but bottom line it comes down to what games are going to use this power? The answer is crysis... barely.

I would think Nvidia and ATI are a little worried about this. There are only few games made now that are PC exclusive. Most are ports from consoles now and we all know consoles are not nearly as powerful so we get shmit on graphics wise. Think about it. What if there was no Crysis? Do you know how much hardware that computer game has sold?

What PC gaming needs is Crysis 2. Or something that will push the graphics envelope. I was thinking Rage and Doom 4 would do it, but i doubt it since they are also being made for the xbox and ps3. I did some research on the engine it will use the id Tech 5.... does not impress me much at all. :sleep: Also, I have heard that the new Cry engine will be used for consoles :pt1cable:

So do we really need these next gen flagship cards that Nvidia and ATI will be coming out with? How will they sell these things when no game will use its power. Or is this a good thing that PC gaming is starting to slow down technology wise?

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by jerohmeee on 05-20-2009 at 05:17:05 PM

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

next gen will be DX11 and Pci-e 3.0,

Reply to maximiza

yea, but where are the dx 11 games? Do you see them cuz I sure dont

Reply to jerohmeee

jerohmeee wrote :

So do we really need these next gen flagship cards that Nvidia and ATI will be coming out with? How will they sell these things when no game will use its power. Or is this a good thing that PC gaming is starting to slow down technology wise?

1. most games now go across multi-platforms like MASS EFFECT, FEAR 2 and FAR CRY 2 which makes sense business wise but does not really push the GPU envelope.. Gaming industry is starting to look like the movie industry with all its sequels.

2. without new video cards then how will guys living in their mother's basement compensate for their tiny genitalia??? If they cant go onto message boards and post how their PC can get 225 FPS in in latest game with max out settings....what will they do??? talk to girls....off the internet??? Think about, they need ATI and Nvidia to constantly release over-priced and over-powered GPU.

Reply to ct1615

ha my feelings are hurt...

Reply to jerohmeee

Do we eevr need a new Gen's flagship models? Probably not. Gaems always lag behind. I don't see much difference this time around than before. Eventually games will come out that require more power, jsut a matter of time.

From the 'flagships' come the less expensive derivatives that make a new range, so yes in a way we do 'need' the top of the range 'flagship' models, you just don't have to buy them.

Reply to mousemonkey

Theres been more times than not the flagships just eke by in the most demanding games than not. I know the console thing has put a damper on this, but it seems a few things are changing, which will allow for more Crysis like games, or more HW challenging type games. DX11 and W7 will play a large part in this, as the coding becomes better/easier for devs, and game dev, as the new DX will be more mature, and is heading towards a lessor demanding HW/fixed scenario, and more a SW based one.

If we want more Crysis type games, we need better cards

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

How come no other games are made with the cry engine???? Just the fact the game is made with that engine would get it a lot of attention.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to jerohmeee

640k of ram, you'll never need more, etc.

Useless topic

Reply to turboflame

jerohmeee wrote :

How come no other games are made with the cry engine???? Just the fact the game is made with that engine would get it a lot of attention.

Because, for as pretty as it is, it is a crippled, inefficient engine. Noone in their right minds will use it. Crytek has already put it to bed and will use the third itteration for the crysis sequals.

Message quoted 1 times

daedalus685 wrote :

Because, for as pretty as it is, it is a crippled, inefficient engine. Noone in their right minds will use it. Crytek has already put it to bed and will use the third itteration for the crysis sequals.

Agreed, the only reason Crysis brings computers to their knees is because the coding is crap IMHO, and this was kind of proven with Warhead which looks the same but runs on a lot less horsepower.

Reply to mousemonkey

Yeah Crysis is a joke. So is STALKER, it'll bring your machine to a crawl (at least mine)

Poorly coded games. The only good thing (imo) about new flagship cards, is last months flagship cards get cheaper.

Message edited by zipzoomflyhigh on 05-20-2009 at 07:28:45 PM

------------------------------ P965/Q6700@3.2 8MB HD4850 OC Edition
4GB Corsair XMS 800
Vista64/Win7
Fatality 550w/Antec 300
Reply to zipzoomflyhigh

A big reason why its takes so much to run Crysis well is because of the view distance. Most shooters are indoors. So they have to compute what? 1 room a few tables and chairs? Where as how many trees and stuff does Crysis have to render?

BTW I heard that the new crytek engine will be made for consoles as well. Kinda like Farcry 2 and Dead space and countless others. Is this true. If so wouldnt "crysis 2" have worse graphics than the first one? lol

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by jerohmeee on 05-20-2009 at 08:08:15 PM

Reply to jerohmeee

jerohmeee wrote :

A big reason why its takes so much to run Crysis well is because of the view distance. Most shooters are indoors. So they have to compute what? 1 room a few tables and chairs? Where as how many trees and stuff does Crysis have to render?

BTW I heard that the new crytek engine will be made for consoles as well. Kinda like Farcry 2 and Dead space and countless others. Is this true. If so wouldnt "crysis 2" have worse graphics than the first one? lol

So why did Crysis: Warhead not have the same issues then?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to mousemonkey

Still takes a damn good rig to run it. Also, some say the graphics in warhead are not as good.

Reply to jerohmeee

mousemonkey wrote :

So why did Crysis: Warhead not have the same issues then?

Well, warhead works better but I certainly wouldn't say it was without issue...

Also, the worst level as far as crysis goes was that damn memory leak in the last level. A relatively simple, low distance, clutter free boss fight that grinds everything to a crawling halt (assuming it doesnt crash). I'm sure the draw distnace hit performance.. but the big problems were not the large outdoor levels, they were the bugs.

Message quoted 1 times

Bah I was right... I looked up cryengine 3 on youtube and it is for the consoles. Looks decent. That is crazy they can put anything close to crysis on a console. So I am guessing cryengine 3 is solely for consoles.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to jerohmeee

daedalus685 wrote :

Well, warhead works better but I certainly wouldn't say it was without issue...

Also, the worst level as far as crysis goes was that damn memory leak in the last level. A relatively simple, low distance, clutter free boss fight that grinds everything to a crawling halt (assuming it doesnt crash). I'm sure the draw distnace hit performance.. but the big problems were not the large outdoor levels, they were the bugs.

Hmm, I don't recall having any issues with Warhead, it ran quite smooth and looked the same, quality wise, as Crysis.

Reply to mousemonkey

It's not justgames that will drive more need for upper mid-range to top of th eline GPUs. If you've been paying attention, over the last 9 months, LCD monitor prices are dropping like crazy. Soon (maybe a year?) Dell, HP, will make the 24" standard size and newer cheaper models of 27', 28"monitors will become affordable and there you go, even casual gamers will be playing at 2560 x 1600 and since the picture is that much larger you'll want quality AA settings for extra eye candy! Whew!

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to HundredIslandsBoy

jerohmeee wrote :

Bah I was right... I looked up cryengine 3 on youtube and it is for the consoles. Looks decent. That is crazy they can put anything close to crysis on a console. So I am guessing cryengine 3 is solely for consoles.

Well, they had to do it to make money. It is not jsut for consoles though, it will be on PC's as well. It is far more variable than cryengine 2 though. So it shoudl ahve a larger gambit of settings, and actualyl work well...

As for warhead mouse, it works far better to the origional and has very few of the same bugs.. but it still takes a beast of a machine to play at enthusiast settings with AA on. I'm sure games coudl be made to look as good with far less of a drain on a modern computer.

Message quoted 1 times

HundredIslandsBoy wrote :

It's not justgames that will drive more need for upper mid-range to top of th eline GPUs. If you've been paying attention, over the last 9 months, LCD monitor prices are dropping like crazy. Soon (maybe a year?) Dell, HP, will make the 24" standard size and newer cheaper models of 27', 28"monitors will become affordable and there you go, even casual gamers will be playing at 2560 x 1600 and since the picture is that much larger you'll want quality AA settings for extra eye candy! Whew!

Well, I'd like to think that the pixel size will decrease with the resolution increase. Eventually we won't need AA at all!! But ya, I agree... As people start to play at higher resolutions we are gonn aneed some beasts of cards... Crysis quality graphics at 2560 x 1600 as "mainstream" will be interesting

daedalus685 wrote :

Well, they had to do it to make money. It is not jsut for consoles though, it will be on PC's as well. It is far more variable than cryengine 2 though. So it shoudl ahve a larger gambit of settings, and actualyl work well...

As for warhead mouse, it works far better to the origional and has very few of the same bugs.. but it still takes a beast of a machine to play at enthusiast settings with AA on. I'm sure games coudl be made to look as good with far less of a drain on a modern computer.

Yeah, you have a point there, I just don't see my gaming rig as being much of a 'beast' but then in another thread I have been reminded that a pair of 8800GT's will trade blows with a GTX280, which is not bad for a pair of cards that are a year and a half old I reckon.

Reply to mousemonkey

No. We don't.

I think Intel's GMA 4500 is more than enough even for gaming enthusiasts for the next 10 years.

If gamers need anything better during that time period, then they need to get their head examined.

Message quoted 1 times

jaguarskx wrote :

No. We don't.

I think Intel's GMA 4500 is more than enough even for gaming enthusiasts for the next 10 years.

If gamers need anything better during that time period, then they need to get their head examined.

Ahh, the voice of reason. [:mousemonkey:5]

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to mousemonkey

^+1 lol

Reply to mindless728

You also need to look at this is terms of CUDA, Fusion, etc... if they actually harness the software to utilize a GPU, there will be a very good reason to have a high-end GPU, but the way I look at it, with all this new hardware, there will be newer/better software, the game developers will do what they can to make the eye-candy better thus selling a ton of games, wash, rinse, repeat. True gamers use a keyboard and mouse. Consoles offer minimum uberness.

------------------------------ ASUS PQ5 PRO - E4500 @ 3.3 - 4GB GSkill DDR2 800 @ 4-4-4-10 - Sapphire 4850 512MB @ 655/1015 - Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB 7200 RPM 32MB - Win 7 64-bit - PC Power & Cooling S61EPS 610W Power Supply
Reply to jonpaul37

Another way to look at it is, the higher the high end, the higher the low end as well. The low end catching the consoles would help PC game dev overall

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

mousemonkey wrote :

Ahh, the voice of reason. [:mousemonkey:5]

I'm not sure if gamers have even heard of the GMA 4500, lol.

Reply to HundredIslandsBoy

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - Do we really need these next gen flagship cards?

Please mind

Focus On

Do we really need these next gen flagship cards?

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - Do we really need these next gen flagship cards?

Please mind