Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

rage against dual cards and high prices

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 4, 2005 8:03:40 PM

at the end of the day we live in a world driven by money making.

so whatever happens in the future will simply serve the pockets of the guys developing the games and the graphics card technologies.

one of my theories for the sudden surge about 4 years ago in graphics card prices is that because 99% of us download games from the net, the software companies have suffered massively. so now, in order to make the money they feel they should be making they are working in concert with the hardware companies and splitting the money from the hardware sales (e.g. by promoting the hardware requirement for their games)... it's the only surefire way for them to get a decent slice of the cake... that's my conspiracy theory anyway!

there is a simpler explanation i think :

I DO BELIEVE it's sick that playing games on pc costs so much money... but then again i feel that the pc is a far superior and involving gaming platform than a console.

maybe people are more willing to fork out more and more on the gaming experiences they enjoy and perhaps the prices are just a reflection of what people are willing to pay these days.

we are now entering an age where i would assume (rightly or wrongly) there are as many pc gamers in their mid 20's as there in their teens and possibly more... if this is correct then those earning a wage and not just begging their parents for a new graphics card have more money to spend on their pc.

it's not fair for the younger generation but if there is a newly rising wealthier pc gamer out there that these companies can sell to/exploit, then well, that would just seem like a natural move for the hardware firms to take.

let's face it ... if no-one went out to buy sli mboards and dual g.cards then they wouldn't continue developing this line of product.. we'll just have to wait and see

but obviously for now, they believe the customers are there to sell to..

in the meantime i'll be enjoying all the delights of what the pc gaming world has to offer on my:

athlon fx-57
4gb 2cl corsair xms ram (completely unecessary)
2 x 7800gtx gainward golden sample g.cars in sli mode
2 X raptor h.drives in raid 0

I GUESS THAT MAKES ME ONE OF THE WEALTHIER, OLDER PC GAMERS, SORRY KIDS ;) 
November 4, 2005 8:38:04 PM

All you tech-haters are forgetting something:

<b>IT HAS NEVER BEEN CHEAPER TO BUY A GREAT GAMING SYSTEM</b>

This is because the tech race keeps prices of mainstream parts down, while making them more powerful...

I can pick up a cheap computer with a 6600GT (or even cheaper, a 9700 PRO) for under $500, and play the newest titles the PC has to offer... Doom3, Half Life 2...

Sure, I can't play them at 1600+ resolutions with AA, but I can sure as hell play them at 1024x768.

What the hell are you guys bitching about? Where is this ubergame that you can only play with dual graphics card setups?

I haven't seen it.

Pushing the tech envelope makes technology CHEAPER for the common man. The existance of super SLI/Xfire setups only makes cards like the X800XL chaeper.

And who here would say that a ~$250 card like an X800XL or 6800GT isn't playable with nice features like AA?

What do you guys recommend, that technology stops cold because you don't like that you can't afford the best rig out there?

If you used these arguments 10 years ago, we wouldn't even have 3d cards:

<b>What a horrible situation for us all! Do you realize we might someday have to buy *BOTH A CPU AND A VIDEOCARD TO PLAY GAMES!!!!!* </b> Gasp!

The funny part is, the tech race has made it all cheaper. Do you know how much it was to buy a computer before 3d cards came out? At least $1000, and usually $2000 or $3000.

Tell me again how advanced technology makes it more expensive for everybody?

History shows this is a flawed, sensationalist argument with no basis.

________________
<b>Geforce <font color=red>6800 Ultra</b></font color=red>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~3300+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 412 FSB @ 2266 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark05: <font color=red>5,275</b>
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2005 8:48:26 PM

Quote:
IT HAS NEVER BEEN CHEAPER TO BUY A GREAT GAMING SYSTEM

That's right, with the GameCube at it's lowest price ever, NOW is the time to buy! :wink:



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internët account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
Related resources
November 4, 2005 8:51:15 PM

...and I'd be spending $200 on a Geforce2 MX.

Today, I'd spend $200 on an X800GTO.

I can guarantee it's cheaper nowadays to game. It has never been cheaper, and the competition between Ati and Nvidia will ensure that it becomes cheaper still.

Remember the Geforce2 MX? It was a revolution.
Touted as the first, real cheap alternative to the ubercards of it's day. Noone had made a card almost as powerful as the top-of-the line cards for so cheap.

In 2 years, every mainstream mobo will be SLI capable, and if Ati/Nvidia are still competing on the SLI front - and SLI/Xfire becomes less crappy than it currently is - they'll announce a Geforce2 MX equivalent of an SLI setup for the common man. Or cards with dual graphics chips onboard (which the voodoos were doing years ago, BTW)

History has proved this argument wrong. Technology *always* gets cheaper over time, *especially* when there is competition and advancement in technology.

<b>In fact, I would wager the opposite is true:</b>

Remember when Intel was the only game in town?
CPU advancement was at a standstill and prices had never been higher. Without tech moving forward, it's the consumers who get screwed...

________________
<b>Geforce <font color=red>6800 Ultra</b></font color=red>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~3300+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 412 FSB @ 2266 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark05: <font color=red>5,275</b>
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2005 8:57:07 PM

Quote:
But you have to admit prices for top level hardware have rien considerably.

And hopefully so have salaries of the people buying this stuff. Relatively speaking I think the prices are pretty much in line.

Perhaps few of you out there owned an Original IBM PC (twin floppies), Commadore P.E.T. or Apple ][ / MAC , but they cost far more than even your enthusiast's entry level rig nowadays, and we can add ridiculous hardware.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internët account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2005 10:46:25 PM

Yup, I can remember ordering a top of the line Gateway for $4200+. It was a P5-90XLwith a 1GB HDD, 16MB of RAM, and an ATI Mach 64 2MB PCI-e, and a 17"CRT. 4-8MB was the norm and 1MB video cards. So It was a beast for it's day. :eek: 

Anyway, looking at what I could do now for half that much money, and I'd easily be siding with Cleeve here. Top of the line has always been a whopping load of money. Factor in CPU/GPU/RAM and no way was it cheaper in the past to get top of the line. (I'll admit, maybe back when the AXP's first ruled is was cheaper than now)? But go back more, How much would a PII450, 128-256MB PC100, and sli Voodoo2 cost back in it's day? I know the PII450 was $1000 alone when it was king.



<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=658042" target="_new">3DMark05</A> <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3781954" target="_new">3DMark03</A>
November 5, 2005 12:53:38 AM

CLeeve

In response to
-------------
Tell me again how advanced technology makes it more expensive for everybody?
---------------

Advanced technology isnt buying two cards instead of one.
Technology isnt improved when u buy two of something.

If they were to bring out a new 'super duper' graphics card at twice the price.... Id be the first to buy it. That is advanced technology.



DUAL GRAPHICS CARDS =/= BETTER TECHNOLOGY
November 5, 2005 1:33:51 AM

yep. That's about it.
November 7, 2005 5:14:34 PM

I couldn't disagree more.

SLI and Xfire are most certainly new technologies in the consumer sector, to be sure...

If a game ever comes out that requires SLI to play at minimum settings, and dual-linked cards aren't the cheap midrange standard by then, I'll be on the "it's too expensive!" bandwagon with you guys... but it'll never happen.

Devs make games for the lowest common denomonator, not the highest.
Making a game that requires only top-end superexpensive hardware would be tantamount to slicing their own throats. Why limit your user base? Companies develop for the low end/midrange, and add options and resolutions for the high-end.

No one will ever make a game that requires two cards unless that's the de-facto standard, and by definition - for something to be the standard - there will have to be a cheap midrange-priced solution.

Way back when, 3dfx put 2 graphics chips on their cards. The competition it created caused Nvidia to make awesome alternatives and prices dropped for the consumer... your argument has already been proven incorrect.

Basically, you guys are arguing against something that is lowering prices while at the same time increasing the tech quality available to the midrange/low end user.
November 7, 2005 6:05:53 PM

you completely look over points that have been made. what is being said is that "2 is better than 1" is weak a$$ tech. it's great for performance, thats obv ious. but it's a cheap trick by graphic companies.
November 7, 2005 6:13:48 PM

Quote:
you completely look over points that have been made. what is being said is that "2 is better than 1" is weak a$$ tech. it's great for performance, thats obv ious. but it's a cheap trick by graphic companies.


No, I didn't ignore any points. I'm dismissing them as incorrect and historically proven to be false.

2 isn't better than 1? What's your argument here, that you choose to dismiss the performance increase based on the fact that you personally consider it to be "weak a$$ tech"? Because in the benchmarks I've seen, 2 7800 GTXs do alot better in 1600+ resolution than single 7800 GTXs.

Or does that not count because you don't like how they did it?

This pushes the envelope further, and that is always good. Envelope pushing leads to all kinds of innovation, and innovation leads to cheaper, more powerful technology. Every single time.

Is your position that 3dfx forever screwed up the cost of running a gaming computer because they introduced the graphics chip?

Hey, why not process graphics on the CPU and throw the GPU away entirely? Sure, there'd be a performance hit, but it doesn't make sense to split the job up, does it? It's "weak a$$ tech".

Let's get rid of sound cards, too! And the upcoming physics cards shouldn't be allowed to market! All of these things should be done on the CPU, regardless of the decreased performance!

Your arguments are not well thought out.

If the main concern is only cost, innovation ceases to exist. No new technology, and older technology does not drop in price. Prices go up, not down, for inferior performance.
November 7, 2005 8:22:23 PM

Quote:
what is being said is that "2 is better than 1" is weak a$$ tech.


How so? It requires more advanced technology to do it, no?

Dual graphics cards also allows for physics processing later on with one of the cards, is this weak ass tech as well?

I don't get all this pointless SLI/X-Fire bashing. Its not like they have guns to your head forcing you buy it. Its not like you need it to get acceptable performance in any game. Its beyond me.
November 7, 2005 11:53:36 PM

poof~~I knew SLi was a money making scam the moment its announced. Read my Sig
November 8, 2005 12:37:53 AM

Sli targets the upper high end of the pack. Sure it means $$$$$
But anybody can get decent gaming for much much less...
Hardware price in the main stream line has never been this lo.
I paid a 486dx 3500$ and now i refurbished my old p3 1ghz
into a p4 3ghz 1gig 3200 and a 6600 for 600$
it can play all newest games nicely 1024x768 high res no candy.

sure i dont get 100's fps and 3000 3dmark05 but what is the point if 30fps+ does the job?
!