First off...i would like to point out that these r just some thoughts...so no flaming please..
When does a consumer go out and upgrade his/her rig...well..usually when their rig cant handle software available on the market anymore..efficiently ofcouse. By software i mean, OS, Games, Graphics programmes etc.
Lets talk about games for instance...as most enthusists are avid gamers..and need a card to play the LATEST and with best FPS...
Is there any game out there as of today...or even in the coming few months that cant be played real smooth with lets say an 8500 or a Ti 4400?
I guess that very few people play with 1600*1200?? no?
So, and this is just a thought, is there any point in getting the R300 today or even in the next couple of months with practically ZERO games implementing DX9.
Which brings me to my next point. Even though ATI has made a breakthru in claiming the throne from Nvidia, it seems , and this sounds real ironic, that the release is a little premature.
Wont all the titles start to appear fall 2002, spring 2003?? By then NV30 is out...and only then people will start to think of a serious upgrade..
My thought is that the R300 is just AWESOME..but an overkill for ANYTHING out there..just like getting a Ferarri when all u do is drive down to your local store for groceries.
Besides...what's all this talk about DOOM3...that's all advertising hype IMO...the game will be out in a a year or so..maybe before next E3..with all this race going on...owners of a R300 will be thinking of upgrading to a R350 400 or even 500!! or even a NV35 40 or 50!!...u get my point??
If all anyone would want is to replay existing games...even the upcoming UT2003 at the highest resolution with grazy FPS...well they'll give out $400 just for that
Just my thought...
P.S. I'm a proud owner of a Radeon64DDRVIVO...and am ATI all the way..so no one start a pointless flame war..
- Although we make references to "gamers" or the "gaming market" we are actually all enthusiasts, really. We enjoy predicting how the market will operate, that's all. Therefore it can be said that while most computer gamers out there don't even know what FSAA and texture filtering are (and don't bother to turn them on) it is not the same for others. The high end card segment is mainly for enthusiasts anyway.
- Part of the excitement is about the next generation in graphics technology. Many people feel like the R9700 is the next generation and will help advance the timetable of graphics history. I think this can be said about any nVidia or ATi card.
- A lot of titles using DirectX 9 won't be coming out for a while. That's true. Perhaps you have read Anandtech's article, where it was stated that performance only really mattered for current games and that future games don't matter since they're not out yet. Sound, sensible advice, but not entirely true in my opinion. I think people buy high end cards with the exact intentions of making sure it lasts a good year or two, and that's why people are paying attention to Doom 3 now even though it isn't released. They want to make sure they can successfully run a game like Doom 3, and that the excessive amount of cash they spend now will be a worthwhile investment.
1° of separation between my monopoly and yours. That's business with .NET
When does a consumer go out and upgrade his/her rig
Like you said: when you can´t enjoy newer games anymore.
If I upgrade my computer I usually want excessive amounts of more power.
I don´t care to upgrade from a XP1600 to a XP1800, it´s just not worth it.
I had a P2-266 and upgraded to a XP1600, that´s a upgrade worth the money.
is there any point in getting the R300 today
or even in the next couple of months with practically ZERO games implementing DX9.
Yup, I think so.
I will buy it because of two reasons.
1/I have a Geforce2Mx...I´m sure I don´t have to explain further...
2/I like to stand up for the "little man", in this case ATI...if I "give" my money
to any other company other than Nvidia, then I´ll do that.
I don´t think most people care about that DX9 thing, at least not the "common" men
that isn´t so "involved" in graphics...if there is a sticker on the box saying it supports
directX9 most people will think "Wow, DX9 is a higher number than DX8 and therefore
it is better, let´s buy it"...it´s the same thing with megahertz.
yep..agree..but what will be your motive to upgrade..the 8500 has been out for ages...and the Ti series as well...and Most gamers have either one of those cards...and with those cards they can play ANY game out there with full specs...well maybe not maximum AA or AF...so , i think the mass of gamers wont really need the upgrade before like next spring...or maybe this fall??..especially when its a 350 -400$ upgrade...and they have existing GREAT cards...
i agree...when u upgrade you look for the max u can get...
I also upgraded from a PII233 to a P41500...but here are a few differences...
1- our processors were way way slow...just like having a Trident 4MB card
2- with the processor upgrade..u benefited with every increase in MHz..and newer technology that was needed like SSE and 3DNOW etc...No processor is an OVERKILL...
3- current older cards can last well enough for another 6 months..hell..maybe a year...
I'll be going from a TNT 2 Ultra to a Radeon 9700 PRO. I could wait for a few months until better cards come out, but you could play that game ad infinitum. The Radeon 9700 will give the the performance improvement I need until I can afford to upgrade my CPU/motherboard, and I'm waiting for AMD's Hammer for that. Then I'll have a CPU that scales well with the graphics card and a motherboard that supports AGP x8 and high bandwidth memory.
Why not wait? Because waiting sucks. Believe me, I know.
I'm a games developer and on the DX9 beta, so I have obvious reasons for wanting to get it ASAP. But even if I wasn't I'd still buy this card now. Why?
You say the GF4 can run *most* (not all, and the 8500 or GF3 cards aren't up to playing a lot of newer games) games at top speed. You're right, so it's a waste of money for GF4 users to upgrade right now unless they are stinking rich. If all you do is play counter-strike or Quake3, it's also a waste to upgrade. On the other hand 80% of us who don't have GF4 cards and do NEED an upgrade are of course much better off going for the R300. It will help in todays games, because even if you max out the quality and fps you can then turn on loverly FSAA and AF.
And because most people like us keep their graphics card for about a year, you *do* have to think ahead to tommorow's games. Doom 3 is due out on may, so most of us who buy the R300 will still have it then.
Graphics/Engine programming for a relatively new company doing a futuristic team-based multiplayer fps. We're really pushing the limits of the latest technology, beyond Doom 3 tech in many cases, but we're unlike id we're not getting free boards from ATI and NVIDIA yet The kind of stuff you can do with the new R300 cards is quite amazing though, so I'm looking forward to getting my hands on one so I can write some juicy shaders.
Thanks for all the input dudes....and as i said..i think...all the would be buyers of the R300 are those who have already been waiting for ages for a massive upgrade...like the TNT...
Anyway....WHY THE HELL NOT....lol....Enjoy it if u can afford it...hehe..
Wish i could...
The thing that the R300 does that many people have been waiting for is it allows the playing of some of the eviler DX8.0/8.1 games with Full Ansio and AA enabled and still get framerates in the 80s and beyond. That is important to some people.
The Boogie Knights: Saving beautiful monsters from ravoning princesses since 1983/
I don't have time to post all of my thoughts, but here's my general rule of thumb when upgrading video cards.
When I upgrade my video card, it only makes sense to get the best "value" for my money at the time I really want or need a new card.
Yes, the card might not have any games available for it....but that statement is always finished by "yet". Unlike your Ferrari reference. To be more accurate in your reference, imagine you buying a Ferrari to go 2 blocks to your local store.....but then a year later your local stor is now 20 blocks away and the roads have been repaved with hairpin turns.
Also I say "value" on purpose instead of "best". Because *usually* the top-end card does not warrant the extra money over the middle card. The FPS are *usually* not that drastically increased.
To all you who say wait for the NV30. when that comes out there will be an even better card coming out in 3-4 months after that. so you will have to wiat for that one then after that another one you just keep waiting and waiting and you will bever get card and will be stuck with the same old card for years and years so might so when you saved up about $400 you just buy the best card on the market casue the best card is almost always going to cost around $400.
<b>oymd:</b> I guess it's cause the graphics card I have is getting pretty slow right now and can't run many games in 1600x1200. Also I rarely play games without anisotropic filtering and 4X FSAA turned on. Finally, I really am looking forward to the built in MPEG decoder for DVD playback and TV out support (which my current GPU doesn't have).
<b>FuriousBroccoli:</b> I hate making this correction because I know it's bad news, but Doom 3 is actually coming out sometimes in November 2003. It was in Carmack's plan file.
<b>dukeofcrydee:</b> I agree. I always buy at the base of the spike in the price curve. That's the sweet spot where you get mid-high end and good performance and lifetime balanced at cost. It's why I would probably wait a few months before buying any new product.
<b>Shivers123:</b> The only advantages I see for buying a $400 card are insubstantial. If you propose to consistently buy $400 cards say every 2 years, you are then constantly hit at the worst price in the curve every time. Why not buy $200 cards every 2 years instead and catch the end of the gentle slope. It's been shown time and time again that games don't take full advantage of graphics hardware until at least several months after it's released. Then again, the R300 is an exception. FSAA and anisotropic filtering don't are greatly optimized in this card for the first time in any VPU/GPU and I could see a $400 investment justified here.
A lot of people like the thrill of having the fastest rig on the block, but this only lasts such a short time and I don't see it as being anything that's worthwhile on a consistent basis. Maybe a few times, but in my own opinion, probably not on a regular basis. I guess there is a certain thrill to having the fastest system which I personally haven't experienced for quite some time leaving me to wonder whether I can really comment on this. :smile:
1° of separation between my monopoly and yours. That's business with .NET
I´m not trying to beat my friends with this upgrade (I´m already there). I could of course buy a R8500 really cheap by now but I´ll probably want to play Unreal 2/Unreal 2003/Doom III and I want a card that will run them nicely.
<font color=red>I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I´m all out of bubblegum...</font color=red>
Yeah, I mean it's only when you get up to 1600x1200x32 at MAX quality can you really start bringing the cards nowadays to their knees. A R8500 should play those games fine at med to max quality at 1280x1024. (Ok, now that I've said that, hopefully I'm not totally off :tongue: )
<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>