Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Where are all the titles that require better than Q6600oc / 8800GT's?

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Games
  • Graphics
  • Video Games
  • Product
Last response: in PC Gaming
July 15, 2008 4:40:44 AM

Is it just me or are PC games seeming to be lagging way behind all this new graphics hardware?

What we need is some more Techno Showcase style games, pushing engine boundaries...we certainly got a lot of graphics power in reserve at the moment.

What we are surely lacking at the moment is CPU power, which seems to be lagging behind the graphics and gaming industry.

I love upgrading my PC but there just hasnt been any new games coming out that I cant already play on my aging Q6600 (3.6GHZ) + 8800GT system.

I upgrade once a game comes out that I wish to play but doesnt run on max detail. (Recent memory points to Company of Heroes and CoD4)

To be honest the only games that are lagging my system are Mount and Blade in big battles (hacked to have 250+ men on screen) and Supreme Commander once we talking 1800+ units onscreen.

BOTH of these require a more powerful CPU to satisfy my need for frame in battles

Even Crysis, arguably the most system hungry PC title to date ran acceptably throughout the game at about 30 - 40fps (1680x1050) DX9 mind you...but im not on vista just yet

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?

More about : titles require q6600oc 8800gt

July 15, 2008 7:00:08 AM

Many characters on screen depending on how its done can be limited by the video card as well.

Most MMO games lag out in towns, they do not run out of CPU power but the video power to render all those polygons of so many players.

This may be the case in those games as well.

Supreme Commander gets a 30% boost in fps from 9800GTX to 9800GX2. So more video power is definitely still needed for more fps.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

This would also point to the game scaling with GPU power as well
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx-280,1953...

Do not get me wrong CPU power helps too, but the games have to start using the multiple cores more efficiently before you will see big jumps.
July 15, 2008 8:12:58 AM

What resolution do you want to play at?

COD4....a game that isnt particularly hard on the hardware will be a bit choppy at 1920 x 1200 resolution on 8800gt...especially when you throw some filters in.

Also the q6600 @ 3.6 isnt the bottleneck (i dont think) with supreme commander....i find that it never gets cpu usage over about 50% (thats with q6600 @ 3.2)....i think its the ram which may slow things up. Also when the nukes land...it is very hard on the graphics card.
Related resources
July 15, 2008 9:23:25 AM

I game at 1680x1200.

COD 4 with 4AA run 60 constant (vsnyc)

Supreme commander's simulation speed slows down even on a Q6600@3.6ghz with 1600+ units....CPU is the bottleneck.

But to be honest there is also frame drop to 20 - 25 with this many units...but thats the least of ur concerns as if the games in slow motion frames per second dont mean much....

But yer there is a FPS hit before the sim speeds stalls but id rather more CPU power so the game keeps playing in "real time"

(Not sure how many people are familiar with Supreme's simulation slow down even on high end CPU's)


I have a feeling game like Red Alert 3 and Starcraft 2 which i am eagely awaiting will run flawlessly on my current setup.

I would even bet CoD World at War will be run without issue on my setup...

DAM IT I WANT A REASON TO GO BUY A 4870 !!!!!!
July 15, 2008 9:38:42 AM

lol well, CoD world at war uses the COD4 engine so it will run fine.

Red alert uses the same engine as tiberium wars so that will run fine.

starcraft is made by blizzard who always aims to make the game playable on the most machines possible, so i suppose that wont stress your system either, nor will D3 when it comes out.

why do you think im still using a 4400 X2 939 and a 8800GTX, i dont get any slow down on any games and can keep up with the rest of them, i can play supcom smoothly till about 1600+ units. And crysis hacked to max settings plays at 20-25 fps, but on high at 1680*1050 i get 30fps.

so i have no reason to upgrade yet either. :D  means i dont have to spend any money that makes me happy.


the simulation slow down can kill me though in supcom when i get to about 2000 units, i give commands and it takes about 5 minutes for it to happen, the really annoying thing is though that the AI always seems to run at the right speed, bloody cheating computer.
July 15, 2008 4:00:42 PM

Funny I have the exact opposite take. No currently GPU solution can play Crysis fully maxed out at 1920x1200. My 8800 GTX drops below 30FPS and isn't maxed out at that resolution. To me the GPU's are way behind and we haven't even really seen what DX 10 can really do.

July 15, 2008 9:29:16 PM

You guys, now would be a good time to upgrade to Vista...and run the following:

-CRYSIS: Very High and Max Settings
-Futurmark: Extreme
-3DMark CPU tests

Then, create another Thread that says, my Q6600 and 8800GT have benchmarking issues.
July 16, 2008 6:58:14 AM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
You guys, now would be a good time to upgrade to Vista...and run the following:

-CRYSIS: Very High and Max Settings
-Futurmark: Extreme
-3DMark CPU tests

Then, create another Thread that says, my Q6600 and 8800GT have benchmarking issues.


were talking about games. not benchmarks... and crysis im pretty sure now after the 4850 and sli problems, well im sure its just badly coded.
July 16, 2008 8:38:33 AM

Yeah I second that, get Windows Vista, and run Crysis on it in DX10 and 64Bit mode with everything set to there max value at 1680X1050. Then come back and truthfully tell us that nothing takes down your PC.
July 16, 2008 12:03:59 PM

cafuddled said:
Yeah I second that, get Windows Vista, and run Crysis on it in DX10 and 64Bit mode with everything set to there max value at 1680X1050. Then come back and truthfully tell us that nothing takes down your PC.


I didnt say nothing can take ma PC down, im sure u could run a BENCH or tweak CRYSIS to a point (which i already finished on MAX DX9 detail, DX10 mode just wasnt big enough upgrade) that would give me poor frames

But still no REAL reason to upgrade

July 16, 2008 12:58:49 PM

Well then I guess you can’t really say that PC games are lagging behind PC hardware until you have played a game in all its full un-hacked glory. To be honest I am glad we have got to a stage where I can have a PC that’s almost a year and a half old, and still be able to play all the games I can get my hands on in max detail at a great resolution of 1680X1050.

I am also glad that just like you could 10 years ago, you can get some hardware and overclock it to give it a boost from a £150 CPU to CPU worth £600($1200). Also the same goes for the GPU’s, I can tune up my 8800 GTX to the same or higher specs than an 8800 Ultra.

Right now PC’s are in a great place, and instead of game designers pushing graphics and lighting, we are seeing them enhance and increase the quality and longevity as well as the content of the games. I hope it stays like this for a while, as what is the point of a game being released that’s all show and no bang, they don’t sell anymore in this market and game publishers are starting to see this.

Lets give the games the infrastructure to use the graphics that we have at our disposal properly, lets let the gaming content catch up with the gaming graphics before we move forward.
July 16, 2008 2:43:01 PM

Agreed. Improving visuals doesn't always mean upgrading your PC. Look at the XBOX 360 and what games came out at release vs the upcoming Resident Evil 5 and upcoming Final Fantasy...huge difference but same processing power.

As for the PC, the same applies. Games like COD4 and Mass Effect play fairly well (At medium settings) on my 3 year old PC. Of course, I use my new PC to play games like Crysis and recent release in HD and Max Settings.

Unless another Crysis-type improvement shows up at our front step, there's no need to upgrade. Save your money for something else in the meantime.
July 16, 2008 8:47:34 PM

horendus said:
Is it just me or are PC games seeming to be lagging way behind all this new graphics hardware?

What we need is some more Techno Showcase style games, pushing engine boundaries...we certainly got a lot of graphics power in reserve at the moment.

What we are surely lacking at the moment is CPU power, which seems to be lagging behind the graphics and gaming industry.

I love upgrading my PC but there just hasnt been any new games coming out that I cant already play on my aging Q6600 (3.6GHZ) + 8800GT system.

I upgrade once a game comes out that I wish to play but doesnt run on max detail. (Recent memory points to Company of Heroes and CoD4)

To be honest the only games that are lagging my system are Mount and Blade in big battles (hacked to have 250+ men on screen) and Supreme Commander once we talking 1800+ units onscreen.

BOTH of these require a more powerful CPU to satisfy my need for frame in battles

Even Crysis, arguably the most system hungry PC title to date ran acceptably throughout the game at about 30 - 40fps (1680x1050) DX9 mind you...but im not on vista just yet

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?


LoL you are horrendous! j/kin. Anyway the q6600 is one of the best processors in the history of the PC. Its ability to over clock and stay cool is something that is rare and you should enjoy it. My god the Q6600 gives similar performance to the most expensive $1000+ intel Extreme!!! Also the 8800GT at the time was one of the best price/performance Video cards to ever come out in the HISTORY of Gaming! (that is until the 4850 bared its teeth) Instead of being down about your aging system, which is what... a year if that old ya rich mo fo ;) , how about lets stand in wonder of how long your PC is still on the top of gaming.

You call it a disappointment, I call it a great investment!

PS. PC is not lagging behind at all. Check out new games like GRID! And COD 4 is one of the best looking games i've ever seen! Especially Single player mode where they use more lighting and shading than multi player (probably for viewing purposes in multiplayer combat).

Lets just hope this new PC alliance will develop a working anti-piracy deterrent that will bring back all the players to make more PC exclusive and primary titles that aren't MMO's or have to be multi player to perform proper checks.

Or the PS3 brings full KB and Mouse support to all its games ROFL!
Anonymous
July 17, 2008 12:33:53 AM

just a statement... cod 4 doesn't run choppy at 19x12 ... at least with my 8800 gts 640... and I have max filtering and stuff.... and supposedly a 8800 gt is faster than my 8800 gts 640...


I just want games that look as good as crysis... there aren't any games coming out soon that look as good as crysis... FC2... nope.... stalker clear sky... nope.... dead space.... nope...

crysis warhead is the only game that's coming out that will match it... but it doesn't count since it is crysis...
July 17, 2008 1:24:17 AM

You are an idiot. Focused your thoughts wherever except for the important.

Look; play your games and be happy if they run fine. When a game you run stresses your pc, lower the most demanding options a bit and do it further as needed until they are sh*t ugly or unplayable.
And if that thing hasn't occured yet or doesn't happen in a while from now, THEN BE GLAD THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP WASTING MONEY.
July 17, 2008 8:19:16 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
You guys, now would be a good time to upgrade to Vista...and run the following:

-CRYSIS: Very High and Max Settings
-Futurmark: Extreme
-3DMark CPU tests

Then, create another Thread that says, my Q6600 and 8800GT have benchmarking issues.



Vista sux, not important, nuff said.



to the other guy about crysis. That is what PC games are about setting new benchmarks. Crysis is the new benchmark and one of the most beautiful games ever made. Saying that it is time for people to live up to this new standard. I guess call it the iPhone of gaming. It will take a bit of time. Also remember how much people complained when Crysis came out that no one could run it. Then everyone pirated it to check it out on their comp. And the sales were not as good as projected because of this.... Hmm
July 18, 2008 10:15:17 AM

Yeah and the iPhone is the biggest rip off for mass consumers there has ever been.

PC gaming to become the new iPhone, not if I can help it, i'd sooner quit than pay over the odds.