Geforce GTX 200 launch on June 18th

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrWizard6600 said:
The 360 runs on the R500 which is based on a unified architecture, meaning, from what I know, it supports shader model 4.0.
Click to expand...

It's SM 3.0, but that's besides the point b/c the 360 pretty much requires C# and DX9, so no matter what it supports it's what it uses that matters.
 
TerranUp16 said:
Which you're already going to have anyway as long as you have a GeForce 8 series or above (aka, an nVidia gpu that has stream processors).



Try to replicate Crysis in UE3, STALKER's engine, Jericho's engine, or (ESPECIALLY) CoD 4's engine.

If you (Red Falcon) really think CoD 4 comes anywhere NEAR Crysis, go and play Crysis for about 30 minutes and then boot-up CoD 4. The ridiculous texture stretching in CoD 4 will literally hurt your eyes. And that's before you even get into comparing lighting and everything else (and there's a HUGE difference in lighting/shadowing quality between CoD 4 and Crysis).
Click to expand...

CoD4 is about as good as it gets visually, in my view. It is part of the XBOX360/PS3/8800GTX generation of games, whereas Crysis really requires a whole new generation of graphics hardware to play as intended.

Personally, there is something to be said for a game that just runs well. I think of all the games of 2007 CoD4 is the one that struck the best balance between performance and quality. No, it didn't have dynamic shadows and trees that sway in the breeze but it got the job done.

In my view you have to have anti-aliasing, and shaders and post processing on very high and at least 40 fps to find out what Crysis did or did not accomplish as a game. I don't think there is any doubt that Crysis is the more technologically advanced game, but until we get hardware that can really run it I can see how someone would prefer Call of Duty 4's approach.
 
Blackstone said:
In my view you have to have anti-aliasing, and shaders and post processing on very high and at least 40 fps to find out what Crysis did or did not accomplish as a game. I don't think there is any doubt that Crysis is the more technologically advanced game, but until we get hardware that can really run it I can see how someone would prefer Call of Duty 4's approach.
Click to expand...

(Shrugs) Still think that CoD 4 could have, at the very least, packed-in some higher resolution textures than it did (but I have the same complaint about nearly every console to PC port, from Bioshock to Stranglehold to CoD 4...) despite that the PC version already packed higher resolution textures than the 360 and PS3 versions.

I think that if you want to start talking about how effectively a game can use the 8800GTX, I'll be interested in seeing how Far Cry 2 performs because the PC version is supposed to have significant graphical upgrades over the console versions but at the same time it's a multiplatform game so I doubt it's going as far "overboard" as Crysis did. It will also be interesting to see how the GTX 280 handles Crysis, given that really is the hardware Crysis was designed to run on (and, imo, though I already have Crysis, if hardware vendors are looking for a game to pack-in with those, Crysis would be the game- gotta hand it to Crytek in that they've done a good job with getting the custom and modding communities up and motivated for the game as I've got a veritable horde of singleplayer maps waiting for me to finish-up school for the "year" and there are quite a few very interesting mods that I'm following- the Jurrassic Park: Lost World one perhaps stealing first there atm, at least until I figure out why I'm getting a crash caused by an audio file in Wiisis when I don't get any crashes caused by any audio files in regular Crysis).
 
You are the first and only person I have seen actually complain about CoD4 graphics. The rest of the PC gaming community appears to be quite happy with them and are able to enjoy them free of any pain in their eyes. Maybe there is something wrong with your computer or monitor?
 
RamonGTP said:
You are the first and only person I have seen actually complain about CoD4 graphics. The rest of the PC gaming community appears to be quite happy with them and are able to enjoy them free of any pain in their eyes. Maybe there is something wrong with your computer or monitor?
Click to expand...

Unless everyone else is standing 20 feet away from the monitor when they're playing CoD 4... Character textures are mostly fine, it's primarily the environmental textures- particularly the rubble and structures and such.
 
I'm about three feet from my monitor when playing. My eyes are fine. No one who has played the game on my PC has complained of any sort of pain either. Maybe you need to turn up your AF or something.
 
RamonGTP said:
I'm about three feet from my monitor when playing. My eyes are fine. No one who has played the game on my PC has complained of any sort of pain either. Maybe you need to turn up your AF or something.
Click to expand...

AF's at 16x, MSAA is at 2x (but that's not affecting the textures), the settings are maxed (everything is High, Extra, or Normal depending on what it can be), and the rez is 1600x1200. The textures aren't necessarily horrid, but yeah after playing Crysis for a bit they do certainly become a bit of a comparative eyesore. That's true of many games when compared to Crysis though.
 
RamonGTP said:
I'm about three feet from my monitor when playing. My eyes are fine. No one who has played the game on my PC has complained of any sort of pain either. Maybe you need to turn up your AF or something.
Click to expand...

I thought CoD4 looked like crap compared to the other games released on pc the past year. If we didn't have our "Crysis"s, "Doom3"s, "Morrowind"s and "FarCry"s, etc. pushing the boundary of graphics and making people whine about not having enough money for a computer or whining about the efficiency of the engine, the gaming world would be stuck on graphics like half-life 1, goldeneye and halo. If we didn't have passionate people making games that make us go "wow" you wouldn't have your "great looking" CoD4. As far as gameplay, I'd say CoD 1 needs to stop being repackaged.
 
Too bad there isn't any worth while games out that really need this boost in power....and that the PC gaming market is slowly dying off, esp in reguards to high end products that would need a high end market...

Hell what would you want to do? Sell 5-6 Million copies of a game (i.e. GTA4) in a week...or sell 200K copies of a game on a PC in a year or two...
 
SnakeIRye said:
I thought CoD4 looked like crap compared to the other games released on pc the past year. If we didn't have our "Crysis"s, "Doom3"s, "Morrowind"s and "FarCry"s, etc. pushing the boundary of graphics and making people whine about not having enough money for a computer or whining about the efficiency of the engine, the gaming world would be stuck on graphics like half-life 1, goldeneye and halo. If we didn't have passionate people making games that make us go "wow" you wouldn't have your "great looking" CoD4. As far as gameplay, I'd say CoD 1 needs to stop being repackaged.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it looked like "crap," just because it wasn't a Crysis. They specifically said they were optimizing it a lot, so that it actually had a consistent framerate (ie, approx 60-ish) on the consoles (and of course some of that carried over because it is multi-platform). I personally don't mind because I know they did it on purpose.

edit: I hope I am understanding your point right, if not I apologise.
 
GT98 said:
Too bad there isn't any worth while games out that really need this boost in power....and that the PC gaming market is slowly dying off, esp in reguards to high end products that would need a high end market...

Hell what would you want to do? Sell 5-6 Million copies of a game (i.e. GTA4) in a week...or sell 200K copies of a game on a PC in a year or two...
Click to expand...


Very good point. The games that do sell well or make money in the PC is MMORPG's and they are usually less graphic intense not needing top end hardware.

The only game out right now that needs a killer VideoCard is Crysis, which is just one single player shooter, no other game needs anything beyond that yet. I still play on my 8800GTX that I bought in December 2006, and I have Apple 30" Display and play all games 2560x1600rez, no AA, but they still play pretty good.

2008 looks to be a slow game release year, what triple A title is even being released this year that will be a huge seller and must have a GTX 280 ? Seems like most game coming will use existing game engines nothing next generation, that won't be until 2009 with like id Tech5, and some other cool games, and then there will be even newer faster VideoCards.

I hate to admit but I think PC gaming may be in trouble, companies make much more money with consoles, and then they port those games back to the PC. Seriously what hot game that you are foaming at the mouth for is due this year >? StarCraft2 for sure, but RTS's usually don't need super computers anyways. So what other kick ass game is coming that will require next generation VideoCards ?
 
Zorachus said:
Very good point. The games that do sell well or make money in the PC is MMORPG's and they are usually less graphic intense not needing top end hardware.

The only game out right now that needs a killer VideoCard is Crysis, which is just one single player shooter, no other game needs anything beyond that yet. I still play on my 8800GTX that I bought in December 2006, and I have Apple 30" Display and play all games 2560x1600rez, no AA, but they still play pretty good.
Click to expand...



COJ in DX10 is just as demanding as Crysis. also Lost Planet in DX10 is still hardware killer. nobody ever seems to mention those games probably because hardly anyone cares. lol. ;)
 
GT98 said:
Too bad there isn't any worth while games out that really need this boost in power....and that the PC gaming market is slowly dying off, esp in reguards to high end products that would need a high end market...

Hell what would you want to do? Sell 5-6 Million copies of a game (i.e. GTA4) in a week...or sell 200K copies of a game on a PC in a year or two...
Click to expand...

Stop using NPD numbers and do some research into how PC games sell and why the NPD itself admits it's unreliable. And recall that the Orange Box PC, as of February this year (and remember that PC games sell better over time than console games do- console games typically make most of their sales in the first few weeks while PC games can sell well over a period of YEARS), was outselling the combined PS3 and 360 versions of the OB by a double digit percentage.

Zorachus said:
but RTS's usually don't need super computers anyways
Click to expand...

Given that I can't max-out Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts in DX10 at 1600x1200... Or you might also give World in Conflict another look-over. Your continual ignorance on virtually every matter that comes up in these forums truly is astounding... You also might want to look at Dawn of War 2... StarCraft and all games Blizzard make are intentionally not graphically demanding b/c they take the stand Ironclad does.
 
Zorachus said:
I hate to admit but I think PC gaming may be in trouble, companies make much more money with consoles, and then they port those games back to the PC. Seriously what hot game that you are foaming at the mouth for is due this year >? StarCraft2 for sure, but RTS's usually don't need super computers anyways. So what other kick ass game is coming that will require next generation VideoCards ?
Click to expand...

High end PC exclusives are becoming rare, this is true. But at the same time don't forget that something will come along that needs GPU power, its only a matter of time. AMD, Intel and nVidia are in the business of selling computational power. Games are a big part of that and the money needed for that power comes for the PC world still and trickles down to consoles.

We are at the beginning of building virtual worlds, no where near the end, and PC's will have a major role to play in the technology for the rest of lifetimes at least.

Consoles are great, but they are hardware loss leaders. The money for developing more and more powerful hardware is not there and in order to games to advance we need better hardware. There will always be games on the PC because of this, and from time to time, I think you will see Crysis type games come out because someone will want to push the edge, if for no other reason AMD, Intel and nVidia will need something to push the sales of hardware. They'll never make real money on consoles.
 
Zorachus said:
Very good point. The games that do sell well or make money in the PC is MMORPG's and they are usually less graphic intense not needing top end hardware.

The only game out right now that needs a killer VideoCard is Crysis, which is just one single player shooter, no other game needs anything beyond that yet. I still play on my 8800GTX that I bought in December 2006, and I have Apple 30" Display and play all games 2560x1600rez, no AA, but they still play pretty good.

2008 looks to be a slow game release year, what triple A title is even being released this year that will be a huge seller and must have a GTX 280 ? Seems like most game coming will use existing game engines nothing next generation, that won't be until 2009 with like id Tech5, and some other cool games, and then there will be even newer faster VideoCards.

I hate to admit but I think PC gaming may be in trouble, companies make much more money with consoles, and then they port those games back to the PC. Seriously what hot game that you are foaming at the mouth for is due this year >? StarCraft2 for sure, but RTS's usually don't need super computers anyways. So what other kick ass game is coming that will require next generation VideoCards ?
Click to expand...

True most mmorpgs dont need highend usually, but Age of Conan launches next week and its got some pretty high requirements. And its poised to be huge with over a million users in the open beta, so maybe another victory for pc gaming and hardware at the same time.
 
heatlesssun said:
We are at the beginning of building virtual worlds, no where near the end, and PC's will have a major role to play in the technology for the rest of lifetimes at least.

.
Click to expand...

I think for PC's it is the Fantasy RPG or MMORPG style game that will always be popular, and companies like BioWare thank God are still producing them, they have their next gen game "Dragon Age" still to come out this Winter, and that is supposed to have jizz worthy graphics, with a Baldurs Gate theme, done up with 2009 technology :eek: Pus they are working on their very own MMORPG with another brand new next generation game engine.

My point is I agree with you, if game companies still put their hard work into really deep RPG's, and go wild with heavy graphics and physics, only a PC can play those types of games, and the next gen versions coming in 2009 and 2010 will be very realistic and put us into that living world
 
Zorachus said:
I think for PC's it is the Fantasy RPG or MMORPG style game that will always be popular, and companies like BioWare thank God are still producing them, they have their next gen game "Dragon Age" still to come out this Winter, and that is supposed to have jizz worthy graphics, with a Baldurs Gate theme, done up with 2009 technology :eek: Pus they are working on their very own MMORPG with another brand new next generation game engine.

My point is I agree with you, if game companies still put their hard work into really deep RPG's, and go wild with heavy graphics and physics, only a PC can play those types of games, and the next gen versions coming in 2009 and 2010 will be very realistic and put us into that living world
Click to expand...

I agree with this assessment, but I don't think that PC world is just about RPGs & MMORPGs. There'll still be a good mix of games for PC's. PC will get most on the non exclusive console titles that I know of, so I don't think PC becoming a niche platform just yet.
 
defiant007 said:
Good thing I havent played any new games for the past year except for COD4 multi and TF2 thanks to my shitty ass 6800GT. The way its going, its going to take me at least 6 months to get through the backlog of games I have been waiting to play before I can even start on future releases. Just thinking out loud, games I have to play are:

Crysis
Oblivion
Neverwinter Nights 2
STALKER
Stranglehold
Command and Conquer 3
Splintercell Double Agent
World in Conflict
Dark Messiah
Half Life 2 Ep 2
Supreme Commander
Rainbow 6 Vegas 1 & 2
Bioshock
Gears of War
Assassins Creed
COD 4 single player

Fuck. Only good thing is most of those games should be dirt cheap by now.
Click to expand...

writes down games. ;) same here man, though i've played 3 of those games and they are worth the monies. :)
 
I gotta say, Supreme Commander tops that list, easily. Really small community though with that game, its weird. Too deep for most casual gamers perhaps ? You won't LOVE it when you first play it, thats for sure.
 
SnakeIRye said:
I thought CoD4 looked like crap compared to the other games released on pc the past year. If we didn't have our "Crysis"s, "Doom3"s, "Morrowind"s and "FarCry"s, etc. pushing the boundary of graphics and making people whine about not having enough money for a computer or whining about the efficiency of the engine, the gaming world would be stuck on graphics like half-life 1, goldeneye and halo. If we didn't have passionate people making games that make us go "wow" you wouldn't have your "great looking" CoD4. As far as gameplay, I'd say CoD 1 needs to stop being repackaged.
Click to expand...

Exactly the thoughts I've expressed many times in threads in the Gaming sub-forum.
 
I have a feeling this is going to be a paper launch. I haven't heard any news of production info on these cards.. IMHO these monolythic designs are getting harder and harder to manufacture. I have a feeling these cards will be very sparse.
 
setzer_ said:
I gotta say, Supreme Commander tops that list, easily. Really small community though with that game, its weird. Too deep for most casual gamers perhaps ? You won't LOVE it when you first play it, thats for sure.
Click to expand...

I keep coming back for more Sup Com, even though it makes my CPU cry :(
 
TerranUp16 said:
Stop using NPD numbers and do some research into how PC games sell and why the NPD itself admits it's unreliable. And recall that the Orange Box PC, as of February this year (and remember that PC games sell better over time than console games do- console games typically make most of their sales in the first few weeks while PC games can sell well over a period of YEARS), was outselling the combined PS3 and 360 versions of the OB by a double digit percentage.
Click to expand...

Well your whole argument is flawed anyways...your comparing a game that has a fanbase thats been installed since 1998 (when HL came out) to consoles where HL doesn't even rate among as one of the best FPS shooters ever like it does on the PC.

Then also consider this fact: I was told by a developer that they got in 12 ideas/projects for PC games in the past year, but none of them where picked up because the company felt like they couldn't make money on them.

I've been gaming on the PC since 1991 or so (1986 if you want to count my Commodore 128) and had an Atari 2600 back in the day before the great gaming crash in the 1980's..I've seen a huge decline in PC games in the past 8 years or so and its really accelerated in the past 2 years with the next gen consoles that have come out. To be honest with you, I barely game on the PC anymore and do most of my gaming on the Xbox360 I got, which works 95% of the time without any issues...and I dont have to fuck with video card drivers or tweak the system to make it work like I do on the PC.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry when my Mac Book Pro running Vista can run most games just as good as my desktop does..which isn't nothing to sneeze at. I don't see me dumping money into my PC anytime soon though for any games....and I used to upgrade my video card at least once a year...
 
kllrnohj said:
I keep coming back for more Sup Com, even though it makes my CPU cry :(
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad, supcom makes any CPU cry :)

If I ever get bored of supcom I just watch a replay of someone like sir_loui or duris or mephistophile and I'm instantly inspired again.
 
Niceone said:
http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-935774-1-1.html
According to this GTX 280 would score over X7000 in 3dmark Vantage

I did check from Orb that stock 9800 GX2 + [email protected] scored about 5000 points..so according to that at least 40% difference in Vantage.
Click to expand...

Hate synthetics, but imo if the GTX 280 can just deliver something reminiscent of the 9800GX2 stat-wise with a real 512-bit bus and 1024MB of VRAM (and, imo, the 9800GX2's additional 16sp's kinda get sacrificed to the "SLI effect" anyway) it should definitely offer a 40% boost over the 9800GX2 predicated on the determination of the main limitation of G92 resting with its 256-bit bus. That, and not having to deal with SLI should definitely make for a really nice performance boost over the 9800GX2 in a game like Crysis.
 
Wrench00 said:
I have a feeling this is going to be a paper launch. I haven't heard any news of production info on these cards.. IMHO these monolythic designs are getting harder and harder to manufacture. I have a feeling these cards will be very sparse.
Click to expand...

Don't think this is going to be a paper launch. This GPU has been taped out for some time now. They were going to release it in July but moved the date up to spoil AMD 4800 release. If AMD has product on hand and nVidia only did a paper launch, that would be stupid.

Expect GTX 200 cards in stores the middle of next month.
 
Oh wait! That X5000 points did came with 2x9800 GX2..

For example Muropaketti got with QX9770 + single 9800 GX2 (both at stock) X3200 points.

Compared to that.PRETTY NICE :D
----

Though these scores seems to be too good...
 
Niceone said:
Oh wait! That X5000 points did came with 2x9800 GX2..

For example Muropaketti got with QX9770 + single 9800 GX2 (both at stock) X3200 points.

Compared to that.PRETTY NICE :D
----

Though these scores seems to be too good...
Click to expand...

I distrust synthetics, but take a hard look at how limited the 9800GX2 is by the 256-bit bus and it makes sense. I mean, if the 9800GTX had a 384-bit bus instead of a 256-bit, it would be an unqualified game-over for the 8800GTX,
 
Well they tell something..only something [now that we are comparing two cards that both are G80-architecture]
 
I couldn't have timed my purchase of a 9800gtx any better. I picked up an evga card for $260 less than 2 weeks ago hoping the new cards would be out within 4-6 weeks. And yes the 9800 was worth it to me.....a single 6600gt doesn's quite cut it anymore, especially on a 24" lcd and we won't even talk about blu-ray playback!!
 
and nVidia couldn't have timed the release of these new cards any better... Just in time for everyone to spend their "stimulus" check on a new video card. :p
 
-Tetsuo- said:
i just bought a 8800GTX :(
Click to expand...

Dude no worries :p

unless you were planning to spend top dollar or go top o line this wouldnt have concernered you, seeing as how 8800's are super cheap now. prices wouldnt have change much either.. :)
 
Im sure ill be fine, lol. I got that and a Q6600 coming in on friday. I guess Age of Conan and Crysis will tell me if i made a mistake:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top