# Epic Games' Mark Rein Confirms Gamers Moving Away from PC in Favor of Console



## zekrahminator (Feb 7, 2008)

Epic Games is well known throughout the gaming community. Most well known for their Unreal Tournament series and the Unreal engine series, Epic Games has every reason to be at the peak of their game for the PC gaming crowd. However, they are beginning to doubt their fan base. While Gears of War for the Xbox360 was an instant success for the Xbox360, the PC version of Unreal Tournament failed to take off. In an interview, Mark Rein confirms that gaming itself has begun to move away from the PC, and towards consoles. Even inside Epic Games, a sizable chunk of employees play their games on the Xbox360. Outside Epic Games, a paltry 14% of gamers game on their computer. The reason for this, despite the superior technology the PC offers, is the sheer cost of owning and maintaining a gaming habit on the PC. While an Xbox360 is $400USD including games and extra controllers, a PC is upwards of $1000USD for a game-worthy setup, not including games, and only supporting one player at a time.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Feb 7, 2008)

So what was that about games on the PC being "fine"?


----------



## Darknova (Feb 7, 2008)

That and the pure ignorance of the populace.

They want something that "just works".

Unfortunately I truly believe we will see the death of PC gaming in our lifetimes, which will be a huge blow for everyone. Especially the economy as a whole.


----------



## Snipe343 (Feb 7, 2008)

Lies!!!! even so computer gaming will never stop to exist, there will always be games for it some just wont be as popular as there console versions


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 7, 2008)

He's both right and wrong. And you dont need $1000 to buy a decent PC that plays today's games.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 7, 2008)

even if it does die, im gunna try to keep it alive, mainly because i hate controllers compared to my keyboard and mouse


----------



## Nicksterr (Feb 7, 2008)

screw consoles. havent played a console since ps2. only console i would even consider would be the wii.

You gotttttttttta be able to aim, and consoles suck for that.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 7, 2008)

not surprising in the least. most people have other things to worry about than upgrading their PC to play the latest games. people have lives and if they wanna game they get a console because it is easier, cheaper and friendlier.


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 7, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> not surprising in the least. most people have other things to worry about than upgrading their PC to play the latest games. people have lives and if they wanna game they get a console because it is easier, cheaper and friendlier.



Good Point +1. But most peoples PC's own Consoles most of the time tho in terms of hardware. I just wish the PC had as many games as Consoles.


----------



## hv43082 (Feb 7, 2008)

Let's face it, PC is only good for FPS and MMORPG (may be).  Everything else can be played with controllers.  Hell, if they can integrate mouse and keyboard into all console games, I'd switch side.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 7, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Good point.



lets face it. being a tech geek like we all are takes time and work and costs a good amount to be an enthusiast. sure you dont need to pay a lot of money to play top games at decent settings but then what is the point of spending $1000 if you arent getting the best?


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 7, 2008)

So, those millions of cards that nVidia, and Ati sell are not for gaming?

They just like making games for consoles, no patches to make, no high-detail to keep up with PC gamers. Plus I guess people don't just copy 360,ps3 games as much as PC. If people would only buy their PC games..........


They need to RENT PC GAMES!!!!


----------



## hv43082 (Feb 7, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> So, those millions of cards that nVidia, and Ati sell are not for gaming?
> 
> They just like making games for consoles, no patches to make, no high-detail to keep up with PC gamers. Plus I guess people don't just copy 360,ps3 games as much as PC. If people would only buy their PC games..........
> 
> ...



Hey, I buy my pc games....well...at least the ones that require cd key for online gaming, LOL.


----------



## happita (Feb 7, 2008)

Having a PC is a totally different experience vs. owning a console. In my mindset at least, I think of the consoles main purpose is to give entertainment to the user in the form of playing video games (99% of the time). But owning a PC is like an all-in-one deal. People look at it in terms of being able to provide an environment in which the consumer is comfortable in doing whatever he/she wants to do on it, be it gaming, surfing the web, etc...


----------



## Cold Storm (Feb 7, 2008)

The only reason why people are turning away from Unreal Tour. 3 is the fact that no one can play with no one! I still haven't got Unreal to hook up with their severs...  So... what does that leave you!?!?
Fix your problems and maybe someone might want it!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 7, 2008)

So what would happen to forums like this then? we'd all be sat there staring at a huge tv screen instead of posting on here.

I'll never give up pc games.

The only console i'd buy is the wii.


----------



## Cold Storm (Feb 7, 2008)

Oh I love my pc games! I'd play multi player games on my pc... console gaming is for yourself! like pron... lol


----------



## ktr (Feb 7, 2008)

People are moving from PC to consoles because PC games system requirements are going higher and higher, and some people dont want to fork over 300 to 500 dollars in upgrades when these games come. What happened to the good old days where mid-range computers can play most of the games maxed out.


----------



## Psychoholic (Feb 7, 2008)




----------



## imperialreign (Feb 7, 2008)

PC gaming 4 life, man!  Grew up in front of a PC, and I intend to keep it that way.

Console flat out suck compared to gaming on a PC - it's partly why there are only a handful of games that allow PC vs Console multiplayer, and even then, the field is leveled out (usually by limiting what a PC is allowed to work with).  Shadowrun is a prime example.  If the multiplayer wasn't leveled, there'd be no contest.  Poorly skilled gamers on a PC would still have the upper hand over highly skilled gamers on a console.

I say cut the BS and release a hyped-up game that allows PCs to compete against consoles with no restrictions.  We PC gamers need to give console users a schooling!!!


----------



## a111087 (Feb 8, 2008)

PC gaming will never die, it might fall, but not to death.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 8, 2008)

Psychoholic said:


>



lol i remember this helpful graph


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 8, 2008)

lazy game developers ...


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 8, 2008)

If PC gaming dies I will still stick with it, I hate controllers


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 8, 2008)

ktr said:


> People are moving from PC to consoles because PC games system requirements are going higher and higher, and some people dont want to fork over 300 to 500 dollars in upgrades when these games come. What happened to the good old days where mid-range computers can play most of the games maxed out.



Another excellent point.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 8, 2008)

I mean when nvidia is charging 500$ for a medium range graphics card, I could either buy a entire console or a graphics card... Hmm...


----------



## Psychoholic (Feb 8, 2008)

consoles arent bad..  but for some reason when i play them, it feels like im playing with a kid's toy or something.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 8, 2008)

Psychoholic said:


> consoles arent bad..  but for some reason when i play them, it feels like im playing with a kid's toy or something.



Heh I do too sometimes specially a Wii.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 8, 2008)

the wii for me is only fun when im drunk with friends


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 8, 2008)

I love both PC and Consoles(Since i have a decent PC and all three Consoles). The only problem with PC Gaming is that when ever a new good looking game comes out you always have to look at you system and say, Is is up for the challenge?. If not you need to spend a pretty big amount of cash so you can fully experience it. Lot of people are moving to Consoles because they just find no point in spending all that cash(Trust me it adds up) just so they can game. In terms of Controller vs Keyboard and Mouse, well thats depends on what game you are playing, you can't keep thinking one is ''The most superior interface ever!!''. I hated play GTA on a keyboard(it made me cry), but i hate playing C&C:3 on a Console. But what do i know this is just my opinion.

ConsolePC


----------



## NympH (Feb 8, 2008)

Stop smokin' crack Mark!


----------



## effmaster (Feb 8, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> I love both PC and Consoles(Since i have a decent PC and all three Consoles). The only problem with PC Gaming is that when ever a new good looking game comes out you always have to look at you system and say, Is is up for the challenge?. If not you need to spend a pretty big amount of cash so you can fully experience it. Lot of people are moving to Consoles because they just find no point in spending all that cash(Trust me it adds up) just so they can game. In terms of Controller vs Keyboard and Mouse, well thats depends on what game you are playing, you can't keep thinking one is ''The most superior interface ever!!''. I hated play GTA on a keyboard(it made me cry), but i hate playing C&C:3 on a Console. But what do i know this is just my opinion.
> 
> ConsolePC



Well said. Why cant we all just get along.

I still enjoy playing COD2 on my laptop im typing from right now. But I also enjoy playing Halo on my 360 over my laptop. But hey thats just me I cant really see a huge difference for either one to be perfectly honest. I enjoy the best of both worlds


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 8, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> I love both PC and Consoles(Since i have a decent PC and all three Consoles). The only problem with PC Gaming is that when ever a new good looking game comes out you always have to look at you system and say, Is is up for the challenge?. If not you need to spend a pretty big amount of cash so you can fully experience it. Lot of people are moving to Consoles because they just find no point in spending all that cash(Trust me it adds up) just so they can game. In terms of Controller vs Keyboard and Mouse, well thats depends on what game you are playing, you can't keep thinking one is ''The most superior interface ever!!''. I hated play GTA on a keyboard(it made me cry), but i hate playing C&C:3 on a Console. But what do i know this is just my opinion.
> 
> ConsolePC



And I hated playing GTA with a controller...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 8, 2008)

UT 3 didn't take off b/c it was delayed too long and several other games were bought in its place. People lost interest b/c they took to long to release it. I'm a die hard UT fan, but I haven't even bothered to play it yet.


----------



## AddSub (Feb 8, 2008)

I haven't touched a console in almost 10 years. Ever since I got my first 3D accelerator card for PC (Voodoo Banshee). That was back in 1998. Last console I owned was PS1. No point really, once you have a dedicated gaming PC machine, it is easy to expand its capabilities to match and/or surpass the tech level of whatever console that comes along. Movies & media? Dedicated player box, or even a decent media-PC box will always beat whatever capabilities a console can give. Especially in terms of customization and expandability. Most games that come out for consoles, come out for the PC as well. Again, PC ports always have more customization vs. their console versions. As for games for which there are no PC ports, usually these games are console-only for a reason. (kiddie crayola games, with few exceptions thanks to their publishers for mostly marketing reasons) Also, there are emulators. Sooner or later (usually much later), every console is reverse engineered and an emulator pops up. Nearly half PS2 games are already playable on an emulator (providing you have a powerful & modern machine), and within a short period of time the rest will be as well. If you care about console games that is. (I don't.) By the time PS4 rolls around, there will be a working emulator for PS3. 

Seriously, if someone is over the legal age, I don’t see a reason why that someone should own a console. Unless that someone is some kind of a eccentric billionaire who still likes to play with his cho-cho trains. I mean, if you have the technical know-how to put together a gaming PC from the ground up, why do you want a console your 8 year old neighbor plays with?


----------



## Luke (Feb 8, 2008)

I Will NEVER Stop Gaming on Pc

I haven’t played console for about three years because I hate console controllers


----------



## DEFEATEST (Feb 8, 2008)

I cant believe anyone would think that we will see the end of pc gaming in our lifetime, or ever!
I mean comon! PC gaming is not for everyone, because it can be complicated and frustrating and expen$ive. We all know this. But it is a enthusiasts hobby. We who love it will always love it. Anyone , and I mean anyone who plays games on PC for a while and gets used to the controls and mouse knows that there is no alternative. Sure consoles are fun and can be powerful in a 2 years ago kinda hardware way, but they will never match the cutting edge PC. 
There is a reason games like Crysis are for PC only. There is a reason WOW and BF2 are so popular. There is a reason that millions of graphics cards and multicore cPu's and tons of ram and 22inch monitors and gaming mice are sold everyday.  We crave our Ventrillos  and teamspeaks and CAL compititions and yearly massive lan partys and on and on and on.........Because we the few and lucky know that nothing beats it. We have endless things to talk about and argue about, we help each other out, we lend , sell , buy and give an old graphics card to a buddy or younger brother who wants to get in on some 64 player fun!!!! 

OK, Ok I know what I'm starting to sound like. Anyhoo, PC gaming will always be here. Do you think games are developed on consoles? 

The way I look at consoles is this. They are great, dont get me wrong, but you cant find a more controlled, over priced, corporate American form of entertainment anywhere. It is what it is. I like to think with a PC , I have a little more control.

Know lets all have a cold beer!


----------



## ktr (Feb 8, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Another excellent point.



On top of that, i want to add that the 300-500 dollars in upgrades wont guaranty you in playing games from a year from now.


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 8, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> And I hated playing GTA with a controller...



I didn't think that was possible.lol


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 8, 2008)

I love PC games as much as the next guy, but the only thing really setting PCs apart from consoles is mouse and keyboard. Soon enough, that won't be so anymore, and mouse and keyboard will be a standard option on all console games. Sure you have the ability to upgrade your PC, but there is no need to on a console because all of the games are optimized for the console.


----------



## ktr (Feb 8, 2008)

I say the main question is..."Why do we like the PC over the console?"


----------



## Makaveli (Feb 8, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I mean when nvidia is charging 500$ for a medium range graphics card, I could either buy a entire console or a graphics card... Hmm...



lol never heard of a 8800GT or HD3870 I don't think they cost $500!


----------



## Makaveli (Feb 8, 2008)

I kinda prefer Pc's being single player, if you want to play with more people that is what multiplayer is for.

i've done the Console thing with all my drunk buddies over, guess what shit gets broken when the morons start fighting over a cheap goal.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 8, 2008)

PC is better because you have choice. its the PC vs mac argument.

on console, you're stuck with default stuff -  PC you get to choose controllers. THOUSANDS of mouse and keyboard combos. If you want more AA and less shadows, you can do that - if you want to use voice chat you use teamspeak - the GAME doesnt need it.

Audiophile? upgrade a sound card, cant do that on a console.

Its all about the choice - and most people are too dumb/uneducated to know there ARE choices, so they buy something that 'just works'


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 8, 2008)

ktr said:


> I say the main question is..."Why do we like the PC over the console?"



if i were a rich man i would only use my ps3 for blu-ray movies and to stream media wirelessly to my receiver and would spend thousands of dollars every few months on a top of the line computer to play games.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 8, 2008)

He can tell that to my keyboard and mouse...which are better in windows than on a console...he can also tell that to my nice chair i sit in while i play my pc games.


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 8, 2008)

The PC vs Mac arguments are so stupid. Even they should know PC is better. And the Mac commercials make me so mad.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 8, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I mean when nvidia is charging 500$ for a medium range graphics card, I could either buy a entire console or a graphics card... Hmm...



What? 500? are you on crack kid? thats sure as f_*k not a mid range*.* :shadedshu


----------



## BYOB (Feb 8, 2008)

First of all, I think reason that ut3 tanked is because it feels too much like a console port. Also, games that are made by epic seem to be buggy at first takes a while for them to fix there problems like Sli or crossfire support (ex. Hellgate London, and UT3). I believe that upgrading a PC is neccessary, but since the economy has hit a low not many people can afford these new graphic cards that can run things smoothly at a reasonable resolution w/ AA enabled or hell even afford to buy a game. 

I remember when UT2004 demo came out it was incredible ran smooth and the graphics looked awesome at the time still look good and movement was so much better. 

If game publishers would release things with moderate graphics that run smooth and then add patches when newer technology comes out to improve the graphics kind of like Farcry did.


----------



## jocksteeluk (Feb 8, 2008)

If every console game release was available for PC you see PC's for games sales increase but i do concede the continual upgrading cycle of PCs could be rather off putting to just a general gamer.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 8, 2008)

BYOB said:


> First of all, I think reason that ut3 tanked is because it feels too much like a console port. Also, games that are made by epic seem to be buggy at first takes a while for them to fix there problems like Sli or crossfire support (ex. Hellgate London, and UT3). I believe that upgrading a PC is neccessary, but since the economy has hit a low not many people can afford these new graphic cards that can run things smoothly at a reasonable resolution w/ AA enabled or hell even afford to buy a game.
> 
> I remember when UT2004 demo came out it was incredible ran smooth and the graphics looked awesome at the time still look good and movement was so much better.
> 
> If game publishers would release things with moderate graphics that run smooth and then add patches when newer technology comes out to improve the graphics kind of like Farcry did.



If you remember the low end of the high end did not start at 200 eather. The 3870s
are a new price range for cards. For the past five years it has been high end at 500+ (Some later card at 1000 tops) low hiend at like 400 then down to 300ish and mid and below at 250 and down.
ATi has RELEASED their high end setup at just over 200. What do you want? Then to add in 4 gigs of ram on the side. Its not a 8800XT, but it really is on the same field after its clocked up. As for smooth running, my (now $180) videocard runs it excellently at 1280x800. sure they need SLi support but you know what, so did crysis (crossfire). Even though you cant run it happily on your 6150 (speaking from experience.) and you could with 04, there was no new pricepoint then. The market has changed a bit.


----------



## Esse (Feb 8, 2008)

This doesn't really take the screen into account. This is probably only me though since I don't have time to watch TV thus don't own a TV 

You would probably want something of decent size if you are doing more then single player and/or sitting far away like normal. 32" Bravia V series goes for $1699NZD here.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 8, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> What? 500? are you on crack kid? thats sure as f_*k not a mid range*.* :shadedshu



I don't know what you call midrange, but 500$ is mid range in my book.

In my opinion, a good mid-range card is 500$. You can get a midranged midrange card for around 300$ bucks, but that's still practically the price of a console.'

EDIT:

It seems this is hard for you to conceptualize, so I'm going to make it very clear:

Low range:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+4017&name=%24100+-+%24200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+4018&name=%24200+-+%24300

Medium Range:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+4019&name=%24300+-+%24400
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+4020&name=%24400+-+%24500

High-end (dream):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+4021&name=%24500+-+%24750

Those are limited searches and only provide so many hits, but if you can't understand that than you can't understand graphics card categories.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 8, 2008)

the problem is the quality of PC games - i just got R6: vegas - and its a crap port. WHY cant they use different keys for the features, instead of one key for everything?/ (R controls reload, rate of fire, weapon mods (silencer), grenades/equipment loadout.)

Seriously - its annoying to not have them split up. its so sensitive and clicking doesnt control it.

Wonder why its more popular on console? because THEY DONT CARE. they all have teh same controllers, so its all the same to them - we want CHOICE.


----------



## BYOB (Feb 8, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> If you remember the low end of the high end did not start at 200 eather. The 3870s
> are a new price range for cards. For the past five years it has been high end at 500+ (Some later card at 1000 tops) low hiend at like 400 then down to 300ish and mid and below at 250 and down.
> ATi has RELEASED their high end setup at just over 200. What do you want? Then to add in 4 gigs of ram on the side. Its not a 8800XT, but it really is on the same field after its clocked up. As for smooth running, my (now $180) videocard runs it excellently at 1280x800. sure they need SLi support but you know what, so did crysis (crossfire). Even though you cant run it happily on your 6150 (speaking from experience.) and you could with 04, there was no new pricepoint then. The market has changed a bit.




I see your point about the graphic card situation, but a graphic card back when ut2004 came out it would last a lot longer than it does now it the gaming world.

Way I see it Nvidia and Ati are in a bad situation if PC gaming is a hurting market. Both companies need to realize this and lower their prices. Also, They release to many high end video cards a year that does not really provide any better performance than video card before it. When both companies release ther single slot dual core video cards that may help out if the cards are affordable.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 8, 2008)

BYOB said:


> I see your point about the graphic card situation, but a graphic card back when ut2004 came out it would last a lot longer than it does now it the gaming world.
> 
> Way I see it Nvidia and Ati are in a bad situation if PC gaming is a hurting market. Both companies need to realize this and lower their prices. Also, They release to many high end video cards a year that does not really provide any better performance than video card before it. When both companies release ther single slot dual core video cards that may help out if the cards are affordable.



Nvidia and ATI won't be hurting that bad if the PC game market dies out, mainly because they are the ones creating the graphic technology in the PS3 and the Xbox.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 8, 2008)

its the games fault. Game devs need to STOP making games like R6 vegas and crysis, and do things PROPERLY.

NO ONE will buy a game if you cant run it at a reasonable FPS. people return it, or just never buy that brand (EG, rainbow 6) again.

when they do a console port, they need to fix performance, AND redo the controls.

STOP BEING LAZY AND PEOPLE WILL BUY FOR PC.

[/huge amount of annoyance]


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 8, 2008)

Mussels said:


> its the games fault. Game devs need to STOP making games like R6 vegas and crysis, and do things PROPERLY.
> 
> NO ONE will buy a game if you cant run it at a reasonable FPS. people return it, or just never buy that brand (EG, rainbow 6) again.
> 
> ...



Well the truth is that companies like EA and Ubi-soft are huge companies who front money to developers as a loan, and they expect the developers to churn out new products when EA wants them. They game is thought up around a brain storm table, just some generic story line...After that point, once EA gives the thumbs up, the game development is underway and the  developer has to finish it on time. This leads to bad games and or poor story lines.


----------



## Edito (Feb 8, 2008)

I think UT3 failure was because the time they deliver the game and the game doens´t bring anything new, less options than the previous version BAD sountrack less constumization options and it realy looks like a console game and bad servers...

but i think they will fix maybe they need some time to fix it...

and about the PC vs Consoles its about the type of games we like if u like shooters then go for PC if u like RPGs like final fantasy, fighting like tekken and soul calibur don´t think go for PS3... i like both pc and console PC for shooters and console for the games above mentioned...


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 8, 2008)

tech is moving faster and will continue to do so. Technology doubles every 1 and a half years, this is expontial in nature. Meaning as the years go on so does the power curve. it looks like this


----------



## btarunr (Feb 8, 2008)

A curve? where are the values, indices, axes and dimensions?


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 8, 2008)

its paint, but as i said its expontial, the begging being the Voodoo 1 and the end being 8800Ultra. 


compare the power of Voodoo to 8800Ultra and you will see what i mean.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 8, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> its paint, but as i said its expontial, the *begging* being the Voodoo 1 and the end being 8800Ultra.
> 
> 
> compare the power of Voodoo to 8800Ultra and you will see what i mean.



Now I'm confused 

Didn't console technology grow exponentially as well? Beginning from a 2 MHz NES to a CELL powered PS3? You might argue with the pricing but you always had a $200 console at any point in time just as you always had a $200 graphics card. Besides doesn't it make ample sense to upgrade your existing PC with a $199 HD3850 512M than buy a $240 Xbox 360? The HD3850 512M can handle all of today's games reasonably well.


----------



## Caonima (Feb 8, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> even if it does die, im gunna try to keep it alive, mainly because i hate controllers compared to my keyboard and mouse


I support you with the same idea.


----------



## ISMurphy (Feb 8, 2008)

Console gaming is to Wow as PC Gaming is to every other game. just because more people play consoles ( which you will find is a much younger crowd and marketbase statistically ) does not mean PC gaming is dead or dying but that console gaming is growing. almost every PC Gamer i know also has a 360, some have a PS3. they do not account for the following

- Consoles are cheaper
- Consoles are therefore mroe available to a younger market and to their parents. ( i know when i was around for the Nintendo release, my parents bought me one for Christmas.. if i asked them to buy me a $500 graphics card or $1,000 processor... which would they pick? )
- consoles have limited function. while not a con, they are easier to use and maintain, but also cannot do a fraction of what a PC can.
- Consoles cannot be upgraded, you cannot edit games, you can't run other programs, the list goes on and on.
- consoles get an insanely huge advertising campaign and while home PC's do as well they are not directed toward the gamer user but for a very small fraction.
- Console games can be traded, rented, and returned much more easily than PC Games.. but PC Games are also more available free from the shady types = more profit potential in console version production.
- Consoles are more evenly balanced in hardware equality, PC Gamers goes to who has the most tech in their rig.

this list can continue for a while but you get the point, i have seen more people getting into PC Gaming than consoles lately and use their 360 for when friends are over, or downtime between games or matches or what have you... heck some just use their PS3's as a Blue ray player with benefits... me personally, i think consoles are just another PC accessory to amplify my gaming experience by playing the games i cannot get on PC yet, and something to include friends that want to game when they come over to my place or i can take to theirs... 

PC Gamer and Techie for Life, consoles are kids play or downtime recreation at best... kinda like the ugly friend your PC brings to the party just because you need somewhere to crash afterward.. and they are a volunteer DD.


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 8, 2008)

Don't care about consoles...Won't go back unless I'm forced to...I like the PC...the tinkering, the building...the whole ritual that goes along with building your own machine and keeping it running...I started out on consoles...PS1 and went through three of those..went through 2 ps2's and 2 X-boxes...As for PC's, I bought one already made pc(a Gateway) with a 939 socket 4200X2 and built 2 Intel rigs and none of them have died yet..oh, the hdd did fail on the AMD rig, but no biggie...I think PC's are more reliable IF you've put good parts into 'em. Not to mention how hard it would be to play RTS's on console..blech! NOTHING beats the mouse and keyboard!


----------



## Siren (Feb 8, 2008)

No way am I going back to a console... If PC gaming dies my gaming life is done.. I haven't played on a console since the SNES.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 8, 2008)

i own a wii, and my housemate has a Xbox (original) and PS2.

Neither console has anything for it - all anyone ever talks about is the GAMES.

Its the games that make the platform, and NO game ported from another platform is good. you have to change it - not a direct port.

Can someone, anyone, please name a port (pc to console or vice versa) that actually SUCCEEDED and was popular??


----------



## calvary1980 (Feb 8, 2008)

Epic hasn't done well since the original Unreal, and Unreal Tournament I like the formula and engine and I know they make alot of money licensing there engine to countless developers, but the gaming industry is like $6-8 billion a year and the consoles consume 75% of that profit, one of my favorite one liners is "you can't even call it a war, because wars end." aslong as Valve and Blizzard are around the PC gaming will live, but realistically how long will it take for an MMO to work on a console? not long I imagine and I doubt ATI or nVidia will complain they will find a way to market off consoles.

- Christine


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 8, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I don't know what you call midrange, but 500$ is mid range in my book.
> 
> In my opinion, a good mid-range card is 500$. You can get a midranged midrange card for around 300$ bucks, but that's still practically the price of a console.'
> 
> Those are limited searches and only provide so many hits, but if you can't understand that than you can't understand graphics card categories.



wow. Well. No. Your just wrong, and I dont really know what else to say... Hiend has always been around 600 and the lowend of hiend has always aimed for 300 (after some time). Midrange is 200ish, and low end is below. The 3870s changed that in favor of us. Slightly slower hiend at a 200 price tag. I dont know what else to tell you. Look at benchmarrks...yeah, thats just...wrong.


----------



## ISMurphy (Feb 8, 2008)

considering a 3870 x2 is $450.. i dont consider that mid grade... hell i run two 2900 Pro's and for $159 each get amazing results out of them.. though less costly, not low end cards


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 8, 2008)

i have to agree with gsg, the 2900 is a highend card and i paid a little over $200 for mein, it can handle anything i throw at it, except crysis it gets a little mad at me, even teh 8800 which is sub $300 is a highend card, the 3870 is also a great mid-highend card for sub $300, those atm are the highend cards and benchmarks prove it, would you rather spend sub $300 on a gfx card that allows you limitless possibilities with your games, ie mods and what not, tweek the settings, or spend much more than $300 on a machine that offers very limited capabilities


----------



## WarEagleAU (Feb 9, 2008)

Without me even reading, how many of you are pissed off at his comments? HAHA


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Without me even reading, how many of you are pissed off at his comments? HAHA



Me or him


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> wow. Well. No. Your just wrong, and I dont really know what else to say... Hiend has always been around 600 and the lowend of hiend has always aimed for 300 (after some time). Midrange is 200ish, and low end is below. The 3870s changed that in favor of us. Slightly slower hiend at a 200 price tag. I dont know what else to tell you. Look at benchmarrks...yeah, thats just...wrong.



The modern high end (when they were first released) card costs 650-800$, trust me, I've bought one. It's called the 8800 ultra OC edition. That's the highest end as you go gaming video card wise. If you can't play crysis, it's because you're on a midrange card. IF your midrange card is OCed, then this gives you a better chance of playing crysis. ATI SELLS MANY MID RANGE CARDS. That's their niche, right now at least. ATI knew nvidia's 8800 series cards were going to be faster when they first came out, and they tapped into the midrange budget gaming market.

The 3870 is ATI's high end card, in a midrange market. You're completely confusing the entire thing.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> The modern high end (when they were first released) card costs 650-800$, trust me, I've bought one. It's called the 8800 ultra OC edition. That's the highest end as you go gaming video card wise. If you can't play crysis, it's because you're on a midrange card. IF your midrange card is OCed, then this gives you a better chance of playing crysis. ATI SELLS MANY MID RANGE CARDS. That's their niche, right now at least. ATI knew nvidia's 8800 series cards were going to be faster when they first came out, and they tapped into the midrange budget gaming market.
> 
> The 3870 is ATI's high end card, in a midrange market. You're totally confusing the entire thing.



No. not really. you just have your own definition of midrange that noone here, and noone anywhere agrees with. 
PERFORMANCE is what deisdes if a card is hiend midrange or lowend. NOT the price. thats the biggest discrepancy. Everyone here besides you would consider a 2900 hiend.
Also the Ultra was not released first, just the GTX (I know you know it im just recaping) and it was that much, some of the Ultras cost as much as 1000, but they got 5fps more. Thats called being an idiot and not buying a product that is cost effective (No offense to anyone, if you have the money...i envy you, but its still not cost effective in the least).


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

high end is $400+ - i remember people screaming when cards came OUT at $500, and how unfair it was. These are cards like the 8800GTX/ultra, x1950XTX, 3870X2 etc.
These are the cards designed to max out the games in their current generation


Mid range is $200-$400 - where cards like the 8800GT/S hang around. These are cards that will run any res you choose, but not with max graphics.

low end is anything upto $200 - we call it low end, becaue cards in this range cant run modern games reliably on medium. think of a 7300GS, 8400GT, ATI 1050 etc.

When talking these prices - its all about the latest generation. "last gen high end" often ends up around 'this gen mid range".

Three generation old high end often ends up near the low-mid of current stuff, so saying 'my 1950xtx is high end' is irrelevant 3 years after it came out - NOT 3 years since you bought it.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

_Thank you_... I was beginning to think I went into an alternate dimension where nothing made sense and things that happened did not actually happen.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> _Thank you_... I was beginning to think I went into an alternate dimension where nothing made sense and things that happened did not actually happen.



oh but gsg-9 you are sorry we didn't tell, but hey i forget a lot of stuff


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

actully its broken down like this to be honest

sub 100 = budget buy

100-200 = lower midrange

200-350 = upper midrange

350-500 = lower highend

500-1000 = upper highend

1000+ = your crazy


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 9, 2008)

price doesn't matter, performance determines if it is a high end card or not


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

not quite candle - thats a 'perfect world' version.

The reason its not so broken down is that each generation, theres always a great value card or two that beat others in its range - a $300 card 'upper mid range' could come out faster than a $400 'lower high end'

I keep it generalised, because you have to base it on performance/experience rather than JUST on price.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> actully its broken down like this to be honest
> sub 100 = budget buy
> 100-200 = lower midrange
> 200-350 = upper midrange
> ...


I would have agreed with you a few months ago but the price spread to performance is to great now. a 2900 is NOT midrange, its just not. Its highend. and it IS $2x0 pricerange. Thats NOT what the graphics market looks like.



das müffin mann said:


> price doesn't matter, performance determines if it is a high end card or not


exactly


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

2900 is last gen high end. read my post


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> I would have agreed with you a few months ago but the price spread to performance is to great now. a 2900 is NOT midrange, its just not. Its highend. and it IS $2x0 pricerange. Thats NOT what the graphics market looks like.
> 
> 
> exactly



really, with the 9600GT comming in 2 weeks with 8800GTS 640 power, and 3870X2 and 9800GX2 it sure does to me. Look at the end of 06 for refrance on this, or the end of 05. The highend have fallen in price.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> not quite candle - thats a 'perfect world' version.
> 
> The reason its not so broken down is that each generation, theres always a great value card or two that beat others in its range - a $300 card 'upper mid range' could come out faster than a $400 'lower high end'
> 
> I keep it generalised, because you have to base it on performance/experience rather than JUST on price.



it is on price, a 2900pro was highend now its midrange, the 8800GT is midrange but the 8800GTS his highend along with GTX and Ultra. If you look at price vs preformace you always pay a premium and always will for the fastest


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> it is on price, a 2900pro was highend now its midrange, the 8800GT is midrange but the 8800GTS his highend along with GTX and Ultra. If you look at price vs preformace you always pay a premium and always will for the fastest



No...Those are all highend. a 8600 is mid range and a 8400 down is lowend. Thats how it has always been broken up. its how everyone breaks it up INCLUDING the people that make them.

Sure a 8800gt is on the lower end of high end but it is quite far from midrange.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 9, 2008)

dude when i bought my highend card it was 250 and thats when it was first released


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

theres really only low, mid and high on the manuf end.

Nvidia for example.

Low
8600GT and lower.

Mid 
8600GTS/8800GS/8800GT

High 8800GTS (g92) 8800GTX/ultra/9800GX2 etc

WE alter that based on price, but we're really only guesstimating, as prices are varying quite a lot - people pay over $500 for a card easy these days, yet when they came out everyone was shitting bricks at buying a card over $300.




das müffin mann said:


> dude when i bought my highend card it was 250 and thats when it was first released



As i said, and has been missed - you got last gen highend. Its priced at current mid range prices, and while its performance per $ is quite good, that doesnt make it THIS gens high end.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

i didnt when i bought a TNT2 for 300 back in the day lol

wouldnt it be nice if it was still worth 300 though


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> theres really only low, mid and high on the manuf end.
> 
> WE alter that based on price, but we're really only guesstimating, as prices are varying quite a lot - people pay over $500 for a card easy these days, yet when they came out everyone was shitting bricks at buying a card over $300.
> As i said, and has been missed - you got last gen highend. Its priced at current mid range prices, and while its performance per $ is quite good, that doesnt make it THIS gens high end.



Many break it up by series as well (I prefer this) 8800 = 8 8 00
First 8 being Generation of card, Second number being the series and the final two denoting any final significance in performance. More importantly than this though is benchmarks.

I do know what you are saying about older high end. But even a 1900xt, even though its close to obsolete, and it can probably be beat by a 8600 It was made to be highend. Its a highend card even if its obsolete, and it will run better than a 8200. Because an 8200 is lowend and a 1900 is not. (Which is what you said )

Right now a 3870x2 can be had for under $500. Thats highend, but it is 30% more effective than a 3870 but only on certain resolutions and settings you may or may not use. thats a $300 premium


Oh btw. the 2900 still is this gens highend, as it beats the 3870 in most tests, there is NOT a new generation of videocards yet, no new cores, just reiterations of the same hardware.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 9, 2008)

the point im trying to make is that price is a second factor when i comes to determining a high end card PERFORMANCE ALWAYS COMES FIRST


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 - dont get me wrong. the 2900pro is still a great card, but its a 2x00 series, not a 3x00.
Performance aside ( i DID say some generations are faster than others, thus hte reason pricing is crap) - its last gen, so retailers lower the price! 

the 3xk cards have HDMI video w/ audio and DX 10.1, while useless to most people they are a newer, more feature laden card, so to retailers/noobsumers, that makes them worth more. Just means the 2900pro is cheap, which is good for the smart people


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

Mussels said:


> the 3xk cards have HDMI video w/ audio and DX 10.1, while useless to most people they are a newer, more feature laden card, so to retailers/noobsumers, that makes them worth more. Just means the 2900pro is cheap, which is good for the smart people



The reason the 2s are so close in performance to the 3s is there was no new architecture, the core went threw a shrink. Thats all. My 2900pro has an hdmi w/audio in the back. I dont even have an hdmi monitor to use it on though...I need to fix that.

Also the 3870s are also $220 thats current gen


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 9, 2008)

for a $150 i may actually crossfire mein at some point


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

none the less its midrange, get over it.

cant you be happy your midrange card is good?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> The reason the 2s are so close in performance to the 3s is there was no new architecture, the core went threw a shrink. Thats all. My 2900pro has an hdmi w/audio in the back. I dont even have an hdmi monitor to use it on though...I need to fix that.



no new architecture, but naming says a new generation. Price-wise, THATS what controls it - stores are selling off the x2K stock before they lose all value (i still see x1800 cards online time to time, at over $400).

You're arguing a technical view, i'm talking marketing/retail pricing.


----------



## AddSub (Feb 9, 2008)

> price doesn't matter, performance determines if it is a high end card or not





> the point im trying to make is that price is a second factor when i comes to determining a high end card PERFORMANCE ALWAYS COMES FIRST



This is not the case with nVidia's cards. nVidia's GPUs can be absolutely unappealing from price/performance standpoint and still sell for much more than they are really worth (as compared to what ATI offers for same amount of cash). 

Example: 8600GTS cards in some places are still selling for around $250. Why would anyone spend $250 on a $100 card? I call it "GeForce tax". An ability to brag about having a nvidia GPU. For some people it doesn’t matter how much a card costs or how good it performs, they just want a "GeForce", just like the one their neighbor/co-worker/buddy/family-member has. Both nVidia and retailers take advantage of this.

I mean, I've actually seen people recommending other people that they upgrade their "crappy" Radeon x1950xt to an 8500GT, because in the minds of many a "GeForce" card, no matter how cut-down is still better than 10 best ATI cards, put together! 

Ignorance is mofo! 

nVidia = Apple of GPU realm, and I don't mean that in the good way.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

yea the egg has the x1800XT for like 235 right now


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

AddSub said:


> This is not the case with nVidia's cards. nVidia's GPUs can be absolutely unappealing from price/performance standpoint and still sell for much more than they are really worth (as compared to what ATI offers for same amount of cash).
> 
> Example: 8600GTS cards in some places are still selling for around $250. Why would anyone spend $250 on a $100 card? I call it "GeForce tax". An ability to brag about having a nvidia GPU. For some people it doesn’t matter how much a card costs or how good it performs, they just want a "GeForce", just like the one their neighbor/co-worker/buddy/family-member has. Both nVidia and retailers take advantage of this.
> 
> ...



Nvidia invented the realm we are in today, 3dfx started, and Geforce took off from there. Its that the geforce line offers more power than the radeon. Would you rather have an 8600GTS or an HD2600XT they sell for similar price. Would you rather have HD3870 or 8800GT for 20-30 more and get 20% more power?


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> none the less its midrange, get over it.
> 
> cant you be happy your midrange card is good?



wow...your a dumb ass. We just deducted in the past 8 or so posts that the 2900 series is the f_*ken high end of the HD2 series from ATi.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> wow...your a dumb ass. We just deducted in the past 8 or so posts that the 2900 series is the f_*ken high end of the HD2 series from ATi.



and would you call the 1950XTX highend or midrange. By your thinking the TNT2 Ultra is highend. With every new generation the old higened fall into lowend.

Look at 6800GS or 5900XT or 9800pro or heck x1800XL for proof.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> Nvidia invented the realm we are in today, 3dfx started, and Geforce took off from there. Its that the geforce line offers more power than the radeon. Would you rather have an 8600GTS or an HD2600XT they sell for similar price. Would you rather have HD3870 or 8800GT for 20-30 more and get 20% more power?



and the last few price you spit out are bullshit. an 8600 is the same price of the much superior 3870. you can get a 2900gt for $1xx at new egg. The reason the X1800s are so much is there not being made, its not an attempt to show their value its just like ddr ram, its obsolete,


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> and would you call the 1950XTX highend or midrange. By your thinking the TNT2 Ultra is highend. With every new generation the old higened fall into lowend.
> 
> Look at 6800GS or 5900XT or 9800pro or heck x1800XL for proof.




There all high end in there time, they will always be a high end designed card. They will trail behind more and more as time goes on and eventually the midrange standard will surpass the old highend standard. Which is what we said in the past few posts...

Edit: Sorry for the 2x i figured someone would have posted by now,


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

your argument about the 8600GT is misleading - those ARE a poor card, whereas the 8800GT can be had for $300-$350 these days (512MB) and it kicks ass.

EVERY generation has one failure of a card - compare the ATI 1950XT vs the XTX. basically the same, yet idiots still paid $100-$200 more for them, because they were faster.

your argument has merit, its just wrong in the fact that only Nvidia have that problem. Nvidia, ATI, AMD, and Intel all have fanbois like that.

People bought the prescott, people bought the 1950XTX, people buy 8500GT's for gaming.
Some people are just dumb/blindly loyal, and it has no relation to the brands.


----------



## AddSub (Feb 9, 2008)

> yea the egg has the x1800XT for like 235 right now



And I can't find anyone who would pay that much for it, but I can point out several people, just in the last few weeks, that I know, who bought 8600GTS cards for much more than they were worth, and they did it because they just wanted a "GeForce" card, not because of price or performance.



> Nvidia invented the realm we are in today, 3dfx started, and Geforce took off from there. Its that the geforce line offers more power than the radeon. Would you rather have an 8600GTS or an HD2600XT they sell for similar price. Would you rather have HD3870 or 8800GT for 20-30 more and get 20% more power?



Uh huh, yeah, you see I'm not really member of your church, Church of nVidia that is, so I wouldn't know what realms they "invented" and all the miracles they performed so far and I don’t have any plans of joining it. But this isn’t about 8600GTS vs HD2600XT, its about general ignorance of the populace when it comes to technology. Debating the merits of 8600GTS vs HD2600XT is one thing, recommending highly inferior nVidia products over their ATI counterparts (much cheaper counterparts in many cases) is something else. You want examples?  Visit www.hardforum.com, plenty to see there.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

AddSub said:


> And I can't find anyone who would pay that much for it, but I can point out several people, just in the last few weeks, that I know, who bought 8600GTS cards for much more than they were worth, and they did it because they just wanted a "GeForce" card, not because of price or performance.



The cause for that price though is the stop of production, not the market.



AddSub said:


> Uh huh, yeah, you see I'm not really member of your church, Church of nVidia that is, so I would know what realms they "invented" and all the miracles they performed so far and I don’t have any plans of joining it. But this isn’t about 8600GTS vs HD2600XT, its about general ignorance of the populace when it comes to technology. Debating the merits of 8600GTS vs HD2600XT is one thing, recommending highly inferior nVidia products over their ATI counterparts (much cheaper counterparts in many cases) is something else. You want examples?  Visit www.hardforum.com, plenty to see there.


Well...Nvidia makes good stuff, they just have not matched AMDs prices right now. I would love to have a 9800...kinda...to pay tribute to the 9800xt lol...but still, that would be sweet.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

AddSub said:


> And I can't find anyone who would pay that much for it, but I can point out several people, just in the last few weeks, that I know, who bought 8600GTS cards for much more than they were worth, and they did it because they just wanted a "GeForce" card, not because of price or performance.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh, yeah, you see I'm not really member of your church, Church of nVidia that is, so I would know what realms they "invented" and all the miracles they performed so far and I don’t have any plans of joining it. But this isn’t about 8600GTS vs HD2600XT, its about general ignorance of the populace when it comes to technology. Debating the merits of 8600GTS vs HD2600XT is one thing, recommending highly inferior nVidia products over their ATI counterparts (much cheaper counterparts in many cases) is something else. You want examples?  Visit www.hardforum.com, plenty to see there.



look at price vs preformace of these cards and tell me that agian.

fact the HD2600XT preforms on par with 8600GT but costs more, where taking GDDR4 card, the HD3870 preforms close to 8800GT and costs less, but the 8800GT is still the better buy because of the preformace margins it brings. Sure in retail an 8600GTS costs 250 at a store, but online its 130, and at that price its not a bad buy. But then again in a real store the 8800GT costs closer to 400 than 250. Its where you shop you can argue all day, but comparing brick and mortar to online is totally diffrent ballgame. At this time there are 2 good buys in the ATI lineup the HD3850 and the HD3870X2.

On Nvidia there are more, the 8500GT DDR3, 8600GT, 8800GT, 8800GTS 512. All cost similar to the ATI cards in there price range but outpreform them, the HD3850 doesnt have a competior yet, but it arrives the 21st.

As for church what are you smoking, its a simple fact, Nvidia invented the GPU, where first with Hardware TnL, first with DX8 support, first to SM3, first to DX10. First to use DDR, GDDR2, GDDR3.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> look at price vs preformace of these cards and tell me that agian.
> 
> fact the HD2600XT preforms on par with 8600GT but costs more, where taking GDDR4 card, the HD3870 preforms close to 8800GT and costs less, but the 8800GT is still the better buy because of the preformace margins it brings. Sure in retail an 8600GTS costs 250 at a store, but online its 130, and at that price its not a bad buy. But then again in a real store the 8800GT costs closer to 400 than 250. Its where you shop you can argue all day, but comparing brick and mortar to online is totally diffrent ballgame. At this time there are 2 good buys in the ATI lineup the HD3850 and the HD3870X2.
> 
> ...



The 8600s price competitor if you want to put it that was is the hd2900. You can pair that up with the first 3 cards on the list and it will win or be within 10 fps at a pricetag of $145.  At least what they smoke does not make them list midrange as $500


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> The 8600s price competitor if you want to put it that was is the hd2900. You can pair that up with the first 3 cards on the list and it will win or be within 10 fps at a pricetag of $145.  At least what they smoke does not make them list midrange as $500



i said 8600GT was a good buy, 8600GTS is if its under 120. The 8600GT is sitting pretty at 100 right now and preforms great to be honest.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> i said 8600GT was a good buy, 8600GTS is if its under 120. The 8600GT is sitting pretty at 100 right now and preforms great to be honest.



Thats true, its only fair to list the lowest price i guess as I am listing the lowest for a 2900. New egg has a very wide price range on the 8600s


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> Thats true, its only fair to list the lowest price i guess as I am listing the lowest for a 2900. New egg has a very wide price range on the 8600s



well i had a base model 8600GT evga when they came out for 150, clocked it to 800/1800 with a voltmod, good preformace now at 100.


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

Theres a large gap between 8800s and 8600s
and between 2900s/3070s and 2600s


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

and this whole thread, is why average joe buys the card with the shiniest box - its damn confusing without already knowing how the earlier cards compare.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 9, 2008)

no its not


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 9, 2008)

I love my 8600 GTS, But i am still going to upgrade it to maybe a 8800 GT or a 8800 GTX when i get a new case. Is a pretty good mid range card for the price. I have been playing most of my DX9 games on high and i can ply Crysis on high with no AA. But i would get a better card for DX10 games and for future titles cause i don't think a 8600 with be able to handle all the games coming out.


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 9, 2008)

And BTW, the 2900XT is still a highend card. Just because the 3870's are out that doesn't mean the 2900's become midrange. And i agree with Mussels about the shinest box comment, Most people don't understand what there buying, just what see on the box impresses them. Which is sad.:shadedshu


----------



## Ketxxx (Feb 9, 2008)

zekrahminator said:


> a paltry 14% of gamers game on their computer. The reason for this, despite the superior technology the PC offers, is the sheer cost of owning and maintaining a gaming habit on the PC. While an Xbox360 is $400USD including games and extra controllers, a PC is upwards of $1000USD for a game-worthy setup, not including games, and only supporting one player at a time.
> 
> Source: DailyTech



Lets not get carried away on this. IF software houses dedicated as much time as epic do to optimise their game code, far more users would be willing to game on their PC. Typical framerates from modern games on the most powerful of gaming PC setups is clearly unacceptable. This is not down to poor hardware, subroutines, drivers or anything like that. Its down to increasingly poorly optimised game code. Until software houses and a majority of PC gamers alike realise and accept this, games for PCs will continue to drastically drop in game code quality.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 9, 2008)

Games like Crysis, Doom 3 drive people away to the consoles. I mean you'd need to buy $1350 worth video-cards (3x GeForce 8800 GTX) to be able to play the game "the way it's meant to be played"


----------



## Ketxxx (Feb 9, 2008)

Cysis engine is heavily unoptimised. That said I still managed to play it @ 1280*1024 everything on high detail apart from the setting that controls lights which was set to medium, and got 30-40FPS I think it was on the demo. As for D3.. pfft. I ran that maxed and tweaked to make it look even better with 2x AA 16x AF @ 1280*1024 on an OCd 6800GT, nevermind my 1950Pro


----------



## GSG-9 (Feb 9, 2008)

Oblivion is also ridiculously unoptimized. Its fine on todays hardware I guess though.


----------

