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

[GSG-9]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mussels]

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]

no its not

 

[CDdude55]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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