New Tim Sweeny interview, mostly about tech-specs

[Blade[UG]]

Athlon XP 2000+ with a GF6200 here. I didn't even think 2004 would run, although it does, to a degree. I've got people that want me to help them dev things for UT3 already, but since I'm basically poor, I don't have money to buy new hardware, and that leaves me screwed. :|

[Benfica]

since I'm basically poor, I don't have money to buy new hardware, and that leaves me screwed. :|

Man, so are most of the gamers. That's what a lot of people don't have a clue about. That may mean say, 60% of US, 70% European, 80% of Latin America and Asia gamers.

And then there are guys with laptops only (I'm not talking about the pathetic Intel video here), the 6 million Nintendo Wii owners, Dells and other PCs with lower end GFX cards, the new Macs, etc...

[Blade[UG]]

Well, you can't blame them for using the power that's available in newer generations. It doesn't make sense to knock out a bunch of crap so that those of us with 5+ year old processors can still play it. Whenever I upgrade, I get the best thing that I can afford at the time, and I hope that it lasts me. So far, this has lasted me until approximately... now, when I can just barely run anything new. Not a terrible run. In fact, probably the longest run I've ever had for hardware.

Still, I can complain

[Haten]

NVIDIA Geforce 6100 DX9

How bad will the DX9 look compared to the D10 with a better Nvidia Card

[Benfica]

Sure, but then don't even consider your 6200. A 7600GT ran R6V at 640x480 low, 30fps when it was released

[martinblank]

If everyone thought like a couple of posters here, we'd still all be playing 2d games on green monitors...so negative about progress. Is Vista perfect ,hell no, it needs a lot of trimming,polishing. Its excessive memory use is probably tied up with all the unfortunate DRM stuff and security/ file integrity checks.

People still are not understanding my point. I don't CARE if vista uses more resources. Of course it does! It's a newer OS released in a generation of faster PCs! I am NOT against moving forward (why would I want to get DX10 on XP then). I do not have ANY problems with shelling out megabucks for new hardware to play new games every 6 months (even if I don't do that, if I had the money I would).

I DO have a problem with microsoft trying to act as "big brother" with vista. All the drm BULL. Paying money for the RIGHT to listen to your music (compressed mp3s at that) instead of actually OWNING it is NOT moving forward. It's not quite that bad with standard a/v yet, but it is annoying and it is getting there. It IS that bad with the HD stuff already with vista. I do no t feel like typing out 3 pages of information here just to explain my personal reasoning to people on an online game forum. If you want to know for yourself search google. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine. I don't care. But please don't accuse me of things like being stubborn, not wanting to move forward or spend money, etc... before you even know the details behind my reasoning. It has NOTHING to do with using more resources or having to spend money (although those are a little annoying).

[Hedge-o-Matic]

If everyone thought like a couple of posters here, we'd still all be playing 2d games on green monitors...

Wait... you guys are playing this game in color? WTF?

Looks like I've gotta upgrade to that CGA I've been hearing so much about! Four colors at once, here I come!

[Hedge-o-Matic]

I DO have a problem with microsoft trying to act as "big brother" with vista.

Me too! All those toe-touchies before breakfast are really getting to me! But it looks like people provide their own Two-Minute Hate without much prompting, which is good for the war effort, I guess.

Freedom is Slavery!

[OblivionLord]

I'm so tired of this BS. Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy

d00d, because the 6800 has the same programming capabilities of 2x 7950GX2 SLI. Any shader code that runs on one, runs on the other.
AND some code or features are optional, examples:
- Shadows, soft shadows
- Blur
- HDR
- Post processing
- Texture size
- AF

Disabling all the above, you don't have *incorrect* or distorted rendering in the sense that ruins gameplay. Also you can play at any res you like, from 640x480 up to 2048x1536

[edit]Ah, and when a game is demanding (a.k.a slow as f&/""), there will be a lot of friends that go play something else. This is what some guys don't understand.

To M$ bashers, the ones that do that without a solid reason, just because... : www.gatesfoundation.org

To the ones that put everything on max, want holy $hit settings and then say that the game is demanding, you wouldn't have fun with:
- A ZX spectrum in 1983
- A Commodore Amiga in 1986
- A Celeron 300A PC on 1993
- A PS1
You wouldn't even consider buying a fun as hell Nintendo Wii because it's sooo last generation.

Game developers aren't programing games to run on old hardware expecially the 6800 ultra which does not compare physicaly to what a today card even the 7950 outside of SM, outside of Vertex Shader, outside of HDR, etc etc..can do. Obviously the code in PC ported games are gutted down to accommodate the old hardware in consoles which is why current games can only do soo much playing on a 6800 even with grafic settings all the way down. IF developers were really going to cater to old hardware then rainbow 6 vegas, Oblivion, Doom3 would all run today at a min FPS of 60 Progressive at even lowest settings in the most demanding of areas. Of course this is not true since the code in the game just isnt there to provide this. The hell if they are gong to make a seperate version or alter the code to achieve this or the company would never produce. Just look at MS Vista for example.

Its a hell of alot easier to do this on console when the hardware is the same for years with every machine without having to gut the code tremendously and only needing to maintain 30fps when interlaced is 60fps.

If at anytime a Pc game gets to be demanding for ones PC's hardware then obviously there is no choice but to play something else or save up. Its not that they really want to play something else. Why do you think consoles have done so well? Because there just isnt any need to continuously upgrade in order to play a current hit title and having it run just the same as your friend down the road outside of the friendly user ease of simply popping the game in and pressing play.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Now as far as that survey site goes... Of course this site is only catering to Source engine am I right? If so then that means we are looking at HL2, CS-Source, Day of Defeat mainly. Now exactly how is this any sort of "accurate" survery when we are only looking at 1 engine out of the whole spectrum? I mean really, are you going to take 1 game which so happens to not be the most up to date in Eye candy as well as popularity compared to a game like WOW which has 8 million subscribers world wide and consider this to be the true source to base what hardware the "Majority" of gamers use? You cant be serious now are you? Lets also take into account that the most popular online FPS game is still CS original with but, 68k to CS-S at 28k with BF2 at 13k. Theres a diffrence there but, nothing at all compared to WOW.

Even on that survey.. 45% are with 1gb of ram when 24% are with 2gb. The norm now is about 2gb at just about every popular forum and now with Vista its slowly going to 4gb. Dual Core cpu's have been out for consumers in Personal Computers for 2 years now and according to the survey 77% are still using single core compared to 22% using dual. If that doesn't tell you exactly what type of people are mainly playing the source engine then I don't know what does.

You want to see popularity? Here I'll show you...
http://www.blizzard.com/press/070123.shtml
http://www.blizzard.com/press/070111.shtml

I know one thing.. If i was budget savvy then I would stay with CS-Source, UT2k4 then BF2 since BF2 is a HELL of alot more demanding than either of those expecially when BF2 was one of the first games to really show performance improvement while using 2gb ram instead of 1gb.

Im able to get 45min FPS in HL2 at 1024x768 full grafic settings with my x800Xt-Pe P4 3.0ghz. The HELL if im going to get the same in BF2. I don't consider anything below 50fps to be smoothly on progressive for my prefrence. Obviously if 25-40 is "smooth" for you then thats simply your opinion.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/505/3/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/504/3/

Not to say that these reviews are the all end result to expect with dx10 performance in UT3 or Crysis but, as it is.. its still to slow for my needs unless I go with SLI/Crossfire OR wait till the hardware catches up. Im personaly glad its like this, this way there are rushing competitive advancements. Not some Communist crap.

[durtytarget]

Whats the big fuss about? UT3 is gonna be Tune able and you know that. You can easily change settings that you likely not to observe for example (not in my case juts an example) If u are a serious or medium gamer then while playing you ain't gonna be looking at soft/normal shadows.Now if you don't want texture quality reduction reduce the resolution and put it to window mode. Did you know all games that I play have to have window mode lol.

Secondly you can also tune distortion effects if you want if you are not gonna actually be viewing distortion created by heat. You can also put less players i.e medium number of players instead of filling up a map full of dudes throwing rockets and shrapnel here and there thus reducing CPU and graphic load. So problem solved.

Just relax. UT3 will run on all PCs.

[Benfica]

Game developers aren't programing games to run on old hardware expecially the 6800 ultra which does not compare physicaly to what a today card even the 7950 outside of SM, outside of Vertex Shader, outside of HDR, etc etc..can do.

The 6800Ultra has similar speed as the 7600GT, X1650XT, and sometimes even a 8600GT because this card is wierd. These cards are for sale TODAY and can cost up to 150€ or more. And some guys have 6800Ultra SLI.

Obviously the code in PC ported games are gutted down to accommodate the old hardware in consoles which is why current games can only do soo much playing on a 6800 even with grafic settings all the way down.

Bull. Go on, disable shadows and AA. Point me to a downloadable game demo that is not playable at 1024x768, good texture quality and HDR.

IF developers were really going to cater to old hardware then rainbow 6 vegas, Oblivion, Doom3 would all run today at a min FPS of 60 Progressive at even lowest settings in the most demanding of areas.

We are not talking about old hardware like a 5200 or 9200. We are talking about cards that have the same performance of current mid-range cards(or were perfectly mid-range 3 months ago). And please there aren't just "lowest" and "highest" settings. You don't need to have low texture quality or play w/o AF on a card that has a 256bit bus. It still has 16 pixel shaders at 450MHz or whatever that is. And there is no sense talking about min 60 fps on the most demanding areas. I gave an example of a equivalent card card (7600gt) that will run a game at 640x480, lowest settings, 30fps MAX.

btw, I'm really surprised about a few things:
- how a lot of people just whine that UT2, UT2003, UC1 and UC2 sucked.
- a lot of people bash the newbies
- defend the fact that you *should* pay (upgrade) if you want to play
It looks like they would like to alienate a lot of players.

Of course this is not true since the code in the game just isnt there to provide this. The hell if they are gong to make a seperate version or alter the code to achieve this or the company would never produce. Just look at MS Vista for example.

WTF? What code change??? They developed the engine using exactly 6800Ultras in SLI.

Its a hell of alot easier to do this on console when the hardware is the same for years with every machine without having to gut the code tremendously and only needing to maintain 30fps when interlaced is 60fps.

Hmm... even if you had vsync on, there is no need to create a frame for each monitor cycle. It could be 42.5 for 85Hz CRT, 1 frame per each 2 cycles. Why this isn't done, I dunno.

If at anytime a Pc game gets to be demanding for ones PC's hardware then obviously there is no choice but to play something else or save up.

Now, this is exactly one of my points. That day you will have more people playing retarded shooters instead of UT3.

Its not that they really want to play something else. Why do you think consoles have done so well? Because there just isnt any need to continuously upgrade in order to play a current hit title and having it run just the same as your friend down the road outside of the friendly user ease of simply popping the game in and pressing play.

There is no need to continuosly upgrade. Can you play anything with a recent x1950XT or 7950gt with similar eyecandy to a console? Yes you can. But guess what, they are outdated already.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Now as far as that survey site goes... Of course this site is only catering to Source engine am I right? If so then that means we are looking at HL2, CS-Source, Day of Defeat mainly. Now exactly how is this any sort of "accurate" survery when we are only looking at 1 engine out of the whole spectrum? I mean really, are you going to take 1 game which so happens to not be the most popular and not as up to date in Eye candy either and consider this to be the true source to base what hardware the "Majority" of gamers use? You cant be serious now are you?

It wasn't my argument, but I agree with you at 100% here. There are 5200 and MX440 there. WTF, 10 years old cards. There's a limit for everything. The problem is that where you draw the line, on what runs and doesn't run a game. But we are not talking about such poor hardware. It more like this:
- How come the card where an engine was developed, is way too slow or old, to run an much more optimized version of it?
- How come is made a decision to develop something that doesn't even load on a X850XT PE?

Even on that survey.. 45% are with 1gb of ram when 24% are with 2gb. The norm now is about 2gb at just about every popular forum and now with Vista its slowly going to 4gb.

RAM is inexpensive and it has fantastic value. You are talking about quantity and not speed of the device here. That means 110€ to 150€ for 2GB. Affordable.

Dual Core cpu's have been out for consumers in Personal Computers for 2 years now and according to the survey 77% are still using single core compared to 22% using dual. If that doesn't tell you exactly what type of people are mainly playing the source engine then I don't know what does.

What? Would any of them exchange for instance an A64 SC for a lame P4 DC 1 year ago?

I know one thing.. If i was budget savvy then I would stay with CS-Source, UT2k4 then BF2 since BF2 is a HELL of alot more demanding than either of those expecially when BF2 was one of the first games to really show performance improvement while using 2gb ram instead of 1gb.

It's not budget savvy, just a matter of choice. If I can't play at max settings, I'll try to have fun at 90%. It's seems hard for some gamers today.
And the problem is not upgrading. It's doing it constantly. Ask 7950GX2 or X1950XTX owners what they think about Vista.
The point: you can't upgrade just in time for a single game. Some people use their PCs for something else and had upgrade cycles recently.

Im able to get 45min FPS in HL2 at 1024x768 full grafic settings with my x800Xt-Pe P4 3.0ghz. The HELL if im going to get the same in BF2. I don't consider anything below 50fps to be smoothly on progressive for my prefrence. Obviously if 25-40 is "smooth" for you then thats simply your opinion.

For me, it's 40-45 min.
The problem is actually the P4. It is slower than an AthlonXP @ 2.2GHz. But unfortunately you can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/505/3/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/504/3/

Not to say that these reviews are the all end result to expect with dx10 performance in UT3 or Crysis but, as it is.. its still to slow for my needs unless I go with SLI/Crossfire OR wait till the hardware catches up. Im personaly glad its like this, this way there are rushing competitive advancements. Not some Communist crap.

Default settings. A tech demo. Unoptimized engine. With shadow high and shadow map 1024x1024. Whatever, I give up

Note, I don't care about any other game besides UT2004, Unreal series and Epic btw. Maybe that's why I rant so much about keeping a lot of people out of UT and playing Crap Strike.

[durtytarget]

really really long post man. Hard to read lol. Read my last post. Graphics are tune able.

[roadrash]

Man, so are most of the gamers. That's what a lot of people don't have a clue about. That may mean say, 60% of US, 70% European, 80% of Latin America and Asia gamers.

And then there are guys with laptops only (I'm not talking about the pathetic Intel video here), the 6 million Nintendo Wii owners, Dells and other PCs with lower end GFX cards, the new Macs, etc...

I hate to put it like this but then buy the game for the 360 or the PS3. PC gaming has always been an expensive habit, and it always will be. It's more of an adults hobby since a large part of it involves upgrading and playing about with a computer.

If you think it's expensive now that's a tad funny. It's always been quiet pricey. Anybody who remembers shelling out for the first OGL cards back in the 90s, or buying one of the first pentiums remembers the pain. Developers are currently pretty nice to people about what stuff will and won't play on.

Also remember that premium parts aren't targeted at most people. Unless you plan on spending a fair amount of cash playing at low details for a while is just part of the hobby.

I DO have a problem with microsoft trying to act as "big brother" with vista. All the drm BULL. Paying money for the RIGHT to listen to your music (compressed mp3s at that) instead of actually OWNING it is NOT moving forward. It's not quite that bad with standard a/v yet, but it is annoying and it is getting there. It IS that bad with the HD stuff already with vista.

Ahh a side track derail into DRM fiascos.

If you don't like it then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy HD-DVD, blu-ray, music or any of that. Just don't, why bother it's all crap anyways.

And before you fire off on a "well that god damn MS they are causing it" think again. Blame the MPAA, blame the artists, blame the people who are buying it, and then blame the likes of apple and MS who have to play ball with a system that other people created. It's not like DRM doesn't already exist outside of vista on a draconian level.

It's not like you can't get around all of that anyways.

Im personaly glad its like this, this way there are rushing competitive advancements. Not some Communist crap.

And this is the key issue here, the faster things move forward the cheaper things are.

Case in point is what happened with dual core amd 64 right after core2 duo. It's not like amd's tech is bad, it's that things moved forward so fast they had to drop their prices. With UT3 still being out over the horizon I'm sure there will be better stuff for cheaper then.

You can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards

No, but you can overclock a cpu and your fsb far more easily then you can your gfx card, and with far better results.

[Ultron]

Personally I'm glad UT3 won't be limited by DX9. If there are some features that DX10 can do that DX9 can't, then obviously we can't complain about that because we know DX9 has some limitations. Complaining that UT9 shouldn't look better in DX10 is just asking UT3 to basically be limited by DX9's features. I don't want that.

I'm DX9 right now, but next February I'll go DX10 all the way, and I definitely want to take advantage of that by then.

[TheNub]

Can someone tell me just one thing please: Will UT3 run fine on XP?

I can't tell if people here are just complaining about having to use Vista for Dx10, or just about having to use Vista all together.

[Benfica]

Whats the big fuss about? UT3 is gonna be Tune able and you know that. You can easily change settings that you likely not to observe for example (not in my case juts an example) If u are a serious or medium gamer then while playing you ain't gonna be looking at soft/normal shadows.Now if you don't want texture quality reduction reduce the resolution and put it to window mode. Did you know all games that I play have to have window mode lol.

Secondly you can also tune distortion effects if you want if you are not gonna actually be viewing distortion created by heat. You can also put less players i.e medium number of players instead of filling up a map full of dudes throwing rockets and shrapnel here and there thus reducing CPU and graphic load. So problem solved.

Just relax. UT3 will run on all PCs.

Hey, I'm relaxed, I will play at reasonable high settings I have a PC fast enough for it: C2D OC'ed at 3.2Ghz, 2GB RAM and a 8600gt with components OC'ed from to 30% to 50%. It becomes faster than a 8600gts or x1950pro.
And I can always sell the card and buy a 8900gs by christmas or so. Because I'm lucky and personally can. I'm just thinking about other guys

[Benfica]

I hate to put it like this but then buy the game for the 360 or the PS3. PC gaming has always been an expensive habit, and it always will be. It's more of an adults hobby since a large part of it involves upgrading and playing about with a computer.

It was never my point. My 2 main points are:
- Some gamers aren't capable of having fun without setting everything to highest, independently of how crappy the details are, ruining gameplay even. Sometimes you don't really like tons of coronas, vegetation and weather effects.
- Some people can't afford very expensive kit. They are out when a game doesn't scale. If someone can buy holy-**** hardware, they play at HS settings. If they don't or can't afford it, there is no particular reason why they shouldn't play at lower settings with a 6800, 7600, x1650,etc... I believed they would, until I saw that the existing UE3 engine game runs at 640x480 30fps low on a 7600gt.

If you think it's expensive now that's a tad funny. It's always been quiet pricey. Anybody who remembers shelling out for the first OGL cards back in the 90s, or buying one of the first pentiums remembers the pain.

Oh, I have lots of similar pains. Like 2 laptops for 2500€ each. Or 600€ for a color inkjet printer.

Developers are currently pretty nice to people about what stuff will and won't play on.

Let's see if that happens about the only game that will matter for me in the future.

No, but you can overclock a cpu and your fsb far more easily then you can your gfx card, and with far better results.

The P4 3GHz OC'ed 15%, the Athlon XP 3200+ didn't OC at all. The A64 DualCore Oc 20 to 30%. Low frequency Core2Duo OC like hell.
The CPUs where it would really be most important, are the ones that OC less.

[Ultron]

Can someone tell me just one thing please: Will UT3 run fine on XP?

I can't tell if people here are just complaining about having to use Vista for Dx10, or just about having to use Vista all together.

You're asking a question none of us can hope to answer with authority, but I'm certain it'll run fine in XP with DX9. There will just be some DX10 features that DX9 just can't do.

[durtytarget]

Can some1 tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. I know i sound stupid but i am a boy willing to learn. I am asking this cause I saw the number of triangles in a complex seen and wanted to compare. btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?

[OblivionLord]

"The 6800Ultra has similar speed as the 7600GT, X1650XT, and sometimes even a 8600GT because this card is wierd. These cards are for sale TODAY and can cost up to 150€ or more. And some guys have 6800Ultra SLI."

1024x768 = 40-45fps AVG on the 8600gt and GTS in COH. Screw that.
1024x768 = 35-40fps AVG in Supreme Commander. Come On
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2

Obviously its been proven that the 8600GT and GTS aren't really designed for gamers when they are really directed towards HTPC owners. They have higher clock speeds then the 8800 series mainly to decode formats. You Honestly think that these cards will last in UT3 or Crysis?


"Bull. Go on, disable shadows and AA. Point me to a downloadable game demo that is not playable at 1024x768, good texture quality and HDR."

Forget demos... here is a full game...
Farcry with HDR.. cheap example here but, usable on the 6800Ultra
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._1.3/page6.asp
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2004/...patch13_eval/5
http://www.elitebastards.com/page.ph...d=1&comments=1
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=10

Lets look at a game with HDR "Patch" and the 6800. 2 sites here with the GT and 3 i see with the Ultra. These are AVG frame rates and deffently are crap playability at 1024x768 noAA with HDR. Some are at the min FPS still crap.

30FPS max is utter crap. If anyone is satisfied with that then thats their preference and obviously they arent a serious gamer.


"WTF? What code change??? They developed the engine using exactly 6800Ultras in SLI."

Again 6800's in Ultra is what? Bragging rights when it really doesn't do squat compared to a modern single video card thats a year old.

Same code but obviously as with the benches I posted... the performance sucks unless you alter the code just like with consoles to allow such old hardware to play at higher FPS on a Progressive monitor. When I say alter the code I mean take out this and that just inorder for it to play fast. Doom3 on Xbox is a prime example.

"Hmm... even if you had vsync on, there is no need to create a frame for each monitor cycle. It could be 42.5 for 85Hz CRT, 1 frame per each 2 cycles. Why this isn't done, I dunno."

To me 60fps is adaquate. To you 42fps is decent. I can tell a diffrence at 60fps on 85hz to 42fps 85hz

"There is no need to continuosly upgrade. Can you play anything with a recent x1950XT or 7950gt with similar eyecandy to a console? Yes you can. But guess what, they are outdated already."

The x1950Xt and 7950gt may play anything of today but they are but 1 year old. Hardly considered outdated compared to something thats 3 years old like the 6800Ultra. Besides that.. both of these cards on Newegg cost $200-250 outside of rebates. That also proves still how modern they are compared to the price performance of 6800Ultra which Ebay is about the only place youll find it on if any.

"RAM is inexpensive and it has fantastic value. You are talking about quantity and not speed of the device here. That means 110€ to 150€ for 2GB. Affordable."

Yes quantity which obviously HL2 doesnt require nor CS-S or CS. This game obviously can run efficently on 1 gb ram. BF2 shows a hugee performance with 2gb. On that survey.. the majority are using 1gb. Of course if the same type of survey for BF2 was done then im positive to say that the majority would not be using 1gb but instead 2gb mainly because it is as you said afforadble. So being that ddr or ddr2 at stock speed at the least is very inexpencive.. why are the people on Steam mainly using 1gb? To answer that question.. obviously they have no need to upgrade to a more demanding requirement for a more modern game since they are happy with what they are currently playing. Whole reason why I myself haven't upgraded till something I really want to play comes out.

"What? Would any of them exchange for instance an A64 SC for a lame P4 DC 1 year ago?"

A dual core today at the least can go for $80 bucks new retail. However you have to upgrade everything else to go along with it which makes it more expensive considering that these people aren't willing to do it in the first place. To answer your question.. Im sure if it was given to them free them yes since these people are running high end single core cpu's to begin with since even as the survey shows.. the majority of A64 users aren't in the 3.0ghz area which is obviously overclocking therefore proving they aren't spending money to cool the cpu or case or anything beyond air cooling since a stock single core a64 3000 is adaquate for CS-S. The hell if any of those people "NEED" a San Diego at 2.6 or 2.8ghz to play CS-Source. What a joke.


"It's not budget savvy, just a matter of choice. If I can't play at max settings, I'll try to have fun at 90%. It's seems hard for some gamers today.
And the problem is not upgrading. It's doing it constantly. Ask 7950GX2 or X1950XTX owners what they think about Vista.
The point: you can't upgrade just in time for a single game. Some people use their PCs for something else and had upgrade cycles recently."


It is called budget savy.. its called only being able to deal with what you got. obviously the people who went out and paid top dollar for a x1950xtx and 7950gx2 either have the money to spend or didnt do their investigation to know that DX10 is just around the corner to settle with something less for now and then upgrade. The 7950gx2 is of all sences a crazy card to own. When it came out it was about the price of 2 7900gtx. It also had issues. The x1900xtx is just as efficent as the 1950xtx, not really a price diffrence. Still foolish to only look at that. Any person on a budget wouldnt have even spent high dollor for these cards last year since they wernt in the $200 range of course. Obviously today someone who is able to buy either of those cards would be foolish since the price ratio of the 8800GTS 320mb easilyyyyy tops the performance of both those cards and its even DX10 compatable. How much price diffrence? Well you can get a 8800GTS 320mb for $250 that includes rebates. Thats mearly $50 more than what the price of a x1900/1950 xtx are today.
For me, it's 40-45 min.

"The problem is actually the P4. It is slower than an AthlonXP @ 2.2GHz. But unfortunately you can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards"

Please tell me your not refering to a Barton AthlonXP 2.2ghz because a P4 3.0ghz is just on par with that. An A64 2.2ghz Ill agree with.

"Default settings. A tech demo. Unoptimized engine. With shadow high and shadow map 1024x1024. Whatever, I give up"

Come on.. I said that it was not the all end result. Plus Rainbow 6 Vegas is just the same even though its a terrible Console Port. Also if you want to get technical then Supreme Commander, being that it is optimized, shows 40fps performance even on the 8800 series since its soo demanding CPU and GPU wise. The newer "big" patch is said to really change this however we wont really know till its out but I greatly doubt it.

[roadrash]

- Some gamers aren't capable of having fun without setting everything to highest, independently of how crappy the details are, ruining gameplay even

If that's the case buy the console version.

If they don't or can't afford it, there is no particular reason why they shouldn't play at lower settings with a 6800, 7600, x1650,etc... I believed they would, until I saw that the existing UE3 engine game runs at 640x480 30fps low on a 7600gt.

You mean rainbow six vegas runs like ass, that doesn't mean the U3 engine runs like crap. If you're going to judge if you can't/can't run UT3 based off R6 then i have some news for you, we're all screwed and Epic is a pack of liars. SLI doesn't work well with it (in some cases I think it doesn't work at all) and even on an OC'd core2 rig with g80's it still runs like pants.

Let's see if that happens about the only game that will matter for me in the future.

Hot titles sell hardware. Besides the prior UT's both scalled back pretty well with hardware.

[DX-GAME]

Good.
Down at the bottom of the interview, it looks like they have done low and midrange optimizations.

[durtytarget]

Can some1 tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. I know i sound stupid but i am a boy willing to learn. I am asking this cause I saw the number of triangles in a complex seen and wanted to compare. btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?

[Kronos]

btw is can some1 tell me as to whether ATI 1950 is a high end graphic card or is it mid range?

x1950 is kinda midrange I suppose, an excellent card nonthenless and with a nice processor to back it up I personally think it'll do just fine on UT3.
This card is pretty equivlant to the card in the xbox360.

If that's the case buy the console version.

Graphical level is lower on consoles and will always be lower.

[Benfica]

"The 6800Ultra has similar speed as the 7600GT, X1650XT, and sometimes even a 8600GT because this card is wierd. These cards are for sale TODAY and can cost up to 150€ or more. And some guys have 6800Ultra SLI."

1024x768 = 40-45fps AVG on the 8600gt and GTS in COH. Screw that.
1024x768 = 35-40fps AVG in Supreme Commander. Come On
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2

Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

Obviously its been proven that the 8600GT and GTS aren't really designed for gamers when they are really directed towards HTPC owners. They have higher clock speeds then the 8800 series mainly to decode formats.
You Honestly think that these cards will last in UT3 or Crysis?

Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?

"Bull. Go on, disable shadows and AA. Point me to a downloadable game demo that is not playable at 1024x768, good texture quality and HDR."

Forget demos... here is a full game...
Farcry with HDR.. cheap example here but, usable on the 6800Ultra
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._1.3/page6.asp
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2004/...patch13_eval/5
http://www.elitebastards.com/page.ph...d=1&comments=1
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=10

Lets look at a game with HDR "Patch" and the 6800. 2 sites here with the GT and 3 i see with the Ultra. These are AVG frame rates and deffently are crap playability at 1024x768 noAA with HDR. Some are at the min FPS still crap.

30FPS max is utter crap. If anyone is satisfied with that then thats their preference and obviously they arent a serious gamer.

Lmao, a review is done with a P4B 2.4GHz. Another shows you 57fps. Other one talks about the 6600gt, look at the 6800gt. Only one shows bad results for the 6800.


[quote]"WTF? What code change??? They developed the engine using exactly 6800Ultras in SLI."

Again 6800's in Ultra is what? Bragging rights when it really doesn't do squat compared to a modern single video card thats a year old.

Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?

Same code but obviously as with the benches I posted... the performance sucks unless you alter the code just like with consoles to allow such old hardware to play at higher FPS on a Progressive monitor. When I say alter the code I mean take out this and that just inorder for it to play fast. Doom3 on Xbox is a prime example.

Often devs don't have to change anything. The card owner has. Or they do and do what's reasonable, make the game run on mainstream PCs. Look, even Tim just said on the interview that I just read that 80% of the PCs are sold with single-core and lower spec cards. He is not talking about the *existing*, but *sold today*

"Hmm... even if you had vsync on, there is no need to create a frame for each monitor cycle. It could be 42.5 for 85Hz CRT, 1 frame per each 2 cycles. Why this isn't done, I dunno."

To me 60fps is adaquate. To you 42fps is decent. I can tell a diffrence at 60fps on 85hz to 42fps 85hz

I agree, and I start to tell the difference a bit below, near 50 but that's not the point. If you play DM or TAM you really need a bit more than ONS, but look, each to it's own. You were the one that said that 30fps would be okay for interlaced IIRC. I can't really understand how 30fps is ok, but 42.5 is much worse. I would swear it has to do with higher light retention of the TV screens instead. And it seems that with motion blur it's a bit more comfortable to play at slightly lower fps. And it also depends on how fast you can turn around, etc...

"There is no need to continuosly upgrade. Can you play anything with a recent x1950XT or 7950gt with similar eyecandy to a console? Yes you can. But guess what, they are outdated already."

The x1950Xt and 7950gt may play anything of today but they are but 1 year old. Hardly considered outdated compared to something thats 3 years old like the 6800Ultra. Besides that.. both of these cards on Newegg cost $200-250 outside of rebates. That also proves still how modern they are compared to the price performance of 6800Ultra which Ebay is about the only place youll find it on if any.

But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

"RAM is inexpensive and it has fantastic value. You are talking about quantity and not speed of the device here. That means 110€ to 150€ for 2GB. Affordable."

Yes quantity which obviously HL2 doesnt require nor CS-S or CS. This game obviously can run efficently on 1 gb ram. BF2 shows a hugee performance with 2gb. On that survey.. the majority are using 1gb. Of course if the same type of survey for BF2 was done then im positive to say that the majority would not be using 1gb but instead 2gb mainly because it is as you said afforadble. So being that ddr or ddr2 at stock speed at the least is very inexpencive.. why are the people on Steam mainly using 1gb? To answer that question.. obviously they have no need to upgrade to a more demanding requirement for a more modern game since they are happy with what they are currently playing. Whole reason why I myself haven't upgraded till something I really want to play comes out.

"What? Would any of them exchange for instance an A64 SC for a lame P4 DC 1 year ago?"

A dual core today at the least can go for $80 bucks new retail. However you have to upgrade everything else to go along with it which makes it more expensive considering that these people aren't willing to do it in the first place. To answer your question.. Im sure if it was given to them free them yes since these people are running high end single core cpu's to begin with since even as the survey shows.. the majority of A64 users aren't in the 3.0ghz area which is obviously overclocking therefore proving they aren't spending money to cool the cpu or case or anything beyond air cooling since a stock single core a64 3000 is adaquate for CS-S. The hell if any of those people "NEED" a San Diego at 2.6 or 2.8ghz to play CS-Source. What a joke.

I'm really not interested on discussing much more about other games or communities on Epic's forum. Sorry for not replying here

"It's not budget savvy, just a matter of choice. If I can't play at max settings, I'll try to have fun at 90%. It's seems hard for some gamers today.
And the problem is not upgrading. It's doing it constantly. Ask 7950GX2 or X1950XTX owners what they think about Vista.
The point: you can't upgrade just in time for a single game. Some people use their PCs for something else and had upgrade cycles recently."


It is called budget savy.. its called only being able to deal with what you got. obviously the people who went out and paid top dollar for a x1950xtx and 7950gx2 either have the money to spend or didnt do their investigation to know that DX10 is just around the corner to settle with something less for now and then upgrade. The 7950gx2 is of all sences a crazy card to own. When it came out it was about the price of 2 7900gtx. It also had issues. The x1900xtx is just as efficent as the 1950xtx, not really a price diffrence. Still foolish to only look at that. Any person on a budget wouldnt have even spent high dollor for these cards last year since they wernt in the $200 range of course. Obviously today someone who is able to buy either of those cards would be foolish since the price ratio of the 8800GTS 320mb easilyyyyy tops the performance of both those cards and its even DX10 compatable. How much price diffrence? Well you can get a 8800GTS 320mb for $250 that includes rebates. Thats mearly $50 more than what the price of a x1900/1950 xtx are today.

Well, on a first read this looked even more OT that the previous point. But you are really agreeing with me even though you didn't notice. That's exactly it: " its called only being able to deal with what you got".
Even more budget savy is keeping the hardware one has that still performs well even though it's 3 years old, see how it performs and make up their mind if an upgrade is required. Not entering the upgrade bandwagon that you seem to defend when assuming that most people's hardware is crap. 80% to 90% of the gamers have hardware like this or below.

"The problem is actually the P4. It is slower than an AthlonXP @ 2.2GHz. But unfortunately you can't scale down CPU settings that much, or at least like gfx cards"

Please tell me your not refering to a Barton AthlonXP 2.2ghz because a P4 3.0ghz is just on par with that. An A64 2.2ghz Ill agree with.

Not by much honestly. I was talking about UT2004 only that it's the only game I play. I have both on i865 and NF2 and tested myself. It has to do with x87 FPU. On other games I dunno, but yes it makes sense that the P4 win comfortably.

"Default settings. A tech demo. Unoptimized engine. With shadow high and shadow map 1024x1024. Whatever, I give up"

Come on.. I said that it was not the all end result. Plus Rainbow 6 Vegas is just the same even though its a terrible Console Port.

Why do you say that it is a "terrible" port?

Also if you want to get technical then Supreme Commander, being that it is optimized, shows 40fps performance even on the 8800 series since its soo demanding CPU and GPU wise. The newer "big" patch is said to really change this however we wont really know till its out but I greatly doubt it.

What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.
THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT:
- People play with max settings whatever they are, max shadows max this max that and then complain that a game is so demanding.
- Create FUD about a lot of games, giving the impression that you must upgrade like hell.
- I don't care about how well or badly Supreme Commander is optimized. But if UT3 would come like this, if one can't really afford, there is no way but playing another game. This means much more trouble for developers than for the gamers.
- If it would be like this, than it's a PITA that it had to happen exactly with the game I expect to be the best game ever

[DX-GAME]

Vegas is a terrible port. You only have to play it to see. I enjoy the game, but I can put up with alot of crap, lol. CTDs, sound repeat bugs, consol type options. Unoptimized for PC play - AND- if you take a look at the file structure, its got like three of the exact same code in it. Its funny.

[Benfica]

Vegas is a terrible port. You only have to play it to see. I enjoy the game, but I can put up with alot of crap, lol. CTDs, sound repeat bugs, consol type options. Unoptimized for PC play - AND- if you take a look at the file structure, its got like three of the exact same code in it. Its funny.

Hehe, I see

[DX-GAME]

Hey guys..
All I wanted to know is if the game would run on a 6800, which is a midrange card made before 2006. It seems that it shouldnt have a problem with lower details according to the expanded version of this interview.

It seems that Epic is doing the smart thing and looking for ways to allow the game to run on slower systems.

Thats even better for all of you guys anyway, cuz I know you are going to turn everything down and take advantage of it, lol.

But as long as it was mentioned..
In regards to that survey I posted. Yes it is only one deveoper, and you are mostly looking at just a few games. but by far, those two or three games have the largest population. The amount of players just for CS dwarfs any other game population and has for 7years. No matter what your opinion of it or what it looks like on variuos systems, that is the sign of a well made game.

As far as WoW goes, sure its a few years old, but you have the same results. what I posted on that was the recommended requirements. Another well made game going strong.

Just with these two examples you have the majority of the online gaming population. The point is that they are older games that are highly compatible with lower-midrange to high end systems, so you dont need to have hardware made after 2004 to play them.

As far as hardware/OS envey goes. Thats just stupid, and a typical elitist bragging attitude. When a game comes out I cant run well, even after hacking apart the code, I get pissed at the devs. Because if I cant run it, the majority of other gamers cant run it either.

[durtytarget]

- 300 - 1.000 visible objects per scene
- huge scenes typically consist of 500.000 to 1.500.000 triangles

Can someone tell me whats the difference between polygons and triangles please. Secondly what did he exactly mean by 300 to 1000 visible object per scene. Does that mean move able objects or just statues (which seem to actually be part of the map).

[OblivionLord]

Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

If you feel content to play a today game at lowest grafic settings then why are you playing on the PC? I can understand medium at the least but, how exactly can you consider yourself a pc gamer when you are playing today games at lowest settings at low res? Its ok if you aren interested in just 1 or 2 games like I am who doesnt want to upgrade that is playing at lowest grafic settings since its not worth to upgrade because I myself do other things with my pc besides game. However if you are a true PC gamer.. I have yet met 1 person that plays hardcore at lowest grafic settings. Even occasional gamers I've yet to see play at lowest settings. Any wonder why there aren't many benchmarks found on the web benching at lowest graffic settings unless they are testing the CPU.

Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?

I was commenting on your comment about the expencive price of the x1950xtx and 7950gx2 vs what is out now.

Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?

Yes it most deffinently is bragging rights to say that you have SLI when using 2 OLD cards when 1 card of today can equal its performance or exceed it. Its utterly foolish to buy another of the same old card when a single card can exceed the performance. Expecially when you can save money in the long run in power.

But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

No 1900xt or 7900gts is going to run for 120 here in uSA If this is what you are refering about "equivalent" performance. Only cards here in USa at that price are anything from 7600 on down. Unless you go ebay.

What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.

Demanding in the term of developing a game for the future while it boggs on highend hardware of today. Supreme Commander still has a patch comming out that will help the performance however we all wont know till that happens.

[Really Doe]

game is crazy

[DX-GAME]

jup..

But Im handy to have around

[Benfica]

Everybody reviews at max ingame settings without exception! And do you want proof that often they don't have a clue? They bench w/o AF, when AF is almost free these days. But they use shadows to max, when it is known that sometimes they can make a game 5 times slower. Shadows increase complexity with more characters ingame, you will have lowest fps exactly when they are needed. How retarded is this?

If you feel content to play a today game at lowest grafic settings then why are you playing on the PC? I can understand medium at the least but, how exactly can you consider yourself a pc gamer when you are playing today games at lowest settings at low res? Its ok if you aren interested in just 1 or 2 games like I am who doesnt want to upgrade that is playing at lowest grafic settings since its not worth to upgrade because I myself do other things with my pc besides game. However if you are a true PC gamer.. I have yet met 1 person that plays hardcore at lowest grafic settings. Even occasional gamers I've yet to see play at lowest settings. Any wonder why there aren't many benchmarks found on the web benching at lowest graffic settings unless they are testing the CPU.

I wrote about just 1 setting: using shadows to absolute max. Why did you give such an elaborate reply about LOWEST settings? I'm not a PC gamer if I don't play with shadows at max? Is this some sort of elaborated joke?

Hey, I'm not defending the cards. The GTS price-performance is a joke, the GT is only decent for gaming with a lot of OC and for medium settings. Who is going to upgrade and wants to spend 200 or 250€ really should wait for something like a 8900gs or equivalent from ATI. But that means high settings. Who is going to upgrade to a card like this expect to play at high settings. The others play with lower. Is there something wrong with that?

I was commenting on your comment about the expencive price of the x1950xtx and 7950gx2 vs what is out now.

Ok, point taken

Bragging rights??? Is this what gaming is all about? Is it so hard to just STFU and play? Or let other people play with what they got? Pretty please?
Must poor people that can't afford this insanity, or simply just had enough, need to feel uncomfortable because they can't now brag about their rig?

Yes it most deffinently is bragging rights to say that you have SLI when using 2 OLD cards when 1 card of today can equal its performance or exceed it. Its utterly foolish to buy another of the same old card when a single card can exceed the performance. Expecially when you can save money in the long run in power.

Where do I seem to brag or defend bragging? Or buying a 6800ultra to put on SLI? Where did I say that I have SLI or even a 6800Ultra? Did you read my posts? And did you notice that I have a fetish about question marks?

But you can find equivalent performance cards for 120 to 150€. It's old but has the same performance of today's cards. I fail to see your point really.

No 1900xt or 7900gts is going to run for 120 here in uSA If this is what you are refering about "equivalent" performance. Only cards here in USa at that price are anything from 7600 on down. Unless you go ebay.

Something is unclear here. What cards are you talking about and what prices do you have there? I'm talking about 7600gt and X1650XT for 120 to 150€. The absolute lowest price I can get in Portugal for a 7600gt is 110€, the 8600gt is 115, the X1650XT is 135, the 7900gs 147€, a x1950pro is 162€, etc... I dunno if you thought that I was talking about the XTX or whatever. But nvm

What do you mean so demanding? It's very easy to make a game unplayable on a 8800.

Demanding in the term of developing a game for the future while it boggs on highend hardware of today. Supreme Commander still has a patch comming out that will help the performance however we all wont know till that happens.

I dunno about SC and I really don't care, maybe it's poor programming. But going back to what I was trying to discuss: it is easy to make a game unplayable with very elaborated details.
It seems that what you defend are games that don't scale well: no effort to run on lower specs to make the game sell as much as possible, but the dev should limit himself to the existing high end that in practice sells decent quantities, and not be able to promote the game on trade shows or HD videos, even if max settings need 2x8800Ultra, compared to the others that really show massive quality settings. What business sense does it make?

[roadrash]

Yes it most deffinently is bragging rights to say that you have SLI when using 2 OLD cards when 1 card of today can equal its performance or exceed it. Its utterly foolish to buy another of the same old card when a single card can exceed the performance. Expecially when you can save money in the long run in power.

Most people with SLI buy two top of the line, or near top of the line, cards at release to take advantage of it right then... because everybody knows a couple generation laters later you can get a single card that spits out better exact performance and uses less power.

The point of SLI is to drive extremely high resolutions in some demanding games because LCD's have a native res.

Once your cards are not capable of pushing the res it's off to ebay and then time to upgrade and buy two more cards.

If you feel content to play a today game at lowest grafic settings then why are you playing on the PC? I can understand medium at the least but, how exactly can you consider yourself a pc gamer when you are playing today games at lowest settings at low res? Its ok if you aren interested in just 1 or 2 games like I am who doesnt want to upgrade that is playing at lowest grafic settings since its not worth to upgrade because I myself do other things with my pc besides game. However if you are a true PC gamer.. I have yet met 1 person that plays hardcore at lowest grafic settings. Even occasional gamers I've yet to see play at lowest settings.

Wait one second there, it depends on the type of game. Quite often the most "hardcore" FPS players throttle down details and resolution even though they have a PC capable of maxing out the game simply because it offers an inherent in game advantage of being less distracting.

[martinblank]

Ahh a side track derail into DRM fiascos.

If you don't like it then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy HD-DVD, blu-ray, music or any of that. Just don't, why bother it's all crap anyways.

And before you fire off on a "well that god damn MS they are causing it" think again. Blame the MPAA, blame the artists, blame the people who are buying it, and then blame the likes of apple and MS who have to play ball with a system that other people created. It's not like DRM doesn't already exist outside of vista on a draconian level.

It's not like you can't get around all of that anyways.

I'm not side tracking. I brought it up because when I said I did not like vista and would not use it people started accusing me of outrageous things like not wanting to move forward, didn't want to pay for it, to lazy to upgrade, etc... And thats just simply not true. I am not placing the blame entirely on MS, because you're right the RIAA and MPAA put a lot of pressure on them, but that does not mean MS gets off easy in my book. Apple is NOT pushing DRM in the way MS is. They are openly against it, and not just a few days ago created iTunes plus, where the songs cost like $0.20 more, but they are DRM free and offered in higher bit rates. Same thing with their OS. The latest OS, Tiger, has no kinds of DRM, no activation, or any bull or HD content restrictions like that, and neither will their upcoming OS which I forget the name of right now. And please dont say "well then why don't you stfu and switch to apple". You (everybody here) know damn well why (for the thick-skulled: not enough game support and a pretty newbie-type interface) so don't even bother.

[OblivionLord]

Most people with SLI buy two top of the line, or near top of the line, cards at release to take advantage of it right then... because everybody knows a couple generation laters later you can get a single card that spits out better exact performance and uses less power.

The point of SLI is to drive extremely high resolutions in some demanding games because LCD's have a native res.

Once your cards are not capable of pushing the res it's off to ebay and then time to upgrade and buy two more cards.

I agree with you tottaly here however utlizing SLI with old hardware isn't going to be of any benefit at all. As it is you can have dual 8500's in SLI but, for what reason when you can have a single 8600GTS at the least? Its my point of course when using 2 6800Ultras for SLI. I can only see the use of SLI when using a dual 8800GTS or dual 8800GTX/Ultra. 2 7900Gtx is about the same as 1 GTS or GTX so its also pointless to go SLI with even that.

Wait one second there, it depends on the type of game. Quite often the most "hardcore" FPS players throttle down details and resolution even though they have a PC capable of maxing out the game simply because it offers an inherent in game advantage of being less distracting.

This is deffinently a subjective concept on how distractive someone can become with the surrounding objects. I can only see a lower resolution just to gain faster frame rates but, not that it helps at all in terms of distraction.

[DX-GAME]

You know, thats not exactly true. You guys are basing this on high end games of which there are only currently a few, not mainstream. If someone can get two 7600s for $300, or a 8800 for $500, what do you think they are going to choose? With the exception of very few games, the dual 7600s are going to be the better bet because most of the power of a single 8800 is a waste for current games. Add the hefty price tag of two brand name 8800s and I LMAO at people who get them when they simply arent needed. Its like a fat, bald guy buying a Porsche. Even sadder because its online gaming.

You guys can post the power and capibilities of this and that. In two years, when that power is fully utilized, and the GF9800 is out and your current 8800s are midrange, another thousand or so dollars in un needed uprgrades will happen again and the same 10% of gamers willl happily fork out the cash for high end systems and make the same arguments.

I know all hobbies are expensive. However, this isnt life and death ****.

The only thing Im looking at is compatibility for the masses. Which will in turn, add to my entertainment. UT3 doesnt run well, Im off to another game, and the masses will join me because the masses have only a lil above, or a range below my system specs.

[OblivionLord]

You know, thats not exactly true. You guys are basing this on high end games of which there are only currently a few, not mainstream. If someone can get two 7600s for $300, or a 8800 for $500, what do you think they are going to choose? With the exception of very few games, the dual 7600s are going to be the better bet because most of the power of a single 8800 is a waste for current games. Add the hefty price tag of two brand name 8800s and I LMAO at people who get them when they simply arent needed. Its like a fat, bald guy buying a Porsche. Even sadder because its online gaming.

First off you can get a single 7600GT at newegg for $90 after rebates. That then makes it $180 for 2 not $300. Secondly 2 7600gt's are about on par with a single 7900Gt which can be bought for $180 after rebates. Now if you look at it.. exactly why would you purchase 2 video cards instead of 1 to achieve the same thing IF you are going to purchase somthing right now? I can understand if you already have a 7600GT but, both cards came out around the same time. In the long run you'll being spending more in power consumption for the 2 cards vs the 1 card solution and taking up 2 slots vs 1.

Secondly, 2 7600Gt's or a single 7900GT is not adaquate to play today games With Eyecandy unless you are infact happy with playing modern games at low quality. If not then go play a console.

Look...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=4
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.asp

The diffrence is obviously there when there is eyecandy.

Also the Survey is NOT for the majority of online gamers since the majority is in a case like WOW which is 8million vs 300k of Steam which consists of not just 1 title vs the millions to WoW which consists of 1 game. Therefore the survey is obviously not pointed towards the "majority".

The only thing Im looking at is compatibility for the masses. Which will in turn, add to my entertainment. UT3 doesnt run well, Im off to another game, and the masses will join me.

Again you are still considering Steam to be the majority as in the "masses" when it's not. Yes CS being old still retains the highest FPS online shooter by the masses but, that in no way means the masses in total for pc gamers since obviously 68k is not even a fraction of 8million of the WoW users. WoW is more demanding than CS original btw.

[DX-GAME]

Bud, the cards you listed wouldnt reside in any system I would ever build, nor would advise anyone to get. I dont look at "Joe Bobs Discount Hardware" releases and say "Hey, thats a good deal," because it isnt. Crap like that is highly bastardized and will not give you half the performance of a BFG, ATi or a PNY. Sure its cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Of course Steam is the majority.
Right now, there are 64,444 servers up, and 122,534 players online between HL and HL2 mods (Counterstrike), The next closest is BF2 with 5392 servers and 13334 players.

Steam- 122,534 players
BF2- 13,534 players

Do you not see that over 100,000 more players are playing those games? I dont see how you can look at the numbers and come up with a different view. The only wild card in that list is WoW, which there arent any stats for on gamespy, but also allows for systems that are low midrange and above. Even if its not 50% accurate the Steam engine hold the majority of online players, and if WoW beats that, its just proving the point more..

How many of those 3.5 million Chinese playing WoW do you think have a Intel quad core, Dual 8800s, 4gigs of RAM and DVD drives?

Graphics and graphic guality arent everything. IMO, they hinder more than they help in terms of sales and player population which reflect entertainment value, continuing support, player made content, and community interest.

[OblivionLord]

You know, thats not exactly true. You guys are basing this on high end games of which there are only currently a few, not mainstream. If someone can get two 7600s for $300, or a 8800 for $500, what do you think they are going to choose? With the exception of very few games, the dual 7600s are going to be the better bet because most of the power of a single 8800 is a waste for current games. Add the hefty price tag of two brand name 8800s and I LMAO at people who get them when they simply arent needed. Its like a fat, bald guy buying a Porsche. Even sadder because its online gaming.

First off you can get a single 7600GT at newegg for $90 after rebates. That then makes it $180 for 2 not $300. Secondly 2 7600gt's are about on par with a single 7900Gt which can be bought for $180 after rebates. Now if you look at it.. exactly why would you purchase 2 video cards instead of 1 to achieve the same thing IF you are going to purchase somthing right now? I can understand if you already have a 7600GT but, both cards came out around the same time. In the long run you'll being spending more in power consumption for the 2 cards vs the 1 card solution and taking up 2 slots vs 1.

Secondly, 2 7600Gt's or a single 7900GT is not adaquate to play today games With Eyecandy unless you are infact happy with playing modern games at low quality. I personaly am not therefore I need something with more power.

Look...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=4
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.asp

The diffrence is obviously there when there is eyecandy.

Also the Survey is NOT for the majority of online gamers since the majority is in a case like WOW which is 8million vs 300k of Steam which consists of not just 1 title. The millions that play on the WoW server are playing just 1 game. Huge difference there pal. Therefore the survey is obviously not pointed towards the "majority".

The only thing Im looking at is compatibility for the masses. Which will in turn, add to my entertainment. UT3 doesnt run well, Im off to another game, and the masses will join me.

Again you are still considering Steam to be the majority as in the "masses" when it's not. Yes CS being old still retains the highest FPS online shooter by the masses who play FPS games but, that in no way means the masses in total for pc gamers since obviously 68k is not even a fraction of 8million which consists of the WoW users.

WoW is more demanding than CS original btw.