New hardware not needed for current games? I dont think so

I see lots of fellow pc gamers these days making statements such as "we dont need more powerful cards as current ones max out everything". It is a valid complaint indeed only when you define "max out". Some people can be satisfied with 1680, 2x aa and 30fps+ which is perfectly normal btw but others might enjoy games at 1080p, 60fps+ 4x aa. Still someone could argue that some of the high perfomance cards can cope with 1080p. 60fps+ easily which is true. Lets face it developers these days are not going to push the limits of our hardware for reasons we already know.

However, we need to see the bigger picture here guys. There are tons of great games out there and what we can do with new hardware is really improve our gaming experience and i'm not just talking about higher fps and AA. I'm talking about multi monitor gaming and 3D. In order to play an excellent game like Batman:AA at 5760x1080p with 3d vision you'll definitely need one fermi gpu for acceptable fps or even 2 of them for 60+. Pc gaming is all about innovation and new technologies and most people that have experienced multi monitor gaming and 3d will agree that they are awesome and really enhance your gaming experience. Its pretty cheap these days to buy 3 pc monitors after all. I know lots of pc gamers and I was quite surpised how most of them were quite reluctant on trying such new technologies. its time to move on from our tiny single monitors I believe.

you are absolutely correct, and what do you propose we, as people who just play games, do about it?

What game can't a 100 dollar 4850 make playable on high?SinfulPotato

Lets face it developers these days are not going to push the limits of our hardware for reasons we already know.SamiRDuran

Could you fill me in on this? Games have been evolving at an acceptable rate, and the only reason I can think of as to why "developers .. are not going to push the limits of our hardware" is because of the existence of consoles.

However, we need to see the bigger picture here guys. There are tons of great games out there and what we can do with new hardware is really improve our gaming experience and i'm not just talking about higher fps and AA. I'm talking about multi monitor gaming and 3D. In order to play an excellent game like Batman:AA at 5760x1080p with 3d vision you'll definitely need one fermi gpu for acceptable fps or even 2 of them for 60+. Pc gaming is all about innovation and new technologies and most people that have experienced multi monitor gaming and 3d will agree that they are awesome and really enhance your gaming experience.SamiRDuran

So, from what I gather in your statement, you're saying that mid to low end gamers are holding back innovation? A gamer can freely choose to take advantage of Eyefinity and 3DVision; no-one is holding them back. Just becuase the technology exists doesn't mean we have to use it, and subsequently developers can innovate even with the knowledge that the majority of gamers will not use their new technology.

Its pretty cheap these days to buy 3 pc monitors after all. I know lots of pc gamers and I was quite surpised how most of them were quite reluctant on trying such new technologies. its time to move on from our tiny single monitors I believe.

SamiRDuran

I disagree. True, the price of monitors is a lot cheaper than, say, 5 years ago, but the price of 3 decent monitors will cost in excess of $400. So while some people can afford Eyefinity and 3DVision, many gamers simply cannot afford the added cost, especially considering the average system costs in the region of $500-$1000.

5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1

5.3:1 is equivelent to a screen 19.2 inches long and 3.6 inches tall(just an example size actuall screens wouldnt be made this small you candouble those a few time to get a screen size you like, butyou get the point dont you)this amounts to a screen thats a little over 5x wider than it is tall. i dont know about you but who would want to use such a screen.

1.6:1 (1440x900 as an example) is equivelent to a screen 4.8 inches wide by 3 inches tall(just as before actual screens arent this small just an example) this amounts to screens 1.6x wider than they are tall.

since you mentioned 3D it would be nice to have multi screen setups when linked together seemlessly give a psuedo 3D environment for gaming. but they wouldnt be some unresaonable resolution like 5760x1080. they would be several individual frameless monitorswith attachment capabilities each displaying somewhere around 1920x1080 a piece. probably a bit of motion sensing aswell to polish theoverall feel. utilizing what we already know about multi screen setups, desktops and such can be split onto seperate screensso i see this being entirely possible but hugely expensive. but would still be amazing if we could ever make such a thing affordable for average PC gamers.

I disagree. True, the price of monitors is a lot cheaper than, say, 5 years ago, but the price of 3 decent monitors will cost in excess of $400. So while some people can afford Eyefinity and 3DVision, many gamers simply cannot afford the added cost, especially considering the average system costs in the region of $500-$1000.

MaoTheChimp

and this even depends on where you live aswell how much you have to spend. just like mao said for alot of users it is completly out of the question to spend more than you have to for a PC and monitor.

Well, this argument is dead after that Heaven Benchmark v1.0 DX11 benchmark. If you actually run that demo with HD5870, with tesselation on, you would know that the card is barely keeping the frame rate high. Of course you can play without tesselation, which doubles the frame rate, but, hack, I want to play games with tesselation that turn 2D stairs into 1000 poly craziness.magicalclick

I believe hardware is running too fast... whats's the buzz about crysis? This game came out and suddenly some people like tried to convince you your rig sucked cause it couldn't max it out... is it really worth it to spend that kind of money for a game or two? Do you really need 3 to 6 monitors to enjoy a game? Do you need to pay lots of money for hardware waiting for the future? It is very likely what you bought will not be outdated when that happens.

I think we are being pushed to spend more and more, GPU producers tried to convince us that we needed more than a GPU for gaming, now they're trying to convince us that one monitor (that once was a 19 inches and now is a 24) is not good enough... honestly, I'm getting sick of this... this kind of Bullxxxx makes me wanna get a console or give up gaming...

By the way, I game on a lappy with an ATI 4650 1GB and guess what? I can play pretty much anything with medium/high settings and 35/40 fps on an external 19 inch monitor at 1440x900 except crysis and world at war... personally I'm happy with that, and if you asked me... I'd rather have more quality games than so called fotorealistic games out there..

The amount of money for a multi monitor set up is just out of gamers reach for many of them, and many are just happy with a traditional monitor setup and do not want anything else. So if you have a decent graphics card and happy with the single monitor you don't need any new hardware. And besides, I imainge there are quite a few problems getting to run games multi monitor.

5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1

cornholio157

You obviously have no idea... I suggest you do a bit more research next time you go calling someone's claims 'ridiculous'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcDlsXkKbo&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-gfoeWfxOc

did anybody actually read my original post?SamiRDuran

Yup, but your arguments were unclear and controversial, which subsequently led to the confusion and semi-angry remarks.

[QUOTE="cornholio157"]

5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1

mrmyles

You obviously have no idea... I suggest you do a bit more research next time you go calling someone's claims 'ridiculous'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcDlsXkKbo&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-gfoeWfxOc

Haha this guy doesn't realise the idea of having three monitors and surround gaming. Cornholio get on youtube and type in eyefinity, and find a vid of gaming across three monitors. Then you'll know.

[QUOTE="cornholio157"]5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1mrmyles

[QUOTE="mrmyles"][QUOTE="cornholio157"]5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1smc91352

Nope, he though when 5760x1080 was mentioned that we were talking about a single monitor, and that he calculated that monitor would have a aspect of 5:1 or thereabouts. Obviously we were actually talking about triple monitors.polarwrath11

I see lots of fellow pc gamers these days making statements such as "we dont need more powerful cards as current ones max out everything". It is a valid complaint indeed only when you define "max out". Some people can be satisfied with 1680, 2x aa and 30fps+ which is perfectly normal btw but others might enjoy games at 1080p, 60fps+ 4x aa. Still someone could argue that some of the high perfomance cards can cope with 1080p. 60fps+ easily which is true. Lets face it developers these days are not going to push the limits of our hardware for reasons we already know.

SamiRDuran

It's not about what is availble, it's about what a consumer wants to do on their own. I have two 8800GTS 512 in SLI; are they the best thing currently out there? No. Do they get the job done and allow me to play my games at an acceptable level that I enjoy on my 22" (1680 x 1050) monitor? Yes.

Would I like to have something better, even though my current PC can play all my games on my monitor at a high setting? Sure I would.

Is it necessary for me to upgrade my computer to play my games on my monitor? No.

Do I have the money to upgrade to something more powerful? No.

How many people do you think fit into the same boat I am in? Let's be conservative here and say that (this is just based on a guess) 75% of all PC gamers out there cannot afford to drop money on a new PC, parts or monitors...where does that leave the developers? Why would they go about and create a game that forces a majority of the gaming population to not be able to play it?

Once the new generation cards are out for a while and people slowly start to upgrade and move with the advancement of technology, only then will developers start to make better use of the new tech they have at their disposal.

My 8800GTS 512 cards have been out for over 2 years now (I will have had mine for 2 years in Feburary) and just in the past 6 months or so some of the newer games that are coming out have been listing this card as a recommended GPU for best performance.

Things will change in the future; the developers will start making use of the GTX 260 and having that as the recommended GPU and so forth and so on.

However, we need to see the bigger picture here guys. There are tons of great games out there and what we can do with new hardware is really improve our gaming experience and i'm not just talking about higher fps and AA. I'm talking about multi monitor gaming and 3D. In order to play an excellent game like Batman:AA at 5760x1080p with 3d vision you'll definitely need one fermi gpu for acceptable fps or even 2 of them for 60+. Pc gaming is all about innovation and new technologies and most people that have experienced multi monitor gaming and 3d will agree that they are awesome and really enhance your gaming experience. Its pretty cheap these days to buy 3 pc monitors after all. I know lots of pc gamers and I was quite surpised how most of them were quite reluctant on trying such new technologies. its time to move on from our tiny single monitors I believe.

SamiRDuran

People are reluctant, it's cost that holds many people back. That's what holds me back from using 2 monitors, I just can't afford to spend another $120-200 on a decent monitor. My money has to go to other place right now....like the new washing machine I had to buy and daycare, car payments, mortgages, groceries, gas, utilities, etc....

Eventually I'll hit a spot where some of the bills will go away - like daycare and soon my car will be paid off. But that's all in due time....and by then other expenses might take their spot.

If I had extra money to spend I most certainly would take advantage of some of this new technology as I'm certain others would.

Innovation is always welcome to PC gaming. As long as the mainstream is supported I see no harm in these new technologies. It gives us somethig to drool over. Let the early adopters get it and drive the prices down for us :D.

[QUOTE="mrmyles"][QUOTE="cornholio157"]5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1smc91352

did anybody actually read my original post?SamiRDuran

[QUOTE="mrmyles"]

[QUOTE="cornholio157"]

5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1

polarwrath11

You obviously have no idea... I suggest you do a bit more research next time you go calling someone's claims 'ridiculous'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcDlsXkKbo&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-gfoeWfxOc

Haha this guy doesn't realise the idea of having three monitors and surround gaming. Cornholio get on youtube and type in eyefinity, and find a vid of gaming across three monitors. Then you'll know.

[QUOTE="mrmyles"][QUOTE="cornholio157"]5760X1080, do you know how rediculous that is nobody would use a resolution with that kind of ratio,i think you meant 5760x3600 which would still be compatible with current widescreen ratios. 1560x1080 is 5.3:1 and 5760x3600 is 1.6:1, 1440x900(my current res) 1.6:1smc91352

Haha this guy doesn't realise the idea of having three monitors and surround gaming. Cornholio get on youtube and type in eyefinity, and find a vid of gaming across three monitors. Then you'll know.polarwrath11

with the exception of smc91352 seems what the rest of you failed to notice(good job BTW;)) is i specifically mentioned multi monitor setups several times if you read the whole post. " since you mentioned 3D it would be nice to have multi screen setups when linked together seemlessly give a psuedo 3D environment for gaming."

"but they wouldnt be some unresaonable resolution like 5760x1080. they would be several individual frameless monitors with attachment capabilities each displaying somewhere around 1920x1080 a piece."

even though im reffering to technology that doesnt exist yet it is still reffering to multi monitors. i said this because i dont like the idea of multi monitors as they are now haveing the ends of both as a black bar in betweenthe picture.

"utilizing what we already know about multi screen setups," there it is again, and you said i didnt know about these.
"desktops and such can be split onto seperate screensso i see this being entirely possible but hugely expensive. but would still be amazing if we could ever make such a thing affordable for average PC gamers."

oh and BTW i did do my research mrmyles maybe you should think before opening your mouth and openly attacking someone.

[QUOTE="smc91352"]I don't like my monitor to be wide either. I use half my 1080p screen and miss my old 5:4 monitor :(UltimateGamer95

now if only console gamers could read, understand and comprehend =P

now if only console gamers could read, understand and comprehend =P

Blade8Aus

I definitely don't think every pc gamer needs the newest best thing out there. As soon as something new is released, like the i7 for example, that is the best thing on earth while every thing else is just horrible and needs to be replaced immediately. Thats what I don't like about pc gaming. I love my pc and I love gaming on it. I have a Core 2 Quad Q9400 and it performs on par with an i7 in all games, yet if someone asks for an opinion regarding a core 2 quad all of a sudden you get everyone saying NO!!!!!!!!!!! don't get that garbage, you need an i7 to play games, ridiculous! However, graphics cards are a different story and depending on the graphics card you have now and getting a 5870 for example, you can potentially see a huge difference with your games.

I don't like the idea of multi monitors. Where does it stop? Do we end up with 10 monitors and 20 video cards?

I don't like the idea of multi monitors. Where does it stop? Do we end up with 10 monitors and 20 video cards?

Joe77

;)

Just crazy lol.

;)

Just crazy lol.

tequilasunriser

Where I can buy one of those things (assuming they're even out yet)? I would totally upgrade my PC just for that. Looks like that would finally be wide enough to play my bluray's on a screen without having a double lettbox effect going on (one letterbox because I'm playing the movies on a 16:10 screen, and another letterbox on top of that because of that infernal "super widescreen" aspect ratio).