What are your standards for gaming performance?

Let's get real here. The graphical demand of games are advancing at a snail's pace compared to the advancement of hardware. Yet I still see people splashing $300+ for video cards left and right even though it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong).

So I'd like to hear your reasons for this madness.

high or better is my standard.. atm that holds true for 90% of my games (as i play metro 2033 and blur on medium(because i prefer blur onm medium))

Maxed out with 1600x900 and above 40FPS.

I need to be able to max out at least 90% of the games that I play or am likely to. I need to be able to do that, and get a smooth framerate without lowering settings. Obviously I need to be able to run the games at my monitor's native resolution. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Let's get real here. The graphical demand of games are advancing at a snail's pace compared to the advancement of hardware. Yet I still see people splashing $300+ for video cards left and right even though it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong).

So I'd like to hear your reasons for this madness.

it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong)kaitanuvax

[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong)CellAnimation

Of all the games i have played every game at 50-60 fps, if i can't do that its the game fault at this point in time. But anything past 30 fps i playable

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Jk. But I am WAYY overdue for a new GPU, Hopefully I can get around to upgrading it sometime this year.gmaster456

yeah you could easily get something nice for like 100 US/CDn and pwn that 4650 upside tha face!

I has money to burn.

I try to run three Gaming PC's here, so whatever graphic card that goes in as an upgrade to my first nr:1 benefit all three PC's.

So whenever i buy a new graphic that goes to nr:1 the gtx460 goes into the second PC and the HD4850 goes into the third... (the other card witch is a leftover goes as a freebe top a friend/family.)

So to keep all three PC's relevant for gaming does mean getting new stuff more often.

35 fps minimum, 50+ fps ideal. Framerate must be stable. I much prefer 35 fps stable than 40-80 fluctuating... Max settings (1920x1080) although I don't count tessellation as max because it just kills fps. I can do without MSAA if necessary because my monitor has a good pixel pitch and MLAA clears up most of the jaggies anyway.

I'll upgrade when my HD 6850 can no longer do what I mentioned above. Perhaps I'll get an HD 8xxx series card when they are released.

2560x1600 demolishes a $200 card, even in a lot of somewhat older games on highest settings. Definitely never want below 30fps, 45 is ok, 60+ is preferred. BeavermanA

If your playing on a 1k monitor you will not be buying a 200 dollar card

[QUOTE="CellAnimation"][QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong)C_Rule

My ideal standards are highest in game settings without physx at 16x10 with 4xAA with 40 FPS minimum.

Unfortunately my wallet cannot meet those standards right now but fortunately the GTS 250 still plays all games at high at my native resolution except metro 2033. After enjoying the utter bliss of owning an 8800GTS in 2007 and having 4xAA in every game except crysis, I thought I could never live without AA. But now AA is the more frequent compromise my GTS 250 has to make but it actually has been surprisingly acceptable to me. See standards can change with time and resources.:lol:

As far as standards of refusing to play a game are concerned well it's pretty much what nameless said, as long as it runs smooth and the low settings dont affect gameplay too much, I wouldnt hang up on playing a game.

[QUOTE="CellAnimation"][QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]it's pretty clear cards in the sub $200 segment already demolishes the gaming scene (try to prove me wrong)C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="CellAnimation"] Metro 2033 DX11...imprezawrx500

Maxed out with 1600x900 and above 40FPS.

mitu123

I am currently a broke student so I bought my comp and have no intention of upgrading for quite a while. I tried to future proof it a bit, I can run Crysis 1 at max settings and 2x AA. At 1680x1050 (native)

I'm generally after maxing it out...or getting very close.

My current system I upgraded within 3 months of buying it - I went from a single 5770 to Crossfire. I was getting a sluggish 24fps in JC2 (numbers aside, it felt sluggish)...not pleasing for a new build...so upgrade ahoy! Resulting in 59fps instead :D .

More generally, I'll upgrade when something starts to get on my nerves - My old Athlon x64 6000+/8800GTX setup could play games fine...but the loading times were horrendous. I was getting very bored every time a section in DA:O took 3-4 minutes to load.

PC gaming should be all about large numbers where ever possible ;)

1600x1200

No AA

30+FPS

Medium - High (not medium.. but things like shadows can go for the most part)

my 8800GTX still trucking. But I'm going to be upgrading later this year.

As long as I think the game I'm playing look good and run a solid 30+ FPS(which they do for the most part), I'm fine. I will be upgrading when Bulldozer comes out though, because I know I won't be able to run Battlefield 3 with this thing.

I'm generally after maxing it out...or getting very close.

My current system I upgraded within 3 months of buying it - I went from a single 5770 to Crossfire. I was getting a sluggish 24fps in JC2 (numbers aside, it felt sluggish)...not pleasing for a new build...so upgrade ahoy! Resulting in 59fps instead :D .

More generally, I'll upgrade when something starts to get on my nerves - My old Athlon x64 6000+/8800GTX setup could play games fine...but the loading times were horrendous. I was getting very bored every time a section in DA:O took 3-4 minutes to load.

PC gaming should be all about large numbers where ever possible ;)

LordRork

[QUOTE="LordRork"]

I'm generally after maxing it out...or getting very close.

My current system I upgraded within 3 months of buying it - I went from a single 5770 to Crossfire. I was getting a sluggish 24fps in JC2 (numbers aside, it felt sluggish)...not pleasing for a new build...so upgrade ahoy! Resulting in 59fps instead :D .

More generally, I'll upgrade when something starts to get on my nerves - My old Athlon x64 6000+/8800GTX setup could play games fine...but the loading times were horrendous. I was getting very bored every time a section in DA:O took 3-4 minutes to load.

PC gaming should be all about large numbers where ever possible ;)

seabiscuit8686

Usually play in 1650x1050, maxed out except AA, that I don't really use, ever. Sometimes shadows annoy me as well, so I turn them off. I do play FIFA at my native 1080p though.

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="LordRork"]

I'm generally after maxing it out...or getting very close.

My current system I upgraded within 3 months of buying it - I went from a single 5770 to Crossfire. I was getting a sluggish 24fps in JC2 (numbers aside, it felt sluggish)...not pleasing for a new build...so upgrade ahoy! Resulting in 59fps instead :D .

More generally, I'll upgrade when something starts to get on my nerves - My old Athlon x64 6000+/8800GTX setup could play games fine...but the loading times were horrendous. I was getting very bored every time a section in DA:O took 3-4 minutes to load.

PC gaming should be all about large numbers where ever possible ;)

gmaster456