Do we need such powerful cards now?

jigger · 12 Feb 2009 at 19:03

Phil2008 said:
Do we need such powerful cards now?

Yes.

And higher resolution monitors.

setter · 12 Feb 2009 at 19:11

I used to run a 20" monitor with a 640mb gts, i then changed over to the 512 g92 variant and shortly after upgraded to a 24" monitor. Both of the gts cards were ok with most games at 1680x1050, but at 1920x1200 the 512 gts was starting to struggle with newer titles. Hence the upgrade to a gtx 280, nothing im playing at the minute struggles much with this card.

queamin · 12 Feb 2009 at 19:16

Wait and see when the 120hz monitors are cheaper

arc@css · 12 Feb 2009 at 19:23

reflux said:
I've had a 4870X2 since September, and wondered exactly the same thing last week. I spotted a bargain GTX 280 in b-grade, so I'm going to run that for a while and see how it is.

E-peen = fail, I must keep telling myself that

I'd be interested about what you think of the comparison between those cards.

Sean_UK · 12 Feb 2009 at 19:50

Phil2008 said:
The reason I ask this is cos 90% of games are port games and dont really show off the topend cards.

Agreed, although a quick browse of the Gametrailers website would suggest things are moving along nicely come spring/summer.

rjk · 12 Feb 2009 at 23:40

yes - we all need faster graphics cards

ALWAYS

Shocky-FM · 12 Feb 2009 at 23:50

Emlyn_Dewar · 13 Feb 2009 at 09:15

We need much more powerful cards, that way the 1gb 4870 might fall in price even more and I'll have to buy another one.

bakes0310 · 13 Feb 2009 at 14:33

Looking at what games is coming out this year the only demanding games that i can see are:
Rage
Operation Flashpoint 2 Dragon Rising

I really think my 280gtx ocx card will play them, but not to my standard. Im fussy ive got to have my games playing how there meant to be played, every setting on max. My screen res at 1920x1200, aint gonna make my graphics card last as long on a 1280x960 but it sure as hell looks better.

Phil2008 · 13 Feb 2009 at 15:38

Allan Wake??

Rroff · 13 Feb 2009 at 15:46

Alan Wake is looking tasty and will probably need a beast of a PC to run maxed out...

Rage will need a decent rig to run maxed out, but as its also capable of being played on fairly low specs and still put up decent fps without hugely sacrificing visual quality.

I deffinatly think we are going to need much more powerful GPUs towards the end of 2009/early 2010.

james.miller · 13 Feb 2009 at 15:49

I'm glad they are working on efficiancy now rather than all out power. I got rid of my 8800gtx and put a 4830 in. i didnt want anything faster, which it isnt particularly, but its smaller and more efficiant and doesnt get anywhere near as hot. which is always welcome when its stuffed in a htpc case

jigger · 13 Feb 2009 at 16:54

Phil2008 said:
Allan Wake??

CDT teacher, big guy beard and glasses ! ring any bells

Its more of a tech show case than a game, I doubt it will ever hit the shelves TBH

Rroff · 13 Feb 2009 at 17:32

I dunno they've put a huge amount of effort into the world detail and back story for something that never goes retail...

Antx777 · 13 Feb 2009 at 17:57

You need a faster GFX card to go from 20 frames to 40 (or something) if game is maxed out/aa/af etc. You DON'T need a faster card to go from 60 frames to 100 frames though, that's the problem here though with that "10%" of games (Crysis/Warhead/Farcry2/GTA), some people may just play THESE games, and these require more powerfull GFX.

~Ant

Adrianr · 13 Feb 2009 at 18:17

TBH You only have to look at the best current in-game graphics to know we need/want more powerfull GPU's. Even current pre-render quality in-game is a long way off.

JeremyW · 13 Feb 2009 at 21:59

During the recent snowy period I've been delighted with my oldish inefficient graphics card as it has kept the room warm once the central heating has gone off

..

Colinsky · 14 Feb 2009 at 00:16

Using RivaTuner to monitor video memory usage at 1920x1200 resolution, 4xaa 16xaf, a few games I own and play use more than 512mb found on many mid range cards.

I owned a 512mb Radeon 4870, which despite being bottlenecked by 512mb vram it still blazed through most titles, only Crysis and Arma seemed to be affected severely.

Corasik · 14 Feb 2009 at 01:45

I still find the 8800GTX handles anything I can throw at it @ 1920x1200 (24inch). It helps that the old "G80" GTX had 768 ram though.

miniyazz · 14 Feb 2009 at 02:08

JeremyW said:
During the recent snowy period I've been delighted with my oldish inefficient graphics card as it has kept the room warm once the central heating has gone off ..

+1! Loving my 8800GTX

Colinsky said:
Using RivaTuner to monitor video memory usage at 1920x1200 resolution, 4xaa 16xaf, a few games I own and play use more than 512mb found on many mid range cards.

I owned a 512mb Radeon 4870, which despite being bottlenecked by 512mb vram it still blazed through most titles, only Crysis and Arma seemed to be affected severely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely monitoring video memory usage on a 512mb card means it would never go over? You'd have to run the tests on a 4870X2 or GTX 285/295, surely?