| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (22)

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't really see the cost benefit of buying 1 or even 2 of these cards. It seems like there should be a certain threshold of visuals you can obtain due to the raw programming inherent in a game. It's not like getting 2 of these cards is going to make half life 2 any better than it was meant to be. Save your money and buy a whole new pc or even a 360...you will be getting a lot more than just a beefed up framerate and less jaggies.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:08PM Nushio said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Say it Loud. Say it Proud.

PS3 is the new PC.*


*I am a Nintendo "Fanboy", yet I wholeheartedly support PS3 and Xbox 360.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:15PM Bobbo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why anyone would spend that much money on a graphics card is beyond me. The cost of keeping up on the PC has driven me to the 360 to get my gaming fix. I just hope that EA has figured out how to make a RTS work on consoles so everyone can emulate their control scheme. The way I see it, RTS is the only Genre where consoles are lacking compared to PCs.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yet another reason consoles gaming is better then PC gaming.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:49PM duders said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
237 watts? 237 X 4 =948 watts, holy hell. That much juice being sucked out of a power supply is just insane, good idea to only sell them to professionals. I wouldn't want the average Joe be responisble for making a system that could handle that load either.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No not 237 x 4, 237 x 2= 474W. The card tested has 2 GPU chips on it. Two cards in SLI make up quad SLI.

Thats why I bought a 360 I bought a 24" monitor awhile back and upgrading my computer would have cost me over 1k.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 3:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll admit to having a voodoo/3dfx dual SLI setup back in the day. I think I had a performance gain of 15-20 FPS. =/

@Sputnik:
Here's to hoping LOTR:BFME2 for 360 delivers. We'll know about a month from now.
*crosses fingers*

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 4:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
to # 4....if im not mistaken this is a dual core gpu...meaning 2 gpus on on card. a quad sli set up would just be 2 of these cards not 4. there for it would be 237 x 2 = 474 watts. still alot of power but alot better then a ridicuous 948 heh

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 4:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so do you guys just steal all your news from digg now or what?

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But how does this compare to a dual GeForce 7900 GTX setup?

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man, for the price of one of these cards I can just get a PS3!

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 6:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is why I bought my Xbox 360.

Even though, to fufill my computing ego I will buy this if I ever have extra cash this year. I'm still a PC gamer at heart.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 7:08PM Bran said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Spending 1000+ dollars on a pc to play a 50 damn dollar game.

That is what I call the stupid. I will say that pc only holds up now because there's a terrible showing of RTS on consoles. And we're still waiting for MMO's on consoles, but their coming.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 7:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I will not be getting one (I am loyal to ATI), but I can see why someone would pay such a price. Sure games may only look marginally better than on a regular PC with a card half the price, but marginal improvements is what drives power hungry enthusiasts. Before I went to the Xbox 360, I would spend $500+ on the latest/greatest cards on the market. If you think this is expensive, you have not touched power gaming rigs yet. My liquid cooled case is $400 alone. Add another $200 for a 600 watt power supply and then another $300 on a sound card....and well you get the picture. PC Power gaming is not for the faint of heart, or tight wallets. Good show Nvidia. I still have forgive you for killing Voodoo...but keep up the good work, and the day I return to PC Gaming, I may add a couple of these puppies to my SLI board (or whatever is top of the line at that point in time).

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 8:16PM Serious Kriss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#3: The title clearly says "enthousiasts". You don't actually need this to play PC games. Hell, my single 6800 plays Oblivion flawlessly, and I won't need to upgrade until DX10 games come out.
BFME2 was a pretty average RTS for PC, though I'm also curious how they will adapt it for the 360. But I can think of a few more genres where consoles are lacking (and therefore are no substitute for PC gaming), such as adventure, simulation, MMO, tactical FPS and 4X games.

Posted: Jun 5th 2006 9:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why would someone spend so much on a graphics card?

The same reason why some people want to drive a Mercedes AMG S550 and not a toyota camry. sure both get ya from A to B. But sometimes people just like have things that perform a bit better.

I mean hey i know people they buy new TVs every couple of years... and these TV's cost thousands of dollars. yet they like to keep up with new technology so *shrugs*.

I myself upgrade my computer every 2 years or so and spend maybe 1 or 2k every time to do it. But i Enjoy it.. its a hobby of mine. Just like i'm sure gaming is a hobby to MOST people. They do it because they enjoy it.

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 2:27AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You certainly don't need a top of the line PC (or even high-end) to play games. The only question is how high you want your settings, and your acceptable frame rate.

My current machine is 3 years old, it's a P4 2.8 (pre-HyperThreading). Original specs included a GeForce4-MX440, and 512MB RAM. I was able to play the entire Half-life 1 collection, Call of Duty, BF1942, that entire generation of games. I had most settings at medium.

Half-life 2 comes out, and I'm running 800x600 at min. settings, and getting about 25-30fps. I upgrade to an FX5200 (small upgrade), and bought another 512MB of RAM, bringing me up to 1GB. This was $100 in upgrades.

Over a year later, Day of Defeat: Source comes out, and I start playing that extensively. Min. settings, 800x600, I'm getting 30-40fps. I buy a 6600GT for $130, and now all games run pretty well, at mid-to-high settings. I play HL2 games at 1024x768 or 1280x1024, with most settings fairly high (but no AA or AF, usually), and get between 40-60fps multiplayer, and 60-80fps singleplayer.

My point is, my current machine, built today, would cost about $500 to build. $70 motherboard, $100 processor, $130 video card, plus some other components. Games run perfectly fine for me, as long as I'm willing to sacrifice either settings or framerate.

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 6:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What's really sad is many PC games don't utilize VSync throttle. Getting 100+ FPS from an exotic video setup is stupid if your monitor is locked at 75 Hz, because you have dropped/interrupted frames. Hell, the card is drawing frames it isn't even displaying, which just wastes electricity. At least console developers aim to sync everything to 60 Hz, so everything is so much SMOOTHER.

I take smoothness and good sync over detail anyday, which is why I still like to watch old DOS/Amiga demos.

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 12:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I enable vsync on all games, and you can also override it to enable with your video card drivers for nv and ati

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 2:22PM Tephlon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree, Waccoon.

I think V-sync is a very overlooked property of gaming.
I just upgraded (rebuilt, rather) my machine. X2 4400, 2 7900gt's, 88n32-sli, 2gb corsair xms... new power supply. But I'm still disappointed in the way many games/engines suck w vsnc enabled.

I say GAMES because I'm confident the fault doesn't fall with my machine. It should do great with these games, but the vertical tearing is aweful with v-sync disable. Although acceptable to most, its just not with me. Consoles are great in that the games are v-synced, and it helps make the experience smooth.
I also say games because some incorporate it much better than others. Doom3/Quake 4 (the doom 3 engine) has great v-sync abilites. I can enable it and get the results I want, but it doesn't crush the performance. FEAR, on the other hand, gets crushed with v-sync enabled, but the tearing AWEFUL without it (COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE). I've tweaked it to run acceptably with v-sync on, but I feel it comes at a rediculous comprimise. More than there should be, I think.
COD2 is another title that just surprises the hell out of me. I played the game SP on my 360, but after I did my upgrade I wanted to see how my PC handled it. Well, still like shit, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong, It runs like a fucking camp with v-sync disabled... but again that is something I'm unwilling to do.

I dunno. I wish they'd take more care on the pc front. I'm really tired of torn images in pretty games. It's quite a shame, really.

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 2:26PM Tephlon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
'a8n32-sli', rather.

sorry for the typo. don't know what the hell happened there.

Posted: Jun 6th 2006 6:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you need to ask why, you aren't an enthusiast. Plain and simple.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW