[QUOTE="Giantsfan22"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Wow you need to go back to math class. :|

No a game maxed out at 1280 will look better than a game at 1920 running at medium or low settngs.

Gambler_3

Maybe on a 1280 monitor. Of course it will look better, it's on a smaller screen with higher details. But most gamers play on much higher rez's. If someone wants to play at 1280, awesome. I only play at 1440. But alot don't, thus upgrade.

So all along you were bashing a res for being too low when it is actually higher than your res.

You intially said "try playing a latest game on an 8800 sorry not possible blah blah" which is completely utterly false.

P.S. This is not the end of the world here. It's a silly little topic about computer hardware. I only brought it up because I have seen so many people complain about needing to upgrade while their console buddies laugh(figuratively). I still say Intel was greedy for releasing the newest I series on a different slot type, just to force upgrading mobos. But that's a different topic....look for it soon.

OK this is getting way out of hand. We are going off in tangents. If you feel the current hardware model is fine, please say so and why. If not, then offer a suggestion to improve it.

[QUOTE="Giantsfan22"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

What the f*** are you trying to argue about resolution?

So you are saying that consoles last longer because they play games in sub 720p whereas the PC fails to play games at 1080p? :lol:

I havent seen this sort of a spin to help an argument even in system wars.

And PS3 has been here for 6 years lolwut? It launched at the same time as the 8800GTX, it has been about 4.5 years so far for both PS3 and 8800.

Gambler_3

Retail availability- November 11, 2006...sorry 5.5 years

A 1280 maxed rez would be comparable to a much more common 1920 rez with lower settings. This argument was never about consoles. I was merely listed them as a reference point. I said forget about them 2 pages ago. This is about extending hardware life.

No a game maxed out at 1280 will look better than a game at 1920 running at medium or low settngs.

Maybe on a 1280 monitor. Of course it will look better, it's on a smaller screen with higher details. But most gamers play on much higher rez's. If someone wants to play at 1280, awesome. I only play at 1440. But alot don't, thus upgrade.

What the f*** are you trying to argue about resolution?

So you are saying that consoles last longer because they play games in sub 720p whereas the PC fails to play games at 1080p? :lol:

I havent seen this sort of a spin to help an argument even in system wars.

And PS3 has been here for 6 years lolwut? It launched at the same time as the 8800GTX, it has been about 4.5 years so far for both PS3 and 8800.

Gambler_3

Retail availability- November 11, 2006...sorry 5.5 years

A 1280 maxed rez would be comparable to a much more common 1920 rez with lower settings. This argument was never about consoles. I was merely listed them as a reference point. I said forget about them 2 pages ago. This is about extending hardware life.

Have you played any recent PS3 game? Heck even the last Uncharted was gorgeous, and that was last year. Are they as good as a pc....course not, but they are good enough.

[QUOTE="Giantsfan22"]

Also, here is the link to that review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6670/11.html

Check other games, even DA2, hardly a graphics power house struggle to get over 20 fps at 1280.

Gambler_3

Nobody said that 8800 can still max out all games. :roll:

An earlier poster mentioned overclocking a cpu. I agree, since cpu's benefit much more from overclocking than vid cards, this is a viable method. But vid cards don't gain much from overclocking.

Giantsfan, I think you're just... wrong. :P

But seriously.. You could have built a PC in 2006 with a nice Core 2 Duo, an 8800GTX, and 4GB of RAM, and still be able to run almost any game out today at medium to high settings up to about 1680x1050 resolution, which is significantly higher than the resolution that most current-gen PS3 and X360 games run at. If you built one in 2007 with a Q6600 and overclocked it to 3ghz+, you'd still be set in the CPU/mobo/RAM department for the next year or 2 at minimum.

hartsickdiscipl

I just posted a link which says that's not true. If the 6670 is the equivalent to the 8800(which it may not be), then it gets it's butt kicked by a number of recent games, even at 1280. Now CPUs in alot of PC games do not need upgrading near as often. I play alot of simulators which are much more cpu heavy since the render far distances and many objects, and with those, you NEED to upgrade every 2 years.

I think we're also missing the point that the pc game industry is geared upon people upgrading about every 2 years.If you want the game to play with even a few graphical bells and whistles(not even talking about SSAO and the like), you simply need to upgrade.

You ccan't compare raw graphical horsepower between console and pc hardware since console hardware is much better utilized.

But you keep arguing about the need to upgrade. That was never my point. As in an earlier post, this was a discussion about how to extend the life of pc hardware, not if you can live with medium to low settings and keep your pc for 4 years(which BTW is still 2 years off the 6 years the PS3 has been here and is still puting out amazing looking games).

Actually, the 6670 is equivalent to the 9800gt or 250, not an 8800(except in a few benchmarks). And look at the resolution. 1280, pretty low for pc gaming. I wasn't saying it's impossible to play new games on old hardware, but you have to really turn down the settings or resolution to the point it gets really muddy. I have seen a couple benchmarks where the 8800 compares with the 6670, but most, the difference is very apparent when you go ABOVE 1280.

But if you play a 1280 or below, then yeah, you can stretch your hardware. But not many serious pc gamers play at or below 1280. Point is, most gamers want to play at least medium to high settings on new hardware, and at resolutions much higher than 1280.

P.S. I actually had a 8800, and even when I upgraded to a 260(which is admittedly better than the 250), I could definitely tell the difference.

Also, here is the link to that review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6670/11.html

Check other games, even DA2, hardly a graphics power house struggle to get over 20 fps at 1280.

I guess I wasn't clear when I mentioned recently released games. I meant games that push your hardware. No not Crysis level where it takes 1 year for any hardware to play maxed out. I mean a game like Shogun 2, which demands alot from your hardware.

I actually don't feel 'cheated' per se, but it is interested to watch the non-parallel development of pcs and consoles.

Any other ideas of extending the life of pc hardware?

P.S. I ABSOLUTELY agree witht he above poster about the consolve vs pc complexity and how intimidating it can be.

I like the direction the discussion is taking. I love building pcs. This is just a brainstorming session for ideas on how we or the industry might help extend your pc hardware's life.

Here's one...a video card has different things that make it "fast". What if there was a way to upgrade just those parts. Kind of like a silicon lego set. You have a base video card, then customize it. Thoughts?

I respectfully disagree. If you want to play the LATEST games 5 years from 2006, 2006 hardware is just obsolete. Try playing a recently released game on an 8800. That was my point. I think everyone missed that the idea behind this discussion was not to debate whether or not you spend more with consoles or pc gaming(and in 2008, you could get a ps3 for way less than $450), but about way to lengthen hardware relavency for pc gamers. Just shoot out some ideas. Forget about consoles. I just used them as a reference point.

-And just for the record, yes some console games have framerate issues but most don't, and no where near the level of pc games that do, even with modern hardware.

-Sli is great if it actually worked like doubling your vid card power, but it doesn't. Heck games are just now taking advantage of 2 cores(maybe 3 if it was optimized really well), and yet we have 8 core cpus coming out this year. Some games really benefit, but way too many don't to make it a viable option. And yes a new console might run $400, but you know that $400 will last atleast 5-6 years, which cannot be said of pc hardware, but that's not the point of this discussion.

-I am a hardcore pc guy. I love PCs more than consoles since I am totally into simulations and rpgs(DCS series, ARMA etc), so I'm not some console fanboy making fun of you 'dumb pc guys who upgrade every 2 years'.

-Above poster who said I should just go console. I already have a ps3. This is more a 'think outside the box' type discussion.