Look here guy (Trinity567). Here is a true tech web site that uses real gameplay to benchmark http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ1NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== (which I assume gamespot did as well because the benchmarks are similar). Which to be quite honest is a surprise to me because gamespot is really not that knowledgeable about tech (sorry guys but you really just aren’t). Now you need to read the whole thing and you will also see an editors note in the conclusion explaining to people who don't really understand proper benchmarking and how and why synthetic benchies or time runs, are not accurate and why they never use them. It was a big ? to the not so hardcore tech enthusiat community because they were so different than most. Now I go to toms as well but they as well as anandtech, driverheaven, and not as often but occasionally guru3D will as well. But Guru usually tells you before hand. And up until this recent review gamespot, that I have seen on all there GPU reviews has as well. They must have hired an acutal techie :D, or just got extremely lucky :). Now all that said the 3870X2(R680) is a great card but it is only two 3870 (RV670) GPU's on one board and we all know how those compare to the G92 8800GT/GTS, and of course the G80 8800GTX/Ultra. And in some games Like Half Life 2 E:2, Enemy Territory Quake Wars, it's a little fast than the afore mentioned Nvidia Cards. Now what I want to see (along with the other hardcore hardware techies) is what the R700 can do, which will be out later this year. But before that it really doesn't matter too much because if you have a 30" monitor @ 2560x1600 as I do there is really only one choice right now and that's either 8800GTS(G92) Sli or 8800GTX/Ultra SLi. When the 9800GX2 comes out in April/May or hell even the 9800GTX in the same time frame(wich both are just newer versions of the G92 but obviously the GX2 will have two GPU's ala the 7950GX2 and the 3870X2, although not on one pcb board as ATi have done, but we all know that the G92 GPU's are much faster GPU's than the RV670's that power the 3850/3870 and now the 3870X2). And in a few months time the 3870X2 will just be a paper weight and any one who bought it will just regret it.
Adrian was the lead artist at ID software before he had a fall out with John and other suites and left the company after co starting it. All because of some bs between them. He was going to sue them for 30 mill that was owned to him. But I left before anything happend.
Blindside man I don't care what they tell you beta is done graphicly. I don't care what gamespot microsoft, or any other guy tells you when your at beta your job as a dev team is to polish of the last few gameplay bugs not engine. HAHA LOL and if there not done with the engine yet then there seriously F'd. I'm sure they are anyway. Plus trust my I know I used to work for (unnamed studio here in Texas, only two lol) a game comapny and when we get to beta, scratch that when we get to alpha the storyline leves most mp maps are done buddy the rest of alpha stage is done optomizing the preformace of the game network code for online some graphical tweaks here and there. But man when you get to beta the game couls be released tomorrow and be fine. It would just be real buggy and whould need about 5 patchs just get to where it would be at final release. Turst me bro don't listen to anything especially us devs we lie to the game media all the time. But you will see when it comes out and you will be like me that drunk dev guy was right.
No no no no Glordit. I don't have that S***Y game (Halo 2 PC) , hell it's not even out yet. I was just telling them to look at the pic gamespot has because they do already have it, May 22nd is the release if you care. I am on Vista however and it is a little buggy, but the new drivers are working well and it's not near as bad as it was just a month ago. Plus I have the DX10 Lost Planet demo that is pretty impressive, and so far have not had any probs with games on Vista yet.
ratix is right when your in beta your game is done. Hell when you get to alpha your game is done, that's where all the tweaking, optomizing and most bug fixing is done. When your at beta folks your game is basically done. Your games I think you should understand that. Ratix as for the rest of my earlier rant I was just saying basically how trash it looks and that is is sad that gamespot is even able to compare halo 2 vs halo 3 there should be no contest. When I told the people to go look at the PC version of Halo 2 and compare it to the 360 halo 3 they would see that there is really no difference between them. Which is sad because that rubbish on the PC is worse than some of the new Counter Strike Sorce maps and that game is 4 years old 8 if you include 1.6. I think that it should look better anyway Gears was nice so they could have done way better, but like you said it wouldn't make any difference to me because I think halo 2 sucked and I'm sure this will be no better. As for Crysis that is going to be a masterpiece, and show not even be put into the same breath as is console crap game, unless to poke fun at how bas it is and show people what is reall possible if your on the proper platform (PC) and have actual creative developers with talent.
This crap looks no better than Halo 2 for the pc. Go to the halo 2 PC screens and keep that page up then go to halo 3 screens and look through them all. If anything the PC version has overall better textures but maybe not quite as good of lighting. Halo is done anyway when it came out 6 years ago it was new, different and good, but this junk game is getting old with it's poor gameplay and graphics that are trash. If you people want a real shooter go play Counter Strike: Source, BF2, or wait for BioShock (PC), Unreal Tournament 3 (PC), and Crysis for cryin out loud. Shooters really don't make any sense on a console anyway with bad controls and graphics that once were good but now with DX10 (still no games) and the new generation video cards console look as they always do a few years after there release, with subpar textures, poor overall graphics and very short games because they have to fit it on there tiny little DVD disks. I mean Gears was like 7 hours boo that. That and when you add in most good cheap monitors are from like $400 and up all have higher resolution than most HDTV. 1920x1080p=2,073,600 pixels on screen per frame (ppf) and hardly any console game supports it anyway. 1280x720p=921,600 ppf, and the lowest 20" widescreen monitors now are 1680x1050= 1,764,000 ppf, and the 24"1920x1200=2,304,000 ppf and the highest end 30" which is only $1,699 will blast you twice the resolution on what most people think is the best image quality possible 1080p HDTV (lol), when I run 2560x1600=4,093,000 ppf now thats a resolution to play games at my people. Now if you can spend $400 or more on a console (8800GTS, HD2900XT are same price) and another $2000 on a good HDTV then you can afford to buy a mid range PC with a 24" ws monitor or higher, that will destroy the console you bought and you can play some real games. If you have the cash for it all then great I own the 360 too but hardly ever play it on my 57" HDTV because the games suck ( except Gears) and I have a PC wich is where games are ment to be played on.
warmack1's comments