Honestly, it's so obvious to me that I'm having a hard time believing that you aren't sharp enough to see it. I'm bookmarking this thread, getting back to it after the next-gen consoles are out. Commence with your comments.Originally Posted by Sakkura
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
That's mature. You still haven't answered those questions though. But nevermind, I think we're getting this thread closed anyway. Sigh... at least the OP got his answer already.
I posted this in another forum:
I'd wait till 2013 before buying anything new. If new consoles are released by then, nvidia and amd will follow suit with a complete redesign of their hardware architecture that will be 5-10 times faster than the current gtx680 and amd 7xxx series. It's happened in 1996 (3dfx voodoo 10 times faster than 3d on cpu alone), then again in 2001/2002 (nvidia geforce 4/ati radeon 9700 5 times faster than geforce 3/ ati 8xxx), then yet again in 2006 (nvidia 8800gtx 5 times faster than geforce 7900gtx & radeon X1900XTX).
See a pattern? All those gigantic leaps in graphics hardware coincided with 3 generations of console launches.
The same will most likely happen again at the beginning of next year IF a next-gen console is released from Microsoft or Sony.
Be smart and don't buy guaranteed-to-be obsolete graphics hardware. The gtx690? That's basically you donating an extra $540 (actual value of the card is $500 imo) to fund nvidia's R&D for next year.
If you have a spare $280 bill in your wallet you don't know what to do with, get a used gtx580. It is perfectly capable of running games at their highest settings at 1080p till next year.
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
I have a 670 and it's running all games I threw at it at max settings at a resolution of 2560x 1440. So yes, a 690 is definitely overkill.
And if you game on 1080p, you might be better off with a 660 Ti. I'd advise you to browse some hardware fora, they have nice little charts with the FPS you can expect in modern games.
PS: as to the "wait until the consoles are released". We're talking end of next year at the fastest. Do you really want to spend another 15 months with your old card?
Last edited by Carra; 14-09-2012 at 10:13 AM.
That doesn't make it any less wrong. Why would they even need to make a leap ahead when their current graphics cards are already far better than what the new consoles will have?
AMD's just released one of their largest architecture redesigns with GCN. There's no way in hell they'd make another complete redesign so soon.
I don't find it that surprising that two brand new pieces of software don't work well to begin with. That's to say AMD are flawless, but they're nowhere near as bas as you make out.
Why did nvdia and ati (well, nvidia mostly) make a giant leap in 2006, when the nvidia 7900gtx/ati x1900 were FAR better than the Playstation 2 / Xbox / Gamecube?
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
ATI/AMD doesn't do innovation anymore, they stick to releasing the most performance at the lowest price bracket possible. This has been the case since 2006, there is not a single instance where they were not playing catch up this generation. It's telling that their "major architecture overhaul" is just barely competing with nvidia's more or less incremental update to their original geforce 8 series.
Put it this way: if the "largest architecture overhaul" released in the past two years by AMD can't even run next-gen tech demos at 60 fps, how relevant is it?
Last edited by mashakos; 14-09-2012 at 10:27 PM.
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
I don't know, I regularly see threads / articles about abysmal AMD compatibility on an epic scale:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forum....php?t=1722615
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/RAG...ing,13606.html
http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-Why-e...D-ATI-in-PCSX2
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
None of those consoles were new in 2006. You're telling me Nvidia and ATI were so scared by what the consoles could do circa 2001 that they put full steam ahead for a huge leap forward in ...2006?
and my point flies right over your head. *woosh*
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
So you were referring to the new consoles that were released around that time? I've already addressed that. The upcoming consoles will reportedly have graphics based on the Radeon HD 6670. That's an outdated low-end GPU today, let alone when the consoles actually launch. Why would a great leap ahead be needed when there's already a huge gap between what PC graphics cards can deliver today and what consoles will deliver tomorrow?
And there are hundreds of ones about Nvidia ones too. I think on the whole Nvidia's support is better, but AMD's isn't so bad to write off the cards. I haven't had a problem with a game due to my card since Skyrim, and that was because the game is bad on dual GPU cards.
AMD's 7000-series performance is besides the point. GCN is new. They're not going to make a new architecture.
But hey, keep telling yourself you know so much better than everyone else if it makes you feel better.
I have already covered this: amd doesn't care about the cutting edge anymore.
I refer you to comment #21
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
no no no, I'm not talking about poor PC user no #67564 that has a problem with his new gfx card, I'm talking about the fact that amd cards have poor performance and shortcomings in an entire category of applications.
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
GPGPU says hi.
So it sucks at a bunch of things but is awesome at opencl processing. Do you just like to link to Tom's Hardware or do you have anything to counter what I said and linked to earlier?
EDIT: I also like that amd is only better when it's crossfired cards are used. Nice one!
Steam profile
PC Specs: I have a big e-peen
The point is Nvidia cards have poor performance and shortcomings in an entire category of applications. Does that sound familiar?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
