Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Radeon HD 5870 Adds DX11, Multi-Monitor Gaming

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the still-won't-run-crysis dept.

AMD 195

Vigile writes "Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles and their dominating hold on developers. Today AMD is releasing the Radeon HD 5870 graphics card based on the Evergreen-series of GPUs first demonstrated in June. Besides offering best-in-class performance for a single-GPU graphics board, the new card is easily the most power efficient in terms of idle power consumption and performance per watt. Not only that, but AMD has introduced new features that could help keep PC gaming in the spotlight, including the first DirectX 11 implementation and a very impressive multi-monitor gaming technology, Eyefinity, which we discussed earlier this month. The review at PC Perspective includes the full gamut of gaming benchmarks in both single- and dual-GPU configurations as well as videos of Eyefinity running on three 30" displays."

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Eyefinity videos (5, Informative)

Vigile (99919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517387)

There are some videos of Eyefinity at work in this article, here is a direct link as well:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=783&type=expert&pid=6 [pcper.com]

Non-homogeneous resolution support? (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518259)

Eyefinity seems pretty cool, but one thing I haven't read about is how it works for gaming spread across monitors of different sizes and resolutions. If I were to start using Eyefinity, I would want to buy a pair of 19-20" monitors to put in portrait mode to flank my 24" monitor. However, the two new monitors might have the same vertical size (in portrait mode) as the big one, they would have a slightly different resolution: 1280 vs. 1200. It makes things more complex, but it would be great if ATI could make this work well. What would be particularly useful is to allow the monitors on the periphery to have lower DPI, because peripheral vision is lower resolution anyways.

Wow (1)

tweekie (1637593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517539)

I can think of at least 10 guy friends of mine that are going to cream themselves when they hear about this .. if they haven't already bought them and suffered from a joy overload.

Re:Wow (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519209)

10 guy friends of mine... cream themselves... joy overload.

Gayest post evar.

Re:Wow (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519833)

You clearly missed the post in the "Man found with 13 inch penis" thread where LuckyDog33 indicated he wanted to "Suck on it" and "Insert it into my anus repeatedly in a manner so as to cause friction with my anus and pressure on my prostate".

Time to move up (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517543)

Time to move up from 1280x1024 displays finally? My hardrive size and processor speeds have gone up 10x in the last 10 years. My screen resolution is unchanged. I think for games, doubling pixel density would be more than noticeable. From their screen sizes could increase 15~21inch standard over 15 years is a pretty sad change for the computer industry.

Re:Time to move up (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517631)

1280x1024 is the most my brain can manage you insensitive clod.

Not entirely true, every now and again I feel cramped, but with 2 17" LCD's it is rare, and the large wide screen monstrosities leave me cluttered and confused (this is specifically with window management).

Re:Time to move up (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517835)

I must be weird. I have 2x 1920x1200 resoluton monitors at home, and feel worthlessly cramped at work with a 1440x900 and 1280x800 (laptop) setup at work.

But then again I do have 20/10 vision, so that may help. I remember about 10 years ago when I had a 19" 1600x1200 monitor. And it died about 4 years ago, and took me about 2 years after that to replace it for something with similar resolution.

AND WHY THE FUCK DON'T LAPTOPS COME WITH BETTER RESOLUTION?

Re:Time to move up (1)

EnterDaMatrix (845617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518001)

I have a 15" laptop with WUXGA. It also has a nice card (GTX 260M) YAY I could hook it up to another two WUXGA monitors (or higher) if i wanted.

Re:Time to move up (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518163)

What laptop?

Re:Time to move up (1)

EnterDaMatrix (845617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518655)

Sager NP8662 My specs specifically: Intel P9700 (2.8ghz) 2GB 1066 DDR3 320GB 7200RPM (Hitachi) Nvidia GTX 260M 1GB matte WUXGA screen upgrade It was $1700 when I got it, but its cheaper now.

Re:Time to move up (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518077)

It's not the vision, it's the windows scattered all about tucked in all corners.

I find a 1280 x 800 unusable, as it is the height I find most limiting.

I would much much prefer 2 960 x 1200 monitors to a 1920 x 1200 wide screen, It just helps me group stuff better.

Expose type features help some, but generally I scatter about my windows haphazardly, with little bits peeking through rather than using the task bar/dock, on a wide screen monitor I have trouble doing so and easily getting to may stuff.

How do I tiled windows? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518309)

I would much much prefer 2 960 x 1200 monitors to a 1920 x 1200 wide screen, It just helps me group stuff better.

Then get a window manager that will do that for you. All versions of Windows since Windows 95 can do it: control-click on several windows in the title bar, right-click one of them, and choose "Tile Horizontally".

Re:How do I tiled windows? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518983)

What I need is cascade on left half of screen, then put a 3 inch gap in the center to emphasize the difference between left and right.

Then, when choosing to maximize one of the cascaded windows, make sure it goes the the side it is on, not across the whole monitor.

I'm sure they is some Windows manager than can be hacked to do this, but it probably lacks other helpful features, such and an Expose, Cover Flip, or scale down and leave on top to monitor something.

Re:How do I tiled windows? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519109)

Or use a tilling window manager like Awesome.

Re:Time to move up (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518719)

WHY THE FUCK DON'T LAPTOPS COME WITH BETTER RESOLUTION?

Probably just penny pinching to get the sticker price down. But perhaps you've been looking at the wrong laptops. Those in most stores have crappy resolutions, even with large displays. I just hate when they say 18" widescreen LCD, without saying how many pixels. As like as not, it's just 1440x800 or something equally pathetic, but you might have to corner a sales droid to find out.
At home, I've got a 6-year-old laptop, with a 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) display. Since I got it, I'm unwilling to accept any less. So our home PCs each have dual 24" 1920x1200 displays, and I was recently able to wangle a 1920x1200 laptop at work.

Re:Time to move up (2, Informative)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519489)

Check out Dell Precisions, Thinkpads, HP EliteBooks... just a few that offer WUXGA @ 15.4".

Personally, I'm not sure if WUXGA might not be cutting it a little too closely. I'm on WSXGA+ (1680x1050) @ 15.4" right now, and I couldn't be happier.

Apps that ignore the system DPI setting (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517797)

Time to move up from 1280x1024 displays finally? My hardrive size and processor speeds have gone up 10x in the last 10 years. My screen resolution is unchanged.

As are your eyes. Beyond a certain point, FSAA will increase perceived quality as much as higher DPI.

I think for games, doubling pixel density would be more than noticeable.

Supporting ClearType style subpixel rendering in your FSAA might help too. But the big problem with doubling pixel density is that so many Windows applications other than games are hardcoded for 96 dpi, ignoring Display Properties > Settings > Advanced > General > DPI setting.

15~21inch standard over 15 years is a pretty sad change for the computer industry.

For one thing, desks haven't gotten much bigger. For another, after a certain point, the amount of glass and other materials in a display outweighs the number of pixels in determining price. I went to Walmart* and saw a 32" 720p class Vizio TV for $399 and an otherwise identical 1080p TV for $499. Compare that to the price difference between 32" vs. 42" TVs.

Re:Time to move up (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518219)

I've been using 1600x1200 for a long time now....on a DELL CRT that's probably approaching 6 years old now.

Re:Time to move up (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518271)

1280x1024 was a high consumer resolution ten years ago. Today a high-resolution for consumers is 1920x1080. That's 2x already accounted for.

In addition for games, anti-aliasing smooths edges very well, so 4x AA (especially MSAA, which the 5870 supports) is sort-of-like increasing resolution (rendering resolution). So that's 8x in total (or 16x if you use 8x AA).

DPI hasn't really changed though. Maybe with the advent of OLED displays it will. I'd like desktop displays (24") to be 200dpi - not with smaller UI elements, but the same size, just smoother and crisper. I guess I could get a 40" display and sit twice as far back for a similar effect, but that's not ideal really!

Re:Time to move up (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518433)

My thinkpad has 1920x1200 on a 15" screen, so they exist. You might want to get the 75% more pixels before you complain. Honestly though, the biggest difference in gaming is what's *in* the pixels. Pretty important too, and todays games render in SPF (seconds per frame) instead of FPS on ten year old graphics cards. Or rather on your CPU, because it's doing all emulation in software. 1920x1200 is same resolution as a BluRay which is pretty damn good, if my games looked like that I'd be extremely impressed. So no, I don't think it's more lines we need.

PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in arm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29517589)

ATI's last 4800 generation was already faster than anything you could get on a console and could do multi-monitor.

I'm not sure why an even faster graphics card would give you that needed shot in the arm. Or if your assertion that PC gaming needs anything is correct.

As far as I'm concerned, PC gaming doesn't need a shot in the arm any more than consoles need a mouse and keyboard.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518059)

its working on DX11 "mindshare" building more than anything else were I to guess.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518143)

The kind of shot in the arm that PC gaming needs isn't at the high end but at the low end. If something better than Intel graphics became common on slimline PCs (as opposed to bulky towers), that would open up the market for gaming on home theater PCs.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (1)

Hailth (1479371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519453)

Exactly, the author of the summary is totally confused. He correctly points out that developers are more attracted to consoles right now, but he falsely advocates this as the solution. Remember when the PS3 first came out and the good releases were so slow and spaced out because the processor architecture was so unusual? This multi-monitor gaming thing is different how?

Yes, developers want to make a game that sells. But they also want to make a game that's cost efficient and focuses more on drawing in as much of an audience as possible and not just one factor of that audience. That's why this break through is not going to be an answer, it might help, but it won't change much. Developers aren't going to take the time and resources to make their games fully support multi-monitor gaming. They know the % of people who will have a multi-monitor gaming capable PC (or even more than one monitor), while not having a console at the same time is undeniably insignificant.

The reasons game makers are most apprehensive about PC releases are compatibility issues, lack of predictable adoption due to hardware configurations, and mistakenly they fear piracy. Also you'll find that the established online communities of the Wii, 360, and PS3 are much more natural methods of getting people to buy DLC. The decentralized PC gaming market makes it less easy to distribute and advertise DLC, and unfortunately for developers the most centralized and effective distribution center of DLC for computer games is The Pirate Bay.

The real solutions would be:

Something like Steam to completely take over as a pseudo dashboard / platform for PC gaming, giving unity and simplicity. Developers and publishers should just meet and nominate something for this, doesn't have to be Steam, but it has to be universally accepted and used by gamers and game makers.

A full understanding of piracy and that sales lost due to piracy is significantly less than amount of times pirated. Most people pirate something because they won't pay for it anyway, others pirate as a means to test a game, and piracy means more players which means more advertisement through word of mouth. Piracy is largely not a measure of lost sales, it is a measure of interest and perhaps success if you could survey the amount of people who pirated your content and later bought it.

And of course, the major solution brought up by the parent comment in this article, hardware. The amount of PC owners does not equal the amount of customers in the PC gaming market. Additionally, PC gamers do not equal the potential audience for your game. The closest to a correct assumption a sales department can make is: As the technology requirements are scaled back (thus implying greater efficiency or lesser content), the amount of potential players is undefined. It remains undefined because it increases the amount of people who COULD play and purchase it, but decreases the amount of people who WOULD play and purchase it. Clearly this illustrates a sweet spot, but it's one that developers won't be able to find without getting better market research from customers and pirates alike. How will they better research their pirates? By accepting the piracy and asking them to participate in helping out the people who let them have a free game. Is that a risk people will take? Not likely.

TL;DR version: I agree with the parent comment, catering more to the high-end audience is not a sensible proof that making more games for the PC will be more profitable.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520705)

PC gaming is dead because of rampant piracy. It's time for Slashdot to accept that.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518811)

Console gaming is a much bigger market than PC gaming. I believe that "shot in the arm" is referring to expanding the PC market to more consumers, not improving the quality of the games. In any case, I have a hard time believing either statement.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (3, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518837)

I must be few people, as i doubt PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. The way i see it PC gaming has its market and consoles have theirs. For single seat games it is still (and always will be) the shit, except for a short period around the release of new consoles it is not lacking in the hardware department. The same way that the Wii didn't eat into "real" console sales, i doubt the console are eating into pc game sale, what they are doing is being played by a huge market of people who regularly enjoy playing with friends in the same room. It could be argued that PCs lack the software to play multiplayer in the same place (because the HW is there to do it with emulators), but tbh if your going to do that you need to plug it into a TV so either its expensive (laptop) or pointless (if you have a dedicated gaming box connected to you TV why not just call it a console).
If you don't play with local mates -> PC gaming
If you play with local mates --------> Console gaming
If you only play with local mates --> Casual Gaming

Despite these categories overlapping in terms of both games and players, they do not directly compete much.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519675)

tbh if your going to do that you need to plug it into a TV

PCs have started to come with 19" monitors lately. These are big enough for two players, but I'll admit not four like on the consoles.

if you have a dedicated gaming box connected to you TV why not just call it a console

Because unlike a console, a gaming HTPC can run free software, freeware, shareware, mods for commercial games, and other software that hasn't been digitally signed by the PC maker.

If you don't play with local mates -> PC gaming
If you play with local mates --------> Console gaming

If I play with local mates, but I also want to play (and possibly even make) mods, then what?

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519831)

Those aren't mutually exclusive, you're just in 2 groups.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520049)

If I play with local mates, but I also want to play (and possibly even make) mods, then what?

Those aren't mutually exclusive, you're just in 2 groups.

But are there any games that serve the two groups? Or are you thinking of one set of games to play with local mates and a separate, disjoint set of games to mod and play by myself or with remote mates?

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520553)

Clearly you've never gamed on a 30" display and played Crysis or STALKER at 2560x1600 with max detail. Current video cards can ALMOST play those games at a constant 30fps...key word is almost. With these new cards we'll be able to play games that blow away console games in terms of quality and resolution. I love my 360, I really do but it doesn't hold a candle to my GTX 275 and Dell 30" LCD. It's pure graphical bliss and for gamers like me graphics are apart of the experience. It's all about the realism.

Not quite the numbers I would have expected (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517675)

Reading the PC perspective reviews and a couple of others the 5870 seems to be a bit faster than the GTX285 but not by much, and certainly not by a margin one would expect from a new generation of parts vs old.

Admittedly this is all DX9/10 stuff, and there's probably a lot of the transistor budget allocated to new DX11 features but I would have expected ATI's latest offering to have utterly destroyed NVIDIA's last gen part. The GTX 295 is really 2 gpus so it's not really a fair comparison.

It will be interesting to see what NVIDIA offers on the Dx11 front in the next few months. Until then I'm kinda waffling about the 5800's, it's hard to justify an upgrade to just support DX11 when it's not significantly better than what I have, which is sort of the same problem I have with the Corei7's vs Core2's. I suppose a 'killer app' for Dx11 might move people in that direction, but if we're not seeing many of those until Q1 2010 that gives NVIDIA a while to play catch up and release their hardware.

Re:Not quite the numbers I would have expected (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517933)

I have to amend this. I hadn't looked at http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5870-review-test/ reviews, which seem to have a different selection of games and paint the 5870 in a better light than the pc perspective article. The PCper article I got the impression teh GTX285 was in some cases faster and only 10-15% slower than the 5870 in most cases, the GURU3D test has a more noticeable 25% or thereabout performance boost for the 5870. Better, but not stunning. I would have still expected a 50% or so performance jump going from generation to generation, but ATI is aiming for the affordable market, not just the 600 dollar market, and who knows, maybe with Dx11 you'd see that. Still, I think it's hard to justify running out today and buying one when there's not much that can take advantage of Dx11, and by then NVIDIA will have launched a competing product to compare to.

Re:Not quite the numbers I would have expected (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521419)

"Reading the PC perspective reviews and a couple of others the 5870 seems to be a bit faster than the GTX285 but not by much, and certainly not by a margin one would expect from a new generation of parts vs old."

I noticed the exact same thing. I was a bit disappointed by the 5870. Only at the highest resolutions, 2560x1600 4xAA 8xAF, did it start beating the GTX285 by a 10% margin. [pcper.com] The GTX285 came out in January and is already under $300 [newegg.com] , how does ATI expect to compete with a $400 card that only offers 10% more at 2560x1600 resolutions that most LCDs don't even support? Even the power consumption isn't significantly different [pcper.com] , with the GTX285 using about 10% more.

I'm afraid of what the $300 5850 will look like.

Also seems we won't be seeing support for 3 LCDs anytime soon [pcper.com] :
" if you already have some DVI-ready monitors and are looking forward to triple monitor support you might be disappointed to learn that the DisplayPort connection requires an ACTIVE adaptor to be converted to a DVI connection. The adaptors are also expensive (around $100) and are pretty hard to find right now. AMD says they are trying to address this but short of selling their own version I am not sure what pull they have in this regard."

Thanks ATI! Sure it supports 3 LCDs, if you have some kinda special LCD that uses Displayport.

So there really is nothing to see here, move on....

Really good GPUs but... (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517691)

...I really with they'd come out with decent Linux support. I mean, come on guys, 1280x1024@75Hz is the max screen size you can do with fglrx in your driver?

Check the Linux support in this demo (1)

n9891q (863780) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517845)

Is this good enough? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Vf8R_gOec [youtube.com] Extrema Eyefinity Tech Demo on Linux - 63 Megapixel - X-Plane --- 24 displays (4x6 array). - Clever sig temporarily out of service. 1994.01.01

Re:Really good GPUs but... (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517917)

...I really with they'd come out with decent Linux support. I mean, come on guys, 1280x1024@75Hz is the max screen size you can do with fglrx in your driver?

Would you even begin to contemplate a 20% to 30% increase in R&D expenditure to address what is effectively a non-existent market?

We have a severe chicken and egg problem here. Until games support linux directly the market will stay small. That won't happen if the drivers suck, nobody will put money into better drivers if there is not market.

There is a defacto standard that works relatively well (and keeps getting better) until that changes gaming on linux is king of screwed. But don't go blaming the video card vendors, they're just watching the bottom line.

Re:Really good GPUs but... (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518053)

You're just trolling. Yes, fglrx might be hard to configure in some cases, but it definitely works with large monitors, and AMD/ATI has been releasing detailed specs for all their recent GPUs, so the open source drivers are the best out there, and can use pretty much all the features of the hardware (albeit with lower performance in some cases).

Re:Really good GPUs but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518615)

so the open source drivers are the best out there, and can use pretty much all the features of the hardware

Now you're just trolling, because the open source r600+ drivers are nowhere near complete. They were boasting running glxgears for the first time a month or two ago.

Re:Really good GPUs but... (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519011)

And today, they're running OpenGL 1.4 and lots of games work great (OpenArena, Nexuiz, Doom3), and waiting for Gallium3D to change the X acceleration architecture so they can get GLSL and such going. Check the Phoronix forums [phoronix.com] for the current state of affairs. Things change fast in open-source land.

About time (1)

lordofthechia (598872) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517747)

Took the industry long enough to deliver a great 3D perforance and 3 monitor outputs on one card*. If the Linux support is on par with nVidia's support, I look forward to replacing my current nVidia dualhead card and Matrox Dualhead2go box with one of these beauties. Especially since the Dualhead2go "Digital" edition uses an analog VGA input and I can see some faint ghosting on text/sharp lines.

* I know that Matrox had the Parhelia line of 3 monitor cards, but the 3D performance was sadly lacking in those.

Re:About time (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517915)

I have 3 outputs on my ATi 4850, 2 DVI, one component and I can drive all 3 at once. I use it with dual Dell 24" WUXGAs and a 720p projector

Missing the point (3, Insightful)

sxltrex (198448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517815)

The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game. With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work. Yes, there are certain exceptions like hard drive requirements, etc., but for the most part it is true. The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.

There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.

Bologna (1, Insightful)

JoeSixpack00 (1327135) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518069)

The lack of PC games has very little to do with architecture changes. The perception that you always have to upgrade when a new generation of games arrive is little more than computer machismo, and just because you can't max everything out doesn't mean you need a new PC. I played Doom 3 perfectly fine on a GeForce Ti 4800 SE, and I played Crysis rather enjoyably on a Radeon HD 3870, even though everything was set to medium. The problem is most PC gamers' ego can't handle the not being able to play with "everything maxed out", so they feel the need to upgrade.

The reason consoles are gaining so much ground is no one wants to waste money on the PC. Why spend millions of dollars on developing a title when 25% of the user base is going to pirate it anyways? They can make the same game console only, and almost all hardcore gamers will purchase an XBox 360 for the games they're missing on the PC. I hate to finally admit it, but until we fully embrace an active activation system like steam to counteract piracy, PC gaming isn't going anywhere.

Re:Bologna (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518193)

The reason consoles are gaining so much ground is no one wants to waste money on the PC. Why spend millions of dollars on developing a title when 25% of the user base is going to pirate it anyways?

Not every developer is interested in "spend[ing] millions of dollars on developing a title". If you don't have millions of dollars, the PC can prove more profitable because there's a lot less overhead in obtaining a PC devkit than a console devkit.

Re:Bologna (0)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518923)

do you really think the dev kit cost is significant, alogside code/ressources/marketing ?

Re:Bologna (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519457)

do you really think the dev kit cost is significant, alogside code/ressources/marketing ?

Console makers want to see a "secure facility" and "industry experience" before they'll even talk to a developer. A "secure facility" is at least a leased office, not your basement, attic, or garage. "Industry experience" is either a previous commercial PC title or an internship at a major video game developer in another state. A team of part-time developers with day jobs outside the video game industry is unlikely to have those.

Re:Bologna (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519261)

The reason they are gaining ground is because they are a lot of people like me. My computer: P4 3gz, AGP video card slot, 2 gigs of memory (not sure type anymore), etc. I think it is about 5 years old or so. Does all my work without a problem. Can't play any PC games at any reasonable performance level that have come out in the last few years.

So do I:

A) buy a new computer plus invest all my time to get it up and running with my applications, settings, etc, or

B) buy a console (PS3 and 360 have had good price drops) plug it into my TV and I am playing a game in 10 mins. and saving at least a couple hundred bucks in hardware and a lot more in time savings.

Re:Bologna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519273)

I played Doom 3 perfectly fine on a GeForce Ti 4800 SE

I find that hard to believe, considering Geforce4 Ti were DX8.1 cards while Doom 3 was a DX9 game.

Re:Bologna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519933)

There is even a Voodoo version of Doom3... it is perfectly possible but it just looks like hell... and hell fits Doom 3 so we're good xD

Re:Bologna (1)

JoeSixpack00 (1327135) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520355)

The fact that you disagree even further illustrates my point about how little PC gamers actually know about PC gaming. After my 4800 SE went out, I replaced it with a 6600 GT, and aside from the ability to raise from medium to high quality, the only difference were extra "effects". The same thing happened with FarCry - added a few fish in the water, but otherwise the game was more than playable with that card.

It's really a case of "you don't know what you're missing..."

Re:Bologna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519579)

I think the grandparent had it right. Although publishers do have an incentive to develop on consoles due to less pirating, its more about what consumers are more readily going to buy. The PC has too many drawbacks for large scale consumer gaming adoption. Lets say I want to buy a game for PC. Will it run on my computer? I don't know. I have to check my video card model, my memory, operating system version, DX version, and processor. (HDD space requirements are somewhat moot these days). I'm know all of these off the top of my head, the video card requirement is the hardest walk into a store and match with the requirements. But for the rest of my family and friends, forget it. They don't even know the difference between the memory and the hard drive.

Lets say I want to purchase a game for my brother that's on both XBOX 360 and PC? Which one do I buy him. With the
PC version I have to find out what his PC specs are. With the XBOX 360 I have to ask myself one question, does he have an XBOX 360? The consoles make purchasing games much easier for the consumer. With PC's you need a lot of information that the average person does not understand.

Then there's the issue of minimum requirements. I've had more that one friend buy a game and not have it work on their machine at the lowest settings. They usually need to buy more memory and a video card. Oh, but their stock Dell PS isn't enough for a mid-line card required to play the game, need to upgrade that as well. Hell, we're halfway to buying a new PC at this point (Which is what both my friends concluded in both situations. One bought a new PC, the other gave up the game). The low end specs published on PC games end up frustrating many consumers.

Publishers develop on the consoles because it gives them a combination of anti-piracy and ease of use for the end user. If they didn't have this it wouldn't be such a slam dunk case for consoles. Even if dev's could lock games down so their was no piracy, you wouldn't see PC gaming take off until it was as easy to use as a console.

Re:Missing the point (2, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518785)

It's cyclical. When the consoles first come out they look good. But for how long? At some point PC tools and PC hardware make consoles look antiquated. This new hardware is 4 generations later than console hardware, but some of those generations were more die shrinks than anything consumers care about. For the moment we're fluttering around equal quality between PC and consoles, the race to the bottom in PC prices and hardware has meant that trying to make a decent PC only game which both takes advantage of really good hardware, and runs on the walmart trash people actually have is nearly impossible. So you pick your market. If you're developing all your art assets to be fully cross platform you aren't going to invest a whole lot in the PC model. Until someone else does. Once someone (think farcry, Doom, etc) starts doing spectacular things on the PC which simply cannot be done on consoles the two groups diverge again for a while. And then a new generation of consoles comes out and they converge again. I would think the console makers will want either this gen or next gen hardware in their consoles (Xbox 3 and PS4), but time will tell.

Though the big difference between PC's and consoles is probably more about memory than GPU architecture. 3-4GiGs of ram on PC is becoming common, compared to 512 on the consoles, there's too much you can do with that much memory that you just can't do on a console, and that will probably drive divergence more than hardware tesselation or directx computing.

Re:Missing the point (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519313)

I keep my PC connected to my TV: it costed me $2 to buy a S-Video cable. Graphic cards have TV-Out (first S-Video, now HDMI) since what, 2000?

PCs without a graphic card (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519751)

Graphic cards have TV-Out (first S-Video, now HDMI) since what, 2000?

I see two kinds of PC cases at Best Buy: slimline and mid-tower. Mid-towers look out of place next to a TV. Slimline PCs look better, more like an Xbox 360 or an old PS3, but they typically don't come with a graphic card. Instead, they tend to have Intel's Voodoo3-class GMA chipset on the motherboard because they're designed for web and office apps.

Re:Missing the point (1)

djnforce9 (1481137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519629)

Yes but having to buy new hardware on the PC is the equivalent to having to get a new console to play the latest games (in this case, the next time that happens will be when the successor to the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, etc is released with some exclusive games to the new system). Not only that, but in many cases (not all the time though), when you buy said new console to play the latest games, you lose backward compatibility with your old ones and need to keep BOTH consoles connected if you wish to play from both game bases. For example, Xbox games will not play on an Xbox 360 due to the different CPU Architectures and the PS3 eventually dropped PSX and PS2 game compatibility when the "emotion" chip was omitted.

With a PC, you can upgrade your graphics hardware (and maybe RAM and CPU as well) and not only can you play the newest games, but everything that came before it (very old DOS games included which can be run on DosBox). Heck, you can even play old console games on a PC with added enhancements (Everything up to the PSX and N64 era will work perfectly even on a mid-range system).

I think what still gives the consoles a leg up is:
1. Tons more exclusive which never have or will be released on the PC platform (until emulators pop up for those systems).
2. Sometimes the console versions are better even when a PC port is released due to either the shoddy quality of the port (e.g. Saints Row 2) or blatant missing features (e.g. Ghostbusters: The Video Game).
3. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more affordable. The cost of a new "high end" video card alone can be more than an entire console.
4. Easier to set up and use than a PC.

Re:Missing the point (0, Flamebait)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519677)

The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes.

There is that. Then there's the cost. How much is this card? $380 says techreport.com? That's enough to buy a complete PS3 that'll also play Blu-Ray, plus a 2nd controller and probably a game too.

Re:Missing the point (3, Insightful)

Deosyne (92713) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520109)

Yes, $380 for a video card that provides graphical performance that well supersedes the capabilities of the PS3, and possibly even the PS3's successor. Or you can actually compare a video card with very similar capabilities to the card in the PS3, the NVIDIA RSX "Reality Synthesizer" with a 550MHz CPU and 256 MB of DDR2, which would be an NVIDIA GeForce 9400 that you can pick up for about $50.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Yunzil (181064) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520413)

Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game.

Well that's good, because you don't. You only need the latest and greatest card if you want to play a game at 1920x1200 and still get 120 fps. As long as you don't have to have all the knobs turned up to the max, you can stay one or two card generations behind, and your games will still look better than anything you can get on a console.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520415)

Consoles haven't been changing since the 1970's. You act like this is some new phenomena. You also fail to understand that PC's can hook up to HDTVs so they are not double the resolution at a 1/4 the size. I have a PS3, an XBox 360 and a HTPC all hooked up to a 110" LCD projector. My HTPC is able to do 1080p with full AA where as the 360 doesn't even do 720p for many games including flag ship titles such as Halo 3. The HTPC looks better and is on a massive screen.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520895)

the average, casual gamer can run a new game on an older computer, except it won't have as much bling to it. Console has no settings at all, but what they produce is often less then what a high-end pc shows on the screen.

Now if only microsoft and others stopped forcing people to buy their other products, then a lot of the reasons to have an xbox 360 would vanish. If they where properly implemented on pc, a 5 year old pc should run it, albeit at low settings. As for sp3, the usual reason is staying away from the RROD or getting one of the few ps3-only titles.

More reviews (4, Informative)

IYagami (136831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517831)

Anandtech
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643 [anandtech.com]
"At the end of the day, with its impressive performance and next-generation feature set, the Radeon HD 5870 kicks off the DirectX 11 generation with a bang and manages to take home the single-GPU performance crown in the process. It's without a doubt the high-end card to get"

Techreport
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618 [techreport.com]
"Well, Sherlock, what do you expect me to say? AMD has succeeded in delivering the first DirectX 11 GPU by some number of months, perhaps more than just a few, depending on how quickly Nvidia can get its DX11 part to market. AMD has also managed to double its graphics and compute performance outright from one generation to the next, while ratcheting up image quality at the same time. The Radeon HD 5870 is the fastest GPU on the planet, with the best visual output, and the most compelling set of features. Yet it's still a mid-sized chip by GPU standards. As a result, the 5870's power draw, noise levels, and GPU temperatures are all admirably low. My one gripe: I wish the board wasn't quite so long, because it may face clearance issues in some enclosures. "

A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (3, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518051)

"Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles..."

I know I don't count, but I resent the assumption that everyone cares. I don't care. I'd never buy a console to play games other than Wii sports.

I assume GPUs will get better and better, as will CPUs, and I'll benefit But I'm still playing StarCraft 1, and I just want a higher resolution interface for the same screen -- I know people think it affects the balance, but I'd like to see the zerglings when they're a little further away.

I don't think PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. I think it needs well designed games that stand the test of time.

But it would be nice if we could get the kind of power we can get for a reasonable price (sub $1000 PC including graphics) today to run cool without fans.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (4, Funny)

Shimdaddy (898354) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518147)

So, to be clear, you just want:
  • Games that are as good as StarCraft, which is a very solid contender for best game of all time
  • Computers to be as cheap as netbooks but as powerful as top-of-the-line desktops
  • Desktops that are ridiculously powerful but don't produce heat

Reasonable.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518547)

So, to be clear, you just want: - people to be reasonable on Slashdot Reasonable.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518981)

He said sub $1000 dollars. That's three times the cost of a a netbook.

And really, what he's asking for is entirely possible if you string together two netbook cpus + a low power high yield graphics card.

And well, we already have StarCraft, so the first is not a request.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519871)

My quad Opteron and 1GB Nvidia card are passively cooled from slow running case fans.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520503)

What Nvidia card is this? I have a (stock) passively cooled 7950 GT, but I haven't been able to find any newer cards that come stock passively cooled and aren't junk (ie, low-mid end cards at best). Unless you mean watercooled, but I'd rather stay away from that.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521383)

9600 GSO (384/768) and 9600 GT are both very capable DX9 and passable DX10 parts that come in passive flavors. On the ATI side of things there's a passive 4850.

Personally I would love a reduced core version of the 5870 with even lower idle power and low enough max power (~75W) to allow passive cooling.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518195)

I think it needs well designed games that stand the test of time.
But it would be nice if we could get the kind of power we can get for a reasonable price (sub $1000 PC including graphics) today to run cool without fans.

This. 1000 times this.

I have no interest on playing on a platform where I am forced to invest thousand of dollars every couple of years.

I would be interested on buying a fun game that runs on the computer I already have!

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518529)

And you can't? Seriously, look at the graphs on the review sites, they're cranking it all up to 2560x1600 with max AA/AF with Ultra High quality. It's not like you can't play with anything less...

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519069)

Seconded. I played lots of games with my 4670 at 1680x1050. Now that I have two of them, there aren't a ton of games I can't play at that res, even on decent settings (AA, and so on), and I paid less than $100 total for the pair of 'em.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519551)

Thirded (? is that a word?). I have a fanless 4670. It plays the games I want fine. Not everything is maxed, but I play at 1680X1050 on the monitor fine. I have hooked the computer via hdmi to a 1080p tv and it looked great there as well.

If one does their homework before buying they are usually better off. This machine I was going for tv hdmi connectivity with it being a DVR. So I got a low power (no extra power plug) 4670 and a fanless one for less noise. It plays my games as well as my the 8800gt I have. Granted neither of these cards are new and nor the latest generation. But they work for what I use them for*. I usually plan on a video card lasting 5+ years. So I may buy near the top end when i get it. The thinking is that the card will still be good for some years to come. This new ATI card I would think would still be good 5-6 years from now.

*I am not playing the crysis. I am not a frames per second gamer. I want things to look good and be playable. The games I do play I do not have lag, and everything looks fine. The ATI card does have a better picture then the 8800gt. Which is sad since the 8800gt cost me 4 times what the 4670 did. But the 4670 has 1GB of RAM while the 8800gt has 512MB.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518675)

Speaking of cooler chips, [H]ard|OCP's review [hardocp.com] found this card to have reduced power draw and temperatures compared to the 4870 and GeForce GTX 285.

It does vary depending on the load the card is under (duh), but for a card that is about twice as powerful as its predecessor, it's quite impressive.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips? (1)

default luser (529332) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519057)

Yes, and Xbit Labs, as is their tradition, got a true power consumption reading direct from the 12v and 5v PCIe supply lines [xbitlabs.com] .

It turns out the card has the same power consumption as the 4870 at load (3dmark), not to mention exceptional idle power. Way to go ATI, I could have sworn TSMC's 40nm bulk CMOS (no metal gates) would have raised leakage, but this proves me wrong!

You've got to be kidding me... (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518091)

my impulsive ass just bought an NVidia 275 GTX two weeks ago so I could play Crysis and STALKER Clear Sky on my Dell 30". The card has certainly delivered, averaging around 30fps for both games at 2560x1600 at max detail but that doesn't leave a lot of breathing room for future titles. I paid $230 at Frys. Now I see that for a few bucks more I could have gotten the 5850 which would be far more future proof with considerable more power.

Unfortunately I threw the packaging away for my new video card which complicates returning it! This 5870 looks amazing for only $350ish.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518471)

Every geek should have five computer hardware sites at least in his daily web browsing schedule, and thus be aware of forthcoming releases. Your mission, young schnoog, is to find five such sites and read them daily. I recommend a spread of sites from reliable and consistent (Tech Report) through to wild rumour-mongering (SemiAccurate and brethren) that get the occasional bullseye.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520317)

I do read them daily actually...AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, PC Perspective to name a few. I hadn't heard a peep about this until today.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521285)

Gotta say, that isn't very impressive from AnandTech. Other sites had the rumours for a while. Still, you were happy when you bought it, it hasn't changed or become less, so it's all good :-)

Seems like a good bang for the buck (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518119)

My take away from the reviews is that it is significantly cheaper than Nvidia's current top of the line single-card solution while offering slightly better performance with a more modest power draw. In another year or two, we'll all be able to play Crysis with all the eye candy turned on. :)

Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518149)

Nvidia seems to be between a rock and hard place. AMD is nudging it out of the limelight in the graphics marketplace and Intel and AMD are nudging it out of the market for motherboard chipsets...with Intel doing so more aggressively.

Where do you see Nvidia 3-5 years down the line?

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518599)

A middle-tier ARM SoC provider competing against TI, Freescale, Qualcomm and Samsung for the media player market, with a sideline in high-end compute and graphics boards that exist as a technology testbed for said SoC products?

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (2, Interesting)

default luser (529332) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519349)

A middle-tier ARM SoC provider competing against TI, Freescale, Qualcomm and Samsung for the media player market, with a sideline in high-end compute and graphics boards that exist as a technology testbed for said SoC products?

Yeah, I have to agree: I don't see Nvidia dying anytime soon, but I have to say that (barring some impressive new market), their days of growth are over.

Intel has locked Nvidia completely out of the Intel chipset business, destroying one of Nvidia's major market segments (who buys Nvidia to run AMD processors anyway?) Clarksdale will close the door permanantly on LGA775, and simultaneously close the market for Nvidia's IGP chipsets. Yeah, there's still some money from selling SLI licenses and that silly PCIe bridge chip, but it's a pittance compared to the sales Nvidia used to see.

The only loophole remaining is Atom, and once that becomes a SoC offering, Nvidia will have nowhere to turn except Tegra.

And boy, is that going to be a competitive market! The ARM SoC field will be tough-going, and Tegra is not the only chipset out in the wild with high-end media capabilities [engadget.com] . Oh, and if Intel delivers on it's promises with Atom SoC, Tegra will also have to compete with Atom. Sorry Nvidia, you just can't seem to get away from Intel :)

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519009)

Unless ATI's drivers stabilize, Nvidia will always have a market in the high-end gaming market.

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

plonk420 (750939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519297)

Unless ATI's drivers stabilize, Nvidia will always have a market in the high-end gaming market.

i've never had issues with stability (other than installer hosing vista once), but never had a BSOD. *performance*, on the other hand, of bleeding edge games i hear (from a trusted friend) is hit or miss. my dumb ass still bought one (to play *my* first ever bleeding edge game, NFS: Shift)

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520449)

You're obviosuly not a linux user. ATI's Linux drivers suck hard compared to nVidia's.
For that reason, none of ATi's product range is on my purchasing radar.

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520967)

I've had exactly the opposite - if I ran anything with the GPU my ATI card machine BSoD'd. I sent the card back twice (to the manufacturer, Sapphire - I didn't have problems until about 30s-5 minutes in and didn't realize it until way past when I could return it to the store (and normal VGA tasks like my life at the time, VPN and then remote desktop to virtual machines, worked great - I really do hate crunch time in the computer world). I've planned to check driver stability for months now, but haven't really had time.

Of course, I can't really say I love nVidia either - the 8600M GS in my now deceased laptop has blown twice, once just six days after the warranty expired. I can't really say I did heavy gaming on it either (some WoW, some Guild Wars, about the worst it got was Fallout 3, but I was only about level 7) - it just is a very flaky part. It died the second time while I was doing CAD modeling and not even really taxing the GPU.

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29521145)

I have used both ATI and Nvidia cards over the years, and stopped using ATI around the time they forced CCC onto everybody (a big factor, but the real reason being the better performance/cost of Nvidia most times I consider buying a new card). Recently a (Nvidia) video card crapped out on one of my PC so I bought a 4670 to replace it. It quickly bluescreened a system that has been stable otherwise for a long time. (I did make sure to cleanly uninstall the previous drivers.) It took a few iterations of trying different versions to find a driver that does not bluescreen on the slightest load.

I have 2 monitors attached to it and it still gets confused about which is which on resume sometimes. It is a hassle to swap them back, esp. because the 2 are of different resolutions and it swaps the resolutions too when it gets confused!

So in short, I think ATI's drivers are crap. I'm seriously considering replacing the 4670, and this time with an Nvidia card if I can help it!

Bezels (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518155)

Seriously need foldable/rollable displays so we can get some large, high res, SINGLE DISPLAY action going.

I'm sick of monitor bezels physically separating my screen space.

Graphics not the issue (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518221)

PC Gaming may or may not need a shot in the arm, but it isn't because of graphics. It's most likely the plug-and-play nature of games and the dumbing down of controls. Not that ASWD is particularly complex, but if you throw in mouse-look...it's basically like rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Not everyone's up to the challenge.

Re:Graphics not the issue (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519381)

Yes, in consoles we only use one hand... no? Then we use the two hands to do the same thing... no? Oh, that's right, we use one hand to control a joystick and another to press buttons.

I hardly see this as being much easier to use than WASD+Mouse looking. On the contrary, even though I've started playing in my N64, I have ever find Mouse looking much more intuitive than Joystick looking.

#irc.trooltalk.com (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518985)

No Core2 Tests (3, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519263)

All those reveiws and not 1 of them tested a Lynnfield chip that I could find to see if the dual 8x pci-e slots get pinned when running a DX11 card in SLI. Not one review used a typical median computer that someone would currently own.

So after all those 'reviews' *cough advertisements* we still don't know if someone with a Core2 Duo at 3 Ghz can even feed that card effectively. No DDR2 systems, no Quad Core Core2 running DDR3... just the usual i7 Etremes that tell typical consumers anything. We don't know, after all those review if it's even worth buying based on a typical machine. ZZZzzzz....

If anyone can find a Core2 system tested with this new card let te rest of us know if any of us who don't own $1000 processors get a benefit...

Re:No Core2 Tests (3, Insightful)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519633)

This card costs more than the low-end i7s. Just buy one.

You can't buy the latest bleeding-edge
  graphics card and be a cheap bastard at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

Re:No Core2 Tests (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520297)

It's called augmentation. You buy the top of the line in cpu/motherboard one generation, then gpu the next generation. There was a time when those core2 quads were top notch... and they'll still beat the 920 in a few tests, nothing to worry about there. On the other hand the Duos haven't been top notch since about 2006, so it's hard to say how much that cpu will hold back your new graphics card.

I consider the p55 limitation there intentionally to avoid solid sli or crossfire performance. It would still be nice to see if the intended goal was accomplished, but whether you choose to go for lga1156 or lga1366 you'll still be paying more than an AM2+ configuration for the same performance.

Re:No Core2 Tests (2, Informative)

KCWaldo (1555553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520329)

They use the high end i7's to try and isolate the GPU. They aren't testing the CPU but the GPU. If you look at most benchmarks when they have low settings even with a i7 the GPU's all look the same. If you turn on AA and such the GPU gets to shine and the CPU backs off. Simply put if you CPU limit your benchmark then you have not benchmarks your GPU's.

Temperatures, power requirements, noise (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519301)

The review/source contains no information that's even remotely useful to those of us who look for video cards that are quiet, do not reach absurd temperatures (anything above 60C under load is considered absurd; do people realise just how hot 60C is?), and do not have excessive power requirements.

All I've seen after reading the review is a bunch of snapshots stolen from a PowerPoint presentation with said "technological improvements", and some graphs indicating the card draws less watts than competing cards.

Given the size of the HSF (it's full-length -- look at that sucker!), I'm inclined to believe it runs hot. Given the size of the HSF, I'm also inclined to believe the card sounds like a mack truck barrelling down the highway when under load. Finally, given that the card has two -- count 'em, two -- PCIe 6-pin power connectors, this indicates the card requires at least 24V (e.g. two dedicated 12V rails), and God only knows what its amperage requirements are. Then take a look at it's price.

I feel like the only one on this planet who cares about the amount of heat hardware emits, the amount of power it draws, and the amount of noise it makes. Instead, it appears that the "i gota haf 50829fps in WoW!!!!1!! fag!!!11" gamers have taken over technological evolution and turned it into what Intel during the days of the original Pentium 4. Are there others here who have the same reservations about this kind of hardware as I do?

Re:Temperatures, power requirements, noise (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519697)

Your comment is like someone going to a NASCAR race only to whine about the noise and the fact that they only gets to see the cars once per lap (and imagine how much fuel they're wasting OMG). Go away.

You FAIL 1t.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29520667)

chAnnel #GNAA on raise or lower the Satan's Dick And Itself backwards, Morning. Now I have not going to play BUWLA, or BSD and other party Lay down paper of the above
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>