• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Do games REALLY need more power atm?

VortX said:
You have to remember that NVIDIA / ATI are also in league with game developers...

for example..

NVIDIA says to EA, if you want your games to run out OUR graphics cards and have a little cash sum so we can put our logo on your product you have to:

A. make the game run slightly better on our cards rather than AMD's cards.
B. make the game run better on our latest cards and require the technology on our latest cards.

EA games say yes, and accept a very nice cash sum from NVIDIA, who also get to place their pretty logo just after EA's pretty logo.

This could be DX10 for example, Crysis didn't need DX10, it never did, all the demos/promotions/screenshots etc were ALL on DX9, DX10 Crysis only really came about closer to launch. Also pretty much all of Crysis's DX10 features can be run under DX9, simply by changing the numers from '3' to '4' in the cfg game files. - A perfect exmaple of how software/hardware companies are in league. Crytek never had to use DX10, but both NVIDIA + Microsoft got to promote themselves in doing so, and Crytek earnt some extra money.

Its the name of the game people :p

So in answer to your question, no they don't 'REALLY' need any more power what so ever. Look, if Crytek can manufacture Crysis 2, which looks the same, if not better than Crysis 1, on the PS3 which uses a 7800GTX-Like card at a steady frame rate, then why the hell can't they make an older, less advanced game run on something that is about 10x as powerful at a steady frame rate?

Same answer as everything else in this world - business needs to make money ;)
Click to expand...

nVidia do not approach game developers and get them to make the game run poorly on ATI hardware in exchange for cash...
 
jigger said:
They have in the past...
Click to expand...

Not sure about in the past/specific instances - but I have been involved with nVidias way its meant to be played program before and they've been very good at listening to feedback, getting features and fixes into the drivers BEFORE a game goes gold, providing stable beta drivers to support development, etc. I admit they do encourage teh useage of render paths and methods known to run well on nVidia hardware but they have never that I know of held any kinda ransom over that, likewise they do encourage the use of methods that require their latest hardware for the higher quality settings...

I've also had experiences with ATI's support but thats just gonna open up a whole can of worms.
 
jigger said:
What the largest hardware manufacturer in the world pulls support and thats insignificant ? If Nvidia had supported 10.1 so would have everyone else and you know this ....
Click to expand...

In context its insignificant... now if DX10+ was supported on XP and developers weren't having to keep console compatibility a consideration we might be talking a different story.
 
Rroff said:
nVidia do not approach game developers and get them to make the game run poorly on ATI hardware in exchange for cash...
Click to expand...

How do you think NVIDIA get their logo on the other company's game - they pay them.

If your willing to belive the NVIDIA pay them simply to put a logo on their game then believe what you will. If you think the world is a pretty place where everyone is honest and their is any such thing as 'fair' competition then believe what you want but unfortunately that ISN'T they way the world is ;)

Yes they may not intentionally design it to run poorly on ATI's hardware, but they will spend more time and dedication on making it run better on NVIDIA's hardware, which results in the same thing.
 
Maybe results in the same things - but they don't hold the money to ransom on condition of making it purposefully run slower on ATI which is what you were suggesting. There may be some instances of this in the past I'm not sure on that aspect.
 
jigger said:
That was true but sadly I feel consoles have reeled in and surpassed the PC for gaming in many ways

I picked up a playstation 3 from tesco for £199 and have a and have a 1080p 100 Hz TV.

To build a PC to beat that setup would cost what... five - ten times more ?
Click to expand...

Only a £70-£80 gfx card is needed to beat that PS3.
Most of PS3 games run at 1280x720 Unscaled to full screen.
 
Rroff said:
Maybe results in the same things - but they don't hold the money to ransom on condition of making it purposefully run slower on ATI which is what you were suggesting. There may be some instances of this in the past I'm not sure on that aspect.
Click to expand...

'What goes around comes around' ;)
 
Rroff said:
Maybe results in the same things - but they don't hold the money to ransom on condition of making it purposefully run slower on ATI which is what you were suggesting. There may be some instances of this in the past I'm not sure on that aspect.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the dabacle over the Assassin's Creed patch removing DX10.1 at Nvidia's behest count as this; considering it was giving ATI cards a boost and not Nvidia cards?
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Wouldn't the dabacle over the Assassin's Creed patch removing DX10.1 at Nvidia's behest count as this; considering it was giving ATI cards a boost and not Nvidia cards?
Click to expand...

Yep & most games that use 10.1 show gains & everything that is 10.1 was meant to be in 10.0 from the start but was not due to NV not wanting to meat the original specs of 10.0.
So 10.0 would have given the performance of 10.1 from the start & would have made 10.0 usable for everyone with most likely more headway by now.
 
Rroff said:
Not sure about in the past/specific instances - but I have been involved with nVidias way its meant to be played program before and they've been very good at listening to feedback, getting features and fixes into the drivers BEFORE a game goes gold, providing stable beta drivers to support development, etc. I admit they do encourage teh useage of render paths and methods known to run well on nVidia hardware but they have never that I know of held any kinda ransom over that, likewise they do encourage the use of methods that require their latest hardware for the higher quality settings...

I've also had experiences with ATI's support but thats just gonna open up a whole can of worms.
Click to expand...

I have also been involved with NV and they have some shisters of real quality working for them.

I found Nvidia to be the typical large Americanised company Lots of lawer's, BS, buzz words and "thinking out side of the box" type crap. They would be so much better with proper leadership.

Many cases have gone to court for "encouragement" I'm surprised you are not aware of any.

Rroff said:
In context its insignificant... now if DX10+ was supported on XP and developers weren't having to keep console compatibility a consideration we might be talking a different story.
Click to expand...

I agree XP could and should have had support for DX10 and 10.1, but trying to say Vista is to blame for Nvidia not supporting 10.1 is lame. 10.1 was a rescue mission sabotaged by Nvidia as they had no 10.1 hardware and 10.1 would have put some real pressure on Nvidia so in jumped the "encouragement" squad again.

Its all done and dusted now so little point arguing how and when but PC gaming has lost a lot of ground to consoles because of it and cooperation between all the big players is what needed to get things back on track IMO.

Faster GFX that just blow everything away @ 2560x1600 would get the ball rolling.
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Wouldn't the dabacle over the Assassin's Creed patch removing DX10.1 at Nvidia's behest count as this; considering it was giving ATI cards a boost and not Nvidia cards?
Click to expand...

That was pretty evil of them - but even if nVidia cards had supported DX10.1 they would have seen no boost from Assassins Creed as most of the speed up came from ATI being able to use a certain method of "anti-aliasing" with DX10.1 it doesn't look good imo leaves the scene far more blurry than good old MSAA. DX11 might improve on this maybe.

jigger said:
I have also been involved with NV and they have some shisters of real quality working for them.

I found Nvidia to be the typical large Americanised company Lots of lawer's, BS, buzz words and "thinking out side of the box" type crap. They would be so much better with proper leadership.

Many cases have gone to court for "encouragement" I'm surprised you are not aware of any.
Click to expand...

Can't say I've really researched nVidias' track record - all I can go on is word of mouth and my own experiences - which have been fairly positive. Myabe they do try it on with smaller studios, then only time I've had experience has been contracted work from larger studios.
 
Sorry I know what you your saying and that didn't come across well.

I was looking at directly comparing the cost of both systems.

PC Gaming needs.

Monitor
CPU
RAM
Motherboard
GFX
PSU
Case
Hard Drive
ROM Drive
Sound Card
Key Board
Mouse
Speakers
Operating system
 
jigger said:
Sorry I know what you your saying and that didn't come across well.

I was looking at directly comparing the cost of both systems.

PC Gaming needs.

Monitor
CPU
RAM
Motherboard
GFX
PSU
Case
Hard Drive
ROM Drive
Sound Card
Key Board
Mouse
Speakers
Operating system
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges the pc has no set purpose.
Soundcard not needed- on board, monitor & speakers & are not needed if you plug it into a HDTV.


Besides the Blueray player everything else in the Ps3 is years behind & is stuck in the Gforce 7900 era that's why its now cheaper than it was.

The PC would come in at about £350-400 & would have more performance & possible uses.

The console fix featured hardware depreciates over the years where as the PCs hardware is always evolving.
If the only hardware available for the PC was the same as when the PS3 first come out the value of the parts would be peanuts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom