Are we overpaying to run games maxed out?

Not really no just do the pixel math...

1920x1080=2073600 pixels
1920x1200=2304000 pixels
2560x1440=3686400 pixels
2560x1600=4096000 pixels

Big jump obviously from 1080 to 1440. Most games are built around the console friendly 1280x720=921600 pixels. All those pixels have to be rendered/shaded/drawn etc etc massive difference between 720 & 1080 let alone much higher :rolleyes:

When/if multiplatform games are built for 1080 or higher they will start to improve the coding & make it more efficient (they have no choice as consoles can barely handle 720 this gen it will be more noticeable @ 1080 if the optimisation is not much better) until that happens you need over powered GPU's on PC to compensate for the poor optimisation. Now Intel/Nvidia no longer put the same money into PC gaming optimisation its all down to how AMD handle this on the next gen. Also consider most PC games use very low res textures these look horrible @ 1080 let alone higher res it makes them more noticeable as some do not scale very well above 720 a lot of the time.

If your not into competitive online FPS + RTS its better to do what I did buy a 60" or larger Plasma @ 1080 same overall cost as powering a 1440 or higher display but the screen real estate makes up for that many times over ;)
 
Suarez7 said:
I mean £1500 and still you will struggle with some games at 1440 and 1600p.

What's your opinion then? Do you think the price of hardware can be justified?
Click to expand...
Anyone that worried about a value for money gaming system wouldn't be buying a 1440p/1600p monitor to game on..;)
 
From a personal perspective, the answer is no, I don't worry about what the settings are called in the menus and don't max out games if I'm not happy with the performance at those settings. A lot of games look very good on non-max settings in fact 'max' settings isn't at all comprable from game to game; medium settings in one game may look better tha max settings in another.
 
I suppose it depends, tbh the thigs like AA that seem to take up the most power to run don't seem to have much effect, I recall messing with aa not too long ago to see the difference and whilst yes I did notice a difference, it was only because I was looking for it.

other stuff isn't actually to do with how good the computer is, the textures will only be one resolution no matter how gutsy the computer.
 
Happy at 1080p at the moment. When you jump up to 1440p/1600p then your looking at some serious monies to get 60fps.

If you got the cash then why not.
 
fair point hangtime, you can get my point though, there's some things that aren't related to the power of the computer past a certain point.

edit: ensure there isn't a second page before quick replying, handy hint right there
 
Suarez7 said:
Just been thinking about this after I built my new rig. I really think we're paying over the odds just to run games smoothly on max details. I mean £1500 and still you will struggle with some games at 1440 and 1600p. When I first started PC gaming it didn't bother me being able to max out games but over the years I've changed and now I really don't enjoy having to lower details to make it playable. I know some of it is due to bad optimization though and shoddy console porting.

What's your opinion then? Do you think the price of hardware can be justified?
Click to expand...

High end PC gaming is damn expensive, but this is not the fault of the consoles.

Also, If you want to go back in time to the pre/early 360/PS3 days, I think you will find that newly released games were on the whole far less optimised at sub 720p resolutions than they are now at 1080p+ resolutions.

You can if you like, look back at BF2 benchmarks with hardware contemporary at the time of that games release. Even the most high end mofo/ing expensive systems weren't going much beyond 30FPS with max settings @ 1024x768, and that will be without mxing the AA either.

As for Crysis! No consoles holding that game back, but it still took 3 8800GTX's in SLI config on the highest end CPUs and RAM, to just hover between 20-35 FPS, with all details maxed.

And in general, the further back you go, the more poorly optimsed the games tended to be.
 
In this current gen, a lot of games with medium to ultra settings have very small visual impacts the higher setting you go, and i don't think it justifies the cost of a super high end graphics card right now. I think games still look great at medium-high settings @ 1080p.

I am still using a 5770 and its a 3 year old card running games at medium to high settings at 1080p. My next upgrade is to be my graphics card, and i think i can get away with not upgrading until this generation is over.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, games are sold based on max graphics rather than what most gamers will see. Its a bit like the 24meg broadband thing. Trailers should show what you get if you have the 'reccommended spec'.
 
Crazy thread...

As you could build a gaming system for around £500 if you wanted that would run just about every game maxed out...

I.E
Two secondhand GTX 480's/580's in SLI
Secondhand I5 2500k CPU
ETC


(Ps two GTX 570's just got sold in the MM for £150 for both..That just shows how cheap you can get highend GPU's if you want to build a rig on the cheap ;))
 
Last edited:
personally I don't like the idea of gaming on anything other than my 24" monitor so costing shouldn't be an issue :)
 
Suarez7 said:
Just been thinking about this after I built my new rig. I really think we're paying over the odds just to run games smoothly on max details. I mean £1500 and still you will struggle with some games at 1440 and 1600p. When I first started PC gaming it didn't bother me being able to max out games but over the years I've changed and now I really don't enjoy having to lower details to make it playable. I know some of it is due to bad optimization though and shoddy console porting.

What's your opinion then? Do you think the price of hardware can be justified?
Click to expand...

Is that for the whole setup or just the gfx cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom