Games performances & hardware costs

[Kaapstad]

i think the main point i am trying to make is
when i built my last pc it lasted 7-8 yrs on a gtx 470
i could run all games and get good fps, and a 120hz 1080p panel and they looked great to be honest.
but when i think of people spending 3k on systems and you cant run these games maxed out.
are we being ripped off by hardware vendors
i mean kaap you say 4 cards to run a game at max settings,
it is borderline ridiculous.
i mean that kind of performance should be there on a £500-600 gcard
in my view anyway.
maybe people nowdays are happy to pay £500-600 quid for a budget gcard.
but in the earlier generations of pc gaming, and ive been gaming and building pc's since the 90's
when you spent £2000 you had an elite system that was going to last you best part of 5 years with not having to go out 1-2yrs later to buy new graphics cards...

A 980 Ti is about 6x more powerful than a GTX 470 so tech has moved on quite a bit.

Games have also moved on quite a bit too and are a lot more demanding. Sometimes this is because the game is badly written for PC but sometimes it is because there are options and effects you can use that were only a dream when the GTX 470 was brand new.

 

[Seanspeed]

You're running 3440x1440 man. Do you not quite understand the implication of the pixel pushing power necessary to run that? As resolution sizes increase, the pixel amounts go up exponentially and require a proportionally exponential amount of power to push them. And you're already pushing a good bit more than standard 1440p, so your 980Ti is really barely sufficient if you want to play more demanding games without turning down a lot of settings.

As for being ripped off or not being impressed, go back and plug in that 1080p monitor again and see how you feel about it. Sounds to me like you've simply become normalized to your 3440x1440 resolution and forget how much worse it used to be at 1080p. I know tons of console gamers started to complain that the PS4 wasn't actually that much of a leap from the PS3 in graphics after a while, but it was merely their memory failing them as they forgot what PS3 games actually looked like.

 

[Zefan]

You're really missing something big here; games may have got more demanding, however the biggest increase in demand I can see here is from you.

Without even beginning to touch on how games have changed over the years, let's take a very brief look at just one way your demand has increased.

Your good old GTX 470 was driving a resolution of 1920x1080. That's 2073600 pixels. Your 980Ti is driving a resolution of 3440x1440, that's 4953600 pixels. That's a 138% increase in demand based on the increase in resolution alone! Superwide monitors are - relatively - extremely new pieces of kit. Expecting your PC to step up to meet this increased demand - and this is only one factor - is really an unreasonable expectation.

 

[r7slayer]

i think the main point i am trying to make is
when i built my last pc it lasted 7-8 yrs on a gtx 470
i could run all games and get good fps, and a 120hz 1080p panel and they looked great to be honest.
but when i think of people spending 3k on systems and you cant run these games maxed out.
are we being ripped off by hardware vendors
i mean kaap you say 4 cards to run a game at max settings,
it is borderline ridiculous.
i mean that kind of performance should be there on a £500-600 gcard
in my view anyway.
maybe people nowdays are happy to pay £500-600 quid for a budget gcard.
but in the earlier generations of pc gaming, and ive been gaming and building pc's since the 90's
when you spent £2000 you had an elite system that was going to last you best part of 5 years with not having to go out 1-2yrs later to buy new graphics cards...

Thank consoles for this tbh. We rarley get any games that are purely built for the pc and then optimised well on the pc. Most games are made for console then ported to the pc. So the games run well on console hardware however you might have a pc then is atleast 3 x the power/performance of the consoles but don't seem to scale that way. Its because of shoddy ports.

But you still are being slightly over optimistic about what your expecting from your hardware.

 

[flowrider99]

IMO it is ludicrous to spend thousands of pounds on a PC to play games. There is a big responsibility on game developers to optimise their code to work on moderately powerful hardware rather than pushing the hardware to its limits, and costs, all the time.

 

[Sin_Chase]

OP, your expectations are too great.

 

[Panos]

I think the fact we've been stuck with 28nm nodes for nearly 5 years and both AMD and Nvidia are about to move to 16nm will change your mind.

AMD Polaris is going to be 14nm FET
Nvidia Pascal is 16nm FF

Hi i was just curious as to ask.
does anybody here with a new rig or graphics card 980TI feel underwhelmed
by certain game performances.?

Depends what you want. If you invested on a Gsync/Freesync monitor, as long as you can get comfortably within it's working fps range, you do not have to keep up the GPU/CPU powercreep.

A 2560x1440 Gsync/Freesync monitor can be served well with a 780Ti, TBlack or 290/290X. At 3440x1440 you have a 980Ti should be fine for quite some time, if you have Gsync.