• 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.

Geforce GTX 780, 770 coming in May

Boomstick777 said:
Two 760 Ti's would be cheaper than a GTX 690?

Probably have more resale value aswell, seeing as from a new series...

Will there be a GTX 790? That would be a monster :eek:
Click to expand...

Thought you might be able to pick up a deal on a 690 when new cards come out.

I read something about performance being smoother on 690 vs normal sli.
 
imginy said:
I read something about performance being smoother on 690 vs normal sli.
Click to expand...

I think it's built in hardware level to eliminate it yeah, but 670 SLI has been flawless for me apart from issues with metro last light, but I'm sure that will be fixed soon.
 
illuz said:
I think it's built in hardware level to eliminate it yeah, but 670 SLI has been flawless for me apart from issues with metro last light, but I'm sure that will be fixed soon.
Click to expand...

Yeah 660 SLI has been excellent, the AMD guys won't like this next comment so better stop reading. SLI experience has been much better than my Crossfire experience, not to say crossfire was bad in terms of fps, it just wasn't as smooth as SLI.

I like my 660 SLI but it's just a stopgap to something better, actually considering 2 GTX 760 Ti's, would be a step up from my cards..

960 shaders to 1344.
192 bit bus to 256 bit.

All depends on prices though, just release them already :p
 
Boomstick777 said:
Not sure if that is a joke?

---------------------------------------------------------------

The PC surpassed the console one year after launch with the Nvidia 8800 GTX (My personal favorite GPU lol)

Ever since we've been using higher resolution, higher fps, multiple screens etc. Meanwhile console games barely scrape along at 30fps @ sub HD resolutions look awful for the most part (Expect a few multi million pound exclusives that look alright but not as good as a typical PC game or even a port)

This time around the PC hardware is already ahead of the game. It won't take long for PC visuals to look truly amazing compared to PS4 / Xbox 720 counterparts.

PC will see gaming at beyond 1080P, all the way up to 4K and multiscreen while for next 5-6 years consoles will be stuck at 1080P and some games will run at a lower resolution than that.

Unreal engine 4 is already watered down for PS4, the PS4 isn't even out yet.. Although games will look great on PS4 due to direct to the metal coding, in a couple years the PC will be wowing people with it's graphics, way beyond console. If graphics are your thing Maxwell and beyond will be epic..
Click to expand...
sub hd as in 720p, which is arguably still HD. It is worse but it's not that bad. What's the point in arguing about multi million pound exclusives when it's mainly the multi million pound exclusives that even show much notable difference on PC? There's very few games generally that push PC's to the max either so it's a handful of good exclusives on consoles vs a handful or power pushing PC games? That's a bad argument that backs it into a position of talking about what can be done on the consoles and what can be done on PC's but what is done is what matters. PC's just don't see as good optimisation. It's dumb to argue that 30 fps is bad as so long as it's stable it's un-noticeable to most people if you go much higher, sub HD is the best argument but even that isn't too bad.

That's the point though, we're reaching the point of diminishing returns. If you see what a PS3 and a PS4 can produce it's a lot less spectacular than the jump from PS2 to PS3 because there is little to expose the difference (such as HD).

sure but how many people will play these 4k res? It's not like every PC is going to do it and sure buying a £600 graphics card will obviously beat a £300 or £400 console but as pointed out it takes years for the mid range cards to show up the consoles. Pretending everyone will be playing 4k res multi-titan systems is just a silly argument. Looking at the general experience is realistic though (mid range and above but not expecting all systems to be 680's or whatnot). Something tells me being stuck at 1080p isn't really going to be any sort of major mis-step.

I like graphics, I just wait for the stuff that actually makes me really want to step up to a £300 or £400 card and makes my consoles look awful in comparison. I made it clear PC looks better, it's just an argument of how much better. I'm going to get a nice card (£300 or up) about a year after when I get a PS4 and I'll see how much better it looks though, test this stuff for myself.
 
Last edited:
Insanties_birth said:
sub hd as in 720p, which is arguably still HD... Snip*
Click to expand...

1440p, 1600p & my fave 1020p 120hz 2d @ 120 fps vsync + mouse and keyboard of doom. These are all things that PC's are capable of now and arguably worth the price of a good GPU. I'm looking forward to checking out next gen consoles but I don't expect them to be a total match for PC, even to begin with. They're just not versatile enough. They will have more and perhaps arguably better titles, true, but hopefully PC will benefit from this longer run with similar hardware architecture.
 
Wucked said:
1440p, 1600p & my fave 1020p 120hz 2d @ 120 fps vsync + mouse and keyboard of doom. These are all things that PC's are capable of now and arguably worth the price of a good GPU. I'm looking forward to checking out next gen consoles but I don't expect them to be a total match for PC, even to begin with. They're just not versatile enough. They will have more and perhaps arguably better titles, true, but hopefully PC will benefit from this longer run with similar hardware architecture.
Click to expand...

Agree, 120Hz has really pushed up the graphics requirements for me, even at 1920 x 1080. There are monitors that can run 2560 X 1600 @ 120Hz however I don't think you could really get these sorts of frames consistently with current hardware so it's probably not worth it.
 
Buckster said:
I think you should read Gibbos post on that thread AFTER that post ......
Click to expand...

Or you could repost it so the rest of us don't have to go searching the forums :rolleyes:

Gibbo said:
Could be, but no price is final until launch day. Sometimes the price of a new item can literally change 1 minute before it launches. AMD/NVIDIA love to play games with each other and us lot get caught in the middle. ;)
Click to expand...


RavenXXX2 said:
Titan was a freak card, a one off hopefully. I think Nvidia will set the msrp of the 780 to $599 in the states, here we will pay around £500-550. Can see it creeping higher if stock is very limited like it was with the titan.
Click to expand...

It was but Nvidia will use it as a way to artificially increase prices on future generations.

Lord_ZED said:
Boomstick777 i think 340each is more possible......
Click to expand...

I think that's extremely unlikely as it would severly damage the retail price of 670s/680s which still seem to be in plentiful supply.

Anyone know how much a gfx card actually costs to make including allocation of R&D costs?
 
Last edited:
Wucked said:
1440p, 1600p & my fave 1020p 120hz 2d @ 120 fps vsync + mouse and keyboard of doom. These are all things that PC's are capable of now and arguably worth the price of a good GPU. I'm looking forward to checking out next gen consoles but I don't expect them to be a total match for PC, even to begin with. They're just not versatile enough. They will have more and perhaps arguably better titles, true, but hopefully PC will benefit from this longer run with similar hardware architecture.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree and that's why I'm not arguing PC isn't better, as it is. But it's just an argument of how long it usually takes for consoles to get noticeably overclassed. It's not an overly serious argument anyway as I'm not going to go into meltdown over it but I just feel consoles do hold up a bit better than some think, obviously still PC outclasses it though. PC can easily win if you spend a lot ofcourse but bang for buck consoles win because standardised hardware helps with optimisation. Either way I'm not going to argue it too much, we all know PC is better.
 
the difference being that the last 2 console releases have been on par with PC at release, and it's taken PC's 6-12 months to pull away again... this time round consoles are already behind the curve by a long way, much further than simple optimisations can account for

bang for buck comparing consoles to PC's is always a bit of a spurious argument, because a console can't do most of what a PC can and many of us would want or need a PC anyway
 
andybird123 said:
the difference being that the last 2 console releases have been on par with PC at release, and it's taken PC's 6-12 months to pull away again... this time round consoles are already behind the curve by a long way, much further than simple optimisations can account for

bang for buck comparing consoles to PC's is always a bit of a spurious argument, because a console can't do most of what a PC can and many of us would want or need a PC anyway
Click to expand...


PLUS console games are hideously expensive! The console h/w is a loss-leader subsidised by the sale of the games.
 
So in my shoes 2xEVGA GeForce GTX 670 Superclock w/Backplate 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card gaming on a 30" screen at 2560x1600 what would you do?
 
cHk4 said:
So in my shoes 2xEVGA GeForce GTX 670 Superclock w/Backplate 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card gaming on a 30" screen at 2560x1600 what would you do?
Click to expand...

I have a pair of 670 2GB FTW cards and have not found anything that I can not run at max settings at 2560x1440. I would stick with what you have tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom