Crytek: Next-Gen Console Hardware Locked Down Next Year, Out In 2012-2013, Epic Agrees
parallax-scroll
Gamble, manager of CryTek's Engine Licensing Business. In a discussion
that spanned from different APIs to challenges in adopting new
platform.
Due to expansion from a PC-only to a multi-platform engine, CryTek
scored several new customers. At present time, CryTek has more
thandozen oflicensees, who will all utilize the next-generation
CryEngine3. CryEngine 3 is set to debut next month [October], and
there areloads of projects that will utilize that engine, especially
fewsurprises for the consoles.
On the pictures in this article, you can see the demo of the engine
running DirectX 9 build, expandable with DirectX 10, 10.1 and 11
extensions - depending on the adoption by the licensee. Thus, we'll
refrain from commenting on the obligatory ATI's "DirectX 11 Gaming"
cardboard, because the information there wasn't correct.
Mike told us that the capabilities of DirectX9 [when properly
optimized] are brilliant for customers that want to develop a title
for current generation of consoles and PCs. The customers that are
targeting next-generation console cycle and the PC should build upon
the strengths of DirectX 11 API, given that most of next-generation
console hardware will be locked down sometime next year, and pushed
out in 2012-2013 frame. We got the same feedback from Epic in the
matter of Unreal Engine 4, and the time will tell can CryTek develop
into a successful engine developer as well. So far, the work on Crysis
2 is progressing with more impact on gameplay than ever before.
Our take is that CryEngine 3 simply blew our minds with the realistic
water physics and effects on the "camera" viewpoint... it was really
interesting to feel the immersion effect, so the guys and girls in
CryTek are looking good to win the award for the best looking water of
them all.
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/9/11/cryteks-cryengine-30-set-to-debut-next-month.aspx
Miles Bader
-miles
--
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"
Tom
"parallax-scroll" <paralla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6f8982b-01dc-4ed4...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
A little off-topic, but anyway:
I am seriously thinking of getting a very high end gaming rig (I am tired of
nothing getting better on the 360 for looks) and I want RPGs and good RTS
game, there are too few for me. So when I read about the DX11 coming out on
ATI's next 5000 series cards, I began holding back, because Nvidia will
follow suit, and though typically more expensive, Nvidia almost always has
issues solved with the driver support whereas ATI take too much time on
newer cards.
Having said this and reading what this article states, I am now wondering if
I should wait for those cards simply because it doesn't seem that DX11 is
going to be an issue for necessity for a few years to come; hell, many
current games still use DX9.
Jim
(moddable to 450MHZ) and Intel i740. Sony to not be outdone will buy NexGen
from AMD so they can they have the only console with a NexGen CPU. It will
use use a Nx686 180MHZ (PR233) and S3 Virge with a PCI slot for a Voodoo1
upgrade. Nintendo will just duct tape 2 Donkey Kong arcade cabinets
together (dual Z80s!) and call it a day.
parallax-scroll
> MS is going use theWiistradegy and turn the 720 into a Celeron300A
> (moddable to 450MHZ) and Intel i740. Sony to not be outdone will buy NexGen
> from AMD so they can they have the only console with a NexGen CPU. It will
> use use a Nx686 180MHZ (PR233) and S3 Virge with a PCI slot for a Voodoo1
> together (dual Z80s!) and call it a day.
LOL.
Tom
"Jim" <j...@wtf.invalid> wrote in message
news:M5SdnW_tsf2SVCjX...@giganews.com...
LMAO! Good one.
ks...@4email.net
Didn't they say Crysis was running?
Yeah sure ok
Jim
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/104393
You play your game on a blank screen then they send the video on a memory
card.
alMIGHTY
Amen! Xbox 720 in 2012? I'm down with that.
alMIGHTY
> "parallax-scroll" <parallaxscr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> A little off-topic, but anyway:
>
> I am seriously thinking of getting a very high end gaming rig (I am tired of
> nothing getting better on the 360 for looks)
Which is why we need another console generation to start sooner rather
than later! I take back my previous message in this thread! 2011,
gentlemen... please!
> and I want RPGs
It doesn't seem like there are very many of those on any platform
besides the DS.
alMIGHTY
I tried to warn you way back when not to get your hopes up for that
bullshit...
alMIGHTY
> OnLive is going to use the IP over avian transport protocol.http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/104393
> You play your game on a blank screen then they send the video on a memory
> card.
LOL. Imagine trying to play an entire game like that.
Mitch
It would work for chess. :-)
Memnoch
wrote:
>>
>> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/9/11/cryteks-cryengine-30-s...
>
>Amen! Xbox 720 in 2012? I'm down with that.
Return of the Red Ring of Death Part 2 Amended.
The alMIGHTY N
<memn...@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT), alMIGHTY <nathaniel.k....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/9/11/cryteks-cryengine-30-s...
>
> >Amen! Xbox 720 in 2012? I'm down with that.
>
> Return of the Red Ring of Death Part 2 Amended.
I would be very surprised if Microsoft didn't take their time to make
sure something like that didn't happen again.
Tom
"alMIGHTY" <nathani...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37829594-4195-4be7...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
I was really hoping for a 2010 release as 2011 is a bit far off, so that is
long enough for me to get a good rig now. I can understand why MS would wait
longer as to extend their profits from their games/accessories and maybe get
the Xbox series closer to being in the black (if if doesn't get there when
it is all said and done). I just will wait for Windows 7 and see what Nvidia
has for their DX11 answer. If ATI would pick up speed on how fast they get
quality drivers released, I would go with them since they are typically
cheaper and they arelready to release their DX11 cards within a week or so
from now.
>
>> and I want RPGs
>
> It doesn't seem like there are very many of those on any platform
> besides the DS.
There are more RPG and RTS games on PC than on any console at this time.
Besides
as they come out, the PC versions are nearly all better and you can do more
with the PC versions as well as get the best of graphics. Hell, I may even
do MW2 on PC if I get the PC around the time it comes out. The PC I want
will be easily powerful (minimum of 2gigs graphics power) enough as to watch
BR movies on my TV (if I want to anyway) and I could even play the game over
on my big Sammy if I want.
I think I finally hit the point where I just don't care about online
shooters anymore for any console, maybe I am just burned out from playing
them over the years and nothing seems fresh about the whole MP shooter theme
anymore. The whole theme is just plain worn out for me and I haven't seen
anything fresh (what could make it more fresh when it is the same thing over
and over again shooting people, scoring points?) and then dealing with the
trash talk and kiddies. I think the MP in Modern Warfare may have been the
last for me and I haven't seen anything that remotely interest me (though
B:BC was pretty damn good). I am definitely getting MW2, but I doubt I will
play much MP as it seems to have the same set-up as MW with a few new
weapons.
Yousuf Khan
> I am seriously thinking of getting a very high end gaming rig (I am
> tired of nothing getting better on the 360 for looks) and I want RPGs
> and good RTS game, there are too few for me. So when I read about the
> DX11 coming out on ATI's next 5000 series cards, I began holding back,
> because Nvidia will follow suit, and though typically more expensive,
> Nvidia almost always has issues solved with the driver support whereas
> ATI take too much time on newer cards.
>
> Having said this and reading what this article states, I am now
> wondering if I should wait for those cards simply because it doesn't
> seem that DX11 is going to be an issue for necessity for a few years to
> come; hell, many current games still use DX9.
ATI's drivers aren't that much of a problem these days. For the most
part, both ATI's and Nvidia's drivers are just "cheat engines", where
they detect which game you're playing and they setup the video
parameters properly for each game. So there's always a new Catalyst or
Geforce driver a few months down the road that will update the support
for any problems in any particular game.
As for DirectX 11, it's only an issue if you're running Windows Vista or
Windows 7. DirectX 9 is what runs on XP and it'll never be updated.
That's why games still have a DirectX 9 mode. The features that set
DirectX 10, 10.1, and 11 apart from 9 are turned off in XP. It's much
like disabling graphics features in a game to get better game play.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
I'd be very surprised if Microsoft did fix it for the next time. Why
break a tradition now?
Yousuf Khan
The alMIGHTY N
> "alMIGHTY" <nathaniel.k....@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would also prefer the next console generation start next holiday
season but I know that's not happening so I'm aiming for the next
logical date. :-)
Regardless, I refuse to get back into PC gaming at the "hardcore"
level. I have much better things on which to spend my hard-earned
money. I've been getting some downloads, though, like the Monkey
Island remake, Telltale's various series, World of Goo, etc.
> >> and I want RPGs
>
> > It doesn't seem like there are very many of those on any platform
> > besides the DS.
>
> There are more RPG and RTS games on PC than on any console at this time.
The DS isn't a console... ;-)
What RPGs have come out for the PC in the recent months?
The alMIGHTY N
Tradition?
Eman
> What RPGs have come out for the PC in the recent months?
Only MMORPGs, Aion and Champions Online in the last few weeks.
The alMIGHTY N
So, yeah, more but they're all MMO instead of your standard fare
single-player RPG...
YKhan
Yes, you know the "Microsoft Tradition". A tradition of mediocrity,
and not giving a crap, and even using that as an marketing point. :-)
Yousuf Khan
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:969579bc-ab83-495f...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Yea I know, but only if the DS has a 24" monitor with a 1900x1600 resolution
peak :-).
>
> What RPGs have come out for the PC in the recent months?
Not just recent months, but upcoming as well. Almost all are cross
platforms, but since RPGs are nearly always better on the PC, it seems
logical to me. I cannot remember all of the names, but if you go even to
wiki and look up the upcoming games, there are quite a few out there. Like I
said before, I will probably even go the route of shooters there as well as
I am just gotten bored with XBL and the same old same old. Let's put it this
way, I have bought nine 360 games in the last two years and no other games
interest me; they have been shooters and RPGs. When I bought Mass Effect,
Oblivion, Fallout 3 etc (as examples), I always thought these would be much
better on the PC. I liked them a great deal on the 360, though the
performance was off, and from that, I always had in the back of my mind
having these on PC would have been better, though way more costly. The only
games I always liked on the 360 are shooters of various flavors, since they
entailed having multiplayer, but I am getting bored with MP now.
It's either I quit gaming (GASP, NO!), or I spend a lot now and wait for the
future of Xbox/PS to see what comes along (no longer close to being
interested in Nintendo anymore). I miss RTS games as well and you know they
play way better on a PC. Stealth based games (another fav of mine) are
mostly better on the PC too. It's been nearly six years since I bought a PC
anyway and I need a new one. I have well into 5 figures of money stashed
anyway outside of my retirement/brokerage/checking accounts anyway, and I
have zero debt. I think it's time to splurge :-). I will be getting MW2 on
the 360 for sure and I am unsure about ODST, I will wait for some of the
real gamers here to give real opinions on the game before I get it. If I get
this PC, all future RPGs are for the PC and probably a good deal of shooters
I want as well.
Tom
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ab8...@news.bnb-lp.com...
I know, but DX11 hardware will run the previous iterations of DX down to
9.0. But, when Windows 7 comes out, XP will be gone and I am not going to
load an OS (XP) that been out for 8 years now. Time to move on to 7 and it
has been getting rave reviews from some reputable sites, unlike that
disaster called Vista..
GMAN
>On Sep 22, 11:08=A0am, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 12:33=A0am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > > I would be very surprised if Microsoft didn't take their time to make
>> > > sure something like that didn't happen again.
>>
>> > I'd be very surprised if Microsoft did fix it for the next time. Why
>> > break a tradition now?
>>
>> Tradition?
>
>Yes, you know the "Microsoft Tradition". A tradition of mediocrity,
>and not giving a crap, and even using that as an marketing point. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
YKhan
> I know, but DX11 hardware will run the previous iterations of DX down to
> 9.0. But, when Windows 7 comes out, XP will be gone and I am not going to
> load an OS (XP) that been out for 8 years now. Time to move on to 7 and it
> has been getting rave reviews from some reputable sites, unlike that
> disaster called Vista..
That's of course upto you, whether you upgrade your OS or not. I'd say
if DX11 allows more work to be offloaded into the GPU, then that will
be worth it, even without any visual enhancements. Right now it looks
like AMD will be the only ones with DX11 GPUs for several months, into
next year. Nvidia spent a lot of time and effort trying to avoid DX11,
they only recently brought out a DX10.1 card, and that's for their
mobility range.
Yousuf Khan
Tom
"YKhan" <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35c9c70f-8dbd-42d5...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
I am not one to not use ATI as they used to be the best a few years back.
But, if Nvidia drags their feet, I will have no problem spending the money
on the latest ATI DX11 cards. I am just afraid of the support ATI doesn't
offer like they used to. Many game developers support Nvidia and I think
that's sad, but it is what it is.
YKhan
> I am not one to not use ATI as they used to be the best a few years back.
> But, if Nvidia drags their feet, I will have no problem spending the money
> on the latest ATI DX11 cards. I am just afraid of the support ATI doesn't
> offer like they used to. Many game developers support Nvidia and I think
> that's sad, but it is what it is.
Apparently that's no longer the case anymore: the game developers want
support for DX11 right now, and ATI is only one capable of providing
that, right now.
Asus Voltage Tweaks Radeon HD 5870 To A 38% Performance Boost -
HotHardware
"We tell you, ATI has a hit on its hands. We haven't seen a Radeon
card generate this much buzz and industry support in what feels like
years, but the powerful Radeon HD 5870 is doing just that."
http://hothardware.com/News/Asus%2DVoltage%2DTweaks%2DRadeon%2DHD%2D5870%2DTo%2DA%2D38%2DPerformance%2DBoost/
Tom
"YKhan" <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85dba699-6fbc-47b9...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I have been looking at them and they have been selling on New Egg but
selling out. I read a few tech sites for reviews and surprisingly, the
GTX295 still outperforms the single 5870. But the 5870 is 1g to the 295's
1.7 gigs, but the differences are still substantial. I think I will wait
until the 5870x2s come out, or see if Nvidia takes the cake yet again. ATI
still smokes Nvidia in pricing. Even the single 5870 is much cheaper than
the GTX295.
Here are two reviews from two very reliable sites.
http://www.techspot.com/review/198-ati-radeon-hd-5870-review/page1.html
Mike Ruskai
dribble thusly:
The Tom's Hardware review had several benchmarks where the GTX 295 failed to
run at all at 2560x1600, supposedly due to insufficient graphics RAM (it
actually has 896MB, not 1.8GB, because there are two GPUs each with their own
chunk of RAM).
--
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
Tom
"Mike Ruskai" <BUTth...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:agdtb5psmo4fa5kkf...@4ax.com...
Well, how many cards actually are going to use that resolution, especially
when trying to run the frame rate the way they do. Overall, the 295 blew
away even the 4870x2, which is 2gigs. Also, it doesn't matter that the 295
has two GPUs, it still uses both of them more efficiently at the 1.8gig
rating. I'll admit, I prefer Nividia, although I have used ATI on this PC I
have now. ATIs are cheaper, but they suck at getting their drivers
functioning in a timely manner. I am probably going to go with the 5870x2
when it comes out.
Mike Ruskai
dribble thusly:
>"Mike Ruskai" <BUTth...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote in message
>news:agdtb5psmo4fa5kkf...@4ax.com...
>> On or about Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:13:09 -0400 did "Tom" <no...@nothere.com>
>> dribble thusly:
>>>Yes, I have been looking at them and they have been selling on New Egg but
>>>selling out. I read a few tech sites for reviews and surprisingly, the
>>>GTX295 still outperforms the single 5870. But the 5870 is 1g to the 295's
>>>1.7 gigs, but the differences are still substantial. I think I will wait
>>>until the 5870x2s come out, or see if Nvidia takes the cake yet again. ATI
>>>still smokes Nvidia in pricing. Even the single 5870 is much cheaper than
>>>the GTX295.
>>
>> The Tom's Hardware review had several benchmarks where the GTX 295 failed
>> to
>> run at all at 2560x1600, supposedly due to insufficient graphics RAM (it
>> actually has 896MB, not 1.8GB, because there are two GPUs each with their
>> own
>> chunk of RAM).
>
>Well, how many cards actually are going to use that resolution, especially
>when trying to run the frame rate the way they do. Overall, the 295 blew
>away even the 4870x2, which is 2gigs. Also, it doesn't matter that the 295
>has two GPUs, it still uses both of them more efficiently at the 1.8gig
>rating. I'll admit, I prefer Nividia, although I have used ATI on this PC I
>have now. ATIs are cheaper, but they suck at getting their drivers
>functioning in a timely manner. I am probably going to go with the 5870x2
>when it comes out.
The 4870 X2 is 1GB per GPU, just as the GTX 295 is 896MB per GPU.
As I'm one of the increasing number of people with a 30" monitor (though I've
had one for two years now), any card which doesn't work at 2560x1600 is
worthless. Why have all that graphics processing power if you can't use it at
your monitor's native resolution?
As for functional drivers, I dropped my 8800 GTX in favor of a 4870 X2 (I have
two now) because nVidia failed to fix the GPU scaling of their drivers for two
years. How's that for timely?
Neither company is perfect with drivers. My first nVidia card, a GF4 Ti 4200,
was bought because the driver for Radeon 8500 I initially bought could not be
forced to use 75Hz on a monitor which did not support DDC - the driver assumed
it was only capable of 60Hz, and provided no way to override. The nVidia
driver had no such problem.
Later, I got a Radeon 9800 Pro, then an X850, and then the GF 8800 GTX when
that came out, because ATI had nothing comparable when I was shopping for a
new card.
But it will be a while before I buy nVidia again, due to their failure with
the 8800 GTX drivers, and due to the crap they pull with the games they
financially support (such as forcing the new Batman game to not support AA
with ATI cards from within the game). That, and the defective GPU fiasco
which they tried to cover up.
Tom
"Mike Ruskai" <BUTth...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:j222c5p9oak7u51go...@4ax.com...
That's not how you posted the last time, you made it sound as if the 295
ONLY uses 896 at a time, using that prior post, the ATI 4870x2 should only
use 1gig at a time. Yes, I know that the 4870X2 has two 1-gig GPUs, but one
295 beat it in nearly all benchmarking and had the better driver support. If
you go by the techs that review them side by side, you'd see they said the
GTX was by far the better card, and that people who commented on blogs after
the review gave unsupported opinions because of their preferences and the
nearly wide ranging rig set-ups they use..
>
> As I'm one of the increasing number of people with a 30" monitor (though
> I've
> had one for two years now), any card which doesn't work at 2560x1600 is
> worthless. Why have all that graphics processing power if you can't use
> it at
> your monitor's native resolution?
But that situation was only one where it didn't meet that resolution,
whereas the ATI didn't meet that in many. Read a review where the cards were
tested on 5 or more games and see what the results are. But interestingly,
many games are optimized to run better under Nvidia cards. Crysis comes to
mind. I have a buddy at work who bought a new mid-range gaming rig and
decided to save a few more bucks by going with the ATI card. He promptly
bought Mass Effect which wasn't supported by his ATI card, only the Nvidia
cards; he still ahs a game he cannot play. You can count on nearly every
game made to be supported by Nvidia, but you cannot count that on ATI cards.
So for me, it's about the gaming not just necessarily the graphics.
Now ask yourself this, how many people are really going to use 30" monitors
(they cost more than $1K), that is a very niche market for the well-to-do
hard core PC gamer. Even then you are not going to hit more than 30fps at
that setting unless you have dual GTX295s or dual 4870x2s in crossfire/SLI
on a 30" monitor. Hell a quality monitor that size cost more than many 42"
1080p name brand LCD HDTVs.
Anyway, here's the test done (and this can be found just anywhere on any
reputable hardware site) between one 295 and one 4870x2 and it is clear who
beat who:
http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/435548-fudzilla-new-gtx-295-vs-4870x2.html
Go to Tomshardware, Anandtech and you'll see the same results.
>
> As for functional drivers, I dropped my 8800 GTX in favor of a 4870 X2 (I
> have
> two now) because nVidia failed to fix the GPU scaling of their drivers for
> two
> years. How's that for timely?
For what games and in how many instances? It seems we are getting into a
discussion about who's best, but the real tech reviews tell the story, not
just mine or your experiences. Nvidia kills ATI nearly all of the time. The
only thing that kills Nvidia, is their damn price points, they are off the
charts.
Again, I haven't bought Nvidia in years, I am only commenting because of
past experience and what online tech reviewers say that seems to be par for
the course for ATI now. remember, ATI is under AMD's ownership. I dropped
Nvidia after their 5000 series cards were trash and never looked back when
the 9800pros came out from ATI and that card is still a decent card today.
>
> Neither company is perfect with drivers. My first nVidia card, a GF4 Ti
> 4200,
> was bought because the driver for Radeon 8500 I initially bought could not
> be
> forced to use 75Hz on a monitor which did not support DDC - the driver
> assumed
> it was only capable of 60Hz, and provided no way to override. The nVidia
> driver had no such problem.
>
> Later, I got a Radeon 9800 Pro, then an X850, and then the GF 8800 GTX
> when
> that came out, because ATI had nothing comparable when I was shopping for
> a
> new card.
>
> But it will be a while before I buy nVidia again, due to their failure
> with
> the 8800 GTX drivers, and due to the crap they pull with the games they
> financially support (such as forcing the new Batman game to not support AA
> with ATI cards from within the game). That, and the defective GPU fiasco
> which they tried to cover up.
Agreed neither company is perfect, but Nvidia has the better track record
over the past two years in driver support, it seems you are one of the few
to have issues. My issues are price. You also cannot blame Nvidia for Batman
not supporting AA on ATI cards, that is a developer preference. Maybe it was
financially expedient for them to do this on the Nvidia cards or that Nvidia
simply has nearly a 2-1 card install base to ATI. I think with these new
ATI5000s coming out and what they support, and the fact that Nvidia has been
mum on their new GTX300s, that Nividia may well revisit the day when they
lost out to ATI during their 5000 series days against the release of ATI's
9000 series cards, all about 6 years ago. But Nvidia very quickly remedied
that when they released their 6000 series which promptly put ATI in its
place and since then, except for pricing, Nvidia has owned ATI in benchmark
testing, in the tit-for-tat card release scenario that has existed ever
since.
Mike Ruskai
dribble thusly:
Yes, because that's exactly how it works. Each GPU gets identical copies of
precisely the same data. Only 896MB is actually used. Just as only 1GB is
actually used in the 4870 X2. I thought you understood that fact.
>295 beat it in nearly all benchmarking and had the better driver support. If
>you go by the techs that review them side by side, you'd see they said the
>GTX was by far the better card, and that people who commented on blogs after
>the review gave unsupported opinions because of their preferences and the
>nearly wide ranging rig set-ups they use..
The GTX 295 does not beat the 4870 by anywhere near a ratio of 5:3 in any
benchmark, which is what the cost ratio is. Furthermore, you have no basis at
all saying one or the other has better driver support. You're just assuming
that's the case because of your bias.
>> As I'm one of the increasing number of people with a 30" monitor (though
>> I've
>> had one for two years now), any card which doesn't work at 2560x1600 is
>> worthless. Why have all that graphics processing power if you can't use
>> it at
>> your monitor's native resolution?
>
>But that situation was only one where it didn't meet that resolution,
>whereas the ATI didn't meet that in many. Read a review where the cards were
>tested on 5 or more games and see what the results are. But interestingly,
>many games are optimized to run better under Nvidia cards. Crysis comes to
>mind. I have a buddy at work who bought a new mid-range gaming rig and
>decided to save a few more bucks by going with the ATI card. He promptly
>bought Mass Effect which wasn't supported by his ATI card, only the Nvidia
>cards; he still ahs a game he cannot play. You can count on nearly every
>game made to be supported by Nvidia, but you cannot count that on ATI cards.
>So for me, it's about the gaming not just necessarily the graphics.
You're saying Mass Effect isn't supported, but that's blatantly false. It
runs perfectly with an ATI card. There are, in fact, a number of people who
have 8800-series nVidia cards who cannot get it to work at all.
Crysis does seem to run very marginally better under nVidia cards. And?
There's not a single game which is playable with a GTX 295 that isn't playable
with a 4870 X2. But there are apparently some which aren't playable at my
native resolution with a GTX 295.
>Now ask yourself this, how many people are really going to use 30" monitors
>(they cost more than $1K), that is a very niche market for the well-to-do
>hard core PC gamer. Even then you are not going to hit more than 30fps at
>that setting unless you have dual GTX295s or dual 4870x2s in crossfire/SLI
>on a 30" monitor. Hell a quality monitor that size cost more than many 42"
>1080p name brand LCD HDTVs.
A single 4870 X2 can run most games at 60fps at 2560x1600. Crysis is a
notable exception, which can't run at playable rates at 2560x1600 with any
graphics setup, regardless of brand.
But your complaints about price are somewhat ironic. My second 4870 X2,
bought a couple months ago, was about $300. The GTX 295 sells now for $500.
So you're advocating a more expensive product, yet criticizing someone for
spending money on a better monitor.
>Anyway, here's the test done (and this can be found just anywhere on any
>reputable hardware site) between one 295 and one 4870x2 and it is clear who
>beat who:
>
>http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/435548-fudzilla-new-gtx-295-vs-4870x2.html
>
>Go to Tomshardware, Anandtech and you'll see the same results.
You pretty much just proved my point. None of those benchmarks makes the GTX
295 a better choice, since they are all playable with a 4870 X2, and the
difference is certainly not linear with the increase in cost of the GTX 295.
>> As for functional drivers, I dropped my 8800 GTX in favor of a 4870 X2 (I
>> have
>> two now) because nVidia failed to fix the GPU scaling of their drivers for
>> two
>> years. How's that for timely?
>
>For what games and in how many instances? It seems we are getting into a
>discussion about who's best, but the real tech reviews tell the story, not
>just mine or your experiences. Nvidia kills ATI nearly all of the time. The
>only thing that kills Nvidia, is their damn price points, they are off the
>charts.
For all non-16:10 resolutions, period. It was stuck on stretching, and would
not respect a setting to preserve the aspect ratio. It affected all older
games that only ran at 4:3.
>Again, I haven't bought Nvidia in years, I am only commenting because of
>past experience and what online tech reviewers say that seems to be par for
>the course for ATI now. remember, ATI is under AMD's ownership. I dropped
>Nvidia after their 5000 series cards were trash and never looked back when
>the 9800pros came out from ATI and that card is still a decent card today.
The 9800 Pro is a hopelessly outdated card today. Have you no actual
experience with modern cards from either company?
>> But it will be a while before I buy nVidia again, due to their failure
>> with
>> the 8800 GTX drivers, and due to the crap they pull with the games they
>> financially support (such as forcing the new Batman game to not support AA
>> with ATI cards from within the game). That, and the defective GPU fiasco
>> which they tried to cover up.
>
>Agreed neither company is perfect, but Nvidia has the better track record
>over the past two years in driver support, it seems you are one of the few
>to have issues. My issues are price.
Everyone running XP with an 8800-series card was affected by that bug. Each
week saw a new post in the nVidia forums about the bug.
>You also cannot blame Nvidia for Batman
>not supporting AA on ATI cards, that is a developer preference. Maybe it was
You're flat out wrong. That functionality was removed by the developer
because nVidia helped finance the game. ATI spoofed the hardware ID on their
cards to something non-ATI, and the AA option became available again. With
the spoofed ID, the AA works perfectly.
So not only was the option removed at the behest of nVidia, it was removed
*only* for ATI cards. That's beyond dirty pool.
>financially expedient for them to do this on the Nvidia cards or that Nvidia
>simply has nearly a 2-1 card install base to ATI. I think with these new
>ATI5000s coming out and what they support, and the fact that Nvidia has been
>mum on their new GTX300s, that Nividia may well revisit the day when they
>lost out to ATI during their 5000 series days against the release of ATI's
>9000 series cards, all about 6 years ago. But Nvidia very quickly remedied
Lest you forget, before nVidia released the GTX 295, the 4870 X2 was faster
than any other nVidia card.
Right now, the 5870 (which is out) is the fastest single-GPU card. It beats
the GTX 295 in a few cases, and loses slightly in others. When the 5870 X2
comes out, the GTX 295 will be beaten handily, as 5870 CF show right now (not
a single win for the GTX 295 against 5870 CF, even with these early drivers).
>that when they released their 6000 series which promptly put ATI in its
>place and since then, except for pricing, Nvidia has owned ATI in benchmark
>testing, in the tit-for-tat card release scenario that has existed ever
>since.
The GF 6000 series was no better than the ATI X800 series. nVidia pulled out
ahead only with the release of the 8800 GTX, while ATI was stuck with delays
on its 2900 HD, which proved to be no match.
ATI regained ground with the 4870, and now puts nVidia firmly behind with the
5870.
Yousuf Khan
> Yes, I have been looking at them and they have been selling on New Egg
> but selling out. I read a few tech sites for reviews and surprisingly,
> the GTX295 still outperforms the single 5870. But the 5870 is 1g to the
> 295's 1.7 gigs, but the differences are still substantial. I think I
> will wait until the 5870x2s come out, or see if Nvidia takes the cake
> yet again. ATI still smokes Nvidia in pricing. Even the single 5870 is
> much cheaper than the GTX295.
>
> Here are two reviews from two very reliable sites.
>
> http://www.techspot.com/review/198-ati-radeon-hd-5870-review/page1.html
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643
Yes, what's your point? The HD5870 is a single-GPU solution, whereas the
GTX295 is a dual-GPU solution. Even the older model dual-GPU 4870X2
beats the new HD5870 in some cases, due to the dual GPUs. The HD5870's
real competition is the GTX285, where it massacres the Nvidia. What you
should be impressed with is not the times that the 5870 got beaten by
older technology dual-GPUs, but the times that it beat those dual-GPUs.
Yousuf Khan
Tom
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ac7b40f$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
And your point is? The fact that it was beaten the majority of times says a
great deal about the dual GPUs power. It's funny that you say I should not
be impressed with the times that the single GPU based 5870 was beaten by the
dual 295, but how many times it beat the other duals (of which outside the
295 was only the 4870x2), that makes no sense. Most others it (the 5870)
beat were all single GPUs of equal or less memory and in a few cases, the
5870 was beaten even by the GTX280 and 285 singles. The 295 beat it (5870)
out most times, where even the 4870x2 in head to head tests beat the 295
out more than the 5870. The 5870 suffered under Crysis compared to the 295,
but I would easily place money on it with the 5870x2
In any case, I was only comparing the 295 anyway, not once did I mention the
285 or lower, so I don't see your point and your point is muted when those
cards even beat the 5870 in a few cases. As I said before, the price is what
makes ATI more palatable, but since Nvidia (as noted even by these sites)
cards runs games typically better as they get more dev support for
optimization. I may spend the extra money this time or I may not, timing is
the issue now. I am just undecided whether I want to wait (probably) until
next year for the GTX300 series, or just go with the 5870x2 that is supposed
to come out in early November. I want power and the latest, so I am not out
of spending money, but if ATI gets these 5870x2s out the door, I would
probably even forget about any 300 series in the future, because I know no
game is going to tax a card like that for a long time to come.
Someone essentially accused me of being an Nvidia fanboi and I am no such
thing under any piece of hardware. I could care less if the name brands were
totally different or if they were manufactured in space. I go by real world
benchmarks and testing and I check out many sources for these. Having said
that, the 295 still looks the most appealing for power, but certainly not
for cost, but I am ready for DX11 and the 295 doesn't offer that. As for the
rest, I am done with this thread unless someone can provide real results
where the 295 gets consistently beat by the latest card by ANY brand and
that they will be DX11 ready.
Yousuf Khan
> In any case, I was only comparing the 295 anyway, not once did I mention
> the 285 or lower, so I don't see your point and your point is muted when
> those cards even beat the 5870 in a few cases. As I said before, the
> price is what makes ATI more palatable, but since Nvidia (as noted even
> by these sites) cards runs games typically better as they get more dev
> support for optimization. I may spend the extra money this time or I may
> not, timing is the issue now. I am just undecided whether I want to wait
> (probably) until next year for the GTX300 series, or just go with the
> 5870x2 that is supposed to come out in early November. I want power and
> the latest, so I am not out of spending money, but if ATI gets these
> 5870x2s out the door, I would probably even forget about any 300 series
> in the future, because I know no game is going to tax a card like that
> for a long time to come.
Anyways, it's much more impressive that the single GPU HD5870 beat out
the dual-GPU GTX295 or HD4870X2 in five or six tests respectively. You
expect the dual-GPUs to usually beat out single GPUs
Well, it may be all academic pretty soon. According to this article,
Nvidia's on the verge of cancelling its GTX260, 275, and 285, with the
likelihood that the 295 will be gone pretty soon too.
SemiAccurate :: Nvidia kills GTX285, GTX275, GTX260, abandons the mid
and high end market
"NVIDIA IS KILLING the GTX260, GTX275, and GTX285 with the GTX295 almost
assured to follow as Nvidia (Nvidia: NVDA) abandons the high and mid
range graphics card market. Due to a massive series of engineering
failures, nearly all of the company's product line is financially under
water, and mismanagement seems to be killing the company.
Not even an hour after we laid out the financial woes surrounding the
Nvidia GTX275 and GTX260, word reached us that they are dead. Normally,
this would be an update to the original article, but this news has
enough dire implications that it needs its own story. Nvidia is in
desperate shape, whoop-ass has turned to ash, and the wagons can't be
circled any tighter."
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kills-gtx285-gtx275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/
Yousuf Khan
Tom
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4acbdb6e$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> Tom wrote:
>> In any case, I was only comparing the 295 anyway, not once did I mention
>> the 285 or lower, so I don't see your point and your point is muted when
>> those cards even beat the 5870 in a few cases. As I said before, the
>> price is what makes ATI more palatable, but since Nvidia (as noted even
>> by these sites) cards runs games typically better as they get more dev
>> support for optimization. I may spend the extra money this time or I may
>> not, timing is the issue now. I am just undecided whether I want to wait
>> (probably) until next year for the GTX300 series, or just go with the
>> 5870x2 that is supposed to come out in early November. I want power and
>> the latest, so I am not out of spending money, but if ATI gets these
>> 5870x2s out the door, I would probably even forget about any 300 series
>> in the future, because I know no game is going to tax a card like that
>> for a long time to come.
>
>
> Anyways, it's much more impressive that the single GPU HD5870 beat out the
> dual-GPU GTX295 or HD4870X2 in five or six tests respectively. You expect
> the dual-GPUs to usually beat out single GPUs
But you really need to look at those benchmark tests compared to what stress
and game(s) they were under, that's what I noticed. I found it astounding
that a few times the 285 and 280 beat the 5870. I am psyched about the 5870
as it seems for the money, Nvidia can put out something already
comparatively more powerful as how the 295 was to the 4870x2, but the newer
ATI comes closer to the challenge and still can be much cheaper.
>
> Well, it may be all academic pretty soon. According to this article,
> Nvidia's on the verge of cancelling its GTX260, 275, and 285, with the
> likelihood that the 295 will be gone pretty soon too.
>
> SemiAccurate :: Nvidia kills GTX285, GTX275, GTX260, abandons the mid and
> high end market
> "NVIDIA IS KILLING the GTX260, GTX275, and GTX285 with the GTX295 almost
> assured to follow as Nvidia (Nvidia: NVDA) abandons the high and mid range
> graphics card market. Due to a massive series of engineering failures,
> nearly all of the company's product line is financially under water, and
> mismanagement seems to be killing the company.
>
> Not even an hour after we laid out the financial woes surrounding the
> Nvidia GTX275 and GTX260, word reached us that they are dead. Normally,
> this would be an update to the original article, but this news has enough
> dire implications that it needs its own story. Nvidia is in desperate
> shape, whoop-ass has turned to ash, and the wagons can't be circled any
> tighter."
> http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kills-gtx285-gtx275-gtx260-abandons-mid-and-high-end-market/
>
If this is true and it seems credible enough, Nvidia just may be on the
ropes. The fact that ATI cards are (and have been) hitting GDDR5 and Nividia
hasn't ever mentioned their cards supporting this, so I wonder if they are
going to that rating on their next cards. I don't think, as ATI comes out
with these cards that are more than adequate to run even Crysis, that Nvidia
can keep pumping out these high end cards at these price levels and expect
people to pay for them while not offering anything more that ATI cards can
handle. I honestly do not see, in the near future, games requiring near
anything more than the need of what the 5870x2 will offer.
I am absolutely stoked at the thought of getting the 5870x2
YKhan
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > dual-GPU GTX295 or HD4870X2 in five or six tests respectively. You expect
> > the dual-GPUs to usually beat out single GPUs
>
> But you really need to look at those benchmark tests compared to what stress
> and game(s) they were under, that's what I noticed. I found it astounding
> that a few times the 285 and 280 beat the 5870. I am psyched about the 5870
> as it seems for the money, Nvidia can put out something already
> comparatively more powerful as how the 295 was to the 4870x2, but the newer
> ATI comes closer to the challenge and still can be much cheaper.
Can you point out where the 285 beat the 5870? I've seen very few
examples. In the first article, TechSpot, they ran just single cards,
and the only things beating the 5870 with any consistency were the two
dual-GPU solutions, 4870X2 or 295. In the Anandtech article, they ran
mixes of single and dual cards, and again the only time anything beat
the 5870 were either single-card/dual-GPU or dual-card/single-GPU.
> > Well, it may be all academic pretty soon. According to this article,
> > Nvidia's on the verge of cancelling its GTX260, 275, and 285, with the
> > likelihood that the 295 will be gone pretty soon too.
>
> If this is true and it seems credible enough, Nvidia just may be on the
> ropes. The fact that ATI cards are (and have been) hitting GDDR5 and Nividia
> hasn't ever mentioned their cards supporting this, so I wonder if they are
> going to that rating on their next cards. I don't think, as ATI comes out
> with these cards that are more than adequate to run even Crysis, that Nvidia
> can keep pumping out these high end cards at these price levels and expect
> people to pay for them while not offering anything more that ATI cards can
> handle. I honestly do not see, in the near future, games requiring near
> anything more than the need of what the 5870x2 will offer.
I don't think it's got anything to do with technology like GDDR5 vs.
GDDR4 per se, it's more to do with cost to build. The low- and mid-
price Nvidia cards cost more to build than they are getting back for
them. This likely has a lot to do with Nvidia's extremely large die
sizes. ATI has been concentrating on lowering costs for itself, and
hence for the customers. The way to lower costs is to reduce the size
of the GPU die.
Yousuf Khan
Tom
"YKhan" <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39d4c946-0328-4b60...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 5:22 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > Anyways, it's much more impressive that the single GPU HD5870 beat out
>> > the
>> > dual-GPU GTX295 or HD4870X2 in five or six tests respectively. You
>> > expect
>> > the dual-GPUs to usually beat out single GPUs
>>
>> But you really need to look at those benchmark tests compared to what
>> stress
>> and game(s) they were under, that's what I noticed. I found it astounding
>> that a few times the 285 and 280 beat the 5870. I am psyched about the
>> 5870
>> as it seems for the money, Nvidia can put out something already
>> comparatively more powerful as how the 295 was to the 4870x2, but the
>> newer
>> ATI comes closer to the challenge and still can be much cheaper.
>
> Can you point out where the 285 beat the 5870? I've seen very few
> examples. In the first article, TechSpot, they ran just single cards,
> and the only things beating the 5870 with any consistency were the two
> dual-GPU solutions, 4870X2 or 295. In the Anandtech article, they ran
> mixes of single and dual cards, and again the only time anything beat
> the 5870 were either single-card/dual-GPU or dual-card/single-GPU.
http://www.techspot.com/review/198-ati-radeon-hd-5870-review/page9.html
>
>> > Well, it may be all academic pretty soon. According to this article,
>> > Nvidia's on the verge of cancelling its GTX260, 275, and 285, with the
>> > likelihood that the 295 will be gone pretty soon too.
>>
>> If this is true and it seems credible enough, Nvidia just may be on the
>> ropes. The fact that ATI cards are (and have been) hitting GDDR5 and
>> Nividia
>> hasn't ever mentioned their cards supporting this, so I wonder if they
>> are
>> going to that rating on their next cards. I don't think, as ATI comes out
>> with these cards that are more than adequate to run even Crysis, that
>> Nvidia
>> can keep pumping out these high end cards at these price levels and
>> expect
>> people to pay for them while not offering anything more that ATI cards
>> can
>> handle. I honestly do not see, in the near future, games requiring near
>> anything more than the need of what the 5870x2 will offer.
>
> I don't think it's got anything to do with technology like GDDR5 vs.
> GDDR4 per se, it's more to do with cost to build. The low- and mid-
> price Nvidia cards cost more to build than they are getting back for
> them. This likely has a lot to do with Nvidia's extremely large die
> sizes. ATI has been concentrating on lowering costs for itself, and
> hence for the customers. The way to lower costs is to reduce the size
> of the GPU die.
I didn't say anything about the cost of GDDR5, only that ATI has (and has
had) it and Nvidia never has.
Yousuf Khan
>> examples. In the first article, TechSpot, they ran just single cards,
>> and the only things beating the 5870 with any consistency were the two
>> dual-GPU solutions, 4870X2 or 295. In the Anandtech article, they ran
>> mixes of single and dual cards, and again the only time anything beat
>> the 5870 were either single-card/dual-GPU or dual-card/single-GPU.
>
> http://www.techspot.com/review/198-ati-radeon-hd-5870-review/page9.html
Yeah, those were the only examples I saw of GTX285 beating HD5870 at
anything at all, i.e. Supreme Commander. And it didn't beat it by much,
like 1 or 2 frames. Supreme Commander is known as a CPU hog rather than
a GPU hog, that's why you don't see much difference between any of the
single-GPU cards, it's the processor that's bottlenecked.
Yousuf Khan