Requirements creep

[WildW]

I updated my graphics drivers and had another play with settings, and have Dawn of War 2 running reasonably okay now. . . just about reasonable at the weird not-quite-1920x1200 widescreen resolution it offers. (1768x992 . . .yeah, weird), and I'm enjoying the game more importantly. On the built in screen (1366x768) it runs fine.

The laptop thing is working well for me in general. I spend a lot of time at my girlfriend's place, including most weekends, and a lot of the time we just hang out and do nothing, which can include playing games. It's very nice to have one computer with all my games installed, not have to worry about syncing save games. When I'm home it plugs straight into a big monitor and it's like a desktop. . . a desktop that only runs last year's games, but I manage The SSD really helps.

It's also really nice in my lunch hour at work, I can pull out my laptop and continue my Dawn of War 2 campaign. Today was good.

 

[mwmorph]

You have to remember, the original DOW came out 5 years ago. Requirement creep will go up over 5 years.

Unfortunately laptop GPUS are still far behind the times.

A 9600M GT is just about as powerful as a desktop 9500GT (The Desktop 9600 is an altogether different card and chip).

This carries over all the way to the GTX 280M which is a G92(8800/9800GT GPU) core which is not even the same generation or near the level of performance of a true desktop GTX280. A 9800GT/GTX280M is 50-55% the performance of a single GTX280.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I think we should also note that graphics aren't the only thing driving performance, especially in RTS and RPG games. More advanced AI, better pathfinding, ballistics and hit detection and so on, all of these require more CPU time. In games with lots of units and lots of bullet calculations to make this difference is not trivial.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mike Gayner

The fact is that since the beginning of PC gaming, developers have taken advantage of constantly improving technologies. Unless you'd like to provide some examples of when this didn't occur?

I guess my point is that it's not as fast as people are saying it is. I'm not arguing that requirements don't go up, just that they aren't going up as fast as people say. Gaming rigs can go 4 years easy, and games like Crysis are an exception not the rule. A lot of people are still on single-cores, rocking 3 generation old video cards. That's 4-5 years old right there. About time to upgrade for most, but hardware moves a LOT faster than gaming requirements.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mike Gayner

The fact is that since the beginning of PC gaming, developers have taken advantage of constantly improving technologies. Unless you'd like to provide some examples of when this didn't occur?

I guess my point is that it's not as fast as people are saying it is. I'm not arguing that requirements don't go up, just that they aren't going up as fast as people say. Gaming rigs can go 4 years easy, and games like Crysis are an exception not the rule. A lot of people are still on single-cores, rocking 3 generation old video cards. That's 4-5 years old right there. About time to upgrade for most, but hardware moves a LOT faster than gaming requirements.

Bullshit, that's not what you said. And who here is saying the requirements are moving faster? Even the OP acknowledges it as requirement creep, not requirement sprint or requirement jump.

Dont make shit up because you got called on your BS.

 

[Maximilian]

Pfft i can game just fine on my 8600m GT lappy

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Pfft i can game just fine on my 8600m GT lappy

Yep. I'm using a 9650M GT with a C2D. It runs things fine at medium settings on 1280x800. When I connect it to main monitor at 1680x1050, things get a bit sluggish.

 

[FuryofFive]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I think we should also note that graphics aren't the only thing driving performance, especially in RTS and RPG games. More advanced AI, better pathfinding, ballistics and hit detection and so on, all of these require more CPU time. In games with lots of units and lots of bullet calculations to make this difference is not trivial.

you understand that instead of cpu...a physx card can be used. alot of graphics cards, even Mobile ones have this built in.

OP are you trying to play with the laptop on battery power?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Welcome to PC gaming. It's only been like this since the dawn of the computer. No serious gamer would use a lappy for their primary machine.

I would disagree. There are some damn powerful laptops out there, if you got the cash and are willing to have a laptop that would be accurately be described as luggable rather than portable. The 18in Sager 9850 boats SLI GF 280Ms and Core i7, the 17in 8760 boats i7 and single GF 280M. These are more powerful than most desktops out there. You lose a lot of upgrade ability, but if you got the cash, these are more than able to serve as a gaming machine.

Sure it's powerful, today. But you're effed in the A in two years when it's just another mid-to-low end machine that you can't really upgrade. On top of this there are the intrinsic flaws in gaming laptops, like the weight, heat, small fixed monitor, etc. You get none of the advantages of a laptop and none of the advantages of a desktop, all you get is raw, overpriced power.

Nothing stops you from hooking in an external monitor to a laptop. I have a Dell Precision laptop with a Quadro the equivalent of a 9800 series card and a 2.5Ghz CD2 with 4GB of ram and a 15" screen. Honestly the thing is great for gaming. The positive is I can bring it anywhere and game. And its weight is about 7 pounds. Upgrading for me is no big deal. I typically build new machines from the ground up anyways. Nothing gets reused.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Welcome to PC gaming. It's only been like this since the dawn of the computer. No serious gamer would use a lappy for their primary machine.

I would disagree. There are some damn powerful laptops out there, if you got the cash and are willing to have a laptop that would be accurately be described as luggable rather than portable. The 18in Sager 9850 boats SLI GF 280Ms and Core i7, the 17in 8760 boats i7 and single GF 280M. These are more powerful than most desktops out there. You lose a lot of upgrade ability, but if you got the cash, these are more than able to serve as a gaming machine.

Sure it's powerful, today. But you're effed in the A in two years when it's just another mid-to-low end machine that you can't really upgrade. On top of this there are the intrinsic flaws in gaming laptops, like the weight, heat, small fixed monitor, etc. You get none of the advantages of a laptop and none of the advantages of a desktop, all you get is raw, overpriced power.

Exactly. In January 2008 I upgraded my PC to a Q6600 (overclocked to 3.2 GHz), 4GB RAM, and a 2900 Pro video card. In a few months I plan to pop a 5850 in there. A little $270 (or hopefully less) purchase will make my PC able to play any game out there at 1920x1200 resolution with most of the graphics turned up. It only cost about $700 for the upgrade (and then I sold my old parts for $250) in January 2008. Even if I had spent $5000 on an uber gaming laptop, I'd be SOL now and have to completely replace the laptop to get it up to snuff for new games.

OP, I recommend you put your money into an upgradeable desktop and keep your current laptop to play older games or to play games at lower settings. That will keep you at the easier 1366x768 res on the laptop and put your desktop at 1920x1200. This is what I do. I take my wife's older laptop to LAN parties and just turn the graphics down and game at 1280x768 resolution. Would I like to have a 17-in laptop for LAN parties or for gaming during my lunch break? Absolutely! However, that's far too great of a compromise for me (in finances, performance, and upgradeability). I'll eventually upgrade my wife's laptop, but I won't drop $2k+ on a "gaming" laptop that can't compete with similarly priced desktops. In fact I'd get better performance, upgradeability, and better portability by spending $700-900 on a decent laptop and $1100-1300 on a desktop.

 

[WildW]

Originally posted by: FuryofFive
OP are you trying to play with the laptop on battery power?

My laptop is never on battery power. It's too big to fit on my lap so there's no real point. It really is just a luggable with built in screen.

Oh, and it was relatively cheap. I didn't pay thousands for it. In US$ it worked out at about $900 - a little over half of what I paid for my last Intel-begraphicked Toshiba lappy 5 years ago. The OCZ Vertex I dropped into it I had already. My old desktop (E5200 @ 3.5 GHz, 9800GTX+) I gave to my girlfriend.