Want to play F.E.A.R.?

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: n yusef
/rant
I'm not the only one who is suspicious about you, Rollo. Buying an SLI set is one thing, but when a guy buys four, you start to think he's either an Bill Gates, or an idiot who thinks he's Bill Gates. Let's add:
3*5800U=$1200 (MSRPs)
2*6600GT=$400
2*6800NU=$600
2*6800GT=$800
+2*7800GTX=$1200
------------------------
$4200

Take of $700 for cheaper than MSRPs
=$3500

I've come to one of three conclusions:
1) You're a millionaire (unlikely)
2) You're lying (possible)
3) You get the cards for free/cheap from nVidia (most likely, since you have REFERENCE cards, which are hard to get retail)

One thing that I'm skeptical on, is that you have these SLI sets that are inferior to your (then best) 6800GTs, but you kept them anyway. Do you think $1000 is a good investment if all you do is benchmark for FREE (supposedly) on a message board?

How do you get all of these video cards that you have, and if you say that you pay full price for them, how much exactly do you make, and what do you do for a living (work at nVidia as the Anandtech Video troll?)

I've posted before saying that I can spend all of my money on video cards too, but I have another hobby, photography, which has me spending money on lenses, and now (I used to be a film guy, but I got a nice DSLR recently), an upgrade to my computer for Photoshop (when X2 prices come down, I plan on getting a 4400+ and another GB of RAM).

While this is just as (more, even, depending on what lenses you buy) expensive initially than your video card obsession, it's 1,000,000x more futureproof. I have some lenses that my dad used before I was born (1980), and they still work with my camera (albeit, with some feature missing--any lenses from the early 90s on are pretty much still good though). I'm sure when the 7800U comes out, you'll get an SLI set of those, and maybe 7800GTs and 7800NUs too.

I can't be the only one here who has started to see your blatant fanboyism to nVidia, and SLI in particular. It's come to a point where you post a thread about a game where you make NO snese. We all know that average FPS mean nothing, and minimums determine playability. For two 7800GTXs, at 1280*1024 4xAA/8xAF no soft shadows, it goes below 40FPS 36% of the time. This is not playable, and it isn't even 1600*1200. For $1200, I should be able to do that, shouldn't I? Since no otehr game out is even half as slow as this, and others look better, this shows how this game is so inefficiently coded, and will not sell well at all. For every gamer that has one 7800GTX, at lest 5,000 more don't. Any dimwitted developer know you have to code for the majority of consumers, not the five hundred people with $1200 video set ups.
/rant

LOL
What a crock.

Scenario Four:
My wife and I both earn enough to pay the mortgage/bills, so we have money left over to spend on hobbies.
:roll:

People make things out to be a lot more dramatic than they really are.

BTW- your "logic" is whack also.
I paid $350 for my first 5800NU. Sold it for $225. - net loss $125..
I paid $200 for my 5800OTES, DOA, was refunded $100 - net loss $100
I traded my 9800Pro for the 5800U, sold it for $150.- net loss $50 as I could have got $200 for the 9800Pro.
I paid $500 for 6800NU SLI, sold it for $450, net loss $50..
I paid $450 for my X800XTPE, sold it for $425, net loss $25..

Get the picture? $350 loss on SIX video cards? Not the $1000s you portray?

Your "reasoning" is pretty bad, don't you think?

Ha ! Dosn't you know how easy it is to see that you are lying ? You are pathetic trying to rationalize your wasteful splurging, and it's not really surprising that you will lie about it. For example, $500 for 2x6800NU ? maybe that's the price now, but not a few months ago it was over $350 each, so unless you're getting a special discount there is no way it cost you $250 each. And your figures for selling the cards are doubtful as well.

But of course whenever you get owned on the issue of needlessly spending or getting very little in return on your investment - you jump to the "hobby" argument. That is fine, but if that's true, why do you even try to rationalize the expenses and claim you are getting good value for your money ? Fact is the value (as in graphics performance per dollar) you are getting is astonishigly low and no smart consumer would ever be so foolish to spend like you. So keep throwing money on your hobby, but don't try to preach to others that what you are doing is normal.

 

[cbehnken]

The 6800NUs were refurbs. I got one for $250 also. It was a POS compared to my x800XL so I returned it.

 

[zendari]

Rollo, can you get us all marketing jobs at Nvidia?

 

[Regs]

FEAR looks like a good a game. I don't know what you guys are complaining about : /

 

[imported_Noob]

Originally posted by: Regs
FEAR looks like a good a game. I don't know what you guys are complaining about : /

Well it's a performance hog. And it should come as no suprise to anybody who has seen real gameplay footage (not implying you or anybody else). I probably won't buy it because I don't want to have to play at 8x6. When I build a new computer then I will buy it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Regs
FEAR looks like a good a game. I don't know what you guys are complaining about : /

it may be a "good a game" or not. That is NOT the point.

FEAR is NOT released. We only have a BETA benchmark.

FEAR may NEVER get released

FEAR may well be better optimized when/if it is released.

This thread is a pointless and purposefully started flamefest. i guess the OP didn't get his $1200 worth of attention . . .
:roll:

. . . ok, here goes . . .

congratulations on your new baby, rollo . . . i hope it gives you many weeks of enjoyment until your next one . . .

. . . and . . . please . . . don't start anymore of these threads . . .

your GTXes are really nice cards . . . . really
you have an awesome gaming rig . . .

 

[DidlySquat]

It looks like Rollo has been escalating his hardware buying binge lately and throwing all money considerations into the wind. That is of course his right to do what he wants with his own money, but trying to rationalize it here while putting down everything and everone else is what is not accptable, not to mention silly and just factually wrong.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Ha ! Dosn't you know how easy it is to see that you are lying ? You are pathetic trying to rationalize your wasteful splurging, and it's not really surprising that you will lie about it. For example, $500 for 2x6800NU ? maybe that's the price now, but not a few months ago it was over $350 each, so unless you're getting a special discount there is no way it cost you $250 each. And your figures for selling the cards are doubtful as well.

But of course whenever you get owned on the issue of needlessly spending or getting very little in return on your investment - you jump to the "hobby" argument. That is fine, but if that's true, why do you even try to rationalize the expenses and claim you are getting good value for your money ? Fact is the value (as in graphics performance per dollar) you are getting is astonishigly low and no smart consumer would ever be so foolish to spend like you. So keep throwing money on your hobby, but don't try to preach to others that what you are doing is normal.

I'm thinking you are someone who's been banned and is returning to troll some more.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: X
I realize this is off topic, but I'm curious where you sell your cards, Rollo. eBay, here at AT, elsewhere? I've never sold my old cards in the past and should probably consider it.

Here, Ebay, work, friends.People are usually glad I do, my prices often are below what you can easily find.

 

[nRollo]

Some of you take this stuff way too seriously.

I posted this because that article is NEWS about our hobby. It's news the same as Shader Day was, the same as first Far Cry benches were, the same as first Doom3 benches were.

Our HOBBY is computer Gaming, this is a big game and the first benches I've seen of it.

Newsflash: As the benches have a good cross sample of cards in them, this is the kind of thing you can really expect to see in the video forum? :roll:

It's also ironic news, because this is a GITG title that is basically unplayable at anything close to modern settings on an ATI card. That is FUNNY, because it's like Mopar seat covers only fitting Ford cars.

I did indeed say the game is one reason to buy a 7800. Why? Maybe because it's the only card that played it reasonably? Go figure.

This thread is no different than 100 others on this board, and the people who are using it as an excuse to flame me maybe should have spent the time studying something marketable.
Then perhaps you won't have to wring your hands and fret about the "horrible high cost of computer gaming" and "why do cards cost so much????". You'd just buy them and quit whining.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Some of you take this stuff way too seriously.

I posted this because that article is NEWS about our hobby. It's news the same as Shader Day was, the same as first Far Cry benches were, the same as first Doom3 benches were.

Our HOBBY is computer Gaming, this is a big game and the first benches I've seen of it.

Newsflash: As the benches have a good cross sample of cards in them, this is the kind of thing you can really expect to see in the video forum? :roll:

It's also ironic news, because this is a GITG title that is basically unplayable at anything close to modern settings on an ATI card. That is FUNNY, because it's like Mopar seat covers only fitting Ford cars.

I did indeed say the game is one reason to buy a 7800. Why? Maybe because it's the only card that played it reasonably? Go figure.

This thread is no different than 100 others on this board, and the people who are using it as an excuse to flame me maybe should have spent the time studying something marketable.
Then perhaps you won't have to wring your hands and fret about the "horrible high cost of computer gaming" and "why do cards cost so much????". You'd just buy them and quit whining.

or not buy them for a silly reason: i.e a BETA benchmark for an unreleased game that may NEVER see the light of day. it may NEVER be playable on ANY videocard - ever.

so it is a BAD reason to buy a 7800gtx . . . there are other much better reasons.

And you should expect flames when you post flamebait. go figure

 

[HDTVMan]

640x480 and 800x600 are output resolutions as well for playing games.

Has every benchmarking place forgotten this?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan
640x480 and 800x600 are output resolutions as well for playing games.

Has every benchmarking place forgotten this?

LOL- it is tragic.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: xtknight
Nah...BF2 is more memory dependent. Acanthus had a thread on this... I'm fine with my "little" 6800NU and "little" 1280x1024 LCD.

The thing is, it's both. The benchmarks pretty clearly show BF2 and FEAR love the 7800, and have compromises in store for those who don't have one.
(unless they have SLI)

That's what this thread is about, not my W-2.

Thing is I'm perfectly happy with performance after the game gets through its precaching and swapping phase (memory not video card) which isn't horrible in and of it self (like 2 mins.) Maybe it's just me.

Personally I'd wait for R520 (should be by the end of year or so) before I decide what to lay $600 on. What if R520 is twice as fast (I know probably not, but what if?)

Running F.E.A.R. 1024x768x32 4xAA 8xAF and soft shadows, at 41 FPS is absolutely dismal for the kind of money I had lain on the 7800GTX. If I had the promise of getting 75 (refresh rate) min. FPS in every game released from now on, it might be worth $1200. For 59 FPS (SLI) at the aforementioned settings it is an absolute disappointment. Sure, the 6800GT only gets 28 FPS. But when one is dismal and one is fair, that doesn't justify that sort of spending, at least in my opinion. At least give me my monitor's refresh rate worth of FPS and I'll be happy. Anything lower than that and its not worth more than $300. I don't care if one gets 28 and the other gets 59. To me they both are less than satisfactory. Granted, most people think 60 FPS is playable. If I paid $300 for a card and it did 60 FPS I wouldn't mind a whole lot. Am I picky for wanting refresh-rate FPS? Besides, what if you turn VSync on in that sucker (if you didn't want tearing for some reason)? Wouldn't it drop by half FPS because it's already below refresh rate? Now the figures are 14 FPS and 29.5 FPS. I don't have to say any more...

 

[PrayForDeath]

What most of you guys are missing is that the game is only unplayable at "highest" settings, but that doesn't mean it won't work on X800/6800 or slower cards cards just fine (on lower settings),and it's still BETA as well. Did you forget that Everquest II struggles with a 6800U SLI rig at highest settings? Nobody seems to be bothered by that, and when new cards come out the game will look better which isn't bad at all; the same thing goes for FEAR.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: xtknight
Nah...BF2 is more memory dependent. Acanthus had a thread on this... I'm fine with my "little" 6800NU and "little" 1280x1024 LCD.

The thing is, it's both. The benchmarks pretty clearly show BF2 and FEAR love the 7800, and have compromises in store for those who don't have one.
(unless they have SLI)

That's what this thread is about, not my W-2.

Thing is I'm perfectly happy with performance after the game gets through its precaching and swapping phase (memory not video card) which isn't horrible in and of it self (like 2 mins.) Maybe it's just me.

Personally I'd wait for R520 (should be by the end of year or so) before I decide what to lay $600 on. What if R520 is twice as fast (I know probably not, but what if?)

The problem I have with the waitring game is you can spend your whole life waiting. The video card industry moves pretty fast, it's a given that no matter what you buy, something faster will be along soon.

I personally don't trust ATI to bring product to bring a product to market anytime soon, but I don't really care if they do. When it gets here, I'll buy it, unlike most of the people who call me a NVidia employee. :roll:

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The problem I have with the waitring game is you can spend your whole life waiting. The video card industry moves pretty fast, it's a given that no matter what you buy, something faster will be along soon.

I personally don't trust ATI to bring product to bring a product to market anytime soon, but I don't really care if they do. When it gets here, I'll buy it, unlike most of the people who call me a NVidia employee. :roll:

Yeah, I realize that. Though has there ever been a time when NVIDIA and ATI were completely out of sync in regards to "current generation"? I haven't been around forever but I know the last generation was pretty close. Then again there wasn't a whole lot of performance difference either. The way I'd solve that is to wait for a graphics card that does all settings I'd possibly want. For this game, I haven't seen it yet.

I pressed reply too quick so here's the rest of my post which is probably more convincing:


Running F.E.A.R. 1024x768x32 4xAA 8xAF and soft shadows, at 41 FPS is absolutely dismal for the kind of money I had lain on the 7800GTX. If I had the promise of getting 75 (refresh rate) min. FPS in every game released from now on, it might be worth $1200. For 59 FPS (SLI) at the aforementioned settings it is an absolute disappointment. Sure, the 6800GT only gets 28 FPS. But when one is dismal and one is fair, that doesn't justify that sort of spending, at least in my opinion. At least give me my monitor's refresh rate worth of FPS and I'll be happy. Anything lower than that and its not worth more than $300. I don't care if one gets 28 and the other gets 59. To me they both are less than satisfactory. Granted, most people think 60 FPS is playable. If I paid $300 for a card and it did 60 FPS I wouldn't mind a whole lot. Am I picky for wanting refresh-rate FPS? Besides, what if you turn VSync on in that sucker (if you didn't want tearing for some reason)? Wouldn't it drop by half FPS because it's already below refresh rate? Now the figures are 14 FPS and 29.5 FPS. I don't have to say any more...

That being said, flaming people for spending a few thousand on graphics cards is stupid. Look at the people who get Porsches/whatever...at least there's no "speed limits" in the gaming industry. That being said, this card setup definitely isn't for everyone.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
It looks like Rollo has been escalating his hardware buying binge lately and throwing all money considerations into the wind. That is of course his right to do what he wants with his own money, but trying to rationalize it here while putting down everything and everone else is what is not accptable, not to mention silly and just factually wrong.

Pfft. Who needs to "rationalize" buying cool computer hardware? A very smart guy I work with told me two things that ring very true to me:
A. If you buy the best of whatever it is you're buying, you never want anything else. (i.e. you don't have buyers remorse wishing you had spent a few more bucks)
B. Your equipment should never hold you back.

Two 7800GTXs are indeed $1200 right now- they're new hardware and the best there is. However, they'll last you longer than any other vid cards, give you more enjoyment than any other vid cards.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Two 7800GTXs are indeed $1200 right now- they're new hardware and the best there is. However, they'll last you longer than any other vid cards, give you more enjoyment than any other vid cards.

Finally . . . the real reason.
[a valid one]

not a beta bench of some unoptimized unreleased game
:roll:

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
It looks like Rollo has been escalating his hardware buying binge lately and throwing all money considerations into the wind. That is of course his right to do what he wants with his own money, but trying to rationalize it here while putting down everything and everone else is what is not accptable, not to mention silly and just factually wrong.

Pfft. Who needs to "rationalize" buying cool computer hardware? A very smart guy I work with told me two things that ring very true to me:
A. If you buy the best of whatever it is you're buying, you never want anything else. (i.e. you don't have buyers remorse wishing you had spent a few more bucks)
B. Your equipment should never hold you back.

Two 7800GTXs are indeed $1200 right now- they're new hardware and the best there is. However, they'll last you longer than any other vid cards, give you more enjoyment than any other vid cards.

I don't think people have a problem with it being your hobby. I'll probably buy a 7800 even though I don't need it too...it certainly won't be the GTX though. Maybe even the 7600 series. I'd buy it for transparent AA.

But claiming that it's the panacea for slow games is wrong. Also I don't think it's fair to base scores off beta software. Sure, the performance delta (should) be the same if the optimizations benefit everything, but then there'd be no reason to buy a 7800 when you already get 75 FPS with an X850 XT PE (if it so happens). Hey, it's possible. Maybe someone at the office figured out they only had to use half of the shaders they did to get the same effects. Or, something in a practically universal shader was heavily optimized. Programmers make mistakes. Plenty. Most likely this was one of them.

By the way, with the 7800s can you turn on AA and HDR at the same time? If for some reason you want to convince people it's worth the upgrade, features would be a better thing to touch on, seeing as every video card across the board (no pun intended) still offers dismal performance (at that 1024 setting in my previous post) in a few shocking circumstances.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
It looks like Rollo has been escalating his hardware buying binge lately and throwing all money considerations into the wind. That is of course his right to do what he wants with his own money, but trying to rationalize it here while putting down everything and everone else is what is not accptable, not to mention silly and just factually wrong.

Pfft. Who needs to "rationalize" buying cool computer hardware? A very smart guy I work with told me two things that ring very true to me:
A. If you buy the best of whatever it is you're buying, you never want anything else. (i.e. you don't have buyers remorse wishing you had spent a few more bucks)
B. Your equipment should never hold you back.

Two 7800GTXs are indeed $1200 right now- they're new hardware and the best there is. However, they'll last you longer than any other vid cards, give you more enjoyment than any other vid cards.

What happens if you dont like the cards, youve lost money however small.


It might not or might last you longer. Think about it, if ppl buy, lets say the 6600GT, they are gonna be playing games at a reasonable setting right. 10x7 and medium settings. You on the other had are gonna be playing it at 16x12 at ultra settings.

Next gen comes out it can play the same game at even higher res, same ultra settings, much better performance. Then when a quality game comes out, your settings will go lower just as much as the other guys will while the next gen stays at the same settings.

But hey again as you know rollo, i said before, if i had your money id be buying 2 7800GTX and then when the R520 comes out ill buy 2 of those if they are any better. Just because

 

[DidlySquat]

If you buy the best you won't have buyers remorse ? not true, I bought an expensive car and after a couple of years I relaized it wasn't worth it at all, and next time will buy a car that costs about half but gives me at least 80% the performance and features. Not to mention cheaper to maintain. So you may feel great about having the best for a very short time, but over a long period of time you will be getting a poor return on investment. I still think that people who spend $300 on a video card and upgrade only every 2 years (as opposed to $1200 every year) are getting very very good gaming performance most of the time at a fraction of your cost.

 

[Emultra]

4xAA makes it very bad for my 6600GT in DooM III, but in Battlefield 2 it's completely OK.

 

[BFG10K]

640x480 and 800x600 are output resolutions as well for playing games.

At that resolution you don't even need a GPU.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: Tab
I am seeing a lot of strange reaction to F.E.A.R. Yes, it's obiviously extremely GPU intensive that doesn't mean it's a bad game. If you've watched any of the videos of the game or played the BETA can can clearly tell this game is made for those who have very high end systems. Don't judge the game just yet, it looks impressive to me.

While the game isn't complete and they didn't show us any of the in-game settings they used. I am without a doubt disapointed with the 7800 GTX's performence numbers. I should be getting a lot more out a $500 video card.

The game looks very impressive both in graphics and (based on previews) gameplay, however something that will only run with playable framerates on systems with a $600+ video is unacceptable no matter how good the game is. Of course the game is made for highend systems but that doesn't mean it should run like crap on $300 systems.

Agreed, either something is proper coded with the game or it's extremely intensive.

It's sad that I am going to need something beyond a single $600 video card to play fear at my native resolution of 1680x1050.