When is Next Round of Cards from ATI/Nvidia Out?

[Muscles]

My system specs are in sig. I want to upgrade but it seems like a waste since everything I play runs perfectly fine at 100+ fps (Heroes of Newerth, StarCraft 2, Quake Live mostly). Maybe when the next round of cards come out, the performance gain will actually be worth the upgrade. What is next from nvidia and ATI and more importantly when?

 

[Idontcare]

...everything I play runs perfectly fine at 100+ fps (Heroes of Newerth, StarCraft 2, Quake Live mostly).

Sounds like the title of your thread ought to be "when is the next round of graphics-intensive Games coming out?"...

 

[Muscles]

Sounds like the title of your thread ought to be "when is the next round of graphics-intensive Games coming out?"...

Ha, yea. Releases have been pretty stale the last few years imo.

 

[happy medium]

Ha, yea. Releases have been pretty stale the last few years imo.

Crysis 2 is due out this holiday season.
That should need a fairly high end card to run properly.

Both Nvidia and ATI refreshes should be out by then.

Those cards should be 4 or 5x the performance of your 8800gt.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

There already are cards that are a HUGE upgrade from the 8800GT.

As far as games that wont run on an 8800GT? Lots, ranging from Battlefield BC2 to Crysis, at any sort of "modern" resolution.

But for the games you mentioned an 8800GT should run pretty decently.

I went from 8800GT SLI to 5870 and I dont regret it at all.

 

[kalrith]

There already are cards that are a HUGE upgrade from the 8800GT.

Yep. Even a measely 5770 1GB (DON'T buy the 512MB version!) has about twice the performance of an 8800GT. Finding a 5770 on sale and then selling the 8800GT would result in $100 or less net upgrade fee. If you want to go for more performance with fewer features, more power consumption, and more heat/noise, then a used 4890 can sometimes be had for $135 just like the 5770.

I've been struggling with this decision for a while now, and I keep thinking that he prices are going to drop, but they just keep going up. The 4870 1GB was $110 a few months ago, the 4890 was $130 or less over 6 months ago, and the 5770 1GB was $125 about 2 months ago.

 

[bryanW1995]

maybe you'll get lucky and the actual game release of starcraft 2 will be more intensive. of course, since they used the lowest common denominator theory to great effect with wow I suspect that blizzard isn't going to require anything stronger than an 8800gt for starcraft 2...

 

[taltamir]

Crysis 2 is due out this holiday season.
That should need a fairly high end card to run properly.

Both Nvidia and ATI refreshes should be out by then.

Those cards should be 4 or 5x the performance of your 8800gt.

I agree with him that games have been stale last few years. they have their formula and they don't want to deviate from it. The only games that do are indie games, which don't have the budget to make graphically intensive games... many don't even require a GPU!

AFAIK people don't actually play crysis, they just use it to benchmark.

 

[LoneNinja]

I still game just fine on a 4670, lol

I believe our problem is that most games are designed to run on the xbox 360/ps3, and our computers have been able to match that graphically for a few years now. Not only that but it takes more time to create higher end better looking visuals, which creates higher cost to produce the game. I still don't get why people bother buying the top end video cards just because 1 or 2 games demand the performance while most games run fine on a mainstream card.

 

[biostud]

you should be happy that you don't need to spend money on hardware

 

[toyota]

I still game just fine on a 4670, lol

I believe our problem is that most games are designed to run on the xbox 360/ps3, and our computers have been able to match that graphically for a few years now. Not only that but it takes more time to create higher end better looking visuals, which creates higher cost to produce the game. I still don't get why people bother buying the top end video cards just because 1 or 2 games demand the performance while most games run fine on a mainstream card.

only 1 or 2 games are demanding? yeah right. you are trying way to hard to defend your wimpy little video card. most people on here are at 1920 which would make your 4670 crap itself in many newer games with decent settings. I owned a 4670 for a few months and found it to be an okay card at best because it would struggle with higher settings even at just 1280 in some games. that was a year and a half ago so there would be even more titles now where the 4670 would not be sufficient. if you are happy then fine but if you cant figure out why most people would not be then you are in the wrong place.

 

[Dribble]

The question is more "when is the next die shrink occurring" from 40nm to say 28nm?
While they can do a bit of tweaking it's really going to take a die shrink before we can expect to see any large leaps in performance.

 

[Scali]

AFAIK people don't actually play crysis, they just use it to benchmark.

Some of us do
I've played the heck out of the original Far Cry, and then Crysis and Crysis Warhead.
I don't play games often these days, but when I do, most of the time it's Crysis or Crysis Warhead.
There are many ways to solve each level, so you replay it over and over again.

 

[Sylvanas]

There will probably be something out by the end of the year, either SI or a minor refresh from AMD/NV. Not really too excited till next gen comes around, playing Metro 2033, Stalker: COP, Napoleon: TW, at 30 fps maxed is not worth it IMO, I'd rather wait and play them in all their glory.

 

[Muscles]

maybe you'll get lucky and the actual game release of starcraft 2 will be more intensive. of course, since they used the lowest common denominator theory to great effect with wow I suspect that blizzard isn't going to require anything stronger than an 8800gt for starcraft 2...

I've had the StarCraft 2 beta since launch and it runs on high settings @ 100 fps no problem. I play on a 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor as well.

I agree with him that games have been stale last few years. they have their formula and they don't want to deviate from it. The only games that do are indie games, which don't have the budget to make graphically intensive games... many don't even require a GPU!

AFAIK people don't actually play crysis, they just use it to benchmark.

Yea I agree. Crysis is a neat game to look at and use for benchmarks but that's it. I've always been a hardcore, competitive gamer who thrives on online multiplayer. An area that game doesn't deliver.

you should be happy that you don't need to spend money on hardware

I used to love upgrading once a year I'm sad to see that era behind me. I'll just wait until the 4th quarter refresh and upgrade just for the hell of it.

 

[at80eighty]

I love playing crysis - the shit that came out of crymod alone made it fun to replay over & over again

 

[Genx87]

I think AMD will probably be set to release their next iteration in the oct-nov time range. No idea on nvidia. One would assume they could come out with a refined fermi on the 40nm process to compete with AMDs next chip until the next process shrink. But nobody really knows. I play WoW and with Summer coming up. I decided agaisnt upgrading my machine. It runs fine for the most part. Except in Dalaran. But I dont think even a quad 5970 can run that smooth

 

[yh125d]

I think AMD will probably be set to release their next iteration in the oct-nov time range. No idea on nvidia. One would assume they could come out with a refined fermi on the 40nm process to compete with AMDs next chip until the next process shrink. But nobody really knows. I play WoW and with Summer coming up. I decided agaisnt upgrading my machine. It runs fine for the most part. Except in Dalaran. But I dont think even a quad 5970 can run that smooth

Upgrade to quad if you havent. my old e7200 @ 3.5 was very choppy with everything min, but buttery smooth with my i5 750 at 3.7 and everything maxed

 

[digitaldurandal]

I've had the StarCraft 2 beta since launch and it runs on high settings @ 100 fps no problem. I play on a 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor as well.

Really? How did you come up with this figure?

I don't get 100 fps and my system is much stronger than yours and at the same resolution.

Are you sure you are actually running at the resolution native to your monitor?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blizzard-entertainment-starcraft-ii-benchmark,2611-6.html

Both of these benchmarks have stronger cpus and gpus, some of them at less intensive resolutions and settings getting less than 60 fps.

 

[Muscles]

Really? How did you come up with this figure?

I don't get 100 fps and my system is much stronger than yours and at the same resolution.

Are you sure you are actually running at the resolution native to your monitor?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blizzard-entertainment-starcraft-ii-benchmark,2611-6.html

Both of these benchmarks have stronger cpus and gpus, some of them at less intensive resolutions and settings getting less than 60 fps.

I don't have AA or AF on and a few other settings like dynamic lights. But all the basic settings are toggled high like models etc.. Furthermore, those sites have a bunch of carriers and units on the screen to stress it. I obviously didn't go to great length to test my system like that. I just know my system totally handles SC2 even with big 2v2 battles.

Also, a quote taken from the first article:

"According to the Windows 7 Task Manager the Starcraft 2 Beta utilizes only two cores and our benchmarks confirm this: The Intel quad-core Q6600 is only slightly faster than its dual-core sibling, the E6600. But Starcarft 2 reacts very well to additional cache - especially the E8400 and the two Lynnfield CPUs benefit from that while it is a disadvantage for the Athlon II X2 250"

Quad core isn't utilized in SC2 so big systems aren't going to obliterate my E8400 @ 3.5ghz.

 

[RussianSensation]

Maybe when the next round of next generation DX11 games come out, the performance gain will actually be worth the upgrade.

Fixed. It's not next generation of videocards that make upgrades worthwhile, but next generations of games with better graphics that makes us want to upgrade I am not aware of any intensive games coming out other than the recent Splinter Cell: conviction, and Medal of Honor on Oct. 12th, or Crysis 2 late in the year.

Nothing exciting from either camp is slated until the Fall (Sept/Oct) at the earliest unless one of the companies surprises us. So if your games run perfectly fine, save your $.

 

[MagickMan]

That's right. People bitch about GPU stagnation, but it's not like there's been a damned thing to come out that's pushing the tech (in terms of gaming).

 

[digitaldurandal]

I don't have AA or AF on and a few other settings like dynamic lights. But all the basic settings are toggled high like models etc.. Furthermore, those sites have a bunch of carriers and units on the screen to stress it. I obviously didn't go to great length to test my system like that. I just know my system totally handles SC2 even with big 2v2 battles.

Also, a quote taken from the first article:

"According to the Windows 7 Task Manager the Starcraft 2 Beta utilizes only two cores and our benchmarks confirm this: The Intel quad-core Q6600 is only slightly faster than its dual-core sibling, the E6600. But Starcarft 2 reacts very well to additional cache - especially the E8400 and the two Lynnfield CPUs benefit from that while it is a disadvantage for the Athlon II X2 250"

Quad core isn't utilized in SC2 so big systems aren't going to obliterate my E8400 @ 3.5ghz.

The benchmark I posted was no aa or af, and still is half of your fps.

If you are happy with the performance you receive then what is the motivation to upgrade.

I do think games and technology has been released that push today's graphics cards. BFBC2 will push that 8800 to its limit, and for decent constant fps you will need to turn down settings or upgrade.

However generally speaking it seems like this isn't the game type you are playing - which is good for you, it means you can skip a generation or two.

I personally need to upgrade because of eyefinity on a single gpu core. I do not like the way multigpu plays out currently especially with ATi. Currently playing at 5760x1200 means that to keep 60+ fps I cannot use AA in most titles.

 

[digitaldurandal]

That's right. People bitch about GPU stagnation, but it's not like there's been a damned thing to come out that's pushing the tech (in terms of gaming).

BFBC2 @ highest settings, Dirt 2 (and anything that uses tesselation), Metro2033.

 

[MagickMan]

Turn off tesselation and you can easily play those with anything made in the last 2 years. It's not like it's needed. I'm talking about "must have" tech, not just a little bling.