Who/What do YOU blame for this extreme lull for enthusiasts?

[seitur]

There were huge gains performance wise.

Problem are way too high prices.

That is why perveived performance increase is low and it is perfectly logical.

@Lonbjerg

Why you blame consumers? Obviously people wanted smaller powerconsumption, better performance WITHOUT price increases. Kinda obvious.

I dobt many consumers meant they want better perf / wat and increased prices. ANYTHING you read - whenever someone want just increased performance, or performance / watt, performance / noise level, performance / heat. etc always assume they mean without price increase and that is perfectly normal. If you will make a pool asking people that if they want smaller consumption, quieter cards, etc but on a condition it will mean much higher prices - then you will have very diffrent results compared to if you make similar pool but without price increase.

 

[StrangerGuy]

If I know I will have [inferior] console ports shoved down my right you can sure as hell bet that I will stick to $150 5850/GTX 460 for a long time.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[Lonbjerg]

Because consumers are the reason.
Notice that an enthusiast is a consumer, but very few consumers are enthusiasts.

All I care for is performance...so I have a right to be sad about the stagnation of performance.
What I don't understand is why people try to blame the companies for thier own faults?

You wanted perf/watt...now you GOT IT!

But stop blaming the Companies, when peopel are to blame.
If enought people watned performance and didn't give 5 cents for perf/watt....there wouldn't be this kind of performance stagnation.

Look in to mirror...if you ever posted agasint a product that perfomed WELL....but has less tham mobile perf/watt...you ar to blame.

You cannot have you cake and eat it rooo...it's that simple.

All of you is whom is to be blamed.

 

[Lonbjerg]

If I know I will have [inferior] console ports shoved down my right you can sure as hell bet that I will stick to $150 5850/GTX 460 for a long time.

I know quite a few games chokes on a GTX460, unless you use consolish graphics settings(aka reduce settings, because you lack the perfoamcne in you system)...so I fail to see the difference?

 

[StrangerGuy]

I know quite a few games chokes on a GTX460, unless you use consolish graphics settings(aka reduce settings, because you lack the perfoamcne in you system)...so I fail to see the difference?

So what? Small to negligible difference in IQ, big increase in FPS like GW2 high to medium shader. Big f-ing deal.

 

[seitur]

Performance have not stagnated. It increased alot. Thing is prices did too. So it seems you cared about performance / dollar.

If you cared only about performance only like you have stated, then you would be very pleased with current offerings.

 

[bystander36]

Because consumers are the reason.
Notice that an enthusiast is a consumer, but very few consumers are enthusiasts.

All I care for is performance...so I have a right to be sad about the stagnation of performance.
What I don't understand is why people try to blame the companies for thier own faults?

You wanted perf/watt...now you GOT IT!

But stop blaming the Companies, when peopel are to blame.
If enought people watned performance and didn't give 5 cents for perf/watt....there wouldn't be this kind of performance stagnation.

Look in to mirror...if you ever posted agasint a product that perfomed WELL....but has less tham mobile perf/watt...you ar to blame.

You cannot have you cake and eat it rooo...it's that simple.

All of you is whom is to be blamed.

Perf/watt has several side effects which are good. Perf/watt means less heat, less noise and less cost/performance. These advances also lead to higher performance in general, because wattage and heat put limits onto how big they can go. While some enthusiasts may not care about anything but performance, you may actually make more people happy trying to keep the perf/watt high.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So what? Small to negligible difference in IQ, big increase in FPS like GW2 high to medium shader. Big f-ing deal.

Small I.Q difference on medium hardware, compared to consoles yes...try going high end.

Unless you now claim there is "Small to negligible difference" between your GTX460 and my Titan?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Perf/watt has several side effects which are good. Perf/watt means less heat, less noise and less cost/performance. These advances also lead to higher performance in general, because wattage and heat put limits onto how big they can go. While some enthusiasts may not care about anything but performance, you may actually make more people happy trying to keep the perf/watt high.

Then you agree...it's not the companies...but the consumers that are to blame? ^^

That missing option (consumers) are what makes this poll utter useless

 

[StrangerGuy]

Small I.Q difference on medium hardware, compared to consoles yes...try going high end.

Unless you now claim there is "Small to negligible difference" between your GTX460 and my Titan?

Oh you really think PC gaming masses give a crap about bleeding edge IQ? Sure you got Titan a but sorry ain't impressed with the elitism.

 

[Spjut]

Lots of games are still made primarily for the 360/PS3

PC versions target a much bigger userbase if the requirements are kept relatively low

Uptake of newer DirectX versions are hindered by being locked to the latest Windows versions

 

[StrangerGuy]

Lots of games are still made primarily for the 360/PS3

PC versions target a much bigger userbase if the requirements are kept relatively low

Uptake of newer DirectX versions are hindered by being locked to the latest Windows versions

Some people are just butthurt over how their SLI Titans generates an extra 1 billion FPS in Dota2/LoL/TF2/CoD over common GPUs in M A X I M U M - Q U A L I T Y ! and wonder why the market isn't going in his perceived direction.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Oh you really think PC gaming masses give a crap about bleeding edge IQ? Sure you got Titan a but sorry ain't impressed with the elitism.

Then let the masses have their crappy BF4 console shooter on a rails...I will enjoy ARMA then...Multi-core, DX11, PhysX..and a multiplayer that is lightyears ahead of any other mil-games.

I can undderstand gmes like this scares most kids...that is why we have BF and Peggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLH7ctfTeBA

If that cares of people...GOOD!

I for one cannot get enouhg of games like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BguGRjPqCtM&feature=share&list=TLpjEM4PNREAM

And ARMAIII is telling current hardware: You need more POWAH!!! (not perf/watt)

 

[StrangerGuy]

Then let the masses have their crappy BF4 console shooter on a rails...I will enjoy ARMA then...Multi-core, DX11, PhysX..and a multiplayer that is lightyears ahead of any other mil-games.

I can undderstand gmes like this scares most kids...that is why we have BF and Peggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLH7ctfTeBA

If that cares of people...GOOD!

I for one cannot get enouhg of games like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BguGRjPqCtM&feature=share&list=TLpjEM4PNREAM

And ARMAIII is telling current hardware: You need more POWAH!!! (not perf/watt)

And the market is telling: That ain't worth the investment on software or hardware on PCs.

 

[Mr Expert]

Small I.Q difference on medium hardware, compared to consoles yes...try going high end.

Unless you now claim there is "Small to negligible difference" between your GTX460 and my Titan?

The only thing that Ultra high end cards can do better than lower teir cards is AA otherwise they look the exact same. nvidia has lesser IQ than AMD. AMD makes the colors pop more and the black levels and contrast ratios are more quality.

 

[Jaydip]

The only thing that Ultra high end cards can do better than lower teir cards is AA otherwise they look the exact same. nvidia has lesser IQ than AMD. AMD makes the colors pop more and the black levels and contrast ratios are more quality.

Please man keep your crappy knowledge to yourself.

 

[bystander36]

Then you agree...it's not the companies...but the consumers that are to blame? ^^

That missing option (consumers) are what makes this poll utter useless

Keep in mind, that high perf/watt is also the only way to get higher performance in the future.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The only thing that Ultra high end cards can do better than lower teir cards is AA otherwise they look the exact same. nvidia has lesser IQ than AMD. AMD makes the colors pop more and the black levels and contrast ratios are more quality.

There are many games where you can just reduce a key setting brings massive boosts to real FPS while taking a indescrinable IQ hit, for example shadows in Sleeping Dogs. Besides, I'm very confident most people can't see a difference like when Bioshock Infinite stealth toggles between high and very high while playing the game as it is instead of going pixel hunting with a magnifying glass on a still frame.

 

[bystander36]

There are many games where you can just reduce a key setting brings massive boosts to real FPS while taking a indescrinable IQ hit, for example shadows in Sleeping Dogs. Besides, I'm very confident most people can't see a difference like when Bioshock Infinite stealth toggles between high and very high while playing the game as it is instead of going pixel hunting with a magnifying glass on a still frame.

I will agree that while we get closer to photo realism, the cost in horsepower rises faster than the extra visual quality, but we do see a difference most the time. I just gets smaller and smaller.

I recall a lot of people claiming that shadows vs no shadows at all had no real difference in quality. Yet today, I doubt very much many people would give up shadows for higher FPS. As we get accustomed to higher visual quality, we don't want to give it up and if we ever do want to get to realism, we will continue to need higher end hardware.

That said, pick a budget, and live with the settings you can achieve. I personally am ok with using high settings instead of Ultra, but I won't tolerate low FPS, because I get sick if they are low when you have mouse feed back.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The only thing that Ultra high end cards can do better than lower teir cards is AA otherwise they look the exact same. nvidia has lesser IQ than AMD. AMD makes the colors pop more and the black levels and contrast ratios are more quality.

FALSE:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694755&highlight=nvidia+amd+image

You should change your nick...not much "Expert" in you.

Hint:
Google the difference between ANALOG (VGA) and DIGITAL (DVI, HDMI, DP ect.)

 

[cmdrdredd]

I will agree that while we get closer to photo realism, the cost in horsepower rises faster than the extra visual quality, but we do see a difference most the time. I just gets smaller and smaller.

I recall a lot of people claiming that shadows vs no shadows at all had no real difference in quality. Yet today, I doubt very much many people would give up shadows for higher FPS. As we get accustomed to higher visual quality, we don't want to give it up and if we ever do want to get to realism, we will continue to need higher end hardware.

That said, pick a budget, and live with the settings you can achieve. I personally am ok with using high settings instead of Ultra, but I won't tolerate low FPS, because I get sick if they are low when you have mouse feed back.

This is how I feel. There are cards at every price level today that will suit your budget. Your budget along with your monitor resolution, will determine what settings you can achieve at playable fps. Playable doesn't have to be 60fps, but the closer you can get to 60fps+ the better IMO. You are right that most people would want the extra visual effects turned on in exchange for a few fps as long as it wasn't unplayable. I remember playing the original Crysis at around 25fps and it wasn't terrible to me at the time. I personally run SLI now so I can get closer to 60fps at my resolution with the least amount of turning down of settings. Aside from AA I don't really have to worry much about turning down the visuals in most titles.

 

[Mr Expert]

FALSE:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694755&highlight=nvidia+amd+image

You should change your nick...not much "Expert" in you.

Hint:
Google the difference between ANALOG (VGA) and DIGITAL (DVI, HDMI, DP ect.)

Funny cause that articul had nothing to do with gaming IQ.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Funny cause that articul had nothing to do with gaming IQ.

It doesn't change when playing games. At the base level the cards output the same digital signal. The only reason there may be any change at all is due to the driver.

 

[OCGuy]

This is how I feel. There are cards at every price level today that will suit your budget. Your budget along with your monitor resolution, will determine what settings you can achieve at playable fps. Playable doesn't have to be 60fps, but the closer you can get to 60fps+ the better IMO. You are right that most people would want the extra visual effects turned on in exchange for a few fps as long as it wasn't unplayable. I remember playing the original Crysis at around 25fps and it wasn't terrible to me at the time. I personally run SLI now so I can get closer to 60fps at my resolution with the least amount of turning down of settings. Aside from AA I don't really have to worry much about turning down the visuals in most titles.

I'm just having a hard time with the people saying that an average FPS in the 20s-40s is acceptable. The FPS dumps you would no doubt experience during intense and resource hungry moments would make gaming unacceptable.

If you are running @ 80fps, you can afford to lose 10-15 FPS. Averaging 30? Not so much.

Min. FPS matters as well as the average.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Funny cause that articul had nothing to do with gaming IQ.

Actually it does...but it dosn't suit your agenda..so you will ignore it.
Only a Tool would talk about a diffrence in I.Q. in games today.

What is next..the only reason we don't hear this in REVIEWS...ae because NVIDIA paid of ALL reviewers?

Bottom line: You post false information.