PC Gaming

[Teddy]

You do know that graphics has a lot more to do than just visual quality but also has to do with other things like reflections, particles, rendering of the particle effects, the number of particles that can be rendered, shadows (including detail, resolution, quality, and count of specific shadows), ATOC, the detail of textures, the depth of textures, anti-aliasing, depth of field, streaming distance, scattering, fog (which is not really a particle), occlusion, and so many other aspects that have nothing do with just resolution and frames.

You are also entirely wrong about pretty much everything you have said. I think you are going to have trouble learning computer science if you think of graphics as only resolution and frames. I know 10 year old's who understand graphics are more comprehensive than that. Low end GPUs cannot handle all of that processing so higher end GPUs do have a benefit.

Can we close this autistic thread now? My autism meter won't stop going off.

[Julio.]

I know what Kaze is saying.

Most monitors are 60 hertz. Hence it displays 60fps maximum. If a GTX960 can run a game at its maximum possible settings at 60FPS, why bother with a 980?

Future proofing is bullshit. You're better off buying something which has a better price/performance ratio like a 960 than paying an outrageous sum for a 980 for what is proportionately a much smaller difference.

[Devin]

It's hardly "bullshit" to buy fancier hardware for future proofing, as games progress the processing requirements of the GPU alone increase too. Particles, textures and everything related all get more processor intensive as graphics get more detailed.

FPS isn't the only purpose of buying bigger and better hardware.

[Mikal]

If you have a 980 now as apposed to a 960 then obviously in a year or so you're going to be better off and won't need to upgrade to a more powerful GPU...

I have a 960 however and everything runs at 60+ FPS, I don't see why you need more than 60FPS though, that's smooth enough.

[Teddy]

The only thing I cannot justify is buying a 1080 versus a 1070, the price difference doesn't add much of a benefit or at least enough of a benefit to justify the price point. However as I've already mentioned due to the many aspects and rendering, a higher end graphics card IS actually worth it.

This of course depends if you are simple enough to play a game that looks like it was made in 1990 using MS Paint. What exactly is the point of this topic?

[Kaze]

I have a 960 however and everything runs at 60+ FPS, I don't see why you need more than 60FPS though, that's smooth enough.

Exactly my point, people like Mikal would legit keep the 960 until it no longer reaches its potential. A lot people replace GPU's every 6 months (exaggerating the time frame) just because 'Oh I have 960 but I want 970 because it's newer and better and everyone in the PC world has it/talks about it'.

You're better off buying something which has a better price/performance ratio like a 960 than paying an outrageous sum for a 980 for what is proportionately a much smaller difference.

Exactly

It's hardly "bullshit" to buy fancier hardware for future proofing, as games progress the processing requirements of the GPU alone increase too. Particles, textures and everything related all get more processor intensive as graphics get more detailed.

FPS isn't the only purpose of buying bigger and better hardware.

Honestly, I see no huge improvement between my Xbox 360 and the PS4. The game still displays in HD and it does the job (smooth gameplay, no bugs/glitches/lag). That's what my point is.. why upgrade when the outcome is somewhat the same?

I only have a PS4 purely because the console player base will move to next gen.. I guarantee you it will take twice as long to find a game lobby on prev gen (X360/PS3)

[Teddy]

I guarantee you it will take twice as long to find a game lobby on prev gen (X360/PS3)

Wrong.

The game still displays in HD and it does the job (smooth gameplay, no bugs/glitches/lag). That's what my point is.. why upgrade when the outcome is somewhat the same?

Why have sex with one chick when you can have a threesome? Having more is better. If you can have effects and such? More than "just HD"  then why not? I'm not saying buy a newer better card every few months... but nothing wrong with getting a device with an optimal performance and price point.

[Kaze]

Why have sex with one chick when you can have a threesome? Having more is better. If you can have effects and such? More than "just HD"  then why not?

Well if you put it that way.. in order to have a threesome you would have to wine and dine all 3 ladies thus emptying your wallet but you have the same outcome.. inserting a penis into a pum. You're still getting that pleasure whether its 1 girl or 15 girls.

Would you buy a new car every year because it's a newer model? A 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 would probably rip apart these Nissan Skylines (if you know you know

I'm hitting triple digits in terms of FPS in many games so why am I suggested to upgrade my GPU? That bugs me.

[Teddy]

I'm hitting triple digits in terms of FPS in many games so why am I suggested to upgrade my GPU? That bugs me.

I get it. I don't see the point in upgrading until you are starting to fall behind but then I would always go with a future proof'ed gpu so I don't need to upgrade every few months or even every few years.

[Kaze]

I get it. I don't see the point in upgrading until you are starting to fall behind but then I would always go with a future proof'ed gpu so I don't need to upgrade every few months or even every few years.

Wouldn't you agree marketing plays a big part in this? For example lets say Nvidia 1 has 3.1 pixel shader and 6 months later Nvidia 2 has 3.2 pixel shader yet everyone falls for that 'Damn I gotta have this' and spend crazy money on it.

[Mikal]

I feel like all these big companies could just release some ultra advanced GPU that's also very affordable and could run all of today's games on max settings but don't because they can make much more money releasing for example GPU 1.0 and then GPU 1.1 and then GPU 1.2, etc instead of straight up cutting to GPU 5.0.

[Teddy]

Wouldn't you agree marketing plays a big part in this? For example lets say Nvidia 1 has 3.1 pixel shader and 6 months later Nvidia 2 has 3.2 pixel shader yet everyone falls for that 'Damn I gotta have this' and spend crazy money on it.

Of course marketing is a huge factor. Most of us live in the same media and commercialized society that is plagued with this same shit.

[brian1996]

I heard somewhere (I may not be correct) but human eye cant see 60FPS or whatever ultra high graphics we think we see so what's the point in that?

Biggest bullshit I've read this month alone. Ofcourse people like you who are stuck on a 60hz monitor won't be able to see a damn difference.
If your PC would be capable of running games properly at 120+ fps and have a 120+hz capable monitor you would definitely see the difference.

The reason why I'm curious is because a console does all that for you and is future proof.

Exactly why both Sony and Microsoft came with "updated" consoles because of the fact that they are already lacking in power for the latest/upcoming games.

[TheRock]

Kaze; please look at this: FPS and then re-think of your comment on that NFS Game.
Visually it's no difference, it renders the same, however the speed it renders is the point.
Human eye can only see 60 fps that's true, but there's a slight noticeable difference if you ever see a 144hz Monitor.. Every 'correct' tv make, has different view modes (Example: Cinematic-Movie, News, Game-Gaming etc), they all exist for a reason and not just contrast. A real Blu-Ray movie runs at 24FPS (which is correct to view with Cinematic mode, and unlike colors you can modify them) whilst if you are using a TV as monitor and you use Gaming-Game view mode, it will run at highest FPS (of the TV, not the pc, we are talking for an output device here)

After all it is what the user seeks. There are people who still play Playstation 1 & 2 even their pixelated graphics because that's when the era that serious games were made with ACTUAL fun or even worth story. PC Gaming on the other hand, is indeed sometimes marketing target but satisfies the users varying their computers specifications. Since you are a console gamer, you can bear playing GTA V even on a windowed mode at 300x400 (example) at lowest graphics.. On my side, I like running everything on MAX, and having my PC capable of running literally everything over 60fps maxed out for me to be satisfied.

A very good example:



You can see how the scenery and image fills by adjusting the graphics.
GPU's have plenty of use further than gaming though, You can actually switch between a CPU or a GPU when it comes to rendering.. (For example, if you SLI a GTX 960 with an very older card, you can choose between 2nd old card or CPU for the PC to use and render PhysX effects) From Photoshop to Movie Exporting programs.. even calculations, Bitcoin mining via GPU, even hackers do use GPU based cracking password programs because GPUs get shit done faster.

As for PC case, this is covered in may parts; It is aesthetic, it is cooling solutions, it is cable management.. Example:

Let's say that both of the following PCs are equally fast:


Which one would you choose?

[Kaze]

Biggest bullshit I've read this month alone. Ofcourse people like you who are stuck on a 60hz monitor won't be able to see a damn difference.
If your PC would be capable of running games properly at 120+ fps and have a 120+hz capable monitor you would definitely see the difference.

But then again, is it a difference that significant that it can improve your gameplay aswell?

<insert long post here>

Hey Rock long time.

I see 30 and 60 normal with 15 being slightly behind.
I don't have a monitor so I use my 32'' TV. I saw no difference between normal and gaming mod though.

The Low pic seems a bit too outdated personally for me but I'm more than satisfied to play games on the medium pic.

I would choose the first one because it's simple and does the job.