SvennoJ said:
Vashyo said:
SvennoJ said:
An 8800 GTX was $599 in 2006....
I have a GT 230 v2 same or better specs then the Xenos and it's always a crapshoot if a console port will be optimized enough to run decently. I played Metro 2033 and Deus Ex HR on it in 1280x1024, The witcher 2 in 1280x720, Just cause 2 in 1080p and for all had to revisit the settings regularly to keep playable framerates. It's fine for indie games (go play Antichamber in 1080p on a big screen, it's awesome) but Bioshock infinite I chose to play on console. It's a mixed bag, Driver 3 in 1080p (no AA) worked fine 30fps ish, Bioshock 2 no trouble either, Portal 2 some severe slowdown in places but fine overall. That with $200 card from 2009, 3 years after the ps3.
Whatever budget build you make now is going to have the same problems in a few years against console games optimized to their hardware while the HD 7870 and 7950 have been forgotten. No gameplay guarantee for the next 5 years.
|
Those specs sound about right, but If you got suckered into paying for GT 230 in your 1000$, no wonder consoles beat it. It's one of the more lower end GPUs in it's class/timeframe, mostly used on laptops. Heck even the most popular card in the 2xx series GTX 260 was about 2-3 times stronger than it in its time.
I'm quite confident in OPs case he is gonna play atleast those 5 years, not with max settings though. But neither will the consoles. If he wants to repeat your GPU choice for this gen he should go with 7750-7770 range. Not trying to belittle ur opinion or anything, so please dont get offended, I have no idea what was included in ur 1000$ and what parts you chose other than GT 230.
Never trust any shop decriptions of parts btw, they allways make everything sound good and sell you crap. Even the most casual PCs are called "powerful" simply because it has good CPU but everything else is way sub-par
@Shido, I would say ur setups gonna run at 1080p 30-45FPS atleast for the first 2-3 years, with some AA and everything maxed. Depends on the games ofcourse, some have insanely demanding SSAO for example so cutting that might net u 10-15FPS more.
and yes 8800GTX was roughly 50% stronger than consoles, it still runs them in higher res/more FPS.
|
My fault for jumping in, wasn't my $1000 dollar build. I wasn't focussing on gaming yet a cheap GPU that seemed better then the current consoles seemed like a good deal to add. And it generally is, as I have the choice to run in 1080p.
My earlier point was it's not giving consoles a run for their money, as you'll run into slowdown in sections not optimized for the pc gpu. For example in Deus Ex HR I had to disable v-sync to keep the mouse responsive enough not to overshoot corners. Walking straight it was 30-60 fps, turning 90 degrees it temporarily slowed down to the lower 20's, resulting in much worse screen tear then I've ever seen on consoles. Consoles give a more conistent performence. Hence I bough Bioshock Infinite for console, no worries about having to reconfigure graphics setting in the middle of a big fight when it becomes impossible to aim due to temporary slowdown.
|
Yeah like I said your GT 230 is very very weak even at its prime days since it's only an entry level budget card not intended for gaming. Even console games got sections where FPS suddenly drops you know, but they reduce visual elements and entity count to counter that, but alas I see it still happening.
It just is at the lower end of spectrum and was mostly used on laptops. I dont really believe that GT 230 was equal to consoles to begin with slightly behind I would think. Remember that current gen consoles are also playing on low settings at 30FPS with some games even going sub 720p.
