People cause a major shitstorm over this and brag over PS4, but when people mention PC being that much better again they get their panties in a twist, and act like they don't care..
True story.
That's not entirely true, it's more down to cost. If a system released cheaper than others and had a lot of awesome games while being more powerful, it would sell well, of course that is not likely to happen because better hardware costs more..
That's why the Wii sold the most, it was cheapest as well as having some good games, but tons of shovelware.
The card has so much power i'd be surprised if any games still dip below 60fps @ 1080p.. especially with Mantle.
In fact with 5.6Tflops of power it should run games above 60fps @ 1080p for years, for some reason i doubt that will happen but it'd be nice.
If you go by minimum spec for games it usually means they won't run very well at all, goes without saying but it's always best to have above recommended specs for any game.
That's surprising that it uses 6gb of Ram, 64bit OS is nothing as i've had that since Vista and then Windows 7.
Graphics spec is 5870 for minimum eh? I wonder if that means it'd run like a slug, usually the case.. Not interested in this game in any case, same as the last ones.
In fact i think i'd rather buy Nazi Zombies 2.
5.6Tflops of power.. dang, with Mantle you'd think every game should run 60+fps @ 1080p for years on this thing.. probably won't be the case but it should.
Didn't some devs say you'd need a card of 3.6Tflops on PC to match PS4? this thing obliterates it.
If they can really optimize games now with the use of Mantle i'd hope frame rates start going up more.
What exactly is the point of G sync monitors anyway? all i see is that they remove tearing due to low FPS.
I wouldn't be playing games if they didn't run 60+fps often anyway, so other than wanting to play games at slow speeds with no tearing, i can't see the point in them.
My 120hz monitor is already 2ms refresh rate and 12ms input lag.
4k runs at 30-40fps in games even with a high end graphics card, that is the average framerate so it would dip even lower.. so yes, it would be unplayable to those used to 60+fps.
1080p and 1440p is still king for speed.
4k presents too many issues, first being if you want to drop to a lower resolution for more fps it is going to look awful because you're dropping so much from native.. in which case you are better off with a lower resolution screen to beg...
Too bad Crytek games run like crap even on good systems though, if you want to play their games be sure to buy your hardware 3 years after a game they made comes out!.
Though it doesn't bother me much, i don't find their games that interesting anyway, just flashier graphics and much worse performance than other games.
This could've potentially made the Vita TV hub thing compatible with all games instead of just select games.
Titan/Mars cards are overpriced p.o.s, the fact the 780 has 3gb less GDDR5 than the Titan and is literally just behind it in performance proves they shoehorn unneeded memory to make up for the huge cost, if they want to be taken seriously they'd be a lot faster. But they are just always cards bringing deminishing returns. if a game runs crap on the 780 it also will on Titan.
Whats next? a Jupiter? a Phobos?
These cards will bring nice FPS for those with 120hz monitors, or even 1440p 60hz max. 4k is nowhere near silky smooth with framerates averaging around 30-40fps at best meaning they'd dip even lower than that often.
Can you imagine having to drop from 4k to 1440p or lower just to get nice framerates? it would look like crap dropping so much from native.
AMD's Mantle sounds interesting though, maybe now we can always get games running 60+fps @ 1080p ...
Frame rate is more important anyway, as long as it keeps 1080p and 60+fps that adds fluidness to the game that's fine. Better graphics are only games like Crysis anyway, and those run like a slug at best.
Trolls are so easy to spot.
I pity people who pirate, you'll now miss out on a potentially huge multiplayer portion of the game.
Aliens would make a good game if they just copied what Left 4 Dead is and expand upon it. Can't really go wrong there.
yeah you'll need to spend more than that if you want 60+fps @ 1080p with little to no dips.
This guy states the obvious like 90% of the time.
Well if you ever played the still very popular SA-MP on PC you would know the multiplayer has tons of potential in a GTA game.
The only thing i don't like what R* has done is micro transactions, R* should know how to make a multiplayer at least as fun as SA-MP by now, especially since IV's kind of sucked. Surprising a mod team can do better than the developers of the game themselves.
Speaking of 8800 GT, i still have 2 of them that i should've sold in 2009 when i got a 5870..
That's a decent chip i guess, but the frame rates wouldn't offer much in todays games.. in fact newer games would chug a lot.
Agreed it looks good, but so far it seems as if the game has almost the same amount of worlds as 3D Land. Being called 3D world shouldn't there be a bigger difference in the levels/worlds? Like the originals.
Hopefully this game has longer levels and is a bit harder than 3D Land.