@Dafrety I tend to agree but actually my 8800 GTX died, probably due to the bump issue nVidia has had forever, and got a HD 5770. It really performs much better than the 8800GTX. I can turn antialiasing on high whereas with nVidia I'd disable that to run at a descent resolution.
@i1patrick while I agree with the theory of your statement, I might want to point out that the GTX 480 is over 27 times more powerful than the GPU of a PS3. these cards are not for the light hearted. they are ment for the serious professional and dumb first adopters :) I'd say they are aiming for different markets and probably shouldn't be compaired
(GTX480 ~ 3880 GFLOPs vs. Reality Synthesizers ~130 GFLOPs)
@i1patrick but also for the performance equivalent of two PS3's and an xbox360. most of those so-called 1080p games are rendered in 540p and upscaled. with little to no AA or AF.
@robamb2002... Agreed that this card is way more powerful than any console's GPU, but I still gripe at the premium prices that GPU manufacturers charge for their best silicon. I spent over $450 on my last video card alone (8800GTS in late 2006)...more than I would have for a new PS3 at the time. [I still use it and it runs OK.]
I don't regret that, but I do wish the price comparison for a current-gen console vs a decent gaming PC was at least close. A 2x-2.5x price premium for a gaming PC is reasonable because PC gaming is a better experience (IMO).
But the 5x-8x premium for a mid-level PC gaming rig (all-in cost with case, cpu, mobo, RAM, Win7, etc) vs a top console is ridiculous.
The PC gaming experience vs console gaming experience is better, but is it really 5x-8x better? [Estimate based on $300 for a new PS3 vs $1500 to $2400 for a new mid-level gaming PC.]
The price/performance ratio for consoles has improved with every new console generation. For gaming PCs, the ratio stays the same or gets worse.
@i1patrick "$1500 to $2400 for a new mid-level gaming PC."
Most people are pretty happy about entry-level gaming PCs which you can get (e.g. with ati5770 or gf9800) for $600-800. And it would run at 16x10 pretty much any recent game.
"... but is it really 5x-8x better?"
See above. Your "5x-8x" is really more like 2x-3x.
And you forgot to take into the account the fact that PC games are on average 2-3 times cheaper compared to their console versions (thanks to the fact that former fall in price faster). 10 PC games (new - 1yo) would cost you $200 or even less. 10 console games (new - 2yo) would cost you $400-700. After 20-30 games, you're already better off with a PC.
But let's give consoles the credit where its due: they are dead simple to setup and use and their online component IMO heralds new era in development of our herd mentality.
You're assuming that consoles are reasonably priced. Fact of the matter is that consoles are WOEFULLY under-priced. Feel free to fact-check this, but I believe Sony only just recently started making the tiniest profit per console sold, and is probably still a long way from recuperating the money spent getting the thing out there.
That said, these high-end cards do cater to the extreme and so are often over-priced.
I guess my point is that I don't really think you can compare the price of a card to that of a console. Two completely different business models.
@i1patrick Well basically a console is actually just a graphicscard in a box that runs code, especially now that graphicscards even have audio codecs, and fermi is fully C compliant so theoretically using a custom OS on ROM you could use it without any CPU/RAM, it would just need some USB ports to complete the picture, I guess that's next on graphicscards. USB ports, oh and network ports, should be cheap to add.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Available soon for the equivalent price of two PS3's and an XBOX 360. (And that's coming from a guy who has been playing PC games since 1992.)
@i1patrick
what is your point the high performance ATi cards are expensive too.
@i1patrick
I doubt anyone actually needs this for gaming. Folks who have the 8800 GTX still can run everything recent with the settings up.
@Dafrety I tend to agree but actually my 8800 GTX died, probably due to the bump issue nVidia has had forever, and got a HD 5770. It really performs much better than the 8800GTX. I can turn antialiasing on high whereas with nVidia I'd disable that to run at a descent resolution.
@i1patrick while I agree with the theory of your statement, I might want to point out that the GTX 480 is over 27 times more powerful than the GPU of a PS3. these cards are not for the light hearted. they are ment for the serious professional and dumb first adopters :) I'd say they are aiming for different markets and probably shouldn't be compaired
(GTX480 ~ 3880 GFLOPs vs. Reality Synthesizers ~130 GFLOPs)
@i1patrick but also for the performance equivalent of two PS3's and an xbox360. most of those so-called 1080p games are rendered in 540p and upscaled. with little to no AA or AF.
@robamb2002... Agreed that this card is way more powerful than any console's GPU, but I still gripe at the premium prices that GPU manufacturers charge for their best silicon. I spent over $450 on my last video card alone (8800GTS in late 2006)...more than I would have for a new PS3 at the time. [I still use it and it runs OK.]
I don't regret that, but I do wish the price comparison for a current-gen console vs a decent gaming PC was at least close. A 2x-2.5x price premium for a gaming PC is reasonable because PC gaming is a better experience (IMO).
But the 5x-8x premium for a mid-level PC gaming rig (all-in cost with case, cpu, mobo, RAM, Win7, etc) vs a top console is ridiculous.
The PC gaming experience vs console gaming experience is better, but is it really 5x-8x better? [Estimate based on $300 for a new PS3 vs $1500 to $2400 for a new mid-level gaming PC.]
The price/performance ratio for consoles has improved with every new console generation. For gaming PCs, the ratio stays the same or gets worse.
@i1patrick "$1500 to $2400 for a new mid-level gaming PC."
Most people are pretty happy about entry-level gaming PCs which you can get (e.g. with ati5770 or gf9800) for $600-800. And it would run at 16x10 pretty much any recent game.
"... but is it really 5x-8x better?"
See above. Your "5x-8x" is really more like 2x-3x.
And you forgot to take into the account the fact that PC games are on average 2-3 times cheaper compared to their console versions (thanks to the fact that former fall in price faster). 10 PC games (new - 1yo) would cost you $200 or even less. 10 console games (new - 2yo) would cost you $400-700. After 20-30 games, you're already better off with a PC.
But let's give consoles the credit where its due: they are dead simple to setup and use and their online component IMO heralds new era in development of our herd mentality.
@i1patrick
In late '06, the PS3 had just launched at $500 and $600 for the 20GB and 60 GB models, respectively.
@Dummy00001
You're assuming that consoles are reasonably priced. Fact of the matter is that consoles are WOEFULLY under-priced. Feel free to fact-check this, but I believe Sony only just recently started making the tiniest profit per console sold, and is probably still a long way from recuperating the money spent getting the thing out there.
That said, these high-end cards do cater to the extreme and so are often over-priced.
I guess my point is that I don't really think you can compare the price of a card to that of a console. Two completely different business models.
@i1patrick Well basically a console is actually just a graphicscard in a box that runs code, especially now that graphicscards even have audio codecs, and fermi is fully C compliant so theoretically using a custom OS on ROM you could use it without any CPU/RAM, it would just need some USB ports to complete the picture, I guess that's next on graphicscards. USB ports, oh and network ports, should be cheap to add.