Insane HD 4870X2 Crossfire-X scaling action!

[TurboDiv]

Nice results. I hope they'll offer some decent game bundles with those cards when they come out...

[Hornet331]

Show me a good flight simulator on a console. And dont give me no arcade crap like Ace Combat.

same goes for RTS, C&C3 for XBOX was a joke.

[H2omg]

Why would anyone without a 30" monitor need a 4870x2 in place of a 4870 is beyond me.

Why would anyone EVER need two of them is really hard to understand.

All games are for consoles, consoles' graphics chips aren't any better than a 8800GT.

On a PC you've got more resolution and AA/AF, but that's about it. 4870x2 would be roughly 4-5 times faster than consoles' cards.

... I don't mean to flame but, are you SERIOUS?

You are making the single-most short sighted mistake possible in the technology game. Data density is increasing. Resolutions are increasing. Realism is increasing. Artificial intelligence is increasing. With all other variables seemingly rising with no end in sight, how can you truly feel this way?

This reminds me of people saying "Oh, you'll never need more than a 2 gigabyte hard drive." lol


I'll just leave it at that. You are out of your element if you think your statement holds any water in that strange far out place known as reality.

[adamsleath]

4870x2 xfire..finally something to justify those 1000W psu's

[Helmore]

... I don't mean to flame but, are you SERIOUS?

You are making the single-most short sighted mistake possible in the technology game. Data density is increasing. Resolutions are increasing. Realism is increasing. Artificial intelligence is increasing. With all other variables seemingly rising with no end in sight, how can you truly feel this way?

This reminds me of people saying "Oh, you'll never need more than a 2 gigabyte hard drive." lol


I'll just leave it at that. You are out of your element if you think your statement holds any water in that strange far out place known as reality.

I don't think you should take his statement too literally, I think he meant to say that it's not worth your money right now and you are better off spending it elsewhere or save it for later on.

[Swatrecon_]

Annihilator, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking.

It's sad really, iirc, most of your posts aren't like that.

[jmke]

"Chiphell seems to have some early numbers on the 4870X2 (& 4870X2 CF)

AMD in-house benchies....

[eXa]

4870x2 xfire..finally something to justify those 1000W psu's

Yeah, on a skulltrail.... oh wait!

[annihilat0r]

i think he missed that little game called crysis

Oh, I think I know that game. The one which shipped 10 months ago and has been finished numerous times by everybody?

Or maybe you're talking about Crysis Warhead, whose graphics will be lower than Crysis itself so that every PC may run it?

You, and AMD, and NVIDIA should both thank Crytek for Crysis. It is the only reason most people would have a better graphics card than a 8800GT.

But still, it is only ONE game; and it turned out that way because Cevat Yerli aimed for the best graphics possible by taking PC's extra hardware power over consoles into advantage.

He has told numerous times that while Crysis' sales among PC games were excellent, they were still way below even a mediocrely popular console game; and regretted his decision, and Crytek has already dropped PC exclusivity.

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game on the shelves that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game that is going to be released in the near future, and that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

Unless you are some graphiliac (I made that word just now!) who thinks 4xAA is so rubbish that you can't play any game at that setting and HAVE to play every game at 8xAA, a 4870 (on a monitor smaller than 30") is enough for everything except Crysis that has been released and that is going to be released in the near future.

If you do have a 30" screen, then it's a 4870x2 for you. But TWO 4870x2's? That makes no sense, unfortunately.

[Swatrecon_]

snip

60 fps looks bad to some people. that's why. Those people don't play Crysis I'm guessing.

[annihilat0r]

Annihilator, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking.

It's sad really, iirc, most of your posts aren't like that.

Sorry, but you're the idiot, among with everybody that would think me as an idiot for that post in mine; for not seeing my point.

You're not really intelligent for thinking "Hey technology is developing can't you see lol"

Every game out there is being written for CONSOLES, save some RTS's. Consoles don't really have any graphics power compared to PCs, with their graphics solutions being slower than a 8800GT.

If you're making a game for a system with 256MB of RAM and a 9600GT-equivalent graphics processor, you're going to design it such that there won't be very open areas with lots of graphical detail. It is the reason Crysis couldn't be ported onto consoles, because your viewing distance has to be chopped to one third.

Sure, if you design a game for a console you can still re-design some of it for the PC and make the graphics look better. But not radically, because you've already made the most relevant design choice with consoles in mind. And also, redesigning a game to look much better on PC will take up a lot of developing resources and time; and they are much better spent elsewhere. Elsewhere that brings some profit. PC game sales are a joke compared to console game sales.

Why do you think DX10 couldn't be taken advantage of? It's been a monstrosity of a time since it came out. Could it be because consoles don't support DX10?

And what about that ever developing game graphics? All games released this year have graphics equivalent to games from 2007, some even 2006. (All games released this year can even be counted as looking worse than 2007, 2007 being Crysis' release year.) Could it be because those are the years the next gen consoles came out? Did you notice FEAR and Oblivion are still two benchmarks run by most of reviewers?

Unless someone with a vision like Cevat Yerli's comes and tries to take advantage of PC's power without regarding sales numbers, anyone waiting for another game with Crysis graphics, or better, is out of luck.

I don't know when the next generation consoles are going to be released, but it's definitely not before 2010. I'm curious as to what happens next, actually.

[Papu]

Oh, I think I know that game. The one which shipped 10 months ago and has been finished numerous times by everybody?

Thats the one 91% on Metacritic

Or maybe you're talking about Crysis Warhead, whose graphics will be lower than Crysis itself so that every PC may run it?

nope see above ^^

You, and AMD, and NVIDIA should both thank Crytek for Crysis. It is the only reason most people would have a better graphics card than a 8800GT.

I do I love crysis , Great game

He has told numerous times that while Crysis' sales among PC games were excellent, they were still way below even a mediocrely popular console game; and regretted his decision, and Crytek has already dropped PC exclusivity.

To be fair , thats not their fault or Ati/Nvidia's Fault it's the bastard Pirates Faut , Crysis were running the PC flag ,showing next gen Graphics , on a blockbusting exclusive Title.

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game on the shelves that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

See above , Crysis Dx10 Full 2xaa high Res

11fps minimum will Chug , also there is a Mod for an extra HOOGE texture pack coming , a thousand Gfx's scream out in terrror...

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game that is going to be released in the near future, and that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

Farcry 2 full whack?
The next Flight Sim
But Surely Operation Flashpoint 2 will run like maxed out

Unless you are some graphiliac (I made that word just now!) who thinks 4xAA is so rubbish that you can't play any game at that setting and HAVE to play every game at 8xAA, a 4870 (on a monitor smaller than 30") is enough for everything except Crysis that has been released and that is going to be released in the near future.

I'l use cod4 as an example here , based on a quake engine the is a nice little (glitch)? engine feature , that means when running at 125+ fps , 250+ fps , or 500 im assuming , you run a little faster , and jump a little farther , this makes it possible to get to weird and wonderful places in the maps by crouch jumping , some are only possible when running the game at 125 fps +

its also a known issue with cs:s , that the more fps you have , the faster you will run

but in Contrast , what game or Windows app max's out a Quadcore 3.0+ Ghz , there are one or two encoders , but on the games side none..



Flight Sim X , I hear thats a pretty demanding game

[annihilat0r]

I know it's not their fault. I love Crysis, I've finished it like 4 times. But it doesn't change the fact that it's only one game, and one game that everyone has finished numerous times already. Today's hardware can't run it at maximum details, maybe 4870x2 will be able to. But I don't think anyone cares about the game itself any more. It's thought to be a "glimpse of the future" so if you want a future-proof machine you first test it with Crysis, but I don't believe in that due to points I made in my previous post.

[Solus Corvus]

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game on the shelves that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

Tell me ONE great PC-exclusive game that is going to be released in the near future, and that a 4870 wouldn't be enough for.

It depends on your expectations. Average framerates that I find acceptable in single player games wouldn't even be acceptable to me as minimum framerates in competitive multiplayer situations. Two games off the top of my head that a single 4870 wasn't enough for at my res, World in Conflict and Quake Wars. A single 4870 played them at perfectly acceptable framerates for most people but I want a little better minimum framerate when things get intense.

[Papu]

*schnip*

your wrong , games are developed on the pc for consoles in the most part , Save some great games like OFP 2 , HL episode 3 , Teamfortress 2 , Crysis Warhead , AOC , Diablo 3 , Starcraft 2 , and someother awesome game i cant remember now , but it is a name , like adam something or something....

anyway , your wrong , Tf2 looks awesome , as does Bioshock , Ut3 , and Hlep2 is a great improvement in previous games , Really come on...

Stalker clear skies is coming , thats Dx10 , Thats Pc Only , Oh snap!

[Papu]

I know it's not their fault. I love Crysis, I've finished it like 4 times. But it doesn't change the fact that it's only one game, and one game that everyone has finished numerous times already. Today's hardware can't run it at maximum details, maybe 4870x2 will be able to. But I don't think anyone cares about the game itself any more. It's thought to be a "glimpse of the future" so if you want a future-proof machine you first test it with Crysis, but I don't believe in that due to points I made in my previous post.

Look really if things just stopped dead , if we were stuck with 8800gt's(Gx2) and 3870's(x2's) for a few years , people would say , hmm , this graphics card is 400 euro on its own , and can't even play Crysis , where as i can buy a ps3 , and play ANY game that comes out in it's Lifetime and its a guarantee..
it has to become faster , and cheaper if it has any hope of staving off the consoles ..

[Swatrecon_]

The ONLY reason games on the PC run like they do is because they have to run on ALL hardware up to a certain point. Games developed for a console can be endlessly optimized for ONE set of hardware. If they optimized Crysis for ONE system, that system could run it on insanely high settings no problem. PC hardware is so much faster, though, it can operate at a decent level without such specific optimizations.

[eXa]

its also a known issue with cs:s , that the more fps you have , the faster you will run

Link?

[Hu1kamania]

And also, redesigning a game to look much better on PC will take up a lot of developing resources and time; and they are much better spent elsewhere. Elsewhere that brings some profit. PC game sales are a joke compared to console game sales.

That statment is pure ignorance. PC titles hold their own quite well. On top of that, porting a game to PC is much cheaper and easier than developing a new game all together.

A PC exclusive game that a single 4870 wont be enough for? Try Age of Conan.

Console ports always look better on the PC, not only because of higher resolutions, AA/AF...but also because of improved lighting, increased view distance, higher texture quality and more effects...the list goes on.

Gaming on a PC is always a more enjoyable experience.

[Newblar]

That statment is pure ignorance. PC titles hold their own quite well. On top of that, porting a game to PC is much cheaper and easier than developing a new game all together.

A PC exclusive game that a single 4870 wont be enough for? Try Age of Conan.

Console ports always look better on the PC, not only because of higher resolutions, AA/AF...but also because of improved lighting, increased view distance, higher texture quality and more effects...the list goes on.

Gaming on a PC is always a more enjoyable experience.

except i cant lay down comfortably on my bed pwning n00bs when im on a pc
its pretty comfy with an xbox though

[Macadamia]

BS to that "only Crysis needs 4870X2" statement.


Burnout Revenge could be very graphically demanding. Not to mention Rage. Upgrade now, enjoy uber awesome speeds, and a graphics card with a usable shelf life almost as long (or even longer) as the 8800GTX.

[Baron_Davis]

annhiliator, you really ARE an idiot. PC graphics FAR exceed that of consoles. If you think all you need is a 8800GT, you are wrong. If you think all you need is a 4870, you are wrong. If you think all new PC games are just console ports, you are wrong. PC games have waaaaaaaaaaaaay better graphics/gameplay than the majority of console games. I have had a PS3 for about a year now, and every single game I've bought (in hopes that it was good), I've sold.

Anyway, I feel dirty trying to explain anything to you. You're a tool, and you shouldn't be acknowledged.

Oh, and the fact that you loved Crysis and beat it four times is definitive proof that you're a moron. It's a horrible game, with horrible programming. The only reason no graphics card can run it properly is because it's coded poorly.

[Hu1kamania]

except i cant lay down comfortably on my bed pwning n00bs when im on a pc
its pretty comfy with an xbox though

you make a good point!

You could always get an xbox controller for the PC but then i'm afraid you wont be doing much pwning.

[adamsleath]

graphiliac

graphicophile ?

[ahmad]

I don't see how annihilator is an idiot. He is saying 4870x2 is overkill, and thats his opinion.. Some are still satisfied with their 9800pros. In addition, next gen always demolishes the preceding one, so why spend $1200 on something that might be slower than a $600 card 5 months later? Thats not necessarily my opinion, but it is something to consider. I remember people buying 7800GTX 512MBs for $900+ in SLI, and look at their performance now.

Justifying the purchase of a high-end card (or two) isn't difficult, but there is also a balance that some like to take into consideration.

From my point of view, I prefer running games above 100FPS for a lot of reasons and I only have a 21" screen. Would I like to have a 4870x2? Of course I would! Two 4870x2? Even better!

Whos picking up the tab ?