• Nvidia Geforce 880 GTX expected to launch this September
    88 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;45590889]PC VR is going to really kill console gaming atm and at a proper frame rate and resolution? console has no chance.[/QUOTE] VR is a gimmick that can only be applied to a small set of genres. It's absolutely useless for anything that isn't a first person shooter or RPG. Considering most console games are third person I doubt it'll do much to console gaming at all.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45590942]VR is a gimmick that can only be applied to a small set of genres. It's absolutely useless for anything that isn't a first person shooter or RPG. Considering most console games are third person I doubt it'll do much to console gaming at all.[/QUOTE] you do know that there are way more first person games than shooters right? like horror, puzzle, fighting (medieval or otherwise) and a whole bunch of other stuff it very much especially shines in horror of course, but "gimmick" and "Applied to small set of genres" is a fucking crazy as hell thing to say, because this actually can result in creating genres. Hell, games like surgeon simulator shine as well. what would you rather play? 30fps game on a console at 720p or on a 90fps and 1440p virtual reality headset. outside of that I would actually use something like that in a third person game if it was able to correctly be used in one that being said, console is more financially sound outside of low/medium end custom builds and appealing for many many justifiable reasons.
750 swag
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45590942]VR is a gimmick that can only be applied to a small set of genres. It's absolutely useless for anything that isn't a first person shooter or RPG. Considering most console games are third person I doubt it'll do much to console gaming at all.[/QUOTE] This is a really bad way to see things. [B]VR is there for new genres to be created[/B] — existing stuff that is oddly retrofitted to the new technology will not reach the full potential that VR represents. It's like trying to stick traditional first person shooters on a tablet: it's not gonna work. You need to reinvent things at their core to work on drastically different mediums
Next up in the Nvida range will be the Geforce 26, 27, 28 and 29.
All these high end GPU's are making my little A8-5557M Laptop cry
[QUOTE=PyroCF;45590249]Hope they announce a GTX 890 down the line instead of some dual GPU Titan.[/QUOTE] They already have a dual Titan, it's the Titan Z. The x90 cards have always been dual GPU cards anyways. They likely won't release a 890 since the Titan name carries more weight. They will probably release a Maxwell refreshed Titan and eventually down the road release a Maxwell Titan Z. If they release an 890 it will probably be dual 880s.
I hope the 850 will have SLI. I always loved the idea of two sub $200 graphics cards outperforming some of the higher end cards.
[QUOTE=J!NX;45590950]you do know that there are way more first person games than shooters right? like horror, puzzle, fighting (medieval or otherwise) and a whole bunch of other stuff it very much especially shines in horror of course, but "gimmick" and "Applied to small set of genres" is a fucking crazy as hell thing to say, because this actually can result in creating genres. Hell, games like surgeon simulator shine as well. what would you rather play? 30fps game on a console at 720p or on a 90fps and 1440p virtual reality headset. outside of that I would actually use something like that in a third person game if it was able to correctly be used in one that being said, console is more financially sound outside of low/medium end custom builds and appealing for many many justifiable reasons.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean gimmick in a disparaging way. The first person perspective in Wolfenstein 3D was a gimmick meant to attract people, it wasn't until Doom that first person games were actually fun to play rather than being a novelty. I also meant to type "anything that isn't [i]like[/i] a first person shooter or RPG." It was meant to be an example and the dropped word fucked it up, sorry. Horror games have already shown that VR works, I just meant it wont work for everything. I wouldn't want to play at either 30fps/720p or 90fps/1440p/headset, the former because we should have moved past that 5 years ago, the latter because I don't like strapping shit to my face.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45591822]Uhh imagine how much it would cost to have a machine run VR at 90fps with 1440p Might as well buy a new car and experience a VR driving game in real life with what that'd cost. (of course I have no idea how much more demanding VR would be than normal games, but I'm assuming a shit-ton more)[/QUOTE] VR rendering isn't much more intense than rendering to the same resolution, at the same framerate, as a regular game. The only extra overhead I know of is a fullscreen shader to do some distortion correction, which is about on par with a simple motion blur. The problem is that VR benefits far more than regular screens from high resolutions and refresh rates. I don't remember if it was Carmack or Abrash, but one of them thinks we'll end up at 1000FPS rendering. And I can see it getting to 4K+ resolutions as well.
How much will cost.?
Will this be better then a titan?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45591809]I didn't mean gimmick in a disparaging way. The first person perspective in Wolfenstein 3D was a gimmick meant to attract people, it wasn't until Doom that first person games were actually fun to play rather than being a novelty. I also meant to type "anything that isn't [i]like[/i] a first person shooter or RPG." It was meant to be an example and the dropped word fucked it up, sorry. Horror games have already shown that VR works, I just meant it wont work for everything. I wouldn't want to play at either 30fps/720p or 90fps/1440p/headset, the former because we should have moved past that 5 years ago, the latter because I don't like strapping shit to my face.[/QUOTE] there's third person Rift games that take advantage of the view point for a unique perspective on games. i fail to see it as a "gimmick". [editline]4th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45591822]Uhh imagine how much it would cost to have a machine run VR at 90fps with 1440p Might as well buy a new car and experience a VR driving game in real life with what that'd cost. (of course I have no idea how much more demanding VR would be than normal games, but I'm assuming a shit-ton more)[/QUOTE] Okay, so, nope. You're wrong. It wouldn't be anywhere near the cost of a new car. In what world would a computer cost that much money? It'll at most be in the upper 1700$ range. At most.
I've always upgraded every two series. GTX 280 - Intel Q6600 - 4GB RAM GTX 480 - Intel i7 920 - 6GB RAM GTX 680 - Intel i7 3770K - 16GB RAM (current)
[QUOTE=General;45592043]Will this be better then a titan?[/QUOTE] the 780Ti already outclasses the Titan, so for sure
Good thing I recently got a 770. I don't need to upgrade for a while.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;45591909]VR rendering isn't much more intense than rendering to the same resolution, at the same framerate, as a regular game. The only extra overhead I know of is a fullscreen shader to do some distortion correction, which is about on par with a simple motion blur. The problem is that VR benefits far more than regular screens from high resolutions and refresh rates. I don't remember if it was Carmack or Abrash, but one of them thinks we'll end up at 1000FPS rendering. And I can see it getting to 4K+ resolutions as well.[/QUOTE] Well, and the fact you have to do all the screen transformations twice. Plus because of the distortion shader, you actually have to render the game at a higher resolution than the actual screen (like 110-120%) to get the same detail as your normally would.
I got a 780 around a year ago, I'm hoping it'll hold out through my college years where upgrading would be a foolish decision.
About time, I was starting to think the whole thing was slipping into 2015. Also I bought a 750ti a few months ago after my video card died, and Maxwell is pretty impressive. Even for a budget card ($125) this OCs really well and even at max OC its power consumption is very low.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;45589817]880 huh? I hope it's as good as the 8800 was back in it's day. :v:[/QUOTE] 8800 was a beast of a card, i remember my friend was telling me how stupid huge it is. Now look at us, we got cards that could eat 3-4 8800's
[QUOTE=cdr248;45590080]460 master race[/QUOTE] The 460 is an absolutely beautiful card, I only upgraded because I felt like I'd need it for my course (I didn't) but having a 770 is nice, especially since I bought an nVidia Shield too.
[QUOTE=MR-X;45595310]8800 was a beast of a card, i remember my friend was telling me how stupid huge it is. Now look at us, we got cards that could eat 3-4 8800's[/QUOTE] want some real nostalgia? [t]http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/16164-2/3dfx+Voodoo+5+6000+AGP+Collection+1.jpg[/t] voodoo 5 that was THE CARD I hear but now that thing is about as useful as a broken dinner plate
Oh god I remember when I would drool over Alienware computers with a GT 8800 running Crysis on very high at almost 30 fps, without AA
Would it be worth it to jump straight to the 880 or just settle on the 780?
[QUOTE=vexx21322;45595793]Would it be worth it to jump straight to the 880 or just settle on the 780?[/QUOTE] better wait for the 1080
Damn, I just got a GTX 760. I had an 8800 back in da day. I feel a slight obligation to get the GTX880 at some point.
Too bad I'm saving for a PS4, I guess my next stretch goal should be upgrading from my 770
again how much will this be and how much will the 780/770 will go down.?
But I'm buying a 780TI this week, shit.
i remember having an 8600GT and Nvidia released broken drivers that made the fan run at idle speeds no matter what the temp was and cards at the time did not have any sort of autoshutdown safety system so the card burned up, died, and killed my motherboard's only PCIe slot. been Radeon ever since
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.