Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

2. Re: What is the reason to upgrade hardware these days? Nov 20, 2012, 15:04 MajorD
2nd_floor wrote on Oct 31, 2012, 23:56:
Does anybody else feel that given the small number of PC games that today really push hardware, and drive AMD/ati and nvidia to make better and more powerful hardware, that there is very little reason to upgrade our computers?

I could name maybe 5 games current and upcoming that really push the limits. I have 580s and I feel laughably no reason to need to even think about an upgrade for 2+ years. Never in 15 years of PC gaming have I felt this way, haha.

Yet AMD is soon set to annouce its next line up of cards to compete with nvidia's 680 cards. Where is the demand? 1/5 games on the PC need and can use top of the line hardware!!

Interesting subject, as I was just pondering this not too long ago. I'm running an i7 2600K running at 4.8Ghz along with two GTX580s as well, which are part of the new system I built last year. I have been able to go back to games and play them completely "maxed out" in all their glory: ARMA II, Crysis, Crysis: WARHEAD, Doom3, Quake4, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (with "Complete" Mod), and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and Metro 2033; however, the only ones that still seem to really tax my system are: ARMA II, Metro 2033, Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, BF: BC2, and actually the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (with "Complete" Mod). Now, newer ‘key’ games that I played ‘after’ I built the system, that don’t ‘seem’ to tax it as heavily as I had anticipated, are Crysis 2 and BF3. I can’t think of any games from 2011 and beyond that do and/or would really tax my system other than Crysis 2 and BF3. Does anyone else reading this know?

Years ago you typically couldn’t play recently released PC games maxed out on your current system (at least from what I remember), but you could always look forward to doing so upon building your next hotrod PC…well, at least for me anyway. Again, that seemed to be the norm for several years, but I remember when Crysis was released…, did Crytek catch a lot of flack for that. But, what they did wrong was misrepresenting the actual hardware you could run the game maxed out on, and I was a victim of that. I, like so many other people, spec’d out my PC build based on the software (Vista 64 bit) and hardware Crytek was touting could/would run Crysis maxed out on. Regardless of their bad decisions and misrepresentations, I still enjoy going back and playing Crysis/Warhead in all its glory, which still look better maxed out than Crysis 2 does. But now, you just don’t see that as much anymore. Yes, the developers have learned more and more over the years, but a lot, or most of this is obviously due to the consoles becoming more and more the platform of choice for developers, as there is not as much R&D required as there is and/or would be for PC hardware, as the console hardware requirements haven’t changed in what; 7 years for the Xbox360, and 6 years for the PS3 and the Wii? Also, is it safe to say that that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo throw more money at the developers than say Intel, AMD/ATI, and Nividia? I don’t know? If you think back to the pre-release of past big PC titles, Intel, Nvidia, and ATI were always big banners during the development and marketing of the games. Is Intel, Nvidia, and ATI not working with the developers as much and/or throwing enough money at them? I don’t know; I’m just going by what I see, or don’t see, without researching it.

Avatar 55780
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo