[Annelies]

If you had two of these in your gaming PC, your PC would absolutely rape the PS3 and PS4, but the PS5 too?

My friend says for a console to have one of these it would cost way too much and having two of these would rape consoles for the next 2-3 generations. No need to even have a console.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127645

[TheBuzzer]

computers are always better than game consoles however game companies will focus on making their games work on systems that are not as good. This makes games scaled to the weakest link so the card might be good but games that will use it fully wont come out.

[plex]

The other thing i noticed when comparing graphics between a console (PS3/Xbox) and a top of the line PC - Is the PC on max graphics shows the imperfections of a games graphics like the COD series.

Or is that just me?

[Zara]

This is just for enthusiasts and people who wipe their a$$ with money. You can buy it now but you'll still have to wait a couple of years until a game capable of completely utilizing this type of hardware comes along. When it does, this card will be mainstream and will cost 1/3 of this price or even less.

[japsander]

Dont forget all the other hardware you would need so as not to create a bottleneck.
Having cards like that in a pc like mine would be pointless.
I have xfire support but my mobo support for ram and cpu suck so while they may be good for the next 3 generations it would likely cost me the same as 3 generations worth of consoles to build a pc around those cards for maximum potential.


To me consoles are for gaming and my pc is for productivity.
I know pc outperform consoles but i have more fun on consoles

[Narcarsiss]

Originally Posted by Zara This is just for enthusiasts and people who wipe their a$$ with money. You can buy it now but you'll still have to wait a couple of years until a game capable of completely utilizing this type of hardware comes along. When it does, this card will be mainstream and will cost 1/3 of this price or even less.

Not True Rage and BF3 put this card to the test!
I'm sitting on 85% full load on Ultra in BF3. and on the borderline of lagging in RAGE at 16Kx16K resolution on some scenes.

Only change besides it being faster than the last generation is that it has DX11.1 and a few extra features i wont go into. most games from now onwards eg. Quake 5, Doom 4, and many more etc.. will utilise all the features of this card withing a year. just like the 5-6 and 7 series.




ALSO:
if Sony is going to continue with stereoscopic 3D then that will rule out any ATI series cards.

[Zara]

Originally Posted by Narcarsiss Not True Rage and BF3 put this card t the test! I'm sitting on 85% full load on Ultra in BF3. and on the borderline of lagging in RAGE at 16Kx16K resolution on some scenes. Only change besides it being faster than the last generation is that it has DX11.1 and a few extra features i wont go into. most games from now onwards eg. Quake 5, Doom 4, and many more etc.. will utilise all the features of this card withing a year. just like the 5-6 and 7 series.

I meant normal games, optimized to work properly on PC, not crappy buggy console ports that PC players usually get which can't work properly on any PC in the universe. If I remember well, Rage had a crapload of problems on every platform (don't know what happened with that though) and BF3 looks the same on all platforms even though Dice kept saying over and over again how PC is the most important platform for them (but only on PC you need GTX580 SLI to run their game in full HD on ultra settings). So if a game runs the same on a $200 console and on a $2000 PC, there's nothing to discuss here. The game is not "utilizing your card", the game is an unoptimized piece of sh!t.

We both know who'll buy a card like this, man. I've been there, done that and then grew up. So while you wait for games to come around, go run your 3D Marks and all that stuff.

[TizzyT]

Originally Posted by Narcarsiss Not True Rage and BF3 put this card to the test! I'm sitting on 85% full load on Ultra in BF3. and on the borderline of lagging in RAGE at 16Kx16K resolution on some scenes. Only change besides it being faster than the last generation is that it has DX11.1 and a few extra features i wont go into. most games from now onwards eg. Quake 5, Doom 4, and many more etc.. will utilise all the features of this card withing a year. just like the 5-6 and 7 series. ALSO: if Sony is going to continue with stereoscopic 3D then that will rule out any ATI series cards.

16Kx16K WTF?!?!?!?!?! O.O
what kind of a monstrosity of a monitor do you have??? and while the radeon 7970 is a powerful card it is not too far from console graphics. In fact consoles can probably achieve similar visuals at similar resolutions, only difference would probably be framerate, even though console graphics are technically weaker.

Feature wise, AMD really haven't put much effort into their cards besides bettering graphics (and that is using the cheap way of increasing core/transistor count), they originally pushed with firestream but dropped it in favor of opencl and ....(something else I don't remember).

The reason consoles can produces similar visuals on older hardware compatible to pc graphics is explain in an article I read awhile back explaining about DX API on windows and direct to wire. I didn't completely understand it but some parts I got.

Basically there are too many different configurations of computers and systems on PCs and so in windows for example DX is used to do graphics (and now other things aswell) to compensate for the many configurations and so that the game or application will run on many configurations with a high compatibility. But because this is in place it is restrictive to the full capabilities of the graphics card. DX from what I understood from that article or any other graphics API on windows (maybe other OS as well) is that in a sense it is a bottleneck.

Consoles from what I understand program and communicate with the graphics card directly with barely or even no restrictions and/or limitations and can use the graphics card to its fullest. A particular console is basically the same and because of that the don't have to compensate for the many different configurations like on PC. A game will virtually run the same way on every system of that particular console. Developers can just communicate to the graphics directly and basically tell it what to do and how to do it.

From what I understand from that article i think on PC its the OS or API that communicates with the graphics, and on consoles its the games that directly communicates with the graphics. What I'm am kinda confused about is that don't consoles make use of some sort of graphics api as well, if so shouldn't pc limitations be present on consoles aswell??? lol

That was my understanding and I maybe wrong, do some research and you will gain more accurate info .

PS: I'm waiting on Nvidia's Kepler....... I never get an AMD , call me what you like .


OH and no having 2 of those won't be stronger then PS5, your friend is wrong.

[fahadsul3man]

ps5 is gonna hve a kick ass processor with 512 mb ram

[LoverboySimer]

ps5 is atleast 10 years away from now
if some **** is not goin to happen on 22 dec 2012 lolz
but 10years before what was the highest graphic card in the market with PS1
it was just 64mb n if you had posted this thread there that this is stronger than ps3.
10 years is too much by that time u will have ATi 56300 or NVIDIA 986000GTX
n only games like Angry Birds will support this