The x1900xtx is all about shader performance, games like fear run a lot better on this card than any other due to it having 48 pixel shaders, the x1800xt\7800gtx only have 16 pixel shaders.

If games continue to make heavy use of shaders then this is the card to go for. Im hoping to have my new system set up in the next month and one of these will definately be going into it.

[quote=Akuma]Q4 looks like shit on PC too. oOo:

First gen games always looks like crap.[/quote:fe8dc]

hes not referrin to how it looks hes referring to how it runs, its a shitty port and has framerate problems all over the place. Dunno how you can say quake 4 looks like shit, looks a lot better than doom 3 and doom 3 was always in the spotlight because of its graphics being good.

*cough* Awaits arrival of 7900GTx

[quote="Sniped Ur Azz":9985d]*cough* Awaits arrival of 7900GTx[/quote:9985d]

Which the r600 will take a shit on from a huge height...anyone seeing a pattern here. eek:

[quote=geRV]Which the r600 will take a shit on from a huge height...anyone seeing a pattern here. eek:[/quote:da5a2]

Thanks to GF1 I'm retarded and can't see patterns anymore. Reveal and explain this pattern.

eek:

Theres a performance leader for a couple of months with each new core\refresh before the other camp gets their new board out to take the crown for another short while.

sigh, all new cards are overkill. im satisfied with my x800 Pro.

which is why I hate the whole business surrounding graphics cards.

Hell.. i am more then satisfied with my 9800 AiW Pro.

Depends on he res and settings you play with, im a graphics whore so i love to bump up the res as high as i can and enable fsaa and anistropic filtering. 1680x1050 with everything maxed in a game like battlefield 2 use to cripple my x800xt.

1680x1050 in dod source with hdr on was the same deal, the card couldn't handle it, stangely enough though my 6800gt in this system seems to perform better in dod source, i can run at that res with fsaa+aniso+hdr enabled and get playable frame rates. eek:

Just comes down to res, at 1280x1024 x800's can handle most games, but games like fear at that res with fsaa and higher really need something faster to be properly playable.

Id like to see nvidia and ati only bring out 1 "family" of cards per year, it gets a bit ridiculous after a while having one card then 2 months later something fasters out for about the same price. Just no longevity in cards these days at all. annoy:

I usually play at 1280*960 with AA 2x and AF 8x. Does the job.

but when you have a widescreen monitor as some people do, you dont play at that resolution. though there are smaller wide screen resolutions, they look like shit on monitors that need say a 1680x1050

I also don't like all the competition because I think it probably makes the prices higher. The cards are so expensive when they first come out, but then drop immediately when newer cards come out. If it weren't so competitive, it probably wouldn't cost as much for new cards.

Nope, if graphics cards were based around one company then that company could charge whatever they liked for them since there would be no alternative, even innovation in features would get stale, they'd just throw in a new feature every couple of years instead of how it is now with new features appearing with every generation. The way things are with 2 companies now its more competative adding in new features and developing faster hardware.

If ati or nvidia goes ever goes under pc gaming is pretty much fucked because of the above pricing scenario.