PC Gamer Master Card

[The White Hunter]

Bah, this is so out of date, it's all about the GTX Titan baby

just get 3 of those at about a grand each, and you're set... til next month.

But the Titan is actually weaker than a 690 (the current highest-level graphics card). Or so I've seen from the benchmarks. Apparently the only advantage of the Titan is it's better for SLI due to power draw or something.

The titan is a single card. The 690 is two 680's ducktaped together.

In either instance buying a pair of 670's is cheaper and gives the same or better performance

 

[Andrew_C]

Apropos of nothing, a certain conversation in this thread this thread caused me to rediscover http://www.criticalmiss.com/ an excellent roleplaying and gaming site that I'd forgotten existed. Unfortunately it hasn't been updated for a while.

back on topic, my main PC is runnimng a 3 year old Radeon 5770 HD and before that I ran a NVidia 9800 GTX

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I can play on high, but the game is unplayable with that option on, even if I lower all other settings by a lot! I don't know what beast of a card you need for maxing out that game with realistic hair enabled.

Apparently the TressFX setting just hates Nvidia cards. The upper echelons of mid-range Radeons are allegedly fine with it, but my mate who has a superclocked GTX 670 says it turns his game into a slideshow.

Also, if you're doing rendering you need this. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/PNY-Quadro-Nvidia-Graphics-GDDR5/dp/B00487M7SE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363472157&sr=8-1]

It's the only way to be sure

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Bah, this is so out of date, it's all about the GTX Titan baby

just get 3 of those at about a grand each, and you're set... til next month.

But the Titan is actually weaker than a 690 (the current highest-level graphics card). Or so I've seen from the benchmarks. Apparently the only advantage of the Titan is it's better for SLI due to power draw or something.

The titan is a single card. The 690 is two 680's ducktaped together.

In either instance buying a pair of 670's is cheaper and gives the same or better performance

True on the price vs. performance front... but I think that the 690 is a little more than 2 680s duct-taped together. Unless it still has micro-stuttering like most SLI/Xfire solutions.

 

[The White Hunter]

Bah, this is so out of date, it's all about the GTX Titan baby

just get 3 of those at about a grand each, and you're set... til next month.

But the Titan is actually weaker than a 690 (the current highest-level graphics card). Or so I've seen from the benchmarks. Apparently the only advantage of the Titan is it's better for SLI due to power draw or something.

The titan is a single card. The 690 is two 680's ducktaped together.

In either instance buying a pair of 670's is cheaper and gives the same or better performance

True on the price vs. performance front... but I think that the 690 is a little more than 2 680s duct-taped together. Unless it still has micro-stuttering like most SLI/Xfire solutions.

Yeah it is a little more than that but it really doesn't justify the extra expense, not to somebody like me, and certainly not if you're gaming at 1080p.

690 for £800ish, or I could by two 660ti's, lose 5 frames per second in some games, for around half that.

Different strokes, I find it incredibly hard to justify that kind of massive expenditure on a single part when my whole PC could cost less and perform very well indeed.

Now I just need a job to buy me some new parts ¬_¬ my 2009 standard rig is not gonna hold out for another year....

Edit: If you're wondering, Pentium E5700 Dual Core @ 3 GHz and an ATI HD 4770. On a stock 350W PSU. Runs surprisingly well. If I had a permanent job I'd be on a 3770K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 660ti (MSI Power Edition).

 

[E-Penguin]

These comments make me feel like my GTX 260 is slightly out of date.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Meh, the GTX 985 is sooooo yesterday. I just upgraded to three GTX 990. I can run Crysis 3 with 2 FPS more then before. totaly worth the 3k bucks.

GTX 990? That unstable piece of garbage?

I'll just wait for 995

not with my

Spoiler: reinforced carbon-carbon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon-carbon

cooling kit bro, shit stays cool to the fucking touch at 8.9 Phz (peta hertz, only the best for me)

OT: found it quite hilarious, while obviously over the top, it's always good to laugh at yourself/people you know every once in a while.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Not sure which is worse... the people who do this with PC parts or the people who need the newest smartphone model every time they come out with a new one.

I think those are the same people.

surprisingly, of all the pc people i know in person, we never upgrade our phones unless it's absolutely necessary, generally the technological neanderthals I know are the ones who go "oohhhh new iphone99S??!?! only for 900 dollars? what a deal!"

i've had 2 cell phones in the past 10 years, both of them nokia equivalent tanks.

 

[II2]

I'm actually doing ok with 2x Nvidia GTX 295s in SLI. Plays BF3 and Far Cry 3 at highest native (unmodded) settings, fine. Only chokes on the Skyrim official HD texture packs and when loading a level in Rage (before evening out).

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Bah, this is so out of date, it's all about the GTX Titan baby

just get 3 of those at about a grand each, and you're set... til next month.

But the Titan is actually weaker than a 690 (the current highest-level graphics card). Or so I've seen from the benchmarks. Apparently the only advantage of the Titan is it's better for SLI due to power draw or something.

The titan is a single card. The 690 is two 680's ducktaped together.

In either instance buying a pair of 670's is cheaper and gives the same or better performance

True on the price vs. performance front... but I think that the 690 is a little more than 2 680s duct-taped together. Unless it still has micro-stuttering like most SLI/Xfire solutions.

Yeah it is a little more than that but it really doesn't justify the extra expense, not to somebody like me, and certainly not if you're gaming at 1080p.

690 for £800ish, or I could by two 660ti's, lose 5 frames per second in some games, for around half that.

Different strokes, I find it incredibly hard to justify that kind of massive expenditure on a single part when my whole PC could cost less and perform very well indeed.

Now I just need a job to buy me some new parts ¬_¬ my 2009 standard rig is not gonna hold out for another year....

Edit: If you're wondering, Pentium E5700 Dual Core @ 3 GHz and an ATI HD 4770. On a stock 350W PSU. Runs surprisingly well. If I had a permanent job I'd be on a 3770K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 660ti (MSI Power Edition).

I'm running about the same level Dual Core (G860 @ 3 ghz) but i have a 630w psu (because I want a lot of room on power to upgrade) and a radeon hd 7750 (you're on about the same level as me in terms of graphics power). If I had the money i'd get the cheapest i5 i could and a 6870 or 560 ti

 

[Olas]

Believe it or not there are PC gamers who aren't obsessed with getting the most powerful tech possible. I happen to be one, my current gaming PC is an $850 laptop, it's a good $850 laptop, but still an $850 laptop. There's a huge middle ground between settling with what consoles can offer and what this comic is parodying.

 

[nexus]

Most people that buy "top of the line" today don't do so for "extra FPS" (though that is a plus), they typically get more than one card or top of the line so they can run multiple monitors or proper 3D.. or even triple-screen surround.. or 3D surround.

Not a worthless upgrade, I can assure you of that.

Lots of e-peens still get swung around though..

 

[Farther than stars]

I'm fine with exaggeration when it at least holds a hint of truth and exaggerates in the right direction.

If the comic exaggerated someone asking "by how much % is it faster?", etc then it would've at least shown that the comic writer has a vague clue as to how PC gamers shop around when it's time to upgrade.

There is a grain of truth there: PC gamers will pay crazy amounts of money for just the slightest edge in efficiency. Making that choice is fine, but by making that choice PC gamers are in turn being inefficient with their monetary capital. That irony is inherently funny enough to make thousands of jokes out of it, which is what the internet (including Carter) routinely does.
But if you feel that those jokes are targeting you, there's no need to get all up in arms about it. Nobody's going to stop you from making that choice and at the end of the day all people are doing is just having a laugh. That's the immunity of comedy. But the good that humour brings about is diminished when things are dragged down into a fight between what kind of gaming is better or who's in the right here.
And on a side note, the reason "Is it faster?" works better than "By how many percent is it faster?" is because the former is more succinct than the latter and thus has a greater impact. It's just better style.

 

[The White Hunter]

Bah, this is so out of date, it's all about the GTX Titan baby

just get 3 of those at about a grand each, and you're set... til next month.

But the Titan is actually weaker than a 690 (the current highest-level graphics card). Or so I've seen from the benchmarks. Apparently the only advantage of the Titan is it's better for SLI due to power draw or something.

The titan is a single card. The 690 is two 680's ducktaped together.

In either instance buying a pair of 670's is cheaper and gives the same or better performance

True on the price vs. performance front... but I think that the 690 is a little more than 2 680s duct-taped together. Unless it still has micro-stuttering like most SLI/Xfire solutions.

Yeah it is a little more than that but it really doesn't justify the extra expense, not to somebody like me, and certainly not if you're gaming at 1080p.

690 for £800ish, or I could by two 660ti's, lose 5 frames per second in some games, for around half that.

Different strokes, I find it incredibly hard to justify that kind of massive expenditure on a single part when my whole PC could cost less and perform very well indeed.

Now I just need a job to buy me some new parts ¬_¬ my 2009 standard rig is not gonna hold out for another year....

Edit: If you're wondering, Pentium E5700 Dual Core @ 3 GHz and an ATI HD 4770. On a stock 350W PSU. Runs surprisingly well. If I had a permanent job I'd be on a 3770K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 660ti (MSI Power Edition).

I'm running about the same level Dual Core (G860 @ 3 ghz) but i have a 630w psu (because I want a lot of room on power to upgrade) and a radeon hd 7750 (you're on about the same level as me in terms of graphics power). If I had the money i'd get the cheapest i5 i could and a 6870 or 560 ti

The Dual-Core is really a nice bottleneck to my outdated GPU, though the only games that don't run well are Sleeping Dogs (glad it was only £1.92) and GTA4 (horribly horribly optimised). I have the money I just don't have income to be able to spend it without worrying about running out of food! Might go with a 7870, similar price but better free games and such.

 

[Denamic]

I can play on high, but the game is unplayable with that option on, even if I lower all other settings by a lot! I don't know what beast of a card you need for maxing out that game with realistic hair enabled.

Apparently the TressFX setting just hates Nvidia cards. The upper echelons of mid-range Radeons are allegedly fine with it, but my mate who has a superclocked GTX 670 says it turns his game into a slideshow.[/url]

It's the only way to be sure

It's a driver issue with that particular game, not a card issue. They're working on fixing it. And turning it into a 'slideshow' is an exaggeration. I've an overclocked GTX 660 ti, and while the TressFX does absorb 15-20 FPS, the framerate still hovers above 30 FPS with everything maxed out. Still, that's 15-20 FPS I don't want to sacrifice for hair that doesn't even look that good. It's too damn floaty.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

See, this is why I don't work in sales. I just don't have that killer instinct that lets me lie through my teeth to convince someone to spend money on something that I know is a complete waste. I'm just too instinctively honest.

 

[mrhateful]

Before this used to be much more the case nowadays graphic innovation has slowed down to a snails past so using your 3 year old pc can still run pretty much run everything at the highest settings

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

My GTS 450 is doing okay for me for now, had it about six months, I take it people would consider it rubbish?

I've been using an Radeon 4800 series for years. Only recently have I truly felt the need to upgrade.

Personally, in spite of being a PC gamer since the 90's, I've never been able to bring myself to purchase the bleeding edge hardware or upgrade super regularly. That worked out well enough recently when the relentless death march of game requirements decided to take a hiatus for a few years.

 

[DonTsetsi]

I can play on high, but the game is unplayable with that option on, even if I lower all other settings by a lot! I don't know what beast of a card you need for maxing out that game with realistic hair enabled.

Apparently the TressFX setting just hates Nvidia cards. The upper echelons of mid-range Radeons are allegedly fine with it, but my mate who has a superclocked GTX 670 says it turns his game into a slideshow.

Also, if you're doing rendering you need this. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/PNY-Quadro-Nvidia-Graphics-GDDR5/dp/B00487M7SE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363472157&sr=8-1]

It's the only way to be sure

A better GPU will have absolutely no effect on rendering times, since the renderer I use (VRay) doesn't use it at all, only the CPU. I do need a better GPU (maybe modern mid-range), but only for modelling.

 

[Ohlookit'sMatty]

This is a wonderful comic // The second panels "talk dirty to me" and the last panels happy face are everything that is right with the world and the 5th panel is everything that is wrong with the world

-M