[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Sorry Intel/AMD/Nvidia/DRAM maker, I will continue to use my 4yrs old core 2 duo 3.2GHz/4GB + 9800GT PC for quite while. Please blame the software developer.[/citation]
you are obviously missing some games in yoru "playlist" if you are seriously getting by gaming on that set up ..
skyrim , mech warrior online , Crysis 2 , battle field 3, are just a few of the titles that require way more hard ware than you are fronting.
and don't tell me that is bullshit ... becasue untill sept temper i was gaming on a amd athy 64 x2 5000+ Oc'ed to 3 ghz with 6 gigs ram and a radeon 5770 (good step above your vid card about same cpu wise)
and all those games saw drops down to 20 or lower frame rate , in sept temper i upgraded my cpu to a phenom 9650 quad core , and well now skyrim is playable with lows at 28 fps average at 50 fps but mwo and battlefield still see bad drops even on lowered settings
i highly suggest you look at getting at least a i5 (intel) or Fx (AMD) 8 gigs of ram and radeon 6800 series or nivida gf 560 vid card if you want to call your system a serious modern gaming pc , in january i'll be looking to upgrade my whole pc myself because i'm not delusional in thinking my system passes the bar still
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]+1 rubbish console ports and average crappy games that aren't demanding on cpu/video or any bleading edge latest hardware.Game makers blame piracy, thats just bs.[/citation]
I just listed 3 major games that were not ports (skyrim and BF3 were multi system developed there is a difference ) and all above games pushhardware enough that you got to go 800+ bucks on a system to run them good they arnt budget ended games.
[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]Most casuals will get an upgrade when they're in the need of a new computer. Most casuals don't know much about computers. They never have. But computer manufacturers like to compete and will provide better, faster products to try get an edge over the competition; as long as those better faster products are available for them to use. In the old days of CPU design there used to be 50%+ performance gains per generation. Now days CPU design is catering to the Mobile space more than the desktop. So they're doing smaller performance gains, but increasing energy efficiency and decreasing thermals.In the old days the performance gains were used to run better, more resource intensive products that would use those performance gains. There were a lot of performance gains. Now it's less performance gains. Not as exciting. Not as much need to upgrade as time goes on as the next generation isn't that much better than the last.I want PC's that push boundaries and push hardware and can let software makers push those new performance gains to the limit.I don't want a damn laptop like every other man and dog. I don't want minimal gains. Performance gains make things more exciting.[/citation]
[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]I mean... Where would we be if we had laptops when there were x386 CPU's and only had 10% performance gains per year... We certainly wouldn't be running anything as intense as windows XP... Or windows 7. Crysis would probably be a 1024 x 768 affair... looking like half life 1.[/citation]
you make it sound as easy as throwing money at ithe issue. the fact is PC performance gains have dropped off , because we are reaching the physical limit of small wires and transitors can go, we arnt quite to the theorectical limit yet but as we get closer and closer progress will slow drastically we are alread at 22 nm the smallest a wire or transistor can get before any ammount of heat running across it destroys it is like 8 or 7 nm sounds like we are a long ways away from that .. however , we are reaching the limit on ways to reduce said trasistors and wires in size. This problem we can throw money at, to find new ways to create circuts and chips but as the number of easy to think up techniques dry up , this gets more time consuming.
but yeah throwing money at the laws of physics won't make them bend , you might as well stat throwing money at a way to fit a round peg into a square hole , because no ammount of money is going to make electron's smaller or make a electrical current not give off heat.
the point i'm getting at is there never will be a return to they days of super performance gains between chip generations , and really think about this would you really want to return to those days , ??? only the super rich elite could afford to stay pc gamers if today's market was like this when top end video cards cost 300-600 dollars and top end cpu's cost 200-1000 dollars , most people just don't have 1000 bucks to spend non a new pc every year , hell i doubt you got that kind of money even, i sure as hell hope to sh-- that those day's don't return.
as for mobile gains this is mostly due to the fact that mobile chip developers DON"T have to build around backward compatibility as much as a PC cpu does , note todays processors are still based off x86 , architecture. a quite outdated architecture . most the gains in mobile devices come from making better architctures that are more efficent at what they do , not die shrinks
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram