[citation][nom]rlevitov[/nom]what i wont 2 know is who will buy a 2500 or 5000$ pc every year just to be at the top??? i'm using X2-3800 cpu from 3 yrs ago (still with DDR1) along with 4670 1GB and newest games run fine on my 42" FULL HD screen.. the problem with new titles are the developers... who makes nice looking games but purly design (take GTA4 for example). and btw all u great gamers...most can't see the differance above 30 fps anyway... (it's an EYE thing ask a doctor)... i would like to know for all those 650$ and 1250$ pc's how low can the FPS get not avarage because if lowest is 30 the i dont need more![/citation]
There are a lot of things one could start to argue about with your post. I certainly see the point in keeping your old system as long as it works fine. But I don't believe it'll run games anywhere as well as a modern system. My backup system (which is only there in case my primary fails) is based on an athlon X2 at 2.3ghz - and even with my 4870 it doesn't perform particularily well on a 22" (1680x1050), so I doubt a 4670 will do much better. I've got ddr2 memory and a faster gpu after all.
As for some of the other posts. I don't know a single person who'd buy a system worth more than $2500, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. My social circle relies on me, or one like me, to tell them what computers they need. And people like I will always settle for a 790gx system if it's for very light or no gaming at all, and a setup with a 4830 or 4870 card and either an x2 2.8 or a similarily priced c2d (like the e5200) depending on preferences. Anyway. There are people who can afford, and want, a really potent computer system. It's like investing in a new beemer every year. My social circle would rather be content with a 5 year old vectra and replace it once it's 10 years old. But beemers are being sold to those who want one, and can afford it. Same here. One of my best friend's aquantances from uni spent 5k on a computer 2 years ago, so I know at least one exists
As for the 30fps thing - well it's simply not true. Yes the eye can only perceive a certain amount of pictures per second, but it can detect irrelguar frequencies. So if those 30fps aren't with v-sync enabled, you can still feel it's lagging. Also input lag can still occur when you have 30fps (if the cpu is too weak), and that can be felt as well. You'd be amazed as to how sensitive our eyes really are. So you'd ultimately always want a system that can provide a minimum of 30fps with vsync enabled (or more without naturally) in situations where the action is fast paced. It's a bit less important in slowmoving stuff like strategy games or billiard games or the like, but you'll still be able to notice if the system can't provide 30fps with vsync on.
Also remember that it's the minimum framerate that is important, not the average. So an average 30fps isn't going to cut it for most games.
As for your developers remark. Yes to an extend you're right. But with your particular example I believe the problem isn't the development itself, but the fact it was ported from a console game into a pc game. And that process has been done very poorly. But that's nothing new really, rockstar never were good at that. The gameplay is quite good in many games imo. Where it all falls down is, that those where developers try to make it look good, somehow they fail to make the gameplay good. Case in point - crysis and farcry 2. I've got both, and I dare say I was disappointed twice. Farcry 2 is a great game until you start getting used to the place and start being annoyed by the less practical things. The scripted ai that is poor at best, the horrible ending where you can't even cancel the credits without alt+f4, or the fact that once you've done so, you can't go back and do side missions etc. The game could've been good, but they spent too much time doing something other than gameplay design. Even the bonus dvd that can with my collectors ed was rubbish. On the other side of the scale though, you have games like hoyle board games, world of warcraft and older stuff like diablo 2 and heroes of might and magic, and probably soon bloodbowl. In those games graphics were never important, only gameplay is. I think developers just have yet to learn how to implement both in the same product. Anyhow, with ea having a shitty time I think there's still hope that quality will return to the pc world. In the end I believe the internet is actually the culprit as to why quality is so low anyway. Before the internet was a standard feature in a home I don't recall games needing many patches to actually work. How many games didn't work out of the box back in the 90s? I don't recall any. The ease at which developers can fix mistakes these days probably is a major reason for why they don't bother thoroughly testing their software prior to release anymore.
I could go on for ages, so I'll move on to the next thread.