does the 59.99 software price for the ps3 bug u?

[Sheldon]

damn sony just lowered the price for there developing kits i think they shud do that for software too. 49.99 was alot if u asked me

[Lego]

damn sony just lowered the price for there developing kits i think they shud do that for software too. 49.99 was alot if u asked me

Look for 70-80 dollar "games" by the end of this gen. I don't like paying for things via XBOX Live or Sony's network that should be included free in game.

[Kaikou]

damn sony just lowered the price for there developing kits i think they shud do that for software too. 49.99 was alot if u asked me

I'm not bothered by the prices at all, as if you factor in inflation, the prices are comparable to what they were when the PS2 was first released. If I want to buy the games cheaper, I just go the Ebay route.

[ADC]

It's all opportunity cost, anyway. If there's ever a PS3 game that's worth buying, I'll buy it. We can get malarkey like :noodle: in a matter of hours, but there's still no :shrug:.

[Magic_Knight]

Yes, $59.99 is way to expensive in my book. So was $49.99. I usually wait till a game is atleast $40 or less. Only the best of games that I need on release day will I pay $59.99 for. And that's rare.

[Suwako Moriya]

Given that I don't have PS3 it doesn't matter much to me, but if I did then I'd either just accept the $60 price or wait for eventual price drops that I'm confident will happen with PS3 games as well. Also I should note I remember Final Fantasy 3 SNES aka Final Fantasy VI costing like $70. So err yeah...

[jecca-neko]

Partly, I think it's Sony trying to make up some of the cost of how much money they're losing on each PS3 sold. Though, right now, it doesn't matter how much PS3 games cost to me - there has yet to be a game for PS3 to make me want to buy one.

I don't really buy console games at retail price anymore anyway. They actually drop in price fairly quickly and/or you can find them on sale if you look around. There are always exceptions, such as games I don't want to wait for. But the most part, I typically pay no more than $30 a piece for games. I don't buy used because the only places to buy used are EB Games and Gamestop around me, a company I refuse to support nowadays. I don't buy used online because I insist on being able to see the condition of a used game before buying it.

[Kaikou]

Given that I don't have PS3 it doesn't matter much to me, but if I did then I'd either just accept the $60 price or wait for eventual price drops that I'm confident will happen with PS3 games as well. Also I should note I remember Final Fantasy 3 SNES aka Final Fantasy VI costing like $70. So err yeah...

Final Fantasy III for the SNES was $79.99 when it was first released. (I got it on the day of release :notworthy: )

[lostnomad84]

As much as you don't like the costs, it is just a reality of numerous factors. The fact that a company needs to hire and pay very talented programmers to code for the Playstation 3's complicated processor, don't forget about the artists, then the equipment, which all result in development costs being in the millions. Then, add to the fact that Blu-Ray disks are expensive to manufacture compared to DVDs, then the costs go up on the medium used to store the game, which eats into the cost of the development profits.

I remember reading over a year ago that a publisher said they needed to sell 500,000 copies of a game to break even on development costs for a PS3 game. If that doesn't demonstrate to you exactly how expensive it is to design, develop, and manufacture a game, I don't know what else will.

[HitokiriShadow]

No, it doesn't really bother me. I don't even have a next gen system yet (my brother has a Wii though), but even when I get a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, there is very little on the horizon that I really want, and used is always an option.

[ADC]

Given that I don't have PS3 it doesn't matter much to me, but if I did then I'd either just accept the $60 price or wait for eventual price drops that I'm confident will happen with PS3 games as well. Also I should note I remember Final Fantasy 3 SNES aka Final Fantasy VI costing like $70. So err yeah...
Final Fantasy III for the SNES was $79.99 when it was first released. (I got it on the day of release :notworthy: )
The first FF I bought was FF7, for $200.

… I mean, I had to get the damn'd Playstation. Doesn't do much good, just having some discs in a case.

[Johnny]

Nope, thanks to the pound being strong against the dollar (moreso lately) it means games online cost me £30. Or I could pay £50 (which is around $100) in a regular shop which is the UK RRP...

[Citizen Klaus]

Being that I still remember when N64 and PSX games regularly sold new for $75 back in the late 90s, $60 games now really don't bother me. And really, it's not like Microsoft, Nintendo, and several of the PC publishers aren't doing the same thing.

[Flameswordsman86]

Nope, thanks to the pound being strong against the dollar (moreso lately) it means games online cost me £30. Or I could pay £50 (which is around $100) in a regular shop which is the UK RRP...

I'm feeling that pain, aswell. Even if I get a new game off eBay, it still sets you back about £30 [$60], and thats potentially buying it second-hand.

You guys in America don't know how good you've got it. Britain is a complete rip-off on practically everything these days.



How much are you guys paying for milk in the U.S.? 4 pints [2 litres] of milk here sets you back $2.80 in a super-market

[Suwako Moriya]

Final Fantasy III for the SNES was $79.99 when it was first released. (I got it on the day of release :notworthy: )

Ah so it was more expensive than I remember it being. :sweatdrop:

[DeadlyMessiah]

It depends, as CoD4, Conan, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Perfect Dark Zero, were well worth the $60 I paid. However, Transformers is deinitely not worth more than $10.

No, it doesn't really bother me. I don't even have a next gen system yet (my brother has a Wii though), but even when I get a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, there is very little on the horizon that I really want, and used is always an option.

Heavenly Sword
Ninja Gaiden Sigma
Conan
Call of Duty 4
Uncharted
Assassin's Creed
Kane & Lynch
Devil May Cry 4
GTA IV
Resident Evil 5
God of War III

[Kaikou]

Given that I don't have PS3 it doesn't matter much to me, but if I did then I'd either just accept the $60 price or wait for eventual price drops that I'm confident will happen with PS3 games as well. Also I should note I remember Final Fantasy 3 SNES aka Final Fantasy VI costing like $70. So err yeah...
Final Fantasy III for the SNES was $79.99 when it was first released. (I got it on the day of release :notworthy: )
The first FF I bought was FF7, for $200.

… I mean, I had to get the damn'd Playstation. Doesn't do much good, just having some discs in a case.

The game that got me to buy a Playstation was Wild Arms. It did help tide me over, but the wait for FF7 was painful.

[GetterBeam]

Where the industry is largely screwing up, region to region, is not taking a step back and looking that the cost vs the nature of the game. FLEX PRICING being implemented far more often would do the videogaming sector a great service. On the Wii, SEGA at least seems to kinda understand this as well as Capcom as far as many of their sub $50 NEW games selling quite well, with more on the horizon, testifies.

With bloated dev costs and lack of ridiculously good tools and middleware to match the ridiculous PS3 dev environment being what they are, flex pricing would surely be a better "bitter pill" to take than the suppository equivalent of watching the Used market eat your multi-million dollar debt project alive.

Mark my words, there's a very good chance some companies will lose their hat and then some on the PS3 if they don't go about things very carefully/flexibly and wind up with just 1-2 expensive games that were funcitonal "duds" from a NEW sales perspective.

[HitokiriShadow]

No, it doesn't really bother me. I don't even have a next gen system yet (my brother has a Wii though), but even when I get a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, there is very little on the horizon that I really want, and used is always an option.

Heavenly Sword
Ninja Gaiden Sigma
Conan
Call of Duty 4
Uncharted
Assassin's Creed
Kane & Lynch
Devil May Cry 4
GTA IV
Resident Evil 5
God of War III


Like I said, very little I'm interested in. I'll probably get CoD4 at some point but I'm not really interested in any of the others.

[DeadlyMessiah]

Like I said, very little I'm interested in. I'll probably get CoD4 at some point but I'm not really interested in any of the others.

Are you serious? I mean, MGS4 is going to be great, but there is no way it will top DMC4, GoWIII, or RE5.

[HitokiriShadow]

Sure it will since I have little to no interest in those franchises (mild interest in RE5, but virtually none in the other two) and a whole lot of interest in Metal Gear Solid. I've never played any of the DMC or GoW games and I've played only a couple of the RE games (I've only beaten Zero). On the other hand, I've played and beaten all of the main MGS games and have a great interest in seeing the conclusion (I hope) of it. I'm not comparing the merits of the games or saying the other games won't be just as good for people interested in them, but *I* don't really have an interest in any of them other than MGS4 and CoD4.

[Chacranajxy]

Yeah, it bugs me... especially since the quality of games as a whole seems to be declining. At least the PC still gets games for $40 or $50 rather than $60... the fact that they're graphically superior helps too.

[DeadlyMessiah]

Yeah, it bugs me... especially since the quality of games as a whole seems to be declining. At least the PC still gets games for $40 or $50 rather than $60... the fact that they're graphically superior helps too.

I disgree. I do not see how PC graphics can compare to those on a 1080p HDTV.

[ADC]

Yeah, it bugs me... especially since the quality of games as a whole seems to be declining. At least the PC still gets games for $40 or $50 rather than $60... the fact that they're graphically superior helps too.
I disgree. I do not see how PC graphics can compare to those on a 1080p HDTV.
You haven't played Warcraft III at 1920x1200. ;)

[Citizen Klaus]

Yeah, it bugs me... especially since the quality of games as a whole seems to be declining. At least the PC still gets games for $40 or $50 rather than $60... the fact that they're graphically superior helps too.

I disgree. I do not see how PC graphics can compare to those on a 1080p HDTV.


They compare pretty favorably, actually. Any good contemporary PC graphics card setup (singular or paired) can easily drive games to 1920x1080 and beyond. That setup can also enable more visual features (FSAA, Anistropic filtering) than the typical console could handle.

Provided a properly equipped PC setup, the difference boils down to this: better visual quality on a smaller display size (PC) or lesser visual quality on a larger display (console).

Like many PC gamers, I prefer the former, if I have to chose between the two.

[Chacranajxy]

Yeah, it bugs me... especially since the quality of games as a whole seems to be declining. At least the PC still gets games for $40 or $50 rather than $60... the fact that they're graphically superior helps too.

I disgree. I do not see how PC graphics can compare to those on a 1080p HDTV.


They compare pretty favorably, actually. Any good contemporary PC graphics card setup (singular or paired) can easily drive games to 1920x1080 and beyond. That setup can also enable more visual features (FSAA, Anistropic filtering) than the typical console could handle.


Not to mention that there's a hell of a lot more detail in the textures, lighting, etc. in the first place.

[Chuplayer]

Being that I still remember when N64 and PSX games regularly sold new for $75 back in the late 90s, $60 games now really don't bother me. And really, it's not like Microsoft, Nintendo, and several of the PC publishers aren't doing the same thing.

N64 games? Yes. PSX games? Doubt it. Most Dreamcast games were 40 bucks, and games with multiple discs and online were 50 bucks. It was an awesome time.

How did we go from 40 to 60? Inflation isn't that much of a cruel bitch. Development costs? Probably.

[Citizen Klaus]

N64 games? Yes. PSX games? Doubt it.

True enough as it goes, but Elemental Gearbolt and Lunar soared to the lofty heights that most "limited editions" hit today.

[Bitterman]

They compare pretty favorably, actually. Any good contemporary PC graphics card setup (singular or paired) can easily drive games to 1920x1080 and beyond. That setup can also enable more visual features (FSAA, Anistropic filtering) than the typical console could handle.

I know I'm trotting out an old and worn argument here, but where does cost factor into that? A current console will set you back something on the order of $400, give or take slightly. But a gaming computer will set you back considerably more than that.

Let's disregard displays for a moment. A computer needs a monitor, and a console needs a TV. These days with HDMI and DVI you could use the same piece of hardware for both. Maybe we could argue that TVs are bigger than monitors, but it's not strictly necessary.

A gaming computer would probably cost somewhere in the vicinity of $1000, without monitor, and that's assuming you built it yourself. Getting one retail would mean starting at about $1500 and going as high as maybe $2500.

Obviously, the computer would offer added benefits. You could word process, etc. So counting the full $1000 best-case scenario isn't quite fair. But a cheap mass-market Dell or E-machine capable of e-mail, web-sufing, and any office work can be had for around $350.

With that in mind, a computer gamer is paying somewhere around $600 for the gaming portion of the console. And that's the best-case scenario where the guy is willing to build it himself. Otherwise a PC gaming platform could cost an adjusted $1200.

Now, I'll assume for the sake of argument that depreciation isn't an issue, because a computer and a PC built at the same time can probably game for similar lifespans. Maybe this isn't fair, though if push came to shove, I'd say the consoles age better; look at the amazingly long lifespan of the PS2 and the good 4-5 years the original XBox lasted.

At what point does the PC gaming cost outweigh its added merits?

[Sheldon]

not to mention the snes and the n64 avent aged one bit :grin:

[Citizen Klaus]

They compare pretty favorably, actually. Any good contemporary PC graphics card setup (singular or paired) can easily drive games to 1920x1080 and beyond. That setup can also enable more visual features (FSAA, Anistropic filtering) than the typical console could handle.

I know I'm trotting out an old and worn argument here, but where does cost factor into that? A current console will set you back something on the order of $400, give or take slightly. But a gaming computer will set you back considerably more than that.

I'm not denying that PC gaming is an expensive hobby, but DeadlyMessiah never mentioned anything about cost. His claim was that a gaming PC could never compare to a 1080p console, graphics-wise. Obviously, provided sufficient financial resources, that line of argument is far from true.

[untoldsorrow]

They compare pretty favorably, actually. Any good contemporary PC graphics card setup (singular or paired) can easily drive games to 1920x1080 and beyond. That setup can also enable more visual features (FSAA, Anistropic filtering) than the typical console could handle.

I know I'm trotting out an old and worn argument here, but where does cost factor into that? A current console will set you back something on the order of $400, give or take slightly. But a gaming computer will set you back considerably more than that.

I'm not denying that PC gaming is an expensive hobby, but DeadlyMessiah never mentioned anything about cost. His claim was that a gaming PC could never compare to a 1080p console, graphics-wise. Obviously, provided sufficient financial resources, that line of argument is far from true.

To have the best PC graphics requires $$$. I just spent $340 on a new graphics card (EVGA PCIe 2.0 Card) two days ago. I don't know about you but thats almost the cost of a Xbox 360. Also, HDTVs can only output 1080p up to a certain pixel dimension while a high end cards (like mine or the $500+) are capable of 2560x1600 displays. I've hooked up my PS3 to a 22" monitor in full 1080p and played CoD 4 on it on and it looks amazing. I also got CoD 4 for PC and even on the medium settings, it looks better than the PS3. High settings I can't push with my current card (using new card for new system). The problem with PC gaming is that its dynamic, its always changing, both the game's visuals plus the hardware. Consoles is pretty much static. You cannot upgrade your system specs anytime you want so its up to the developer's to max out the full potential of the console.

I'm currently building a new gaming pc and I've spent well over $1000 and I'm not done yet. I know that once I'm done, the prices will drop due to that "high end" stuff becomes obsolete due to new things coming out to replace it. As far as gaming software for PC, max is $50 (60 for SE/LE) but for the most part these can be cheaper since sales are frequent for PC games IMO plus its also easier to use a "copied" version compared to a game console.

[Soulblazer]

The initial release price of most PS2 games has been 49.99 for many years. Do you really expect inflation to not affect the video game industry?

[Citizen Klaus]

The problem with PC gaming is that its dynamic, its always changing, both the game's visuals plus the hardware.

Absolutely. The fluid nature of PC gaming is both the platform's blessing and its curse. It's a blessing because, on the one hand, we PC gamers get to test-drive the latest in graphics technology often before it hits the consoles. We're accustomed to being ahead of the curve.

Of course, the curse of PC gaming is that surfing the technological wave requires a serious financial commitment, and occasionally you risk getting caught in the undertow when you least expect it. A good example of this is upgrade cycles.

Different people upgrade their rigs at different intervals. At one extreme, you have the bleeding-edge speed demons at sites like [H]ard|OCP who completely overhaul their systems every six months, shoveling unholy amounts of cash in the general direction of Intel, AMD, nVidia, and ATi. At the other end, you have people (we've all met them) who upgrade maybe once or twice a decade, and even then only begrudgingly.

Most PC gamers, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. I personally prefer a three-year upgrade cycle to help balance cost versus functionality, but there you risk running just a bit too far behind the horsepower standard. My gear is now barely 18 months old -- some stuff's still under warranty -- and I'm running into serious framerate trouble with the new generation of PC games. Halfway through my upgrade cycle, I'm already seriously considering breaking my habits and dropping $500 on an 8800GTX.

But that's the price we pay for staying ahead of the television-and-gamepad crowd.

[beatmania]

59.99 isn't expensive at all. Considering that NES games were 49.99. Game prices actually lowered adjusted to inflation. I just don't know why Wii games are still 49.99. Either they are a heck of a deal or Nintendo ripped us off during the NES era.

[untoldsorrow]

The problem with PC gaming is that its dynamic, its always changing, both the game's visuals plus the hardware.

Absolutely. The fluid nature of PC gaming is both the platform's blessing and its curse. It's a blessing because, on the one hand, we PC gamers get to test-drive the latest in graphics technology often before it hits the consoles. We're accustomed to being ahead of the curve.



It sure is a curse.


I'm running into serious framerate trouble with the new generation of PC games. Halfway through my upgrade cycle, I'm already seriously considering breaking my habits and dropping $500 on an 8800GTX.



Go for the 8800 GT for much less. They should range between $200 to $300 and are future proof since they are running on the new PCIe 2.0 chipset. One of these babies can almost reach GTX status so 2 in SLI would match/beat it for less the price of 1 GTX.

I'm builting a new gaming system right now and its going to be future proof, lol. The mobo takes DDR2 and DDR3 plus the new 45nm Intel chips.

[HitokiriShadow]

59.99 isn't expensive at all. Considering that NES games were 49.99. Game prices actually lowered adjusted to inflation. I just don't know why Wii games are still 49.99. Either they are a heck of a deal or Nintendo ripped us off during the NES era.

An oft cited reason for the price increases for the PS3 and 360 increases is increased development costs. I'm guessing this isn't nearly as much of an issue for the Wii. In addition, due to the high price of the consoles, there is a smaller installed base for the PS3 and 360 at the moment and that may play some role in it as well.

[ADC]

59.99 isn't expensive at all. Considering that NES games were 49.99. Game prices actually lowered adjusted to inflation. I just don't know why Wii games are still 49.99. Either they are a heck of a deal or Nintendo ripped us off during the NES era.
Remember that those old $50+ NES games were on carts, not discs. That's a big difference in production cost, especially factoring in that a lot of those chips they had on the NES carts were custom chips, not off-the-shelf components. It's a different world than it was 20 years ago, and there are different factors going into the cost of games. So I don't think you can say that Nintendo was ripping us off back in the day.

As for why Wii games are still $50, it's more of a surprise that they're $50 instead of $40 than it is that they're $50 instead of $60. Sony and Microsoft are charging a $10 HD fee because Lair is somehow better in HD than it is on a regular TV.

[untoldsorrow]

[quote=bemani] Sony and Microsoft are charging a $10 HD fee because Lair is somehow better in HD than it is on a regular TV.

Am I the only one who still remember when MS said all 1st party games would be $50 while 3rd parties would be $60? What ever happened to that statement?

[Kaikou]

Am I the only one who still remember when MS said all 1st party games would be $50 while 3rd parties would be $60? What ever happened to that statement?


I remember the statement and for awhile there were quite a few first party games that were only $49.99. Maybe they wanted to make more money? :susel:

[ADC]

Am I the only one who still remember when MS said all 1st party games would be $50 while 3rd parties would be $60? What ever happened to that statement?
I remember the statement and for awhile there were quite a few first party games that were only $49.99. Maybe they wanted to make more money? :susel:
They probably saw that the $60 games were selling, so they figured they could raise their own prices. Why not? If the market will bear the higher price … :shrug:

[Sensuifu]

Most PC gamers, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. I personally prefer a three-year upgrade cycle to help balance cost versus functionality, but there you risk running just a bit too far behind the horsepower standard.


I'm mostly following that cycle (give or take a few months), not because of the cost factor associated, but because that's the timeframe I feel most games or sequels are worth upgrading/replacing the PC for. An example would be when F.E.A.R. was released (sheesh does that game age badly). It taxed what I had at the time, but I upgraded to a better system (from a 2yr change) capable of rendering decent framerates.

Now that UT3 is out, it's probably about time I get a new setup, but maybe in another 6mos to a year. That way I'll be overhauling my setup with more stable hardware while not being too behind the curve. Still, I'm more inclined to get the latest hardware that I can afford if my PC is 3 years or older.


My gear is now barely 18 months old -- some stuff's still under warranty -- and I'm running into serious framerate trouble with the new generation of PC games. Halfway through my upgrade cycle, I'm already seriously considering breaking my habits and dropping $500 on an 8800GTX.

My FX-57/7800GTX SLI setup is pathetic now that it's 4+ generations behind what's available. I'm just waiting for the right time to jump on the Penryn and a decent video subsystem (8800GT SLI, if not a later revision). Then in another 2-3 years, look forward to Westmere or whatever AMD has to compete with Intel.


But that's the price we pay for staying ahead of the television-and-gamepad crowd.

It's still amusing to see the PS3 breathing life into the G70 architecture, even if it's nearly 3 years old.

[Citizen Klaus]

Go for the 8800 GT for much less. They should range between $200 to $300 and are future proof since they are running on the new PCIe 2.0 chipset. One of these babies can almost reach GTX status so 2 in SLI would match/beat it for less the price of 1 GTX.

Nice, except I'm running an ATi Radeon Xpress 3200 chipset -- no SLI for me. Considering I'm also running a Socket 939 processor and DDR1 RAM, moving to SLI would basically mean a full system overhaul.

Might consider a single 8800GT, though. It'd just be a stopgap until a full upgrade later down the line, anyway, so the performance difference might not be an issue. It's gotta be better than my Radeon X1800XTPE.


I'm builting a new gaming system right now and its going to be future proof, lol. The mobo takes DDR2 and DDR3 plus the new 45nm Intel chips.


Good idea. Last upgrade, I went for Socket 939 and DDR1 because I didn't want to wait two months for the Socket AM2 / DDR2 boards to hit stores. Boy, am I regretting that now.

When the next upgrade time rolls around, you'll be glad you went with the newer tech. Switching motherboard chipsets is probably the single biggest expense in upgrading a PC.

[Citizen Klaus]

Most PC gamers, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. I personally prefer a three-year upgrade cycle to help balance cost versus functionality, but there you risk running just a bit too far behind the horsepower standard.


I'm mostly following that cycle (give or take a few months), not because of the cost factor associated, but because that's the timeframe I feel most games or sequels are worth upgrading/replacing the PC for. An example would be when F.E.A.R. was released (sheesh does that game age badly). It taxed what I had at the time, but I upgraded to a better system (from a 2yr change) capable of rendering decent framerates.

Yeah, F.E.A.R. is a great example of a game that straddled a generational fault line. Developers were just starting to get the hang of bump-mapping, when all of a sudden HDR lighting and pixel shaders come into play. Add in distortion, particle effects, enhanced physics and you've got what amounts to a more pronounced evolutionary jump in game graphics over than past 18 months than we'd seen in the previous 3 years.


Now that UT3 is out, it's probably about time I get a new setup, but maybe in another 6mos to a year. That way I'll be overhauling my setup with more stable hardware while not being too behind the curve. Still, I'm more inclined to get the latest hardware that I can afford if my PC is 3 years or older.

I know. It's much harder to stomach big upgrades if you're ahead of your normal schedule. At the same time, though, it's tough when the games you want to play bring your system to its knees.

[Skywise]

Make sure your mobo supports the GT if it's pci-e. A friend of mine bought one and had to buy a new mobo because it wouldn't work with it.

[karmaslave]

No more than paying 59.99 for 360 games. I hate how arbitrary the price increase seemed at the beginning of this generation. (Seemed that way to me, at least.) I also hate what that price did to games with pack-ins: $80-90 (depending on store) for Time Crisis 4. :sad:

[Citizen Klaus]

A friend of mine bought one and had to buy a new mobo because it wouldn't work with it.

In what way didn't the card work?

[Bitterman]

Good idea. Last upgrade, I went for Socket 939 and DDR1 because I didn't want to wait two months for the Socket AM2 / DDR2 boards to hit stores. Boy, am I regretting that now.

When the next upgrade time rolls around, you'll be glad you went with the newer tech. Switching motherboard chipsets is probably the single biggest expense in upgrading a PC.
And yet, right now is probably the worst time to choose a motherboard. Intel just released the X38, and they've already gone and made it obsolete with the X48. We haven't even seen the G35 yet! The best thing to do is probably wait until Intel switches over to CSI and gets rid of the FSB altogether. Until then it's throwing dice.

[Skywise]

A friend of mine bought one and had to buy a new mobo because it wouldn't work with it.

In what way didn't the card work?

I'm not quite sure - I think it was related to a compatibility issue with the pci-e version of the card vs the mobo.

[Citizen Klaus]

And yet, right now is probably the worst time to choose a motherboard. Intel just released the X38, and they've already gone and made it obsolete with the X48. We haven't even seen the G35 yet!

Oy gevalt. I haven't followed Intel for a while now, but that's just... not cool.

Do their product planners have some unexpressed sadistic tendencies, or what?

[WRX]

I disgree. I do not see how PC graphics can compare to those on a 1080p HDTV.

I got Call of Duty 4 for my PC (Vista64, 8800GTX, oodles of RAM) but my friend got the same game on the X360 (on a 1080i HDTV). It was interesting to see the graphical differences between the two games. Both games looked excellent but the PC version had more obvious volumetric lighting and better haze/fog effects. It made the graphics on the X360 seem a bit unnaturally "bright" and "sharp" if that makes sense.

[Chacranajxy]

Good idea. Last upgrade, I went for Socket 939 and DDR1 because I didn't want to wait two months for the Socket AM2 / DDR2 boards to hit stores. Boy, am I regretting that now.

When the next upgrade time rolls around, you'll be glad you went with the newer tech. Switching motherboard chipsets is probably the single biggest expense in upgrading a PC.
And yet, right now is probably the worst time to choose a motherboard. Intel just released the X38, and they've already gone and made it obsolete with the X48. We haven't even seen the G35 yet! The best thing to do is probably wait until Intel switches over to CSI and gets rid of the FSB altogether. Until then it's throwing dice.

As far as I know, the X48 is only a minor update to the X38. And really, it's all uninteresting techno babble anyway.

Funny this topic should come up though, coz I'm building a new computer on Friday. I am pretty frickin' excited. I'll post pics in the gaming thread.

[Bitterman]

[
As far as I know, the X48 is only a minor update to the X38. And really, it's all uninteresting techno babble anyway.

I haven't been following the news too closely, but my understanding is this: The X38 is the high-performance enthusiast motherboard. It has 2.0 PCI-e slots and a 1333 FSB. The X48 is indeed the same thing, but with a 1600 FSB. Right now the only processor I know of that requires 1600 FSB is the Intel QX9770. This is definitely what you'd call a premium high-end chip. Quad core, 3.2 Ghz.

But that having been said, at this point 1600 FSB motherboards don't even exist. The only way you could run the processor is to overclock an X38, which is many cases would void the motherboard's warranty. A few manufacturers state they'll support overclocking up to 1600, but Intel has stated that they will not support any product that exceeded published specs. So really, they're saying you have to buy X48 if you want to load a QX9770 or any other processor with 1600 FSB. We're getting to the point where they offer a small incremental upgrade every few months and change the chipset to accommodate it. If it's going to go that far, I don't know why Intel doesn't just sell the motherboard and chip as a unit. If things keep going like this they'll make a custom chipset for each processor anyway.

Of course, I know that won't happen, and we're just in a weird spot where Intel feels ultra-competitive with AMD so they want to kick product out the door ASAP, but I felt like venting for a few seconds.

[Citizen Klaus]

It's still amusing to see the PS3 breathing life into the G70 architecture, even if it's nearly 3 years old.

I've been confused about this statement for the past while, until I did a check on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware):



The [PlayStation 3's] Graphics Processing Unit is based on the NVIDIA G70 (previously known as NV47) architecture, which focuses on minimizing per-pixel computation in favor of raw pixel output. The GPU currently makes use of 256 MB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 700 MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.3 GHz and up to 192 MB of the 3.2 GHz XDR main memory via the CPU (448 MB max).

Wow. While that's not exactly spit and bailing twine by modern PC graphics standards, that's still some pretty ancient tech they're running.

[untoldsorrow]

A friend of mine bought one and had to buy a new mobo because it wouldn't work with it.

In what way didn't the card work?

I'm not quite sure - I think it was related to a compatibility issue with the pci-e version of the card vs the mobo.


Thats weird. PCIe 2.0 is backward compatiable with 1.0.

[Danj]

A friend of mine bought one and had to buy a new mobo because it wouldn't work with it.

In what way didn't the card work?

I'm not quite sure - I think it was related to a compatibility issue with the pci-e version of the card vs the mobo.


Thats weird. PCIe 2.0 is backward compatiable with 1.0.

Not backwards compatible enough for cheapo VIA chipset boards though. I am the friend in question, I had one of those Asrock hybrid motherboards with both PCI-E and AGP, and I planned to upgrade from my old AGP 6600 to the new 8800GT, but the card doesn't work with the chipset. It's possible to flash it with a modified bios using another computer, but I didn't have another computer and didn't fancy voiding the warranty on a £180 card, so I bought a new motherboard to go with it. Thankfully that solution has worked out very well and I now have a nice setup that's ready to tackle current games and will last me a good few years.

[Citizen Klaus]

Not backwards compatible enough for cheapo VIA chipset boards though. I am the friend in question, I had one of those Asrock hybrid motherboards with both PCI-E and AGP, and I planned to upgrade from my old AGP 6600 to the new 8800GT, but the card doesn't work with the chipset. It's possible to flash it with a modified bios using another computer, but I didn't have another computer and didn't fancy voiding the warranty on a £180 card, so I bought a new motherboard to go with it. Thankfully that solution has worked out very well and I now have a nice setup that's ready to tackle current games and will last me a good few years.

Good example of why I stay away from VIA. Learned my lesson there about three upgrades ago.