Bargain Alerts/Adverts Discussion Thread

Gumbi

game4it70 wrote: »

It certainly has,really cant decide if i should sell my 7970 now before it devalues any more.

Edited the post to add games bundle.:D

If I had the money I'd grab that Asus one. If someone were to grab it for themselves and use for ~a month or so, I'd be happy to take it off their hands for about the same price :P

beno619

Gumbi wrote: »

If I had the money I'd grab that Asus one. If someone were to grab it for themselves and use for ~a month or so, I'd be happy to take it off their hands for about the same price :P

+1

My WF3 is cool but its annoyingly loud, didnt think I would be so sensitive to noise and certainly wasn't until I joined this forum

The price drops are are a good sign for the HD 9000 series fingers crossed for this < €600 Titan killer..

BloodBath

AMD are going to mop the floor with Nvidia this gen. Just as many of us are moving onto 1440p though, 4k is breaking through. You know you are going to be raging when you finally get your dual cards and a 1440p monitor when someone shows up with their flash 4k monitor. If electricity isn't an issue though triple 7950's will run 4k with good frame rates. Just need cheap Korean 4k monitors now

Gotta get 1440p before the next gen consoles come out though so we can keep these dirty console peasants in their place.

Monotype

BloodBath wrote: »

Gotta get 1440p before the next gen consoles come out though so we can keep these dirty console peasants in their place.

It's hard to believe that the consoles are only reaching 1080p now (in more than a few games). I wonder if they'll keep it up though, or will resolution be sacrificed again - the PS4 is compared to the likes of a 7850 but even that slides to the 30 frame mark for Crysis 3. Resolution has stagnated in desktops a bit, probably thanks to standardising with tvs. Look at phones; they're miles ahead with innovation.

beno619

BF4 is still only going to the 720p on the Xbox One so consoles still have a long way to go.

Most competitive games are going to sacrifice resolution to hit that 60fps target.

Monotype

Wow, I would have thought all of the games near launch could make it to 'full HD'. It's horrible to think that they expect these to last ten years.

EoinHef

I doubt there will be many games hitting 1080p 60fps on the new consoles, for the first while anyway. From what im reading im extremely disappointed with the number of titles that will be full HD 60fps. As was mentioned above how they expect the consoles to last 10 years without that being the minimum goal is beyond me

Gumbi

EoinHef wrote: »

I doubt there will be many games hitting 1080p 60fps on the new consoles, for the first while anyway. From what im reading im extremely disappointed with the number of titles that will be full HD 60fps. As was mentioned above how they expect the consoles to last 10 years without that being the minimum goal is beyond me

Not a hope man. The 360/PS3 gen couldn't even get 720p 30 FPS on some games. Halo 3 was natively sub 720p (I forget the exact res). Cod was 60FPS, not sure if they cheated with the res too, but that game has nothing going on it it compared to Halo.

BloodBath

Jesus that's bad if they are sacrificing targets already on the first batch of games. I think I'd sooner have 30 fps at 1080p than 60fps at 720p though.

You think they would at least give people the option.

Gumbi

BloodBath wrote: »

Jesus that's bad if they are sacrificing targets already on the first batch of games. I think I'd sooner have 30 fps at 1080p than 60fps at 720p though.

You think they would at least give people the option.

Yeah, native 1080p would be nice. And I agree, 30FPS at 1080p is preferable.

NTMK

Gumbi wrote: »

Not a hope man. The 360/PS3 gen couldn't even get 720p 30 FPS on some games. Halo 3 was natively sub 720p (I forget the exact res). Cod was 60FPS, not sure if they cheated with the res too, but that game has nothing going on it it compared to Halo.

Bf3 was 704p24 with half the player count. Cod also uses the same engine it did since Cod 2 i believe

How are these consoles goin to last even 5 years cause performance is only going to get worse?

beno619

BloodBath wrote: »

Jesus that's bad if they are sacrificing targets already on the first batch of games. I think I'd sooner have 30 fps at 1080p than 60fps at 720p though.

You think they would at least give people the option.

Im not sure if you have played BF3 on console but it feels horrible at 30fps.

720p at 60fps with some nice eye candy and AA would be better for a competitive game imho.

cherryghost

BF3 on the console wasn't even 720p, it was 600p or something stupid like that

Brian

beno619 wrote: »

Im not sure if you have played BF3 on console but it feels horrible at 30fps.

720p at 60fps with some nice eye candy and AA would be better for a competitive game imho.

I'd rather the least "eye candy" possible in a competitive FPS. Less visual clutter makes players easier to identify from the background.

Nedved85

beno619 wrote: »

BF4 is still only going to the 720p on the Xbox One so consoles still have a long way to go.

Most competitive games are going to sacrifice resolution to hit that 60fps target.

720p lol No way?

It doesn't work aswell on console in my opinion- so i'll be sticking to the pc

beno619

Nedved85 wrote: »

720p lol No way?

It doesn't work aswell on console in my opinion- so i'll be sticking to the pc

BF3 was too demanding for the current gen consoles, too much was stripped out to get it running and even then it was only just about playable, I wouldn't purchase another Battlefield on the current gen.

Things should be better on the next gen consoles as they will have 64 man servers & 60fps and decent graphics as well.

EoinHef

I think BF3 on current gen consoles was probably one of the best fps on the consoles over there lifetime, it seems to be getting a very bad rap here!! Obviously in comparison to the PC version the game looks terrible, but I doubt anybodys 7-8 year old PCs could run the console versions as they are now!!! Obviously they cut corners but that was nessacery because of the lack of power on the consoles, so if you compare it to the rest of the games on the consoles over the years I think it compares very favorably and I really enjoyed it. Think its just what your compareing it to.
Just my two cents anyway

BloodBath

Brian wrote: »

I'd rather the least "eye candy" possible in a competitive FPS. Less visual clutter makes players easier to identify from the background.

Better stick to playing quake then or counter strike 1.6

I agree with you totally but sadly that's the way fps games are gone.

I think I'm just going to install BF2 again.

beno619

EoinHef wrote: »

Obviously they cut corners but that was nessacery because of the lack of power on the consoles, so if you compare it to the rest of the games on the consoles over the years I think it compares very favorably and I really enjoyed it. Think its just what your compareing it to.
Just my two cents anyway

Those are fair points, if I had never played the PC version I probably wouldnt notice any of the shortcoming. Its still enjoyable on console I guess which is all that matters.

TerrorFirmer

I thought BF3 was OK on the 360 but just OK, smaller maps were good but the larger maps were crap, far too large for such a small player count. It's particularly difficult to play it after playing BF3 on a decent PC, not entirely unlike comparing the same game across two generations of consoles - Like COD3 on the Xbox vs Xbox 360. I think games like Halo Reach and Halo 4 understand large team battles on consoles better - small but brilliantly designed maps in which even with only 24 players, it's non stop land and air carnage. That said I thought BF3 was only a mediocre game overall, even on PC, and not a patch on BF2 which was just absolutely brilliant, my whole life was about that game at one point, whereas I'm largely indifferent to BF3.

EoinHef

beno619 wrote: »

Those are fair points, if I had never played the PC version I probably wouldnt notice any of the shortcoming. Its still enjoyable on console I guess which is all that matters.

Just re read my post and it sounds like a bit of a rant,it really was not intended to be like that,seems you got what i meant though:P

As somebody who has owned a PS3 since release and an Xbox 360 about 3 years later till this day i have to say i thought the current generation of consoles were great for gaming,at release they really pushed gaming as an acceptable form of mainstream entertainment and really pushed the limits of what was possible. Lets not forget at the time even the push to have all games in HD(even though some games cheated with upscaling and what not)was a great thing for gaming. Pushed developers at the time to accept 720p as a minimum!!

In later years obviously the consoles showed their age but if you consider Windows Vista was not to be released until about a year after the consoles(Maybe same year as PS3:2006?)and the unprecedented pace of advancement in technologies since id have to say as a gamer i consider this generation of consoles a sucess. Its only in later years that people have moved on because the consoles were no longer the cutting edge of gaming(apologies to people who have always used PC's and probably overtook the consoles not too long after launch)but at the time a PC with similar performance to the consoles was out of most peoples budget!

Believe me when i say i have no real alligiance to any particular platform for gaming,you will find me on the platform that offers the most enjoyment and the most fresh and cutting edge experiences. Hence why im gaming on a PC at the moment,and with the info about the consoles starting to filter out i reckon ill be gaming on the PC for the forseeable future as its going to offer the most innovative and cutting edge experiences gaming has to offer:)
Im a gamer first and foremost,my loyalties lie with no platform but to the platform able to give me the best experience of games:)

Even though im part of the PC master race now i feel like im gonna get some stick over this but i do think people have to remember what the consoles did for us in their early years as gamers,even though in later years they have held gaming back:)

BloodBath

They were a success and beasts when they were released. They pretty much had higher specs than most high end gaming pc's. That's also the reason they were losing big money on every console sold as well as Sony's blu-ray and cell debacle.

They were losing €350+ per console at release. This next gen is worrying though as they have spec's of a mid range pc at best. Still a big improvement over last gen but it's not going to be the jump graphically that ps2 -ps3 was or xbox - 360.

tuxy

The problem with console is not their specification but they lifespan.
Sony says 10 years for the ps4.

Monotype

Sony (and MS) can say what they like, but there's been a huge increase in PC gamers over the past few years and this'll just push more when the consoles fall too far behind. While the most money is to be made by spreading across platforms, there's actually beginning to be enough of a voice from PC gamers to push for their demands in a game's development.

Brian

BloodBath wrote: »

Better stick to playing quake then or counter strike 1.6

I agree with you totally but sadly that's the way fps games are gone.

I think I'm just going to install BF2 again.

yeah call me when Cod has rocket jumping and air control

BloodBath

Over 35% of the entire games industry revenue is made on pc. It's on par with consoles at the moment and projected to pass them by next year. The growth is massive. Next gen consoles might swing it back a little but the general growth in the pc market is higher.

I'm sure the advent of reasonably powerful igp's and indie games has helped this quite a bit.

darconio

I was looking at this BA:

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

7870 €142.41 at the moment on Pixmania

I know it says OEM but more often than not they're sapphire cards.

and I was wondering in your opinion how true is this article:

http://www.behardware.com/news/12705/black-screens-and-radeon-hd7870-a-solution.html

I personally have a Gigabyte 7870 and I've been experiencing the issue described only with certain games: I've literally tried every possible setting but I simply wouldn't give up and accept an hardware fault. I actually bought a second card and went xfire: the issue re-presented itself only with certain games (a fresh build of win7 64bit SP1) and reading and trying to document the issue it looked like the cards were over-powering the fps of the game and needed to be down-clocked.
I tried that as well without luck: I then ditched the first card and went only with the one I bought recently but still some games were crashing! Surely it can't be an hw fault on both cards? I then played a game that was constantly crashing (Splinter Cell blacklist) in compatibility mode for XP sp3 and magically the crashing frequency decreased dramatically and at the same time old games using DX9 never crash (but for example Grid 2 never crash).
Now in your opinion are these cards bugged? have you ever come across a similar issue? if yes how did you resolve it? Are the drivers incompatible with DX11?

BloodBath

There's nothing wrong with the cards. I'm guessing they were overheating and becoming unstable or were overclocked and unstable.

That kind of black screen crashing is consistent with a non stable overclock.

A **** load of these cards have been sold. I wouldn't be worried about a tiny amount of complaints.

The cards' are DX11 compatible.

If you do run into the issue you are covered under warranty anyway.

ZeitgeistGlee

Hey guys, my graphics card finally arrived from Pixmania and I've registered with the Sapphire Select Club, I was just wondering if any free games should've been included with it and who I should talk to if there were? I've checked the Sapphire page and the only offer is on 7970s.

BloodBath

Only certain retailers do the Never Settle bundle. Your best bet is contacting Pixmania and asking them do they do it and can they email you the game codes.