The Thousand Dollar Video Card

You can read the details here. Essentially, it’s a high-end video card with water cooling.

Well, I suppose it’s better to relieve with too much money of their burden than cocaine. 🙂

Foreveryone else, seems to be you could get a water-cooling system that would cool the other needy parts of the computer, plus the computer itself, for little more than this card.

When Does It Stop Helping?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask, “What would this do for me?” For that matter, this is a question that should start to be asked about video cards, period.

As we’ve mentioned a number of times before, video card manufacturers seem hellbent on having a very expensive first-class of video cards, and below a certain price point, they no longer sell older first-class cards, but rather cards designed to be second-class from the getgo.

This puts gamers on a budget in a quandary. They ask themselves, “Do I have to get the latest and greatest just to stay competitive, or can I kill just as well without all the possible eye candy?

It’s clear that for some gaming situations, improvement in hardware will yield improvement in gaming performance. If you have a GF2, and playing a relatively recent game, you’re likely facing some real handicaps.

But what would be good enough to get rid of the handicap? No doubt you’d do better with A Ti4200. But how much higher would your scores be with a Radeon 9700? An FX5900? At what point does spending more money only get you eye candy?

There’s nothing wrong with wanting and paying for eye candy. What isn’t so good is paying a ton expecting to be able to perform better, and getting just eye candy instead.

Fuzzy Logic

This is a pretty hard question to answer.

Obviously, there’s a technical aspect to this. Different games have different requirements, and Game A may well relatively modest hardware requirements while Game B.

Those complexities are minute, though, in comparison to trying to figure out the human factor.

A million people will have a million different skill levels, and they will hardly scale as predictably as a CPU.

You can say somebody who spent $5,000 on a computer system and can’t shoot anybody is a lousy player, but how sure can you be as sure about someone just as lousy with a Celeron 450 and a Ti2 card? It might help a lot, a little, or not at all.

If you don’t look for the enemy, it hardly matters how well or smoothly he’s displayed on the screen. Besides, why are you there in the first place? You’re there to find your enemy and do it to him before he does it to you. You’re not there to admire the scenery or notice how good-looking your enemy is.

Now if you’re in a position to do both, fine. But if you’re not, one takes priority over the other, and this is the kind of choice one ought to be able to make.

It may well be that only the very highly skilled can take advantage of the subtle improvements a very high-end video card may give you. So a very high-end card may be essential in the big-money finals of a professional game tournament, and that’s about it.

There’s a lot of possibilities. Just about the only thing you can say and be sure about is that there will be no simple, clear, precise rules even the most comprehensive and thorough test could reveal, outside of strictly “Duh” stuff.

That doesn’t mean you can’t find out something useful.

So We Ask

This may be one of those inquiries that blows up in our faces and doesn’t yield any useful data, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Question 1:

What games do you most seriously play?

Question 2:

What system upgrades (from what to what) have you made that you feel made you a significantly better player in the game, and what reasons do you have for thinking like that?

Question 3:

What system upgrades (from what to what) have you made that you feel did not make you a significantly better player in the game, and what reasons do you have for thinking like that?

Feel free to add your thoughts and observations, or other sources of info.

Ed

Loading new replies...

Avatar of UnseenMenace
UnseenMenace

UnseenModerator

5,433 messages 0 likes

** Quick Links **
links featured through this thread and others will be presented in a list here for quick future refrence.. feel free to PM UnseenMenace with a usefull link

a) Gainward... http://www.gainward.com

Reply Like

Avatar of TheMatrixHasYou
TheMatrixHasYou

Member

147 messages 0 likes

1. No way. That card costs as much as my system, almost. Well, I might if I won the lottery, or was a rich *******, but otherwise no.

2. Well, I'd say as long as you upgrade every so often, and make a decent upgrade, your performance will be fine. You might not have the best system, but it will still be pretty good.

3. I'd say you'll be a little better even getting a 9800 np over a 9700 Pro, or something similar, after that, it's just eye candy. And besides, the 9800 Pro's and FX5900 Ultras are for those that have to have the absolute best graphics. Realistically, it's the same as buying a 200 speaker system for your computer. Your performance isn't going to be better, but your experience sure will be. Me, I'd never pay more than $250 for a graphics card. For $250 now, you can get a 9800 np that will most likely overclock near 9800 Pro stock speeds. Why pay $200 more for minimal improvement. It's all about bang for your buck, and it makes no sense to pay double the cash and get a 5% improvement, unless you're filthy rich.

4. In some cases, yes. For example, if I buy an ATI card, I want it to be built by ATI or a Sapphire. If I buy an nVidia card, I want it to be built by a company with a good reputation, and one whose cards are good OCers.

Reply Like

click to expand...
Avatar of macklin01
macklin01

Computational Oncologist / Biomathematician / Mode

5,663 messages 0 likes

I think one aspect of gaming has been ignored here. Not all gamers are playing multiplayer online games, where frame rate is the most important aspect of video performance, and where there is no time to stop and appreciate the video quality. Some gamers are playing single-player simulators, where visual quality is essential to how immersive the experience is. In that context, frame rate AND quality are both essential to the video performance. In that context, then, the "eye candy" effects are maybe more like "eye vegetables".

Even some first-person shooters have this aspect. I think part of Half-Life's success was the fact that the player felt well-immersed in a quality environment (for its day), and there was just as much time to admire and explore the scenery as there was to run aroun and shoot things.

In short, I think there's too much of a tendency here to write off visual quality as mere fluff, when there are indeed situtations (in gaming itself) where its much more of substance. Perhaps this is indeed because some mistakenly equate gaming with multiplayer gaming.

I do, however, agree wth the overall topic: Is spending a huge amount for a video card worth the while? Is the video card market steering towards a "affordable low end or budget-breaker high end' segmentation, and if so, why, and is it right?

As for answering the questions, I'd certainly never spend $1,000 on a video card, as I simply cannot justify that kind of expenditure. (Computers are for research, then work, then fun here.) I'd never spend half or quarter that, either. (In inflation-adjusted dollars.) I would, however, wait until the market value of those cards was below those values and buy then. I lived on an GF2 MX-400 for quite some time until I upgraded to a used Ti4200 (128MB) at the end of the product cycle.

Interesting discussion here, though. I'm glad Ed writes articles like these. -- Paul

Reply Like

click to expand...
Avatar of Giblet Plus!
Giblet Plus!

Member

1,609 messages 0 likes

1. No. The included watercooling block would kill the flowrate in my system, and I don't have enough disposable cash anyways.

2. To some extent, yes. I like eye candy, even in mulitplayer fps games. :)

3. I could still play all my games on a gf2. I'd just have to turn off the visual extras. I do just fine with my ti4200. I don't think a 9700 would help me game better, it would just make everything look a bit better.

4. Yes. I like my MSI ti4200. It overclocks quite well. Budget branded cards tend to not OC quite as well.

Reply Like

Avatar of donny_paycheck
donny_paycheck

Inactive Super Quad Mod

4,446 messages 0 likes

1. No.

2. No. In fact, many shooters are easier with eye candy turned down. You don't get dithering through fog effects, or your view obstructed by grass and other massless garnishes. I don't play SoF2 or Planetside with the details up very high because it's easier to fight without them.

3. Personal preference. For me, it's what keeps the framerates smooth at the detail level I prefer. An overclocked 9700 Pro is more than enough.

4. Yeah, it does. Some companies are known for poor QC or substandard components.[/list]

Reply Like

Avatar of XWRed1
XWRed1

Senior Member

4,464 messages 0 likes

3 == Law of diminishing returns. Holds in most all cases.

Reply Like

M
Malpine Walis

Disabled

2,521 messages 0 likes

1. No. I don’t think I have ever paid over $200 for a video card. Perhaps I am selecting games that do not strain my gaming all that much. But I think that what Donny said about not having the eye candy is probably a better explanation.

2. See what I said for 1.

3. I am gaming on a GF2 Ti right now and I alt least hold my own in any game. Perhaps someone could recommend a game that I simply cannot play well with my current card and we shall see.

4. It is an Asus card. Every thing else they make is solid. I would probably buy one of their cards again if someone actually convinces me based on my answer to question 3.

Then of course, I cannot help but notice that they want about $230 extra for the water-cooled version. Granted that is almost certainly for a complete water-cooling system. However, that still seems a little steep form the limited research I have done on water cooling my main rig.

Reply Like

click to expand...
Avatar of JKeefe
JKeefe

Member

830 messages 0 likes

I just don't see how this would be a justifiable purchase. If you truly care about your performance that much, you should know all about DIY watercooling. I'm sure you can get your own waterblock for any video card that fits your watercooling system better overall (flowrate, tubing diameter, etc.). And if you care this much about performance, you should know what type of performance $1000 will get you in other areas (aka the rest of your system).

I just built an Intel system for $750 and used my "old" Ti 4200. Even if I had bought every part new I still wouldn't have exceeded $1000...

Reply Like

Avatar of Stedeman
Stedeman

The Half Asleep Member

2,408 messages 0 likes

[looks in system] Hmm...TNT2 seems fine to me. I do have a 440se 128mb in my briefcase rig, but that was because it was a half high card. I know on the newest games your stuck with the old cliché "need more to get more" but there is a cut of point. On the other hand if someone wants to spend $1000 on a card let them, as long as there is a decent $50 one out there for me.

Reply Like

Avatar of trulyred
trulyred

Member

188 messages 0 likes

thats pricey for sure, but then they are not the only high priced card around. oceanic (?) makes high end graphics cards for architectural/cad/design type applications, and is probably justafiable in price vs performance. Now as for gaming, just how do you justify 1000 dollars for a vid card to play splinter cell or the yet to be released HL2?? Maybe I'll up grade to that when the price comes down alot.Probably in 18 months or so..........

Reply Like