Originally Posted by rcfc89
Originally Posted by dph314
Well, I used the term 'mainstream' line-up to more or less mean "the not-Titan line".
But I see what you mean. But there's different levels though. Many have said their 660's and 7870's are enough for today's games
, and for many people just coming from consoles, one 660 on a single 1080p will be enough of an upgrade for them to be swept off their feet by the beauty of many PC games.
There are more then a fair share of people who claim to be maxing out games on OCN but we all know they are FOS. Just like the guy claiming to max out 2560x1440 with a single 7970 with AA disabled because its not needed with that high of resolution. If you can't see the amount of eye candy that is added by enabling AA you have no business commenting on it. You don't max out anything until everything is peaked including AA. Just like my rig can run BF3 completely maxed 2560x1440 and hold 60fps. But it will get absolutely destroyed in Far Cry 3 if I push the msaa past 2x. More powerful gpu's is definitely needed. Its not some myth. Imo anyone who is gaming on a single 1080p 60hz monitor is not an enthusiast. They are a mainstream gamer who can easily be satisfied by a mainstream mid-range gpu. Titan is for the big boys with big toys who have deep enough pockets to do so. Please continue to tell us how there is no need for Titan and how the current lineup of gpu's is more then enough for todays games.
.....I'm honestly not sure if you're agreeing with me or not
I don't know if most of those comments are directed towards me or just general statements, because if they were towards me, you're taking my post out of context.
I used 'mainstream' in reference to the GTX lineup, when talking about both the new enthusiast Titan-level card and the GTX series. I said 'a 660 or 7850 is enough' when referring to my opinion of a theoretical situation where Nvidia would use Titan to claim the performance crown, and then use that "#1 in the world in gaming!" advertising to draw people, namely console gamers, into PC gaming. Someone coming from consoles isn't going to jump right into a $900 GPU, they're on a console for a reason. So the mainstream
, or not-Titan line, or GTX line, would be priced much less than the enthusiast card and draw them in to PC gaming at a much cheaper price than the enthusiast line. Someone said my use of the term 'mainstream' when referring to a lineup with a $500 780 in it was questionable, and then I proceeded to explain that I simply used the term to refer to the GTX lineup, and that there's many different levels (not all are $500), and that coming from a console, someone who doesn't want to spend a ton can get a 660 or 7850 and be able to play every game out today at a graphics level that still looks better than consoles
I in no way alluded to games being maxed on anything that low in the lineup, nor did I say there's no need for Titan. In fact, I share
you're opinion about what the phrase "I can max out this game" should really mean, AND I also think there's a huge need for Titan, especially with new consoles coming and multi-plats getting a nice boost.
I will be getting at least one Titan, and have no idea where half your statements came from if they were directed towards me. But hopefully I've explained myself a little better now
Edit: Oh and just read that over, and also wanted to say that it may sound like I'm implying consoles are in some way inferior, but I'm not. Just realized it might've sounded like that but I've had a console from every gen and plan on continuing that streak with the PS4. I was just trying to look at things from Nvidia's perspective and saying how they'd want to draw gamers into PCs is all.Edited by dph314 - 2/10/13 at 5:55am