This could be just me, but I've noticed a bit of a trend in benchmarks. It seems to me that just about all the $200 and up graphics set ups (including SLI & CF) handle nearly every game they play at maximum settings and deliver superb (or at least playable) framerates at almost every resolution (with the exception of Crysis and Flight Simulator X of course).

I mean, if Toms, Anand, Hot Hardware, X-bit, etc, are at all reputable information on how great this generation (and soon to be generations) of graphics cards are, then do you really even need to invest more than $400 in a graphics card anymore? I admit, I like my eye candy and I like high resolutions, but if we don't count 2560x1600 (I doubt the average gamer really wants to spend over $1k on a monitor), then everything from 1920x1200 and lower has more or less been conquered in 90% of games out there.

Sure, there are some games that are CPU bound or that still need just a tad more power (Supreme Commander, Mass Effect and World in Conflict come to mind), but even those kind of games you can get at least 30 FPS, almost maxed out details, for $200 - $400.

Then there's the games you see that can run on damn near anything and today deliver framerates in the hundreds (i.e. Prey, FEAR, etc.). Although these kind of benchmarks are starting to phase out, there's really no need for them anymore as they give a slightly misleading idea of what is a good play experience. I'm sure practically all of you already know this, but most humans can't tell a difference in frame rate after 60 FPS. Not only that, but your FPS is also limited by your monitor's refresh rate (can't show more frames per second than times the screen is refreshed per second, right?). I'm not sure how much refresh rate has improved in monitors recently, but I think the average is around 75 Hz, so the maximum FPS you're likely to ever see from your monitor in a real world scenario is 75 FPS, which I think makes anyone happy.

So anyways, my point is, there seems to be a decreasing overall need for graphics over $400. Most of the powerful single card setups (HD 4850, 4870, GTX 260) or the SLI/CF setups of cheaper cards (8800GTs, 3870s) gets the job done for so many games out there and the ones that can't get enough power from those setups to run at maximum seem to be the minority.

I'll probably get replies like 'Yes, we know.' but hey I tried.

Umm Crysis stilll wont play at highest settings and the new Crysis is even more demanding. I think until games look as good as movies like finding memo will it satisfy peoples eye candy desires.

I'll take your point a bit further.
If all we wanted was quality in games, we wouldn't be assembling $2000 and more systems: we would just be buying a PS3 or Xbox360 ($600 at most) and having a much better gaming experience than we have today in PCs.
The problem is that it wouldn't make us happy.
We enjoy the sensation of putting the system together, squeezing every possible mhz via ocing, switching gpus and sharing our experiences in foruns like this, in endless threads about differences of SLIxCross Fire when AA is on...
The question is: will we survive?
The average user, like your mother or my sister, don't even game and in terms of computing they prefer a Mac that, although is lousy in terms of pure horsepower when compared to the average PC, is all they need for office, internet and video/music.
Perhaps, just like the dinossaur, we'll all be extinct in the years to come.

I tend to agree, but I am not a big PC gamer. I like, galta said, prefer to play games on my Xbox360.

I have a ati 2600XT which is considered ancient here, but for photoshop and even 3D rendering it does the job whithout a problem. I will probably upgrade to a 4850, but I definitely will not spend more than $200 because its just not worth it for me.

But then again, there is always the thrill of pushing your PC to the limits

Yes, i do need that much graphical power actually.

30FPS is FAR from being enough, no matter the games, there's dips in performance when more action hits the screen. To get a MINIMUM of 30FPS on ANY given game at a decent resolution (say, minimum 1600x1200, most gamers have a minimum of 19" monitors) with the good eye candy, you'll still need a huge CPU+GPU combo, sure you'll hit 90+FPS in some scenarios, but when the all out action/effects hit your screen, it should not go below 30FPS (or one would hope so).

Hell, I play AoC, and even that isn't even close to being as demanding as Crysis, and even with my OC'd CPU & OC'd GTS 512, it will still dip to as low as 15FPS @ 1280x1024 without the FULL eye candy.

There's also the fact that, the whole "there's no reason to go beyond 30FPS, the eye can't see more than that"... that's horsecrap! lol. Any real gamer can see the difference between a game that runs as 30FPS (let's say it was 100% constant at 30FPS) and one that runs at 60FPS.

We need the High end CPU & high end cards, the games demand it, and we like our quality of play.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy putting together a PC or OCing something, I'm just saying it seems like there is a minority of games that really need the graphical horsepower they try to sell us at the top tier. *coughGTX280cough*

It just seems like the only people who really need the graphics power that comes with the ridiculously expensive setups (Tri-SLI GTX 280s, Teslas, FireGL, etc) are people who want to try and play Crysis at best possible settings (or close to it as possible) or people doing 3D modeling and other graphics intensive work.

@OP: Yeah I would tend to agree with you. The best of the best graphics cards doesn't seem very reasonable for today's games. However, there are some people who believe that getting the best will keep their systems fresh for future generations of games. I personally think getting a mid range card and then getting a second for crossfire/sli is the way to go as the graphics card gets old.

Of course we need the horsepower... there's nothing like the feeling of a couple raging 4870s between your legs...

Until I can't tell the difference between what's on screen and what's real, then the answer to your question should be obvious.

lol

I never used to really believe people when they said that they could tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps....but in certain games the difference is very noticeable. COD4 gets almost unplayable at 30fps...you need at least 50+ in order to make a head shot easily

Well, let me rephrase. As Tom's has put it, 30 FPS for a fast paced game (Action, Racing, FPS, etc.) is not that great. 40 FPS is more the minimum for those. 30 FPS is more for slower games like RTSs. But even so, these minimums are easily attainable in almost any game with a decent CPU and a $200 - $400 graphics setup.

Well I guess that's that then. How could I have been so foolish?

Same can be said of cpus. Do we really need 4 cores, and at over 3 Ghz? When the next demanding game does come out, I want to at least have a chance to play it in a decent way, look at all the people whove said about Oblivion when it came out, that they wouldnt play it til they got their upgrade, same with Crysis. If a truly killer game comes out, and we all have 2600xt's we will be hurtin. I agree, the day of the monster top o the line gpu may be gone, but I at least want to be in the ballpark

I guess that's more what I'm getting at then. Top-of-the-line stuff is more or less overkill and costs way too much. Mid to Mid-High range is really where the good stuff is and usually all you really need (for that generation).

And 2600XT's are just barely mid-range JDJ.

Crysis: Warhead will feature the same engine but with better optimization. Crytek knows that they didn't properly optimize that engine when they released it, and many mid to low end systems suffered greatly because of it.

If anything it promises to be less demanding but still offer some of the same eye candy. Obviously you will be missing out if you don't have some high quality hardware, but it won't kill you the same way Crysis did.

I think the real reason we go for the higher horsepower is for bragging rights. Take my 1988 Toyota Celica for example. It can go much faster than any speed limit set in the U.S.

...but for some reason I would prefer a 2009 Lamborghini Reventon.

It's crazy, I know!

Edit: yeah I screwed up the name of the Lamborghini - shows you where my wallet stands

ewwww i hate 30 fps. 60 ftw. at 1920x1200 most games dont even run at max settings (with AA) on my 9800gtx...

Do I *NEED the horsepower of an overclocked GTX 280? No. Do I want it? Yes!
The only people that maybe actually need the best gpu, like a 280, might be those with, as you said, 2560x displays.

Sure, the latest $200 gpu's and even last gen stuff can play any game to some extent. Often with better than average settings, on displays more common such as 1680x, like mine.
However, when you do hit resolutions like 1920x, which isn't that rare these days, you might want the best gpu not just so you can play any game, but add a little spice to it. Max settings and a tad of AA and lots of AF, which lesser cards might not allow you to do on more demanding games on that resolution.

As for me and others gaming at 1680x and less. Maybe these cards give us plenty of horsepower. However, since our resolutions are NOT 1920x or 2560x, we like to tack on even more AA along with the max settings to compensate. You take a 1680x res, throw on 8xAA, the quality is just amazing and can look as good as 1920x with 2xAA. Maybe not quite as good, but not far off.

And I do play games like Grid, Oblivion, Dirt, Mass Effect, & Crysis. Those games completely maxed out, w/ DX10 (when compatible), maxed out driver settings, @ 1680x will definitely choke a bit when you throw some 8xAA into the mix if you don't have one of the better gpu's out there.
And if you can hit 60 fps with the settings above, what a smooth treat that is. For example I'm playing Grid right now totally maxed out, 16xAF and 8xAA.
This game looks absolutely stunning with those settings and better yet I'm always above 60 fps! Maybe not a huge difference from if you can average 30 or 40 fps, but I think it is still noticeable to some extent. Just super smooth gameplay, never a single stutter.

Crysis really chokes when maxed DX10 and 8xAA with any single gpu out there.
And, looking ahead, good upcoming games will only be more demanding, want more than 512mb of vid ram, and all that good stuff. So another thing is being prepared for the next year or so of games (depending on when you upgrade again).

As for Crysis, DX10, 1680x, maxed game & driver settings...you pretty much do need a GTX 280 to play that smoothly because it seems to be the only gpu that can get you 30 fps on those settings and even that takes a decent overclock.
However, here, with over 700mhz core and 2500mhz memory, Crysis is actually playable when throwing on 4xAA on top of that! Don't ask me why, but it is. And hot damn does it look awesome!
No other single gpu will do that, period.

So even though I can definitely play Crysis with an 8800GT or 4850, at decent settings even, there is still nothing like being able to play it maxed out in all its glory and then challenging it with some AA. To us its like some monster we've been trying to tame for the last year! So when you finally got a gpu/cpu that can start to own Crysis, its a great feeling! And yes it is fun to get on forums and talk about it and hear about what other people are able to do with their gpu's.

If you buy a new flagship card (either ATI or Nv), I think more times than not there is more to it than just powering some games. It's a hobby. It's fun to put together rigs and slap stuff like this in there. It's fun to OC and see how far you can push your hardware. And of course its fun, even if you don't like a game that much, to be able to see these games in all their glory in ways most of the world aren't able to. I mean, what isn't fun about being able to run some of the best looking graphics in the world?

Lastly, it sure is nice to know your gpu can handle pretty much whatever you want to throw at it. Rather than be annoyed when a game comes out that you can't play maxed out, if at all. You can kinda relax on that front, at least until the next line of "best" cards come out, which I'm sure I will be all over those as well!

Having said all of that, I'm not a huge PC gamer. You would think anybody with a GTX 280 would have to game 20 hours a day, right? Maybe some do, but I work a lot during the week, only have a few hours of downtime for anything. Some days I'll game for an hour of that, some I won't. Weekends I might get a couple good gaming sessions in, but its summer here and so I go out a little more.

Also, I am a console gamer. I have a PS3 and a good pile of games for it. I think that is some great hardware as well. I have a nice 1080p TV and its really nice to console game, especially when you are low on time since consoles are a little more hassle free. And I'm sure when FF XIII comes out I might ignore my PC for a little while.
But that all said, I consider PC gaming something I enjoy in moderation, I'm a big fan of hardware and graphics. And it is definitely a bit of a hobby. Like putting the rig together, doing the overclocks, getting some benchmarks and all that good stuff is half the fun for me.

So yes, people do still WANT the best gpu's out there. Even if they don't NEED them.

I think there are some marketing droids out there who define an "enthusiast" as someone with a lot more money than sense, who is eager to part with it for the sake of a bigger e-dong. I read occasional