My favorites are FPS. FPS games tend to be more detail in the graphics, and Crysis has done a superb job of delivering some of the best graphics to the market/future. The facial animations/character models are stunning. When the GTX 280 comes out and this game starts moving into smooth frame rates on high with AA...its gonna really start to pick up.
I don't know about others..but i sure as hell cant wait to replay Crysis again on max settings when i get my GTX 280 ><.
When HALO finally hit the PC..it was a real disappointment. I did play Halo 1, and i thought it was alright..but i wasn't sure what all the fuss was...Then Halo 2 hit PC...needing VISTA min req...which was pathetic...and the graphics failed way short...and it just fell into a blackhole that no one cares about -.-.
People who diss Crysis fail to realize that this game has set a level/target for gpus and other game designers in terms of graphics to meet and make it playable...its a win / win situation regardless of weather the story was good or not.
You're talking about the graphics, I'm talking about gameplay. Halo was a console 2001 release, Crysis is a bleeding edge 2008 PC release. The graphics wouldn't be comparable. I'm sure Crysis is a great game, but slamming Halo for it's graphics is kind of weak. (PC versions are fair game, since they were released way later than they should have been).
8800GT is med to low end, it defiantly was considered the mid range card, the price was a dead give away, while the performance was actually pretty good..which made this card a good gpu for budget gamers...though the heatsink is a different story -.-.
9600GT is DEFIANTLY a low end gpu release for the 9 series....and again...a great card for $/Value for budget gamers.
The 8800GTS/GTX was the mid - high end while the 8800Ultra was enthusiastic level ><.
The 9800GTX was....i guess a good budget card...performance on level of a 8800GTX @ half the cost ><....but bad timing for its release with the GTX 280/260 and the ATi 4xxx series coming out which will be better in performance by a large margin...and the ATi 4xxx series seem to be having pretty good pricing....but only time will tell if its good in performance.....I can't wait to see them on XFIRE.....i got a x38 so i XFIRE is gonna kick some major ass i am gonna skip the gtx 280 ><
You're setting a higher standard than the industry does.
Budget - typically refers to onboard video or ultra low ends cards (Radeon 2400, GF 840, etc.).
Low end - Cards that can let you run modern games at average/medium settings, such as the 8600/2600 cards.
Mid range - Lots of play here, but mid range typically lets you play modern games with some bells and whistles, like AA and AF. This could be your 9600GSO/8800GS (mid-low) and 9600GT/8800GT (mid-high).
High end - 8800GTS/8800GTX/8800Ultra/9800GTX, cards that generally cost more ,but give you near bleeding edge performance. The GX2 would be more of an enthusiast card, above high-end.
Your classifications claim that the 9600GT is a low end/budget card. I'm running one now, and I have to disagree. The performance is outstanding. Besides, try telling a casual gamer's parents that $120-140 for a graphics upgrade is "budget" when the same games can easily run on a $50 HD2400 or 8400GS (with lower settings). THAT is budget