Need for bigger jumps in performance between GPU generations?

T

TeknoZX

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
111
This is something that I crossed my mind after reading so many reviews. Since back in the day, each generation of video cards played the latest games very well. While each new game pushed the envelope, CPU technology kept up and offered good performance. However, it seems that recently, games have come out which push our video cards to the edge...and they cannot push back.

People were having some problems playing FEAR at certain settings. I don't know about you guys but if I'm gonna throw down $400+ for a new video card, which makes me sick btw...how high prices have become, let alone double for a multi GPU solution, it should be able to handle everything we can throw at it for that current generation and maybe a bit for the next too. Now we have Oblivion which can even humble top end multi GPU solutions. Now that's just not right. Side note, Quad SLI...really? Sure it's nice to brag and boast and preliminary test results are inconclusive because of the immaturity, but has it really come down to the fact that we NEED 4 GPU's to play the latest games "the way it's meant to be played?"

Games are advancing and pushing the edge further and harder than ever before. And on the eve of DX10, the future doesn't look too good. The performance levels of each generation has been adequate but it seems now, it has reached "peak oil." What I mean is that games and graphics are pushing for more than what video cards can deliver. Again, seriously, $400+ should get you top level performance for at LEAST the current generation of games. I'm not talking about "playable." 15fps can be playable for some but I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for "playable." I think 60fps min should be enough. Thinking of what the best the current gen has to offer, I'm fearful of what games of next year are going to do to video cards.

My point is, does Red and Green need to kick it up a few more notches for their new generation of GPU's? Sure it's been a good steady increase of performance and features but doesn't it also seem now that more is needed? If the next gen video card is going to play previous gen games, such as Oblivion, with 10-15 more fps, I don't think that's going to cut it. I know I'm whoring Oblivion as an example but if it's any indication of future games to come...One thing comes to mind after reading Kyle's DX10 article. Games are currently limited to the number of objects that can be drawn on a screen. DX10 removes that limit so that each individual blade of grass, leaf, or tree can be unique. I know it has to do with CPU bottlenecks but I can't help but think it's gonna put more pressure on the video card.

Bottom line, do you think successive generations of GPU's need to "leap ahead?" Because the way I see it, a few more pipes or a little clock bump won't be enough anymore.
 
Not only should graphics performance leap ahead, but the prices should also drop a few notches! The absurd prices of high end video cards exceed the price of an entire computer!

CPUs are moving form dual core to quad cores by 2007, and the prices have dropped substantially. Performance of CPUs are going up and prices are going down. Prices of Hard Drives, LCDs, and other components have dropped to less than half of what they were in the past 2 years, but prices of Video Cards continue to go up! Video Cards need to move to 65nm and then to 45nm sooner!

I'm waiting for the R600, and I hope it won't cost more than the X1900.
 
WickedWeasel said:
Video Cards need to move to 65nm and then to 45nm sooner!
Click to expand...
The sooner it happens, the more you'll be paying for it. It's not that the technology doesn't exist, it's just too expensive to be commercially viable at the moment.
 
Semiconductor pricing always comes down each time the lithography process is upgraded and the components are in mass production.
Patience, my pet.
 
You're kidding right?

Over the years we've seen our games look better and better, in recent years we've seen AA and AF become expected, new forms of AA such as TSAA all now with HDR and lashings of other effects. What's more most high end rigs are playing games in 1600 1200 or above.

We're expecting more in each generation and we're getting it, thats why video card prices are so high.

Look at the difference in performance between (for example) the voodoo 1 and voodoo 2 video cards, not in terms of percentage increase but just the actual difference, now compare that difference to what we're looking at now, I think you'll find the raw processing power is hugely different.

As you make a faster/better product it becomes HARDER to make a next gen product the same percentage better, but thats the same with all technology, either cough up the money or play with low settings.

Personlly I think my 7800 GTX 256mb was well worth the money, but then I play a lot of games.
 
The big reason I went with the 7900GT is the fact that it was faster than the 7800GTX and cost less. My 6800GT was $300 and so was the 7900GT, tell me there isn't a huge performance leap. The prices might stay about the same but the product is deffinatly getting better so you are getting a better price/performance.
 
I'm going to be antogonistic here a bit but.

Can anyone here run everquest II at max settings?

Does anyone remember when Unreal (the first one) came out?

Often games come out that push the envelope. It took 2 generations of video cards and 9 months of CPU releases to get unreal to be smoothly playable back in the day!

Everquest II at max settings is still unplayable on any machine built today. Overclocked or otherwise.

There are a few other details being left out here:
Video cards are being held back by: Pixel/Vertex shader limitations, bandwidth limitations and CPU limitations.



To drive these games to the heights you are talking about would require AMD K8L or Intel Woodcrest type CPU s in addition to DDR4 running a 1400mhz or effective 2800mhz double pumped. Video cards with 100GB bandwidth are coming.

What you are asking for is impossible to do for a profit currently.
Given 45nm process and good yields on DDR4 and Direct X 10 being released all the things your requesting will be here. However by that time the bar will have been raised far higher....

$400 for a video card? show this guy the Voodoo Obsidian card that was over $1000 back in 1996? and that card can be easily defeated by a GeForce 2 GTS 64M taht can be bought on E-bay for $20 now a days.

Serious you can request and complain all you want, If you can find a way to manuafactuer it and make a profit, hell I'll buy it from you.

Flame On,

Mackintire
 
Besides:
Radeon 8500->9700, +100% (overhaul)
9800->X800, +100% (overhaul)
X800->X1800, +100% (overhaul)
X1800->X1900, +40% or more (refresh)

OR

FX5950->6800, +100% (overhaul)
6800->7800, +100% (overhaul)
7800->7900, +40% or more (refresh)

You realize that the last three major generations have EACH more than doubled whatever came before them, right? Do you realize how hard that is to keep up? Diminshing returns, my friend... :)
 
I think there are numerous factors involved today that makes it somewhat impossible to have really large jumps in GPU performance between generations. Some of the things I can think of are..

- CPU bound programs.
- New graphic features such as HDR that adds more strain to the video card.
- Everyone running at high res with high AA/AF settings. Back then, most people were playing games at 1024x768 without any AA or AF.
- Diminishing returns. It's easy going from something like 10 GB/sec to 15 GB/sec bandwidth but going from 50 GB/sec to 75 GB/sec bandwidth is a lot harder.

Also remember that PC games do not have any limitations, developers can make games that would only run effectively on future video cards if they are willing to risk it.
 
I agree....for one, I am quite a bit miffed that my 7800GTX, even overclocked, sucks ass in COD2 at 1680x1050 with only 2Xaa and 8Xaf on at "high" details and textures. 30fps to 35fps average? PLAYABLE? Hardly....

I know I could go SLI and get a bit more speed, but it certainly would not get me close to 60fps average at the same settings.....hardly worth another $300 to $400....


I am too in the "60fps is what we should be paying for" when we spend the money on the highest end video cards....even the new 7900GT is the same speed as the old 7800GTX, and the 7900GTX is a bit faster, but CERTAINLY not worth getting rid of my GTX for....it just is not a large speed boost.....
 
Guys, keep in mind that developers could make software that could burry any hardware currently available. The fact that your super-ultra-zenith card can't push it at max settings is nothing new. When Quake 3 came it did the same thing. Here we are a few years later and even mid/low end card can push that game at good fps, and anything even semi-recent on the high end can push that game at the highest settings; even with my X800 Pro video card I could drive Quake 3 at 1600x1200 and all other driver/game settings maxed, and still pull averages of 280-300 fps. Even Doom 3 was hurting cards pretty bad, and they were struggling to pull that 60 fps mark. Now it isn't at all uncommon to see out current gen cards pulling upwards of 90-100 fps with high settings.

NOTE: I also wouldn't blame the GPU/VPU alone. When dealing with poor coding there is little the video card can do to make up for that.

As for cost, given what you get performance wise, feature wise, and adjusted for inflation...video cards have come down, not gone up. I remember paying just a smidge over $300 for my 8MB Voodoo 2 card, and the 12MB version was about $80-100 more.

From my stand point I don't see that ATi and NV haven't stepped up, I see game developers finally stepping up and adding more capabilities and content. They give the game enough adjustments to run on most systems, so they can sell the game, but give future potential through higher res textures, and shader functions, that while maybe not being fully useable now, will offer something down the road.

Lastly, ATi and NV don't make the chips. They must contract this to third parties like TSMC and UMC. What they can do with their designs is limited to the production capabilities of these parties. They can't just drive smaller processes like Intel and AMD, who have their own fabs.

[/.02]
 
Un4given said:
From my stand point I don't see that ATi and NV haven't stepped up, I see game developers finally stepping up and adding more capabilities and content. They give the game enough adjustments to run on most systems, so they can sell the game, but give future potential through higher res textures, and shader functions, that while maybe not being fully useable now, will offer something down the road.

[/.02]
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this. I think that it can be good for a game to keep something back during the current generation because of hardware limitations.

The new Tomb Raider game is probably a good example with its 'next gen' settings. With those turned on the game looks phenomenal but is barely what I would consider playable on my rig. I would consider the 'normal' high settings for the game to have good graphics in comparison to other games of this generation, however I know that a year down the line, hardware allowing, I will be able to go back to the game and switch on those settings and have a game that looks as good as anything else currently playable on the market. This is something that can't be said for console games.
 
I'm not saying that Ati or Nvidia haven't stepped up. They have. The leaps and bounds in performance and tech in the past few years have been phenomenal.

On a side note, I'm still waiting for Toy Story rendered in real time.

I'm saying that now, it seems that games are pushing harder and harder and will not stop and feel that as great as the boosts in performance have been, it's not going to be enough. Sure a video card from 2 years will make Fear and Oblivion it's bitch but for the immediate next gen....

As far as pricing goes, you get what you pay for. Ok. I want the best performance. Let's say I get a nice top end multi GPU solution with the latest cpu, ram and all the trimmings. If I'm going to pay $5000+, you'd think I'd be able to "get what I paid for": Max.
Look at high priced cars. All of them have great performance. What would happen if someone paid $200,000 for a car but got the performance of a Mustang or Corvette? Sure it's nice and a little faster than older cars but...people don't pay $200,000 for "a little faster" and I don't get how people shell out $1000 on graphics for "a little faster." Isn't there something just wrong with that?

So I'm saying, $400+ is a bit much for a video card BUT if I am going to pay that much, I better get more than "playable." And, back to my main point, if games are gonna push even harder, especially with DX10, I don't know if the current jumps in performance are going to be enough.
 
The thing about hardware gaining speed really fast is that graphics development will gain speed at the exact same rate. Right now we're at this interesting junction where it's possible for a game maker to fairly easily add any kind of complex effect that they want to a game, and generate almost any kind of image that they want to do. Once the hardware gets more powerful, every dev will want to suck up that extra power, and can VERY easily.
 
Lets just be glad the GAMES have not gone up in prices. I mean, seriously, with the money it costs to make a good game nowadays, I defiantely see the prices rising in the future
 
General Crespin said:
In addition to what others have said: they are charging $500+ because we're paying it.
Click to expand...

And we are paying it to be at the forefront of technology. That is a choice we all make if we can justify the cost. Ati and Nvidia are profit making organisations and are not going to sell any product at a loss. It would be interesting to see what kind of gross profit they actually make on their high end cards and would bet that they make a higher percentage on their mid to lower end cards per unit (which they sell in a vastly supperior quantity) than they do on the high end cards. The latest Valve/Steam survey indicates just this where the three most popular cards being used connected through Steam were the GeForce 6600 and 5200 and the Radeon 9600 (or possibly 9700, can't remember exactly which one it was).

The high end cards of today are a necessity as they pave the way for the mid to lower end cards of tomorrow, so why shouldn't they charge a supposed 'premium' for people to have the privilege of using the latest technology.

As has already been pointed out earlier by previous posters, ATI and Nvidia make their money from the lower to mid range cards. The high end cards are only available as they are a good marketing tool for the company.




*EDIT: Just looked online and it was the 9600 in the Steam survey. Of interesting note is that the only considerably high end card in the survey in the top 20 is the 7800 series..
 
I agree with your post mostly, however I do not agree on the pricing aspect. Trust me I do not want to pay 500 bucks for a vid card, but I realize that it costs A LOT more to make my x1900xtx than a a top of the line voodoo3 back in the day.
 
I just want to kind of steer this discussion back into the original direction.

We're not questioning why cards are priced high or how high ends are more of a technology demonstrater. Even though they ask use for $500 for the latest and greatest, we pay it. That's not the point.

The question is, is the performance we get for paying for these ultra high ends enough? When R600 and G80 come out, is it going to be able to handle the next generation of games properly? As I said earlier, a few more pipes and a clock bump might not be enough anymore.

Let's say a new DX10 super game is coming out. It takes advantages of all DX10 has to offer with all the bells and whistles. Let's say it comes out around when R600 and G80 comes out. Will the performance boost from the new generation of GPU's be enough to handle the game?

I hate to keep referring to Oblivion like this but..Let's say with a 7900GTX SLI, you get 40fps max settings. With G80, what will you get? 45? 50? 60?

And if you only get 60fps with a game from the previous generation on a next generation card, what will the next generation game get? 30fps?

Supply and demand in a way. Will the video cards supply enough performance for the demands of the games of tomorrow? Or will it slowly trickle behind as we've seen a few indications of with the current generation?
 
Stop using Oblivion, heres another example. Go to Guru3d.com.
Check their new X1900 XT ICEQ3 review.

One word : G.R.A.W.
It PWNS all the current graphics cards. The x1900xtx can ONLY get 35fps at 1600by1200 with NO AA....thats HORRID. Worse than Oblivion by far. My card is WAY overclocked, at 749/855, but even I am worried about the performance. (my LCD's native res is 16by12)
 
Thank you. Another prime example. Although it's argueable whether GRAW is for current gen or next gen hardware. Regardless, I'm curious to see what next gen offers for GRAW. If it just offers a few more fps like 50 or 60....It's just not gonna cut it. Especially if one is going to shell out $500 for "the best."
 
yes thats what i have been saying to people. the last real "jump" in performance was when the 9700 series came out.
 
I like what ATI is doing....innovating. Experimenting by adding unconventional types of pipelines (vertex), architecture (ring, unified) etc.

Nvidia needs to get off its ass and stop increasing the same pixel piplelines each gen and adding more ram. TRY SOMETHING NEW. That type of approach is not going to cut it for long. Its doing what basically intel has been doing for the last 2 years....and look where that is at right now.
(I currently own my FIRST ati, I had only nvidia before that.)
 
That's the kind of discussion I'm looking for. Exaclty. So far, there hasn't been much devlopment in video cards. It's just been tack on some more pipes, ram, clock speed, and such. And up until lately, it's been working. But it doesn't seem like it's gonna work anymore. I'm not sure if an entirely new architecture is needed but definitely some new stuff besides more of the same.
 
Man, you must have a bad memory.

I remember when Quake 2 was released, and it brought Riva 128 and Voodoo Graphics cards to their knees. But then, 6 months later the industry blew away Quake 2 with cards like the Voodoo 2 and the Riva TNT.

Then there was Half-Life. KILLED even the latest TNT and Voodoo 2 cards (single card), couldn't play multiplayer aboove 640x480 if you wanted 60fps. But within 6 months, cards were released with more speed, and Half-Life became playable.

Remember when Q3T came out, and even a TNT2 Ultra couldn't play it above 800x600? A year later, after the game was released, Nvidia was making affordable GeForce 2 MX cards that could play Quake 3 at 1024x768.

And as for "inconsistent" performance gains, have you folks forgotten your past already? Anyone remember the S3 Savage 2000? GREAT Quake 3 card, being as it was the only game to support S3 Texture Compression at the time. Sucked for anything else (for the price). So what if SLI and CrossFire have inconsistent performance results in some games, they're optional upgrades.
 
defaultluser said:
Man, you must have a bad memory.

I remember when Quake 2 was released, and it brought Riva 128 and Voodoo Graphics cards to their knees. But then, 6 months later the industry blew away Quake 2 with cards like the Voodoo 2 and the Riva TNT.

Then there was Half-Life. KILLED even the latest TNT and Voodoo 2 cards (single card), couldn't play multiplayer aboove 640x480 if you wanted 60fps. But within 6 months, cards were released with more speed, and Half-Life became playable.

Remember when Q3T came out, and even a TNT2 Ultra couldn't play it above 800x600? A year later, after the game was released, Nvidia was making affordable GeForce 2 MX cards that could play Quake 3 at 1024x768.

And as for "inconsistent" performance gains, have you folks forgotten your past already? Anyone remember the S3 Savage 2000? GREAT Quake 3 card, being as it was the only game to support S3 Texture Compression at the time. Sucked for anything else (for the price). So what if SLI and CrossFire have inconsistent performance results in some games, they're optional upgrades.
Click to expand...

We are talking about single card solutions, not SLI and Xfire. The x1900xtx and 7900gtx came out barely 1.5 months ago, and they can BARELY play current gen games like Oblivion and Graw...thats not very comforting.
 
Nv has had 2, and ATi 1 - refresh sense their last "big" thing.

Forget how far tech has come for the moment and think about phases, how sad was 9700rpo->9800pro->9800XT in comparison to now adays? Even percent wise in benches etc, you got Nv bumping clocks by 100 MHz or so, ATi tripling shader units, but no one is happy. You know what really happenned? Nowadays you're performance is judged by how well you can play at 1920*1200 w/AA and AF. So now when the next big jump for a whole new architecture is ~70%, instead of the smaller refresh jumps, maybe you'll be happy again. Patience.
 
You can't expect a game to run flawlessly on current hardware as soon as it's released.

Considering that games these days take years to make, developers basically need to make an educated guess as to the state of the hardware market when their game's done, and they need to do it fairly early on in development. They rarely get it right, and it's just as common (if not moreso) to see dated graphics as it is to see something slightly ahead of its time.

Current software is not a good indication of where current hardware should be at. It represents nothing more than a years-old prediction.
 
Then what CAN we expect when we pull out $1000+? "Playable?" I'm sorry but you dont' pay that much for "playable." Perhaps in the past it was true that you couldn't expect the most but then why were multi GPU solutions created? If one card gets me playable, will two cards get me "the way it's meant to be played?" Seems like currently, the answer is a NO. And we're not talking stupid resolutions people have no business playing.

"The x1900xtx can ONLY get 35fps at 1600by1200 with NO AA"

I'm sorry but that isn't too much to ask, 16x12 with no aa. C'mon..35fps? What's next? A new game that running on G80 and R600 at 16x12 with no aa get 40fps? That, in my opinion, just isn't enough. It's not the video card manufacturer's fault, it's not the game maker's fault. It's just the way things are progressing and if they don't step up...well let's say I hope they do step up for our sakes.
 
I know this is the [H]ard forum, but some peoples description of barely playable is way out there. Barely playable is low fps wtih all settings turned down to minimum. I think a much worse senario than the currnet one is if GRAW could be maxed out at 100 minimum fps on a currnet top of the line card. The game would look worse and would be wasting some of the cards horsepower.
The diffrence now compared to in the past is the card companies give you the option to spend 5000$ on a quad SLI system, and the game makers give you the option to trash your fps with settings that are ahead of thier time. The 360 is for people that want thier hardware and software perfectly matched up, but PC's are not and could never be. I welcome more choice, its never been a bad thing in the past.
 
the prob is not only because GPUs arent catching up to video game capabilities, check out our monitors. 30in dells running around expecting to run 60+fps on all high settings at native res? i think not. We gotta compare apples to apples. Try running a 2 yr old 15in lcd and next current gen cards on without features that werent available at the time like HDR.
 
I agree that video card performance is lacking. I currently have a 7800GT that I paid $350 for, it SHOULD be able to run all games at med. to max settings and get good fps. But sadly it CAN'T and that' why I am using the step-up program to get better performance. Once I get my 7900GTX I'll probably be disappointed again, but at least I'll be getting a decent performance increase. One good advantage of having a top of the line card is being able to sell it for almost what you paid for it which will allow you to buy the next gen card for little to no extra cost.
 
The pc gaming industry has also gotten a lot bigger than what it used to be, you'd get maybe 1-2 games a year that were somewhat decent, now we're getting 10+ games that are must buys each improving upon the last graphics wise, it's just where the road is going.
 
When games take 2-3 years to make. The hardware manuafactuer HAS to predict what the future hardware is going to be able to do.

The literally have to pull out the crystal ball and make an educated guess.

Secondly if you are going to compare apples to apples either we should all still be playing 1024x768 without AA or MSAA or HDR

Or the game coders should start limiting their programing to the hardware that exists or only ONE generation ahead. That's bull, if they did that there would be no reason for Nvidia or ATI to make faster cards.

Seriously this argument is lacking substance.

I could complain that I can't run Doom 3 on my 30" dell at max res with everything else maxed. It's empty steam with no substance.

Heck I broke out Decent FreeSpace last year, mostly because back in the day my computer could bearly run it. It runs perfect with everything max on my FX 60 with a 1900XTX. In my opinion it is still a good game.

Secondly I am part of the example that these guys are talking about. I won't rarely purchase a game until its under $25. I make a few execptions. HL2 and Oblivion,Unreal Tounament 2003 otherwise I rarely buy a release. However I have a ton of games. Somewhere in neighbohood of 70-110 within the last 3 years and non of them discount duds. I prefer to purchase my games 6-9 months afterwards. They are usually patched up and run better on my newer hardware.

Flame On,

Mackintire
 
I personally think that video card performance is improving too much, I'd like to see the rate of improvement slow down. With less improvement we wouldn't feel as much pressure to upgrade all the time and could keep the same old hardware for a really long time. I prefer my computer to run slowly.
 
Hvatum said:
I prefer my computer to run slowly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can tell from your sig :D

Carnage311 said:
I currently have a 7800GT that I paid $350 for, it SHOULD be able to run all games at med. to max settings and get good fps
Click to expand...
"GRAW at 1600x1200 at max settings with no AA at 60fps" is a completely arbitrary point to place your expectations. There is absolutely no reason that a card should be able to do this.

For $350, you can expect nothing more than the best card which can currently be manufactured, distributed and sold for $350 while still generating a reasonable profit for those involved. Currently available software is completely irrelevant to the current cost of chip fabrication and card manufacture. The fact of the matter is that a card capable of living up to these arbitrary benchmarks you set it cannot be sold for $350 (or even $600) and remain commercially viable.

There's nothing wrong with the current state of the hardware market. ATI and nVidia are in direct competition, and I assure you, they're creating the fastest hardware they can while still remaining profitable.

There's nothing wrong with the current state of game technology. Trying to predict the future is a risky thing, and you've got to expect that they'll get it wrong some (if not most) of the time.

The only thing wrong is your expectations. The way you think things should be unfortunately has no effect on reality. For your $350, you get a card worth $350, and no amount of whining is going to change what a card worth $350 at this point in time is physically capable of.
 
kdog said:
We are talking about single card solutions, not SLI and Xfire. The x1900xtx and 7900gtx came out barely 1.5 months ago, and they can BARELY play current gen games like Oblivion and Graw...thats not very comforting.
Click to expand...

Did you even READ my statement? It just so happens that NEW, CUTTING-EDGE games have been killin g video cards since time began.

Have a look at some old benchmarks, if you don't believe me:

Remember when Unreal was released, and it killed even the trusty Voodoo 2 (couldn't play it comfortably at 800x600, unlike every other game on the market at the time)? You had to put down monster cash for a Voodoo 2 SLI to play Unreal at 800x600!

Q3test on HIGH-END hardware. Unplayable at 1024x768x32, with the exception of the (then) most expensive 3D card on the market, the G400 MAX. I wasn't kidding, Quake 3 Test was only playable at pitiful 800x600 and 640x480 on most cards. Then, shortly after the final game was released, a bevy of new cards made it quite playable. But it wasn't until a year later with powerful cards like the GeForce 3 and Radeon 8500 that you could play with fancy thing like AF and AA.

THIS IS HOW THE GAME INDUSTRY WORKS. A new game is released that kills current hardware. People see the new game, want to play it, so they go out and upgrade. This, in turn, encourages the 3D chipmakers to release a new chip so people will buy even better cards for the game. Get used to it.
 
There's also a problem with the GPU's adding features TOO FAST for the game developers to catch up with.

Many studios are just now catching on to SM 2.0/2.1, let alone SM 3.0...those studios that DO release good SM 3.0 games do so with HUGE help from ATI, Nvidia, MS, AMD, and Intel. The knowledge base just isn't there, so the code that is released is less than optimal to start with, and many devs are turning to the Carmack or Sweeny types and buying pre-built render engines because it justs takes too long to do it from scratch, and the talent pool that CAN build a good engine is pretty small.

You save time and money buying a pre-built engine, but it comes with a real big gotcha...the coders working on the project STILL have to learn the ins and outs of the new engine, and many never fully understand it, so a lot of performance optimizations are left on the table...the mantra there is that the engine licensing company will magically fix everything with a new code drop. Rarely works out that way.

On top of coding issues, you have to teach artists how to create assets that cooperate with the new features, and that's a trial and error thing, and many just don't grok HDR and shader models just yet...they're just now getting the hang of building things with NURBS, and always want a bigger poly, texture and animation budget. But one sloppy wall in a room, or too many lights, or unoptimized animations, or overly complex particles or poorly thought out occlusion can have a significant impact on framerate, and tracking down the problem can be a bitch as well.

Then the game designers who populate the world and build the scripts, etc also have to be aware of the new features, and what impact they have on the CPU and GPU...they have to learn how many characters they can have onscreen at one time (and in a MMO, that's a lot more difficult to control), how complex the AI can be, etc.

Finally, a studio that wants a game with some longevity (this especially applies to MMO's) needs that game to take advantage of future hardware, and to be able to do so without a massive patch of 4gb+ of data, and a total (and VERY costly) rework of art assets. With MMO's, EQ II is good example of this, as is the upcoming Vanguard.

And some games are tech demos in disguise, designed specifically to promote new hardware...Oblivion is selling a LOT of high end video cards, for instance, and BF2 sold a lot of RAM, and GRAW is doing the same thing, not only helping sell X1xx and 79xx series cards, fast processors, SLI/Xfire mobos, and RAM, but the PhysX processor as well.

Tomb Raider, Descent and Quake back in the Voodoo1 days were great examples of this, turning 3dfx into an industry giant, and growing Nvidia from a small startup tech house to a massive organization.

There there are titles like Aquanox and the "MMX-enhanced" games that were barely games, but man they looked pretty in their day.
 
i dunno, last june i picked up a 6800gt for around $300. The 6800ultra was released i think the year before it. Soon as Geforcelan2 came out and unveiled the the 7800gtx and 1 day prelease of BF2 i was still flying high at 60-80fps at native res (12x10) with 2xAA 8xAF. Out of the 400 players who showed up only a few had sli rigs with Ultras or Gts and even fewer had 20"+ screens. So technically i was using old tech to play a game designed for 7800gtxs(the head guy of nvidia said the dice or whoever were using early sli setup during their unveiling speach/power point..

Is it cus game developers are capilizing on the gpu power better as time passes or is it cus we simply get less for $300 now because gpus in their current design are reaching a big wall of diminishing returns.

oh an those arbitary expectations come past experience a person has, i forgot the term, but usually as people, once we have something at a certain level, we expect to have the same or better the next go around. i think its called satisfiers vs delighters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top