When the next generation consoles(NES5,XBoxNext, PS3) are released, how long do you think it will take for computers to catch up with it? Also, if computers graphics doesn't catch up within 5 years, what will pc fanboys have to say about console games since their main agrument is that computer graphics are much better than console graphics???
How long will next-generation systems outclass computers?
- Thread starter Tsmit42
- Start date
I believe that in a year or two after launch pc hardware will have caught or or passed the games consoles . I say this since it seems the major ihvs ati and nvidia are making all the gpus for the next gen consoles. So really the hardware will be the same or better on the pc side of thigns from the get go with only the cpu of the ps3 outclassing the other hardware. Software i will have to say 2or 3 years to catch up and surpass. Remember longhorn is going to force alot of people to get dx9 cards.
bbot said:
I can honestly say I've never heard of a law concerning scalability of an IC proposed by Gary Tarolli (I'm guessing thats whom you're referring to). I think Dave Kirk once talked about the 'GPU equivalent of Moore's' but that was 80% PR, 20% truth. Perhaps someone like Tag, who's a 3dfx fan (that appearently wants to slit my throat!
) would remember and could respond...And the hardest XBox component for SCE to surmount will be the 3D chip if developed by an nVidia calibur player. So, this is up in the air - although as I've been saying, I think we may see a Great Diaspora of the graphics world emerge next generation. Thus, comparing them at this point based on a PC-centric argument is fallicious. We'll have to wait and see.
PS. Will be interesting if Cell is brought to the mainstream running some OS (Linux perhaps? Windows?) for the desktop, but I don't think it would do to well. Keep it in Electronics and Embedded IMHO.
zurich said:
What do you mean, stick with the 'Halo' scheme? Half-Life and TimeSplitters on PS2 were using that control scheme a LONG time before HALO appeared.
Vince said:
HEY!
Heh, that was a misunderstanding, partly based on the assumption you were someone you aren't... though I'm still not sure on that one.
Anyway, I don't know anything about that. Sorry!
After thinking about this... I can honestly say I have no idea as per the origional question/poll. There are way too many hidden variables in Sony and Nintendo's case* that can't be factored in and need to be. Going to be interesting nevertheless.
*Not Microsoft as we pretty much all assume they'll use strait off-the-shelf components.
And I thought we were gonna box... Besides, you'd need to get in line first.
*Not Microsoft as we pretty much all assume they'll use strait off-the-shelf components.
Tagrineth said:HEY!
Heh, that was a misunderstanding, partly based on the assumption you were someone you aren't... though I'm still not sure on that one.
Anyway, I don't know anything about that. Sorry!
And I thought we were gonna box...
Besides, you'd need to get in line first.PC games might never catch up with consoles games simply because PC games are just different from Console games.
it started with PS2. the architecture made it possible to have games that just look good in a different way from PC games (HI poly counts and low textures as opposed to low poly counts and hi res textures).
i expect things to get even more separated in the next generations.
it would be VERY nice if Sony would scrap BM completely and go for extensive use of Displacement mapping. and given the polygon pushing power they are going to get, i think it might be feasible...
Console games already LOOK different from PC games. in the next generation the difference will be even bigger.
we will have a typical PS3 game with characters made up of 1 million polygons each (just an example of course) while the typical PC game will have 50.000 polygons but use tricks (BM and such) to make it look like a higher polygon mesh.
just a guess....
it started with PS2. the architecture made it possible to have games that just look good in a different way from PC games (HI poly counts and low textures as opposed to low poly counts and hi res textures).
i expect things to get even more separated in the next generations.
it would be VERY nice if Sony would scrap BM completely and go for extensive use of Displacement mapping. and given the polygon pushing power they are going to get, i think it might be feasible...
Console games already LOOK different from PC games. in the next generation the difference will be even bigger.
we will have a typical PS3 game with characters made up of 1 million polygons each (just an example of course) while the typical PC game will have 50.000 polygons but use tricks (BM and such) to make it look like a higher polygon mesh.
just a guess....
I agree with some others, the question is worded poorly. In some ways, PCs were already faster than the best consoles when the current gen launched (Speed & amount of video memory, faster CPUs). Certainly the games at the time were for the most part sub-par. This though, is also subjective. Certain games are better suited to run on a PC than on a console, and the reverse is also true. On the PC side, many games are starting to exploit running in a high resolution. These don't lend themselves well to console ports (look at morrowind on the xbox as an example). At the same time though, games that are designed to exploit the strengths of a console can very easily look more advanced than what is out for the PC.
What we will probably start seeing imho:
Consoles are going to be much better integrated than PCs. Optimizing buses and memory architectures to be more efficient will be their primary advantage. PCs will probably end up surpassing them in memory bandwidth, cpu horsepower, gpu horsepower, and in most other areas. Still, PC bus design typically seems to grow at a slower rate than PCs do in general. Things that depend on a fast bus between the cpu and gpu will probably be done better on consoles. Things that can be done primarily on the GPU (AA/Aniso, anything computable by the GPU) will probably be done faster on the PC.
Games will probably be more advanced for a while on the consoles, but with less things like AA, Aniso, and high resolution.
Nite_Hawk
What we will probably start seeing imho:
Consoles are going to be much better integrated than PCs. Optimizing buses and memory architectures to be more efficient will be their primary advantage. PCs will probably end up surpassing them in memory bandwidth, cpu horsepower, gpu horsepower, and in most other areas. Still, PC bus design typically seems to grow at a slower rate than PCs do in general. Things that depend on a fast bus between the cpu and gpu will probably be done better on consoles. Things that can be done primarily on the GPU (AA/Aniso, anything computable by the GPU) will probably be done faster on the PC.
Games will probably be more advanced for a while on the consoles, but with less things like AA, Aniso, and high resolution.
Nite_Hawk
zidane1strife
Banned
My guess...
Each process change is getting more and more expensive... the rate of change... is slowing down... it's to sloweth...
I see the buses, the mem, and gen p. of it all will begin to show...
A device that splits the gphx workload in two chips... benefits from a far larger transistor budget... pushing 65nm, for it will later be man. at 45nm... to surpass such a budget in just a single chip... will probably take below 30nm...
EDIT
What if that which is so precious to some is hindering... what if it has to go... it needs to go.... what if there is... the will... what if change is required... what then...
~1 year to catch up technologically
~2-2.5 years to see the results
I do not believe any console makers can have tech that is so far and away from the technology curve. The major problem i can forsee with future PC games, might be whether PC developers can catch up with the cost of developing games on newer technology.
~2-2.5 years to see the results
I do not believe any console makers can have tech that is so far and away from the technology curve. The major problem i can forsee with future PC games, might be whether PC developers can catch up with the cost of developing games on newer technology.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
jvd said:zurich said:
hey for fps and for strategy games a mouse and keyboard are better than a controller. But i rather have a controller for most of the other games except flight sims and driving games
Strategy, ok
But FPS plays quite well with a controller
(Halo, Timesplitters)
Ok, Quake 3 on DC sucks with a controller, but hey there's only one stick
zidane1strife
Banned
It's not to be too far away, it is just the sloweth of the industry... hear ati... see the FX... and look at the rest of the signs...
I have trouble believing some like TMSC will be at or below 30nm by 2006-2007... Will they reach 90nm, then 65nm, 45nm, and finally 30nm and below? That's gonna be costly, and if they had trouble at the simple .13m? How will all these changes go smoothly?
Remember with 4-5yr of R&D you can be sure a particular process will be used to the limits of what it allows, in order to significantly beat such, a far better one is needed...
chaphack said:The major problem i can forsee with future PC games, might be whether PC developers can catch up with the cost of developing games on newer technology.
I think cost is less of a problem on PC as tools are widely available....rather, whether PC developers can *afford* to push games relentlessly, graphics wise...not everyone has GFXs/9800s...
Similar threads
- Locked
