pc gaming after nextgen consoles
- Thread starter ebola
- Start date
The biggest thing will be great looking games. You get console ports now that will run on 3 monitors with everything maxed out but with new consoles having such powerfull internals they will simply push pc gaming that much futher.
In 2 years people will actually need multiple cards again to run games on a single monitor at high settings and it will be glorious !
In 2 years people will actually need multiple cards again to run games on a single monitor at high settings and it will be glorious !
looking at it another way, will publishers prefer the closed environment the consoles provide , eg killing used games market ...
isnt the reason high end pc owners complain about current consoles holding them back that simply that not enough people buy high end pc games.
(its a shame, because personally i despise the idea of a dedicated gaming box. i want all my processing available for whatever i want)
isnt the reason high end pc owners complain about current consoles holding them back that simply that not enough people buy high end pc games.
(its a shame, because personally i despise the idea of a dedicated gaming box. i want all my processing available for whatever i want)
you don't think that the next gen consoles aren't already holding back the graphics cards getting released this year ?
The titan has 6 gigs of gddr 5 ram 2,688 cuda cores and a claim of 4,500 gflops or 4.5TF
Sure its $1k right now but its on 28nm still and amd has yet to release anything new , if they are able to release something coming close to the performance prices will drop and then when they both make the switch to 22nm and even further this performance will continue to drasticly drop in price.
Its the same cycle as the past. The 360 came out and got oblivion and it ran poorly and at lower settings than the graphics cards out at the time like the x1800 .
go to minute 4:30
they say realtime trailer on PS4 prototype
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/...itle--ps4-panta-rhei-engine-and-debut-trailer
if it's true, a 4.5 GFlops gpu is useless, because its power will be used not to improve graphics but to get more FPS or resolution or AA
do you get the point?
you can't misure graphics with "flops" in the real world
If the PS4 does launch this November, I do think there is a good chance that it will run games as well as the best PCs at least for a little while. The CPU being x86 should not be underestimated in terms of what difference that makes vs launch games on Xenon and Xenos, and a well known GPU architecture on the same chip with from the looks of things a far more efficient bus between the two, the 8GB of GDDR and enough CUs to cover 1080p well enough should make it equivalent to the top few procent of gaming rigs out there for a while at least?
Of course eventually PCs will pull away again, but I don't think it will be quite the same as the previous launch generation, where porting games from PC to the consoles, while relatively easy on 360, came at quite a penalty without proper optimisation due to the relatively weak in-order cores, difficulty and unfamiliarity with multi-core programming, etc.
Certainly with several games running on PS4 hardware at the announcement yesterday and many of them looking as good as anything (in fact the one game that had a lot of tearing was known to run on PC ... ) suggests that this generation is a little different.
Did you quote me accidentally or just didn't read what I wrote?
Ability to address more than 4GB of memory with executable nor having minimum target of shader model 5 when developing PC ports of games has nothing to do with gflops.
It'll help. A lot of what was shown at the PS Meeting was PC games running on PC engines (and quite possibly PC hardware behind the scenes).
Svensk Viking
Regular
Is it farfetched to assume that gaming PCs will be "hurt" for a while? I keep remembering this article from 2011
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2
I would have to say that the majority of PC gaming is being done on laptops if you widen the scope. Desktops are now the domain of power users and PC gamers but from a general perspective both the next generation consoles will be considerably more powerful than laptops for at least 4 years so we have to also consider the implications there as well.
Actually I don't believe this is true. Most of what you saw was actually shown on PS4 hardware, and the one thing that we know for sure to have run on PC had massive tearing.
Do you really think that an 8 core jaguar at 1.6ghz is going to be as fast as a 4 core high end haswell or whatever amd is going to release ? Do you really think the 18cu amd apu in the ps4 is going to be as powerful as whatever amd releases this year ?
Do you think the 8 gigs of gddr is going to make up for the lack of ram compared to say 16 gigs system ram , 3-6 gigs gddr ram and then fast ssd drives ? Cause I certainly don't think so.
The consoles are already behind and each year the consles are out they will get further behind just like last gen and the gen before it.
Its going to be the same exact thing as last time. In 2-3 years we will all be complaining that consoles are holding back pcs greatly , all the console games will be able to run on multi monitors on the pc side and so on and so forth. It may happen even faster this gen !
If the PS4 or XB720 leverage shared computation between the CPU and GPU to significant effect, there are cases where PC setups can suffer if they run into PCIe latency/bandwidth restrictions. Discrete products may also lag behind the consoles in terms of shared memory space, compared to consoles that will have it at the outset.
Why not stuck an Orbis-like chip on a graphics board and call it a new generation? Even a few cores could, with the help of the driver or HSA runtime, actually make some of the general GPU processing workloads that are dominated by copy and PCIe overhead reasonable to use.
Why not stuck an Orbis-like chip on a graphics board and call it a new generation? Even a few cores could, with the help of the driver or HSA runtime, actually make some of the general GPU processing workloads that are dominated by copy and PCIe overhead reasonable to use.
Were you expecting a $500 console to outdo a $1200 PC?
The best anyone could ever hope for was comparable quality at a lower resolution. Anyone expecting 4K gaming or a $500 GTX 680 inside a gaming console needs to be sent to the psych ward.
It's not as if something like Titan is identical to the Playstation 4 GPU except if has 4.5 GFLOPs. The GLFOPs are just one measure of performance and you can generally assume the rest of the GPU will scale similarly.
So this has nothing to do with x number of GFLOPS and everything to do with more rendering power. The ability to take anything the consoles can output and then run it at a solid 60fps (compared with 30fps) or 1080p compared with 720p or 3D as opposed to 2D or some combination of all of the above is clearly not useless.
And that's assuming PC games see no core graphical improvements over the console versions at all which is pretty unlikely to be the case a couple of years into this generation.
Actually I don't believe this is true. Most of what you saw was actually shown on PS4 hardware, and the one thing that we know for sure to have run on PC had massive tearing.
It was specifically a PC configured like a PS4 though. So unlikely to be particularly high end. They also said Killzone was running on prototype PS4 hardware which could simply mean a PC based alpha or beta kit (which in fact could be what everything was running on).
What are your thoughts on using APU's/Intel integrated graphics (HD3000+) for these kinds of GPU based bandwidth/latency sensitive tasks coupled with a discrete GPU for the less sensitive general rendering work?
Is it feasible from a developer point of view to split the work up in that way? Or could it be handled at the APU/driver level?
