Jump to content



Photo

NVIDIA: "No Longer Possible" for Consoles to Better PC Graphics

nvidia consoles pc

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#46 OP theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,007 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:35

I'm aware the consoles will be largely inferior in raw numbers, my point is that a fully shared memory design means that offloading computations to the GPU is way easier and more efficient (no copying data back and forth to dedicated VRAM, CPU can get direct pointers in GPU memory and vice-versa), this means that console games can be optimized in ways that aren't feasible on PC right now.

Yeah, but most gaming PCs have 8-16GB of RAM and 2-6GB of video memory - there is so much redundancy that it's not an issue. That difference will become even more pronounced going into the future. With many next-generation titles not being able to hit 1080p @60fps it's clear that PC gaming has a significant advantage from the get-go. I already game at 1600p @60fps on PC and my system is over a year and a half old.




#47 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,765 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:56

Yeah, but most gaming PCs have 8-16GB of RAM and 2-6GB of video memory - there is so much redundancy that it's not an issue. That difference will become even more pronounced going into the future. With many next-generation titles not being able to hit 1080p @60fps* it's clear that PC gaming has a significant advantage from the get-go. I already game at 1600p @60fps on PC and my system is over a year and a half old.

 

*Yet.  But some are, which means that it can be done and within a year or two I'd bet most games will be hitting that mark.

 

Also, keep playing PC gaming then if you care about graphics so much.  That's fine.  That's not all that consoles are about and never has been.  You're mixing up two different worlds.



#48 psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,859 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:58

i guess consoles are more "powerful" than PC's in terms of latency etc between components cus PC's components are designed to be replaced so it needs to be modular in design whereas console soc's are built for optimal performance so less "bottlenecks" in the design. Intel are starting a foray back into this via there next cpu only coming in BGA (unless theyve changed there mind), so its soldered to the motherboard. We'll probably see PC's coming in console style design within the next 10 years and id say AMD could be at the forefront of this seeing as they'll have seen how the consoles soc's are laid out. I definately think theyd be more inclined to take sony's approach as GDDR5 would probably become alot cheaper in the time frame although guess it also depends on how each console performs and which design is the best approach. MS's approach could be better for general computing though so guess you'd just have to see.

 

Enthusiast stuff will still be modular because WE decide what goes in our systems :D

 

Hmm but on topic, i actually forgot what the title was haha, the consoles will be more powerful atm than most systems people buy atm like upto like the £500-600 maybe bit more. When i get a new gfx card either a 7950 or a new AMD one itll destroy the consoles. Seeing as BF4 is having to lower the resolution or graphical detail for BOTH consoles it proves that at the moment the consoles cant handle a truely next-gen game engine and are weak even for a next gen console. Sure both will definately be able to game at 1080p 60fps when the next set of games come out but at what cost graphically? i know people dont buy consoles just for the graphics but if it cant render DX11 games on ultra settings now the future is bleak cus you want to feel the realism. 



#49 OP theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,007 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 25 September 2013 - 15:05

*Yet.  But some are, which means that it can be done and within a year or two I'd bet most games will be hitting that mark.

And in a year or two PC gaming will have moved on to 4K, at least at the high-end (it's already possible now).

 

Also, keep playing PC gaming then if you care about graphics so much.  That's fine.  That's not all that consoles are about and never has been.  You're mixing up two different worlds.

It's not just about graphics, though. It's about performance, responsiveness, flexibility (modding, etc) and control schemes. Using keyboard and mouse provides better control for many genres. There's no technical reason that consoles can't use alternate schemes but that would undermine those who use controllers, which is why they are usually disabled.

 

Consoles don't have to be closed platforms, like the type that Sony and Microsoft are promoting. They can be open platforms more like Android and iOS, where there are various models at different price ranges and they are regularly updated. The point I'm making is that Microsoft and Sony are doing gamers a disservice by trying to keep their consoles on the market long after they have become outdated.



#50 Northgrove

Northgrove

    Philosophizing Developer

  • 9,870 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 02
  • Location: Sweden
  • OS: OS X 10.8
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 25 September 2013 - 15:15

That's not really relevant to the discussion as that's not really how it works.  It's not like they can't pull from all their assets to specific divisions if they so choose.

It is usually how it works and highly relevant to the discussion.

 

A company is far more willing to adjust finances within a division rather than to mess with the budget for another one. Yes, they can, but it won't be anywhere near a first option.



#51 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • 7,587 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 25 September 2013 - 15:18

Yeah, but most gaming PCs have 8-16GB of RAM and 2-6GB of video memory - there is so much redundancy that it's not an issue. That difference will become even more pronounced going into the future. With many next-generation titles not being able to hit 1080p @60fps it's clear that PC gaming has a significant advantage from the get-go. I already game at 1600p @60fps on PC and my system is over a year and a half old.

PC games run faster but not for the reasons you mention. 8-16GB of RAM only 2 of which are adressable by a 32-bit process, that's a moot point. All games are currently 32-bit for a variety of reasons. Hopefully consoles having 8GB of memory should push 64-bit games forward though. 2-6GB of video memory is less than what next-gen consoles have available for their GPUs, nevermind access to virtual memory which is impossible for discrete GPUs, so moot point there again. PCs win because of single-threaded CPU performance and higher clocks and shader counts on GPUs (i.e. they throw a lot of watts at the problem), but as single-threaded performance gains are stalling and the next-gen games get optimized for HSAs first, I wouldn't see the gap getting anywhere as large as the raw numbers suggest. Yes you'll be able to do higher resolutions and framerates but the visuals will stay largely the same.

 

I expect 1080p60 to become the standard on next-gen consoles rather quickly, launch titles doing 900p60 or 1080p30 is probably just engines not fully taking advantage of the new architectures. As gamers experience 1080p60 that's what they'll demand and developers will have little choice but to deliver.



#52 Shadrack

Shadrack

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,044 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 01

Posted 25 September 2013 - 16:36

I would hate to buy a console and have to change out the video card every year to keep up with new games.  I would also hate having to tweak the video settings of a console game to optimize it for whatever generation of video card I have installed.  Nintendo has tried this "expansion" thing before with the N64 (it was only memory but still), and the result was fragmentation.



#53 OP theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,007 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 25 September 2013 - 16:43

I would hate to buy a console and have to change out the video card every year to keep up with new games.  I would also hate having to tweak the video settings of a console game to optimize it for whatever generation of video card I have installed.

That's not what people are advocating. Rather, it should follow the smartphone / tablet approach whereby new models are released each year and are compatible with existing games. You don't have to upgrade but those that do get better performance. It simply isn't excusable to have consoles that are only updated every eight years when technology is moving at breakneck speed.



#54 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • 7,587 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:01

I would hate to buy a console and have to change out the video card every year to keep up with new games.  I would also hate having to tweak the video settings of a console game to optimize it for whatever generation of video card I have installed.

Nvidia is trying to address your second point with Geforce Experience, not sure how successful that is.



#55 Shadrack

Shadrack

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,044 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 01

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:01

That's not what people are advocating. Rather, it should follow the smartphone / tablet approach whereby new models are released each year and are compatible with existing games. You don't have to upgrade but those that do get better performance. It simply isn't excusable to have consoles that are only updated every eight years when technology is moving at breakneck speed.

 

I get what you are saying, but I for one am more likely to invest in the next gen console _because_ the previous generation lasted so long.  There was a period of time where every-other-year saw a new console release (Sega and NeoGeo were mostly behind it) and it really hurt both the companies, hard.  It spooked the market and nobody wanted to invest (gamers/developers) in a system that was going to be obsolete in a year or two.  It wasn't the same as you suggested because there was no backwards compatibility (well, there was some, but not much).  I hope that the next gen gets at least 5-8 years before the next-next-gen is released.  I feel like I got my money's worth out of the XBox 360 because of this.



#56 MDboyz

MDboyz

    Neowinian

  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined: 16-November 01

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:17

They mean if people continue to use AMD GPU chip in consoles :) ...



#57 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,765 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:19

I get what you are saying, but I for one am more likely to invest in the next gen console _because_ the previous generation lasted so long.  There was a period of time where every-other-year saw a new console release (Sega and NeoGeo were mostly behind it) and it really hurt both the companies, hard.  It spooked the market and nobody wanted to invest (gamers/developers) in a system that was going to be obsolete in a year or two.  It wasn't the same as you suggested because there was no backwards compatibility (well, there was some, but not much).  I hope that the next gen gets at least 5-8 years before the next-next-gen is released.  I feel like I got my money's worth out of the XBox 360 because of this.

 

This is how I, and I believe many others, feel about consoles and why it's different than PC gaming.



#58 Houtei

Houtei

    Neowinian

  • 564 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 07

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:34

To me they just sound jealous that millions upon millions of people are going to be buying amd graphic cards essentially when they purchase ps4s and xbox ones lol.  AMD just has alot more knowledge for what they needed than nvidia



#59 BillyJack

BillyJack

    Neowinian

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 05
  • Location: Florida, United States

Posted 25 September 2013 - 18:00

Yes, but Valve is looking to change that with SteamOS and SteamBox. Hopefully they will be able to break the hold that Microsoft and Sony have on gaming and create an open, flexible platform that offers cheaper games and better graphics. Mobile phones and tablets have been evolving at breakneck speed because they're flexible platforms - there is more innovation and more competition. It doesn't make sense to have consoles with eight-to-ten year lifecycles.

 

First of all it is not 10 year cycles because of limits with hardware or software it is because no one would want to buy a new console every year or two. Which is funny because people are willing to spend money on a phone every two years. Phones and tablets have games at a fast rate because the software for making games is already multi-platform, such as DirectX, and the developers are already making the game for the PC or console so they can easily port it to the phone/tablet. A lot of the games are also older games ported over to the phone/tablet. Games are not released on the phone/tablet because of flexibility. I would not call phones/tablet are innovative for games. The games are scaled back from the console/PC version.

 

I think if they thought targeted consoles differently then they do now then they could have better hardware and at a faster pace but at a loss of targeted customers. Adults who have cash to spare and are hardcore games are likely to buy a new console that costs more and more often. However there are a lot of adults who do not game often and would not justify it. Parents will not be willing to buy console that costs more and more often for their kids either. What if they compromised and had one cheap console every ten years for one demographic and anther more expensive and release often for the other demographic. However, what if the second demographic was only willing to pay for an expensive PC instead of an expensive console.

 

These companies have people doing research. They are not stupid. It is the way it is because that is all a costumer is willing to do at the most optimal profit.



#60 Houtei

Houtei

    Neowinian

  • 564 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 07

Posted 25 September 2013 - 18:52

I just wanna slap people whjen they start talking about PCs and 4k resolutions in a console topic.  Two different worlds and as far as teh 4k tv goes, 90% of us will not be able to afford a 4k tv for years to come.... lol  Your talking  a several grand.  Heck if you wanna game at 1600p your talking anywhere from 1 to 3k which is not going to happen for most people.  The average person that can afford a gaming pc only has 1080p anyways unless they shelled out a grand for a monitor.  I speant like 1400 on a 50" tv and i spent 1200 on a 27" monitor that does 1600p





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!