Mobile Graphics > 360/PS3 in 2014


Recommended Posts

you guys are missing the point... they are going to have hardware faster then a ps3 in a tiny tiny little box. that's pretty crazy....

If they were topping the ps3's power in a size as small as a phone say.... 2 or 3 years after the ps3s launch, you may have a point. But topping 9 year old hardware in a small form factor... not that amazing.

I agree. I just hate that they've jumped into the gaming hardware bandwagon rather than pushing a more obvious form of optimization. My old phones would last days before needing a charge. New phones last around 10-16 hours. That's a huge step backward in terms of their actual purpose. There is so much technology available these days, phones with similar power to what they had 4 years ago could be streamlined to generate less heat and use less power.

and that's the problem i am seeing with a lot of phones manufacturers out there, especially the android manufactures. they push things like 4G/LTE modems out the door but completely ignore how bad batter life is when those modems in the phone. then they keep coming out with phones with power hungry dual cores and brag "WE ARE FASTER THEN THE IPHONE!!! HANDS DOWN!!!" but the battery will last half a day if you are lucky. I am willing to drop a few megahurtz if that means i will get a phone with a better battery life no problem...

If they were topping the ps3's power in a size as small as a phone say.... 2 or 3 years after the ps3s launch, you may have a point. But topping 9 year old hardware in a small form factor... not that amazing.

but you gotta think when smart phones came into the game and starting pushing it's hardware. that maybe start about 4-5 years ago where the push began.

Hmm I honestly think they my mean next gen consoles.Think about how fast mobile technology is progressing. We already have quad core cpu's with dual core gpu's etc.

I mean, obviously, the actual specs of phones and tablets have already suprpassed the ps3 and 360. The gfx in games are not better yet due to mobile game dev time and funding etc. but in actual hardware power tablets are already ahead.

So if in the next year 720/ps4 come out boasting hardware that is somewhere around a mid->migh end computer at this current time, it doesn't seem that crazy that in two - three years mobile gfx will have surpased them. Certainly in 4-5 years I think phones and tablets will be destroying the ps4/720.

PC's can be built with that as a primary function. Phones and other mobile platforms cannot (at least not yet). A computer does what you make it to do. A phone/tablet is what it is and the fact that the manufacturers are blurring their purpose means that they are going to become riddled with features and stuff they don't need, driving up their price and preventing the consumer from seeing productive improvements and price drops as quickly as we should.

I'm not saying that they haven't improved anything, they certainly have. But today's smart phones could be a lot simpler and have a much, much longer battery life than they currently do if the focus was to minimize power consumption in the hardware/software rather than to beef up the power.

Gaming apps are the overwhelmingly most-purchased apps on tablets and phones (and when I say "overwhelmingly", I mean it's literally not even remotely close). It's safe to say that people do want to game on these devices. And, as you point out, you can't upgrade phones. So why not give them the capabilities from the get-go? You can always purchase a different phone. Nvidia's Tegra platform isn't even in that many phones, and that's the company saying mobile graphics will match consoles in 2014.

If you feel your battery life is significantly shorter than it should be, there's always feature phones. But even still, graphics aren't impacting battery life as much as you probably think. That's primarily from operating on 3G/4G or over WiFi that zaps a phone's battery life. Unless you're gaming, you're probably not going to see any substantial impact from your phone's graphics.

Gaming apps are the overwhelmingly most-purchased apps on tablets and phones (and when I say "overwhelmingly", I mean it's literally not even remotely close). It's safe to say that people do want to game on these devices. And, as you point out, you can't upgrade phones. So why not give them the capabilities from the get-go? You can always purchase a different phone. Nvidia's Tegra platform isn't even in that many phones, and that's the company saying mobile graphics will match consoles in 2014.

If you feel your battery life is significantly shorter than it should be, there's always feature phones. But even still, graphics aren't impacting battery life as much as you probably think. That's primarily from operating on 3G/4G or over WiFi that zaps a phone's battery life. Unless you're gaming, you're probably not going to see any substantial impact from your phone's graphics.

My point is, even with a phone that lasts in optimum conditions maybe 2-2.5 days all the time spent on optimizing and upgrading hardware to play games could be spent on optimizing the device as a mobile platform. I'm sure by now with less power and more refined energy usage we could have phones that last a week on a charge.

The mobile market is indeed heavily saturated with the purchase of games, but these games are 90% of the time short one-offs that are only bought because they are extremely cheap. I don't see how running a game as detailed as Killzone 3 will net you a purchase if the price tag is $30 on the mobile marketplace due to the development time required to make it. A $20-$30 drop in a sea of $.99 and $1.99 games is going to get you nothing.

And even if the power is made to make their platforms run faster, why not optimize on a standard architecture rather than upgrading them to output more? I at least think these are valid questions.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!