Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

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

There's an NVIDIA Interview on PC PowerPlay Magazine titled "The Sky Isnít Falling," as it hears from NVIDIA's Tony Tamasi about graphics cards, who tells them: "Itís no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than the PC." Surprisingly, he says one of the reasons for this is that the console giants don't have the cash to compete in this area:

By the time of the Xbox 360 and PS3, the consoles were on par with the PC. If you look inside those boxes, theyíre both powered by graphics technology by AMD or NVIDIA, because by that time all the graphics innovation was being done by PC graphics companies. NVIDIA spends 1.5 billion US dollars per year on research and development in graphics, every year, and in the course of a consoleís lifecycle weíll spend over 10 billion dollars into graphics research. Sony and Microsoft simply canít afford to spend that kind of money. They just donít have the investment capacity to match the PC guys; we can do it thanks to economy of scale, as we sell hundreds of millions of chips, year after year.

View
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

53. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 20:42 HorrorScope
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 16:33:
Yeah well seeing as the entire PS4 costs $400 that's still hella cheaper than just a single higher end video card from Nvidia which is why console gaming is attractive to so many people. The days of spending 1000's on performance PC every year or two are over for the vast majority at any rate. If Nvidia thinks it's ok being niche then that's where they're going to end up. Pride goeth before a great fall.


Ah back to this tired ole argument, I guess it's coming because it's a new generation. A $250 video card today is better that what is going into the consoles.

PC's do cost more than a console.

However PC games and peripherals are cheaper and in the long run.... if you buy a lot it is cheaper to run a PC.

$1200 buys you a great PC. You can get away with less, you can SLI and pay more but $1200. All games are glass, with all the trimming on.

The main reason why we don't upgrade as often was law of diminishing but moreso, we've been hampered by consoles with 512 meg o ram. 4 Gig of Ram games... gonna be nice not having to load... gonna be nice having crisper textures.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 20:33 HorrorScope
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 13:33:
Hellbinder wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 12:51:
Total bullshit. The consoles are 8 core CPUS with upper mid range GPUS that have exactly the same graphics capabilities of the most expensive cards on the market today. the only difference would be frame rates at ultra high resolutions.

In fact the consoles will have better graphics than 99.9% of PC games for the next few years at least because of the advantage of development and expertise on a closed system.

have you watched any PS4 demos lately?

1. The same "8 core" CPUs that AMD has been selling to PC makers for years?
2. The same PS4 demos that have been running on Windows?

There may be some benefits you can get from developing for a single set of hardware, but

1. Those benefits take years to learn, by which time advances in PC hardware technology has far outstripped any gains to be had.
2. Almost all games are designed for more than one platform these days, making it much more difficult or even impossible to take advantage of any such gains.

HellBinder:
You haven't swayed my opinion and I am open to it if you can prove it.

The videocards we use today mid-range up are better than what is being put into the new consoles (those are lower-midrange now), that is fact, imo unquestionable fact. And that is what the NVidia guy said. ATI could say the same thing, if they really want to.

I'm not saying the PS4 demo can't look great, but the PC can equal it. What we've been seeing on the PC end has been hampered by the old consoles. When the new games come out those will translate right over to the PC.

You mention the PC has higher rez and higher frames. Well guess what? That is all part of being better now isn't it? Those are good things, right?

As for the 8 core AMD. I'll be surprised if they are better than the Intel Quads, ghz wise it isn't close. I'm sure most here will be more than happy to upgrade to 8 core intels or AMD's when games show they benefit. I think you could say there are a lot of PC Gamers that have been waiting for a reason to upgrade.

General:
As for pads and casuals. That is a whole different group in general vs console and pc core gamers. I don't care how big that gets, if we maintain our size or grow a little, there will be companies willing to target that audience and have games that can gross a Billion in one week, not too shabby. I couldn't careless what casual cheep gamers play, just as long as the sector I'm in is still being represented. There is no sign of a slowdown there. So the pad comments or growth, who gives a shit? Those people are lumped in with Solitaire or non-gamers to me, there has always been a lot more of them than pc core gamers. Not sure what news flash this is?

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2013, 20:49.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 19:32 Nate
 
McTurbo wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 16:58:

Your right.. but then while your stuck for the next 6-7 years on one platform that cant be upgraded. the pc crowd gets to move on to better and better.. my prime point i would like to point out to.. console games support 32 players .. rarely will it allow more.. pc games support 64+.. i cant remember if it was BF2 or BF3.. the pc had like 9-10 classes plus 64 players and so on and so on.. while the console had limited maps and 32 players with 5 classes.. simply cause the console couldnt handle the complexity that a pc has..

PS4 will get PlanetSide 2. Supposedly it will be the same experience as the PC client. So thats several hundred players on a map.
 
Avatar 24272
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 18:18 eRe4s3r
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 15:39:
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 10:38:
While what Nvidia says is true, in reality the best GPU isn't gonna mean shit if you need 1000 artists employed for 3 to 5 years to make a big AAA title.

What's limiting graphics isn't the GPU, it's the cost, time and manpower needed to make that superior looking gfx...

There is no ecomony of scale when it comes to modeling or texturing.

Wait what? , what Nvidia is saying is BS, consoles have never been better GFX platforms then PCs, it's impossible because PCs set the curve not consoles. Shit the PS4 isnt out yet and is already technically behind the curve.

Artists assets? do you not understand how GFX cards work? assets are only half the picture. What we see on the screen is run through a gauntlet of built in filters that work to completely transform the look of assets within a video game. MSAA, SSAO, HDR, AF, depth of field, blending, tessellation ect ect ect. All these things improve the look of a game regardless of the artists assets.

GTA5 sure would look a hell of a lot better with just some anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the most basic of GFX functionality, and that has nothing to do with artists and everything to do with power which the PC will always dominate... hell I recently played through F:NV and ran a mod(ENB)that did absolutely nothing to the assets of the game but made it look way way better.


You bring GTA5 in against my argument that good graphics will always cost insane amounts of money and not be limited by the GPU? THE MOST EXPENSIVE GAME EVER MADE? Yeah it would look better on PC, everything does in fact. And that is because GPU's on PC are powerful, but GTA5 would not look like it does if they hadn't put insane amounts of money and time into it.

So whatever you were reading there, read it again. GPU's are not limiting your graphics on PC, what's limiting graphics is that making good graphics costs insane amounts of money and time. And consoles are where you make that money BACK if you are lucky. GTA 5 would sell good on PC no doubt, but not nearly good enough to make a profit.

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2013, 18:25.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 18:06 maximus0402
 
McTurbo wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 16:58:
Cutter wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 16:33:
Yeah well seeing as the entire PS4 costs $400 that's still hella cheaper than just a single higher end video card from Nvidia which is why console gaming is attractive to so many people. The days of spending 1000's on performance PC every year or two are over for the vast majority at any rate. If Nvidia thinks it's ok being niche then that's where they're going to end up. Pride goeth before a great fall.


Your right.. but then while your stuck for the next 6-7 years on one platform that cant be upgraded. the pc crowd gets to move on to better and better.. my prime point i would like to point out to.. console games support 32 players .. rarely will it allow more.. pc games support 64+.. i cant remember if it was BF2 or BF3.. the pc had like 9-10 classes plus 64 players and so on and so on.. while the console had limited maps and 32 players with 5 classes.. simply cause the console couldnt handle the complexity that a pc has..

Pc players will be playing the next indie games while consoles are limited to "whats allowed" by MS or Sony. The next "mod" that becomes the next big game will more than likly start out as a pc mod for an existing game.. why. cause the consoles dont like mods and except for a few exceptions refuse to support them.

These few points will always make consoles inferior and nothing more than a base for the casual gamers to play on.. as a previous owner of a cybercafe, almost every single serious player that ever showed up for console games became a pc player shortly there after (repeat customers not one timers)our all nighters had people reserving seats well in advance just to make sure they got a pc to play.

So what were stuck for the next 6 to 7 years. I am a previous PC gamer and still am for some games but tired of the high prices on hardware and the lack of attention software developers spend on PC port. All the attention goes to console and PC is secondary and they usually dont make major PC improvements on PC port, why? PC is harder to develop for since there is a huge spectrumm of different hardware out there. COnsoles are just easier to build games for and predict frame rate and therefore as a person that had to constantly tweak settings on PC to it right, I am glad to just run the console version at this point and not worry about that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 16:58 McTurbo
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 16:33:
Yeah well seeing as the entire PS4 costs $400 that's still hella cheaper than just a single higher end video card from Nvidia which is why console gaming is attractive to so many people. The days of spending 1000's on performance PC every year or two are over for the vast majority at any rate. If Nvidia thinks it's ok being niche then that's where they're going to end up. Pride goeth before a great fall.


Your right.. but then while your stuck for the next 6-7 years on one platform that cant be upgraded. the pc crowd gets to move on to better and better.. my prime point i would like to point out to.. console games support 32 players .. rarely will it allow more.. pc games support 64+.. i cant remember if it was BF2 or BF3.. the pc had like 9-10 classes plus 64 players and so on and so on.. while the console had limited maps and 32 players with 5 classes.. simply cause the console couldnt handle the complexity that a pc has..

Pc players will be playing the next indie games while consoles are limited to "whats allowed" by MS or Sony. The next "mod" that becomes the next big game will more than likly start out as a pc mod for an existing game.. why. cause the consoles dont like mods and except for a few exceptions refuse to support them.

These few points will always make consoles inferior and nothing more than a base for the casual gamers to play on.. as a previous owner of a cybercafe, almost every single serious player that ever showed up for console games became a pc player shortly there after (repeat customers not one timers)our all nighters had people reserving seats well in advance just to make sure they got a pc to play.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 16:48 TheEmissary
 
This is more of obvious statement of facts. There is no competing with the fact that new hardware or refreshes are released every 8-18 months. While the PC has the hardware superiority it doesn't always have the mind-share and developer desire to see the ports are optimized well.

I have seen far too many ports that lack any type of optimization and only run half decent because the PC can brute force through it. Other times they don't bother to fix the animations so they work with framerates higher than 30fps. You can tell a lot of developers take the lazy way out and call it a day when they hit the target frame rate regardless of the unnecessary requirements because of lack of optimization.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 16:33 Cutter
 
Yeah well seeing as the entire PS4 costs $400 that's still hella cheaper than just a single higher end video card from Nvidia which is why console gaming is attractive to so many people. The days of spending 1000's on performance PC every year or two are over for the vast majority at any rate. If Nvidia thinks it's ok being niche then that's where they're going to end up. Pride goeth before a great fall.

 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 16:22 Quboid
 
Yosemite Sam wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 15:39:
Artists assets? do you not understand how GFX cards work? assets are only half the picture. What we see on the screen is run through a gauntlet of built in filters that work to completely transform the look of assets within a video game. MSAA, SSAO, HDR, AF, depth of field, blending, tessellation ect ect ect. All these things improve the look of a game regardless of the artists assets.

You can't polish a turd.

I see your point, there's a lot more to graphics than the texture quality, but textures and polygons are the bases for everything; if they're not good then the game can only achieve so much.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 15:39 Yosemite Sam
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 10:38:
While what Nvidia says is true, in reality the best GPU isn't gonna mean shit if you need 1000 artists employed for 3 to 5 years to make a big AAA title.

What's limiting graphics isn't the GPU, it's the cost, time and manpower needed to make that superior looking gfx...

There is no ecomony of scale when it comes to modeling or texturing.

Wait what? , what Nvidia is saying is BS, consoles have never been better GFX platforms then PCs, it's impossible because PCs set the curve not consoles. Shit the PS4 isnt out yet and is already technically behind the curve.

Artists assets? do you not understand how GFX cards work? assets are only half the picture. What we see on the screen is run through a gauntlet of built in filters that work to completely transform the look of assets within a video game. MSAA, SSAO, HDR, AF, depth of field, blending, tessellation ect ect ect. All these things improve the look of a game regardless of the artists assets.

GTA5 sure would look a hell of a lot better with just some anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the most basic of GFX functionality, and that has nothing to do with artists and everything to do with power which the PC will always dominate... hell I recently played through F:NV and ran a mod(ENB)that did absolutely nothing to the assets of the game but made it look way way better.

 
Avatar 21539
 
CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 15:38 wtf_man
 
MajorD wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 10:11:
Unless significant noticable advancement are made in the PC graphics chips during each console life cycle, people aren't really going to care. I really didn't see any huge WOW factor between the two during the last life cycle (360 & PS3).

Pretty much this. My 8800GTX lasted over 5 years... I never had a graphics card last the long before... I was upgrading every 18 months or so. I expect my GTX680 to last just as long... and it's already been a year and a half.

Graphics has been "more than good enough" for years.... at least for gaming.
 
Avatar 19499
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 15:21 eRe4s3r
 
InBlack wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 12:52:
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 10:38:
While what Nvidia says is true, in reality the best GPU isn't gonna mean shit if you need 1000 artists employed for 3 to 5 years to make a big AAA title.

What's limiting graphics isn't the GPU, it's the cost, time and manpower needed to make that superior looking gfx...

There is no ecomony of scale when it comes to modeling or texturing.

Have you seen Rome II?? Which console game looks half as good?

I dunno, I don't own a console But that wasn't my point anyway... it's not about the GPU, it's about how much money publishers put into AAA titles that decides how they look. Also while Rome 2 looks great, it also runs like shit.

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2013, 15:28.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 15:12 DangerDog
 
He makes a strong argument for why you don't need to upgrade your graphics card, it's a race to the bottom in terms of taking advantage of a GTX Titan.

Even the Steambox is only targeting "better" for its graphics capabilities, something on par with xbox 360 and the PS3 according to Gabe.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/3958162/valve-steam-box-cake

It doesn't mater if your PC can render theater quality graphics if the games aren't released on the PC, and even then it'll most likely be a console port and not look as good as a native PC title should.

ATI is announcing their "R9" series graphics cards tomorrow at the low, low price of $599 but I guess it's better than paying $650 to $1000 for what Nvidia has to offer.


 
Avatar 6174
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 14:59 Simon Says
 
Hellbinder wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 12:51:
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 11:57:
nin wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 10:05:
So says the company who's chips aren't powering the newest consoles. Coincidence?


So says he's right. It really is maste rof obvious, but sometimes saying it puts it more in perspective. They are not going to pay for top of the line GPU's, they weren't willing to pay for a GPU this generation in their console that surpassed what is in PC's today. Hence his MOO statement.


Total bullshit. The consoles are 8 core CPUS with upper mid range GPUS that have exactly the same graphics capabilities of the most expensive cards on the market today. the only difference would be frame rates at ultra high resolutions.

In fact the consoles will have better graphics than 99.9% of PC games for the next few years at least because of the advantage of development and expertise on a closed system.

have you watched any PS4 demos lately?

*Double facepalm*

2000 gigaflops is 3 years old MIDRANGE graphics card horsepower mate http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/252/radeon-hd-5850.html , sorry, make that four years by sept. 30. Of course they can squeeze a bit more oomph outta em with the closed system, but they can't make miracles. And last I heard, a few titles are already getting stuck at a horrible 720p@30fps. Enjoy that while we game at 1920*1080 or 4k @ 60 fps+ with anti aliasing and way better everything.

As for these 8 cores, they're from a netbook CPU with piss poor IPC running at a ridiculously low Ghz AND 4 of em are reserved for the OS.

I'm starting to think you're just baiting here...

And didn't you notice those "PS4" demos were running on PCs?

This comment was edited on Sep 24, 2013, 15:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 14:52 Draugr
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 13:33:
1. The same "8 core" CPUs that AMD has been selling to PC makers for years?

Actually as I uderstand it, it's a tablet CPU, so it most PC gamers already have a CPU that can match or outperform the console CPUs.

As many have said, the only people who will be shocked to hear something like this are naive consumers who gobble up marketing materials.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 14:34 jdreyer
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 13:50:
Quboid wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 12:54:

Gaming on phones or tablets is growing, but is it growing at the cost of PC gaming?

Only for casuals. So, if you're Zynga, yeah, you've been crushed. If you're Bethesda, not so much. But you're probably also sitting there, seeing how much cheaper these games are to make, and wondering how to get in. Given how awful the store experiences are, though, I don't believe there's currently a way to do so consistently.

Great point about how the rise of mobile gaming has hit Zynga but no one else very much. And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving developer.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 14:06 btallas
 
nm  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 13:50 Beamer
 
Quboid wrote on Sep 24, 2013, 12:54:

Gaming on phones or tablets is growing, but is it growing at the cost of PC gaming?

Only for casuals. So, if you're Zynga, yeah, you've been crushed. If you're Bethesda, not so much. But you're probably also sitting there, seeing how much cheaper these games are to make, and wondering how to get in. Given how awful the store experiences are, though, I don't believe there's currently a way to do so consistently.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 13:50 Cyant
 
1.5 billion in graphic research not 1.5 billion on generic R&D... learn to read.

Yes when it comes to graphic Nvidia and AMD are bigger than Sony and Microsoft. That is why they use AMD and Nvidia chips instead of Sony or Microsoft grapgic adapters... duh.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: NVIDIA: Sep 24, 2013, 13:34 Verno
 
Well said jdreyer.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, Legend of Grimrock 2, Super Mario 3D World
Watching: A Good Marriage, The Knick, Gotham
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo