Nvidia: Console Graphics Will Never Again Outpace PCs

Recommended Videos

romxxii

New member
Feb 18, 2010
343
0
0
Ukomba said:
Not that game will scale to match the potential of the higher graphics cards. Game makers tend to produce what the consoles can run so your better graphics cards will usually end up being overkill. And unless there's a breakthrough in production method, game companies can't afford to take advantage of the titan level graphical capability.
Er, it doesn't take that much to bring the mightiest GPUs of this generation to their proverbial knees. Extremely high resolutions and new anti-aliasing methods, as well as lighting/shadowing techniques like ambient occlusion, are more than capable of slowing down a single Titan's frame rate to around 50 per second. Here's a benchmark for Crysis 3:



That's not factoring in other configurations which require high-end processing, such as triple monitors, or even something as simple as a 120Hz refresh rate display. For those setups, you will need more than the middle-of-the-road GPU.

Also, remember that PC ports often come with high-resolution texture packs. Yeah we still get the shitty console meshes, but the actual skins will be crisper, the effects on them will be more realistic.
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
It's been like this for the last couple of console generations, more or less. The trade-off used to be that you can pop in a game and go, no need for updates, no cash grab DLC, no installing anything, you just got straight to the game and it was convenient. Now a console is little more than a hobbled PC with bigger performance issues and no free open modding... and extra online fees, restricted online functionality...

Jim Sterling said something like "A console is now basically a shitty PC."

The makers made it so, they have only themselves to blame. Waiting to see what magic mighty Gaben conjures to change things around, if that's even on his agenda. Beyond that it will take a pretty heavy shift in direction to get me even a little excited for the new consoles.
 

themyrmidon

New member
Sep 28, 2009
243
0
0
I think that Tamasi was implying that considering the gap at the start of the upcoming generation, PC graphics are going to expand the gap to a crazy level and be completely whooping the consoles' asses in only a few years. My guess is that in a few years we will see a 'true Crysis 2', a game that will make computers cry for years to come and set a new bar for visual fidelity.

We will being seeing a new generation of GPU's launching not too long after the consoles with AMD's R9 and NVIDIA's Maxwell. We will see at least one more generational shift in GPU tech before the end of the next console cycle. That combination of raw horsepower and new technology will translate into big gains for the enthusiast PC industry. Coupled with focus on energy efficiency we will see more laptops like the Razer Blade and the rise of (and I hate using this term) the Steambox.

This is without even touching the software side of things, where cross-platform compatibility and lack of new IP will only make PC gaming more appealing. With the new console generation the bar is not being raised, PC's just won't be dragging as much weight for a while.
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
I...they ever did? Too many people don't seem to realise that the only advantage consoles have ever really had over PC was the ability to put the game disc in, and play the game thirty seconds later. No installations (GTA V is the first I know of for 360 to have a mandatory installation (By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Would love to know what else), and a lot of PS3 games still don't do it), no downloads, no opening third party programs (Steam, Origin, etc). Just insert and play.
 

michael87cn

New member
Jan 12, 2011
922
0
0
Pft, for now, maybe.

I kinda remember sitting down to a squeeling 56k modem just a few years ago, and now people are walking around with phones that can act like portable TELEVISIONs that receive signals from OUTER SPACE, rivaling download speeds of hundreds of 56k modems.

PCs can act the act now, but I don't think its possible to say "never again" to anything when it comes to technology.
 

Tanakh

New member
Jul 8, 2011
1,512
0
0
DarkhoIlow said:
Never again? Care to tell me exactly when did consoles surpassed PC in terms of graphical fidelity? Yeah..exactly.
Arguably from the first to the sixth generation of consoles, was painfully clear on some generations like the first and the fifth. So... most of the time?
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
Ed130 said:
I think the phrase 'no shit' springs to mind here.
We just have to keep repeating ourselves in the hopes that the lower breeds will eventually join us in PC enlightenment.


That said, I may pick up a console in the next 5 years anyway. I do like my controller gaming and I haven't had a new one since the Gamecube... Time will tell. I think its good to have the two categories alive and thriving.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Ed130 said:
Do you really think the Titan will depreciate that much in 3 years Mr Chalk?
No idea, "a third" just sounded good. :) But three years is quite a bit of time for a GPU to depreciate, especially one at the very top end of the price range.

As for the "no shit" part of the story, sure, it goes without saying that a bleeding-edge PC will smoke any console on the market, but I find it interesting because it reminds me a bit of auto racing: The innovation takes place at the high end, but it's the mass-market, consumer-level stuff that ultimately enjoys the benefit.
So PC gamers are the equivalent of hot-rod enthusiasts, racing aficionados and the Top Gear Team?

I never really thought of it that way.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
I mean consoles are optimized affordable gaming machines. They're built from the same components as PCs at this point so no shit you could easily look at the specs and then buy or build a PC with better specs.
If a 7 year old console with under a gigabyte of ram can play GTA V then I don't foresee it being much of an issue, though obviously the vice president of Nvidia has a stake in PC gaming.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Ed130 said:
Do you really think the Titan will depreciate that much in 3 years Mr Chalk?
No idea, "a third" just sounded good. :) But three years is quite a bit of time for a GPU to depreciate, especially one at the very top end of the price range.

As for the "no shit" part of the story, sure, it goes without saying that a bleeding-edge PC will smoke any console on the market, but I find it interesting because it reminds me a bit of auto racing: The innovation takes place at the high end, but it's the mass-market, consumer-level stuff that ultimately enjoys the benefit.
While this is just Nvidia getting ahead of a bunch of "optimized for AMD" multiplatform games that will be coming over the next several years, the way integrated graphics are advancing in three years time integrated graphics will likely be on par with the hardware of the Xbone and PS4. Check out the benchmarks and specs on AMD's upcoming Kaveri APU, even that is beginning to approach what is in the next gen consoles.
 

Saulkar

Regular Member
Legacy
Aug 25, 2010
3,142
2
13
Country
Canuckistan
Still Life said:
Hazy992 said:
EDIT: Better put in a disclaimer that you don't need a Titan or upgrade yearly to play PC games. It's an extreme example.

I don't really see a Titan as a gaming GPU, really - It's overkill to buy that *just* for gaming, unless you're a hardware enthusiast/overclocker. I feel like the mid-range cards are usually more than adequate for most customers.
Thoralata said:
Hey NVidia! You might want to remember that the kind of tech you produce, nobody actually needs. Mid-range cards will run absolutely everything just fine. You're audience for Titan are a tiny number of hardcore technology freaks who are dumb enough to spend $400 on a graphics card.
It however makes for one hell of a CGI card!



This animation took 3 hours to render on a titan but took 45 minutes for a single frame on an I7 quadcore at 3.6GHZ-HT which would come to about 187.5 hours for the entire animation! It has its place given that the proffesional workstation cards which carry the same line of GPU cost 2-6 times as much.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Still Life said:
I don't really see a Titan as a gaming GPU, really - It's overkill to buy that *just* for gaming, unless you're a hardware enthusiast/overclocker. I feel like the mid-range cards are usually more than adequate for most customers.
Thoralata said:
Hey NVidia! You might want to remember that the kind of tech you produce, nobody actually needs.
But... but I could run Mount and Blade with max unit locks disabled... battles with 3000 fully animated soldiers all moving and fighting at the same time... the sheer scale of it... hundreds of arrows in the air all the time, spear walls that function like actual spear walls. The ability to see 1000 mounted Kergits all lined up coming at me..

I need this new graphics card. need.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Hazy992 said:
EDIT: Better put in a disclaimer that you don't need a Titan or upgrade yearly to play PC games. It's an extreme example.
Still Life said:
I don't really see a Titan as a gaming GPU, really - It's overkill to buy that *just* for gaming, unless you're a hardware enthusiast/overclocker. I feel like the mid-range cards are usually more than adequate for most customers.
Actually, benchmark tests of of CoH 2 on a 4k monitor have trouble keeping a steady 60FPS at full settings with 2 Titans in SLI.
Right, because a 4K resolution is really necessary right now ¬_¬

Most people are running at 1080p or less, 4K isn't going to be the standard for a looong time.
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
Johnson McGee said:
My 550W PC already turns my room into a pressure cooker in the summer so I don't find the prospect of a 1000W very appealing. It would make a nice winter space heater though.
Uff word. I just about balked at the thought of 1000w.

And during the winter which is now a godsend after that terrible summer, my computer literally is my room's radiator at 600W. Or I get verreh cold in here.

1000W Would be some naaaice heating, but would just melt during the summer.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
1000W PC? why would you need a 1000W PSU anyway? pretty much every part has been getting to lower their power needs in the last couple years. 600W is more than enough unless your building a monster, and if you are gaming is the reason.


Adam Jensen said:
We know. And we also know that PC games will never be as optimized as console games and they will always require more raw power to run games at console settings. And that's mostly because of bloated operating systems that are not designed specifically for gaming. Windows still has a shitty bloated kernel and that won't change as long as Microsoft has practically a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
considering consoles and PCs are both going to be using x86 now, i would say the optimization gap will be far lower.



mattaui said:
Huh, I've had a 1000W PSU in my box for the last three or four years because it was just a bit more than the 750 I was looking at, and I wanted to make sure I didn't have to worry about a new PSU for awhile.
And then they wonder why their electricity bills are so high.....

PoolCleaningRobot said:
Realistically, no matter how much I may want to upgrade computer hardware every year, I can't afford it.
And you dont have to. If you buy medium-to-high hardware now, you will easily last for 4-5 years without anything changed.

RikuoAmero said:
"Microsoft simply can't afford to spend that kind of money"

Did someone actually say that? Say that MICROSOFT can't afford to spend money? The company whose founder was the richest man on Earth for several years running?
Keyword: WAS.

Ulquiorra4sama said:
Crysis springs to mind due to the fact no one actually bought that game, but rather downloaded it and used it to test their new drive cores.
BUt crysis was pretty damn optimized. I bought it and palyed it back in 2008 on a laptop on high settings. no other game[footnote]talking about AAA only here[/footnote] released at same date forward i could play on high on that machine without framerate problems. If anything, i found it to not be very demanding.

Raiyan 1.0 said:
Actually, benchmark tests of of CoH 2 on a 4k monitor have trouble keeping a steady 60FPS at full settings with 2 Titans in SLI.
BUt COH 2 on full settings with a 4k monitor is not something 99.999% of gamers are ever going to even attempt. and even then, the FPS can spike down to 30 FPS and still keep the game playable.

Thoralata said:
Hey NVidia! You might want to remember that the kind of tech you produce, nobody actually needs. Mid-range cards will run absolutely everything just fine. You're audience for Titan are a tiny number of hardcore technology freaks who are dumb enough to spend $400 on a graphics card.
And you have to remmeber that our mid range cards that run abosolutely everything were the tech for hardcore technology freaks 3-4 years ago. but now it became standart. and so Titan will become standart one day, and we will have a "collosus" card that we will consider for freaks.

romxxii said:
Here's a benchmark for Crysis 3:
your link doesnt work but i tracked the image down and its in here: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafikkarten-Grafikkarte-97980/Tests/Test-Geforce-GTX-Titan-1056659/5/

Saulkar said:
This animation took 3 hours to render on a titan
And here i was hoping it was in real time :(
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
Strazdas said:
PoolCleaningRobot said:
Realistically, no matter how much I may want to upgrade computer hardware every year, I can't afford it.
And you dont have to. If you buy medium-to-high hardware now, you will easily last for 4-5 years without anything changed.
T'was my point bro :/

Nvidia is basically saying, "why buy a console? On a pc, you get to upgrade every time we make a new Super duper gpu." Who is this supposed to appeal to? Like another in this thread, I have an Nvidia 240 and while it is shite, it's shite that can easily run any game in high def even I have to do it on the lowest settings (though usually I don't). Most pc gamers don't upgrade like that so it's not really a selling point to say "you can buy more shit when your shit gets old".
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
PoolCleaningRobot said:
Strazdas said:
PoolCleaningRobot said:
Realistically, no matter how much I may want to upgrade computer hardware every year, I can't afford it.
And you dont have to. If you buy medium-to-high hardware now, you will easily last for 4-5 years without anything changed.
T'was my point bro :/

Nvidia is basically saying, "why buy a console? On a pc, you get to upgrade every time we make a new Super duper gpu." Who is this supposed to appeal to? Like another in this thread, I have an Nvidia 240 and while it is shite, it's shite that can easily run any game in high def even I have to do it on the lowest settings (though usually I don't). Most pc gamers don't upgrade like that so it's not really a selling point to say "you can buy more shit when your shit gets old".
I always found it funny how people called 240 shit, when i happen to go by with 8600 ok.Well i do need a new one, but its over 5 years now and the new one is in the plans anyway. Thing is, even at this poor state, i still outpoerform consoles. and i plan to use my next one for 5 more. thing is, with PC you can upgrade at any time and still be "at the top". with ocnsoles, lets say if you bought an Xbox this spring, it would become obsolete in less than a year....
 

mattaui

New member
Oct 16, 2008
689
0
0
Strazdas said:
1000W PC? why would you need a 1000W PSU anyway? pretty much every part has been getting to lower their power needs in the last couple years. 600W is more than enough unless your building a monster, and if you are gaming is the reason.


mattaui said:
Huh, I've had a 1000W PSU in my box for the last three or four years because it was just a bit more than the 750 I was looking at, and I wanted to make sure I didn't have to worry about a new PSU for awhile.
And then they wonder why their electricity bills are so high.....
Hahah, I wish the few hours I had my gaming PC on made that big a difference in my electricity bill, but alas it does not.

I use my big rig for gaming and graphic design, but for writing and really anything else low power, I'm almost always on one of my laptops.