Nvidia: Console Graphics Will Never Again Outpace PCs

[Andy Chalk]

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.

 

[Clovus]

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.

Most games do not push the limits of PC cards, but they do scale quite a bit. It looks like the Xbox One and PS4 are going to have some pretty amazing games. The PC versions of those can feature higher resolution textures, run at a faster framerate, use more AA, have more physics/AI actors on the screen at once, run at a higher resolution (I don't see 4k being a thing in living rooms soon, but in a few years you might see more PC gamer's using it), etc.

These advantages grow pretty quickly over the years, but they do hit a bit of a roadblock at some point. The current consoles are definitely holding things back and buying a Titan is amost certainly a waste of money.

 

[Johnson McGee]

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.

 

[Kinitawowi]

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.

Should probably cite the other reason consoles can get away with optimisation - hardware consistency. You can't optimise for PC when you don't know whether any given PC will be running an AMD or an Intel or some weird Exynos CPU, or an AMD or NVidia GPU, or what derivative of each it'll be running. Every XBone will have the same CPU and GPU (or APU) though, so you can specifically gear the code for those processors. Inconsistent hardware means reliance on inefficient, scalable, unified architectures (like DirectX).

It's the same reason why developers prefer writing apps for the iPhone than for Android-based devices.

 

[Callate]

Unless the tools that enable developers to create work that utilizes the increased horsepower of high-end PCs are feasible for anyone other than larger developers with dozens of people working specifically on texture, lighting, particle effects etc., the point is going to be somewhat moot.

 

[Furism]

Consoles have *never* been on-part with PCs when it comes to graphics. PCs were cranking HD-Ready (720P+) resolutions when consoles where still SD (480p). Now the consoles are 1080p at best while PCs can show more.

Consoles' advantages are unified hardware and API, and a proper plug and play approach, as well as being cheaper (but more limited in their use) than PC. PCs' advantages are, as long as you throw more cooling and power at a GPU, you basically have no limits - for a price. Because of the Joule effect the maximum power:heat ratio is much bigger in a PC than in a console. There's only so much heat you can dissipate in a locked down small case.

 

[Furism]

Unless the tools that enable developers to create work that utilizes the increased horsepower of high-end PCs are feasible for anyone other than larger developers with dozens of people working specifically on texture, lighting, particle effects etc., the point is going to be somewhat moot.

That's what high level APIs such as DirectX or OpenGL are supposed to handle. Xbox games still use DirectX. But it's true you can tweak some more, use 'cheats', that you can't use on PC because the way the hardware interprets the API commands can vary. Nothing's that unsolvable, and Microsoft has done a good job at providing a great API for that - both on Windows (because they understood early that'd bolster the sales of their OS) and Xbox. I don't know much about Sony's APIs though.

 

[clippen05]

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.

You must have a bad power supply then because all the PSU's I've ever had run completely quiet and cool and the latest too are 700w and 750w.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Of course, not everyone is going to have a 1000W PSU in their rig, nor are very many people likely to pony up for an Nvidia Titan, which costs literally twice as much as an Xbox One. But in three years, the Titan will sell for a third of what it's currently going for and some new whiz-bang hardware will be perched on the bleeding edge, while the Xbox One will still be an Xbox One.

THIS ^. My crappy-as-balls computer was built using 3rd generation parts (4GB with a GTX560) and it is still more powerful than consoles. In a few years when I finally replace it it still won't be "High end" but it will still give out more juice than I know what to do with. I still enjoy consoles, but as far as tech specs go they can only compete with your mom's box Dell, and then just barely.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Does anyone think otherwise?

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Whether or not a PC can dominate the consoles when it comes to graphics...
I don't think it matters all that much. Sure you still want the graphics to look nice but it shouldn't be the main focus.

That's why certain games with splendid graphics haven't been heard of, nor favored as much. Not saying they aren't good but I know a few games with excellent display being an 'alright experience' gamewise. I really wish people focused on game mechanics and so much more on development of the plot then just wanting to beat competitors with "MY game is shinier and prettier!"

But yeah, who knows what'll become the future of our games, or movies, or anything.... we have to rely on the people who make them.

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.

I gotta agree that effort should probably be made in other areas too. Super duper shiny graphics don't really matter much if the story is hollow and the gameplay is shallow. It's like dating a stereotypical blonde cheerleader.

OT: I'd just like to say thank you to Nvidia for spending billions of dollars on cramming a few more pixels into my screen. How could i live without you guys? :')

 

[Olas]

This thread brought to you by Captain Obvious

For whenever there's a thing that doesn't need pointing out, Captain Obvious will be there... and he'll point it out, because he's Captain Obvious, and as such feels it is his duty to point out obvious things.

"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?

He means it wouldn't be a worthwhile investment for them, since they aren't strictly a graphics company; not that Microsoft literally doesn't have the extra dough laying around to fund the research if they really wanted to.

-Captain Obvious

 

[RA92]

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.

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.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

You must have a bad power supply then because all the PSU's I've ever had run completely quiet and cool and the latest too are 700w and 750w.

He's talking about a PC that has a 550w supply, not the supply itself. I agree with McGee, my PC already warms the room up enough, a Titan GPU would probably kill me in summer >.>

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Never again? Care to tell me exactly when did consoles surpassed PC in terms of graphical fidelity? Yeah..exactly.

Only the thought of next gen games developers having only 4.5GB RAM to work with to optimize says a lot. Since, you know, 3.5GB is used for the OS of the consoles.

 

[Korolev]

Well that's obvious. Super, super obvious. Computer graphics cards are being re-designed and improved every single year.
A console manufacturer can't afford to release a new model of console every single year and rejigger their entire manufacturing process.

If consumers were willing to plonk down hundreds every year for a new upgrade, like people do with smart phones, then sure, manufacturers probably could release an upgrade every year.... but people don't do that. Specifically, kids don't do that. While consoles are brought by people of all ages, a significant portion of buyers are young kids who depend on their parents to buy them a console. Parents are not going to be happy spending a couple hundred bucks every year on an upgraded console.

Consoles are still fine for games. I have consoles, and I'm planning on getting a PS4, an Xbox One and a WiiU (eventually...). I also have a good gaming PC which I upgrade every two or so years. I like all my gaming options.

Consoles are never again going to equal the performance of PCs, unless something drastic occurs in the field of technology. But that's fine. As long as they are good enough, what does it matter? You don't need to drive the fastest sports car to have a good time driving. You don't need to own the biggest house in the world to have a good home life. You don't need "the best" graphics to really enjoy games. My favorite games are "To the Moon", "Bastion", "Final Fantasy IX", "Mass Effect 2" and "Persona 4". Only one of those games requires any sort of graphical horsepower.

 

[Still Life]

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.

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.

Heh But is that the average setup for a PC gamer? I also feel that optimizations for games can be somewhat inconsistent. Totalbiscuit talked about this just the other night on his content patch, lamenting that it was quite often that games/software didn't make full, or even adequate use of hardware resources (he has SLI Titans).

Still, I get nice and steady frames at around 60fps at 1080p with my GTX 580. I think I fall into the average PC gamer category, but we may differ in our perceptions.

4K? *drool*