I figured .. we need much faster GPUs

seriously, we need to achieve framerate at the normal used resolution of the monitor and it's refresh rate, at max color.

for me, I need GPU that can do 60 frames at 1400x1050 ... so I'm thinking a 2+ GHz dual or quad core video card with some 4GB onboard ram. Or maybe more based on the number of the objects

CPUs are fast these days, but the GPUs need improvement.

what do you thinkg ?

 

There will always be a need for improvement (companies want to make money you know).

But on another note, not everyone is a graphics nut who needs everything maxed out. Some people actually value gameplay over graphics.

 

Your average high end CPU can do 50Gflops, the radeon HD 4870 can do 1200Gflops in combined processing power. Your logic is a little broken there..

I think they should hurry up and make a card with 4x the ROP's of current GPU's with a 512mbit bus, and 2Gbyte of GDDR5 memory. Rushing something like this to market could lead to one very expensive and hard to cool GPU.

Also I disagree that gameplay should go over graphics because without good graphics to set the mood, you just don't get the same experience, and if the game isn't smooth, it won't be very enjoyable. Could you really have the same experience if you went back and played DOOM 3 with the shadows off? Or FEAR for that matter.

 

exactly! but whats going on is that nvidia are re-releasing their 9 series gpus with new names....i mean seriously! what happened to the days when the 8800gtx outperformed 2 7900gtx's in sli

 

actually, considering how some games nowadays are simply ports from consoles, and therefore optimised for a midrange GPU and a very good CPU, we actually need better CPUs. case in point: NfSU - my GPU never goes past 72°C, and yet the gameplay/frame rate is laggy, because my CPU can't keep up.

 

GPUs can process graphics faster and better than CPU's any day, CPUS are quite fast as they are now, even dual core, its the GPU that really matters now, hopefully they come up with better GPU's im looking to get a new laptop and game at least, btw not all games are optimized for SLI, 1 powerful card is a better option

 

im with whizzo.

 

true .. but what I'm saying is that I still need faster GPU, unlike CPU

 

That is why I resort to desktops for gaming.

:wink:

 

I agree, i tend to skip games with bad graphic altogether even if it was voted 10/10 for gameplay. Look at wii or ds. I choose 360 and psp over them anyday.

GRAPHICS FTW !!!

(If a game has really good graphics, but a bad gameplay ... thats a different story for another day har har har)

 

there working on something...dont you worry, im sure something revolutionary is on the way, like abolishing the bus limits, etc.

 

PC Gaming is a permanent arms race.

 

my sli 9800m gt's can't keep up with my q9450

 

Considering the fact that I grew up playing Pacman and Pitfall, I don't think graphics are the be all and end all.

 

I'm with whizzo also. CPU first and games coded to use all it's features.

And gameplay takes precedence to me. I still play X-Com every week, to this day.

 

Graphics are not the be all and end all but they are very important. Everything in gaming is the complete package.

A game with great gameplay and bad graphics will be even more enjoyable with better graphics in most cases. Back in the day we were not spoilt with all of these great graphics so we had no idea what we were missing. Due to this we were content with stick men.

For me good graphics are important because they increase suspension of disbelief. Even simple things like a power plant releasing smoke and sparks in Command & Conquer can make a difference, or the green smog coming from a harvester machine. Everything is important.

 

Yeah but the "back in the day" stuff was the greatest graphics ever to us. In the time of Sega Genesis, we couldn't imagine better graphics.

Our expectations just rise alongside the technology.

 

The hardware of GPUs are pretty advanced, we don't need more power, we just need better optimized drivers to take full advantage of the GPUs. Since hardware comes out so often, it often lacks the necessary support. I mean every new update seems to make your GPU "work xx% better". It isn't actually better since the hardware hasn't changed, it's just that the drivers can utilize the GPU power better for certain software.

 

Animation, clipping, and phsyics are more important than improving textures, volumetric particles, and shaders at this point. Far too many "realistic" games these days suffer from inadequate collision detection, stiff animation, and outdated ragdoll.

 

....guys come on putting in an Powerful GDDR5 GPU cant be that hard we already have water cooling in notebooks....

 

Shrinking desktop technology to fit into notebook sized technology is way more difficult than some people make it out to be. The latest GPUs power and heat requirements are insane.

 

well i think thats the main problem actually its really shrinking the gpu into a portable size

 

We don't need more powerful GPUs; we need more powerful cooling solutions. The reason why laptops are so restricted in terms of computing power is because although there have been tremendous advances in computing power, cooling solutions have remained unchanged; whether you open up an old Pentium laptop or a newer Core 2 Duo model, they all have the same old and unchanged heatsink/fan.

The day laptop makers come up with a more cheap-to-make, effective and reliable cooling system to rival the traditional cooling method is the day that you'll see 60 frames per second at 1400x1050.

 

Look at the 4870X2. It needs 4 PCI-E power cords. Try shrinking that to fit in a laptop that uses 90W max.

 

well as i stated earilier in a sense they've already achieved this

Fujitsu has already introduced a liquid cooled notebook and they claim it really quiet this is just the first step now the second step is how we are gonna shrink these GPU's and still get usable power out of them

 

Yes, hence I said:

 

it will be harder for cpus to get faster until we get them faster memory buses. If they cant get the data fast enough, how can they process it fast enough?

 

Yeah but the base of the laptop is almost 2 inches thick.

 

to me theres nothing you can do about that i dont see it being any smaller in the near future either

to run that liquid cooler through the bottom probably requires a ton of space.

 

I dont care how big the laptop is. I think the size of the sager 9262 is perfect. Any laptop bigger than that is no longer a laptop.

 

Yes so do I, my GPU is.....
Winfast- Nvidia Fx5200
128mb
AGP

Hahaha, how's mine compare with yours!

 

Well the market is always growing. Better stuff will come out with time. In a few years time, today's ''high end'' desktop GPUs will be bale to fit into a 13.3" notebook and be called "mid-range". Ok this is an exaggeration a bit, but you get the point lol

As an above poster said, we probably need better cooling at this point though to cope with GPUs without the machine being HUGE or overheating.

 

If they could make smaller super fast GPUs for laptops, they`ll always make bigger ones for desktops that have even more power.

There`s always a bigger fish...

 

Why can't they just make a gaming console that will let me use my keyboard and mouse...

 

Because they have computers for that.

 

Because the majority of console users prefer the controller, myself included.

 

Why can`t they just make it cheap ?

 

Because you're the customer, and they're not?

 

Because we're in a capitalist society? lol

But umm yeah, consoles and PC games cater to different crowds. Some games favor one platform more than another. FPS and RTS would IMO not be very well played on consoles. The poor success of Starcraft on the N64 is a good example of this.

 

yeah its called the phantom gaming system too bad it was vaporware and the CEO was just doing it for stock purposes