Where we've come in 5 years with mobile gaming...

I was just curious so I looked up the top end GPU of 2006 and it was the GeForce Go 7900 GS.

Today it's the AMD HD 6990m.

Only real benchmark you can use to compare is 3DMark06 which goes from about 3500 for 7900 GS to 22000 for 6990m. That's a over 6x times the performance improvement. Half-Life 2 Episode 1 was released in 2006 as was Company of Heroes! Today we have Crysis 2 and Starcraft 2!

Scary thing is despite the performance improvements I don't think we've improved graphically a whole heck of a lot!

Compare them!

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DL_mPw7KEU8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DL_mPw7KEU8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JGy2F6fec3A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JGy2F6fec3A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U4WZK43tAtQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U4WZK43tAtQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/30MBljXxg3M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/30MBljXxg3M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

It's amazing how quickly technology progresses. 2006 was actually the time when I bought my 1st laptop, and it's great to see how far things have come since then.

 

Most games haven't improved much in terms of gameplay either

inb4 blaming consoles for holding back graphics

 

Consoles hold back graphics!

 

I will go out on a limb and say that mobile gaming has *not* progressed very far. Although the performance envelope has been pushed in terms of squeezing the latest CPUs and GPUs into a "laptop" form factor, the same problems of gaming on a laptop largely persist:

- the upgrade options aren't there
- the cooling systems are usually cheap and ineffective unless you shell out an unreasonable premium
- these types of laptops generally have a higher rate of cooling issues and thus a lower level of reliability

So if we're talking about performance parts, then 5 years has yielded significant improvements. But that can be said of any technology field. Within mobile gaming however, the same problems persist to a significant extent (I'm not saying that all gaming laptops have these problems, but the majority do).

 

Also a problem of gaming on a laptop worsened over the years:

- the cheap crappy panels used for laptop screens; honestly laptop screens a few years back have incredibly better vibrance and contrast than ones used in new laptops.

 

Love how people say consoles are holding back graphics.

The sad truth is, that technology (at least for laptops) is not at the level to play as good of graphic games as they expect.

Even desktops same story, unless you SLI. Only problem I see with consoles, is "console ports". Also, don't even get me started on all the stupid DirectXs, each with lower performance and minimal graphical improvement.

Yeh, my old laptop with a lower res screen had way better picture. I think it is this new LED crap. Looks horrible...

 

It's not the LED, that's the backlight. It's the crap LCD's they offer with the low color gamut, poor contrast and brightness, but worse of all horrible viewing angles, not to mention GLOSSY EVERYWHERE! UGH!

 

aspect ratio change is the worst thing ever happen to computer screens. watching movies on laptop/desktop is not the optimum experience. IMO only large screen TV shall adopt 16:9 while computer screen shall maitain 4:3 or at least 16:10.

 

So glad I got my R2 none of these problems have I had and my screen is gorgeous + I still have a better upgrade path then most laptops. I think consoles are holding back graphics because most of the games are produced for 5 year old GPU's. (RSX = 7800gtx and The Xenos = ATI 1800xt-ish)

 

i will say that mobile gaming has improved in one important aspect- price.
during those days you need to spend 4000usd to get yourself a high end gaming system. nowadays you can get top of the line for 2000usd or less.

also, on the cpu side we have never been this close to desktop performance. im hoping we see the same kind of revolution for mobile gaming as more and more people move away from the constraints of a desktop.

 

consoles are definitly holding pc back consoles don't even handle dx9 lvl of feature

an other exemple crysis 1 was devloped for pc and then ported to consoles crysis 2 the oposit result crysis 1 looks better then crysis 2

 

Only reason technology isn't better is because developers are still developing games for 5-7 year old consoles, their biggest money maker. They can only port so much to PC. Games aren't challenging the tech, so no need for upgrade.

 

xbox 360: late 2005

the 7900 gtx was out in 2006...
5kish in 3dmark06...

ps3: late 2006


the next year the 8800gtx came out with a 3dmark06 of 9k+
nearly 2x the speed...



from what I can tell, the 485m is the first card to offer 2x the performance of the 8800gtx...
4 years latter...




******** console noobs...

 

Get over it.

Also you can't really make graphics more real than real life, aren't we almost at that point yet? We need better physics engines for things like Wind.

 

Wow, its been quite a while but it the progress has been good.

At least, as already mentioned, the prices have come down.

 

Look at the GTAIV Mod thread in this tree — graphics is almost as realistic as it is irl. Obviously its just a mod and repetitive textures give it out but it shows the potential.

Another thing however is that sometimes its not wise to make everything look too realistic since it becomes scary and can damage young minds in general.

Imo mobile gaming did few huge steps forward:
1. high-end gpus are more accessible and there are wide range of those, its not like you either get crapy internal gpu for 500 usd or some good one for $2500 — there are plenty of stuff in between that does the job.
2. That being said our choice was vastly increased — we can choose it to be smaller, bigger, with insane battery life, quieter or almost as powerful as desktops.

Gaming itself however is not making huge steps. Some companies choose to just offer insane graphics, some choose storyline coridor games, but we didnt see much in depth development like enhancing fallout concept for example or attempts to make a perfect online world that would beat WoW, not necessarily it should be a grind fest or require you to play 24/7. I like the way how i am playing fallout 3 now (i didnt know it exist) — just exploring something for 30-60 minutes a day when i feel like it. However things to explore are running out.

Sorry for too much text -)

 

Graphics are NOT even close to what they look like irl. They said that 5 years ago, and it's far from it. Like WAY far from it. Take a screenshot of NYC in Crysis 2 and then a real photo you'll see it's far from close.

But in any case, just improve gameplay, please. It's 90% crap any more.

 

A few of you miss the point with graphics, Its about how you use the hardware and not blunt forcing new tech just to get marginal performance. Like the OP stated graphics hasn't changed much regardless of having a console ran market. The difference between games at the beginning of this gen to the end are greatly different, even on the same piece of hardware. L.A. Noire is a great show of this, and of course theres tons of others aswell. But theres very little new even in DX11 so having more ram more shaders will only do you so much in changing the over all end graphics for the user. Really all the consoles are missing out on is resolution, and certain lighting effects, and now tessellation of course which will only be starting to be used properly in BF3.

Anyways There are 2 types of mobile gamers, 1 that hooks up to a big screen and games at home but needed a laptop, or 2. one that games on the road with their lappy. Light Peek will start changing and making it easier for people to get back into PC gaming and we might even see a market shift. A dock boasts greater graphics upgradability at a later point down the road, so ya sure you need a laptop but leave the serious business to when you dock up. Only problem with this model is, gamers generally only want to buy one piece of hardware, thats why consoles are successful, no console gamer ever worries about if it will run the new game coming out next year.

 

Not even close?

 

What game is that? and one screenshot does not realism make!

 

Yeah my first laptop had a go7600, its still going strong after I gave it to my parents but with 256mb of ram and a 3dmark06 score of 1800 its showing its age

But just as it was mentioned before even though I bought that particular computer in January 2007 and only paid $1000 for it I have never owned a laptop with a screen half as nice (my sister's 2011 macbook pro comes close to matching it).

Now that I consider that laptop I think I should quit worrying about pure performance and start buying sony again...loved my gateway and love my alienware but build quality and screen quality in both suck.

 

That is modded GTA 4, http://youtu.be/AXjsMRDPrls
* im not sure how to embed videos, apparently im a newb when it comes to posting on forums*

heres a very beautiful GTA 4 mod.

 

It does look good, but far from real. And buildings are one thing, but nature, grass, trees, and especially people's features are far from realistic. I remember five years ago we thought graphics in games looked "real". It's just a state of perception and technology.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AXjsMRDPrls?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AXjsMRDPrls?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tK9XMtlBbco?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tK9XMtlBbco?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

Until quantum Computing is a reality outside of business application, we will not see anything that real for atleast 10 years I predict. Our real world of light and atomic scaled objects would need to be replicated in a similar fashion to get around that "plastic" look. Building a character that had skin muscle and bone to interact with light properly, all objects share their real counter parts interactions and deformations with other things in the universe. Quantum or maybe even Neuron computing could boast such a thing.

 

That one screen shot proves that technology is already there.
Wether or not you have million texture designers to make every building look like real new york building is another story.

In fact good 3d renders already look like a photography.
Creating a game that would look like real life is totally real its just a question of money.

What i mean is — creating a ship that would travel with the speed of light is not real today because there are no such technology. Creating a game that will look like real life on the other hand is completely possible, but it wont be on steam for $19.99 nor even for $199.99 so companies are just not interested in investing that much in graphics when you can invest 1% of that in storyline and gameplay and get a best selling game of all times.

 

The issue is that, yes, it is possible to create software and hardware that can render photorealistic stills. It's entirely another thing to create photorealistic films, and still another to create photorealistic games. It requires real-time deformation and texture modification. Bullet holes wouldn't be decals applied to the surface, they'd be pockmarks created by a simulated impact of supersonic metal against brick. Skidmarks would be a function of the properties of rubber tires against the properties of an asphalt road, not a function of speed=X and turn angle=Y.

The only thing I see in those GTA screens is cars polished to a mirror finish, which looks impressive, but unrealistic.

 

game quality has gone down, but graphics are improving.

my first gaming laptop was Dell E1705 with a 7900gs, big heavy monster that i sold after 3 month of usage. back then i used to game alot more and the gpu just wasnt cutting it. my last laptop was a msi gx640 which i returned after a week because the having the fan switching between low and medium on idle was just plain annoying. the gpu was decent enough though and not super expensive.

its getting alot more affordable to get decent gaming laptops than it was 5 years ago. my e1705 cost me around 2k cnd and it wasnt even top end.

 

it was a little more than 5yrs ago (2003), but my first laptop was a sony vaio pcg-grt230 with a northwood pentium 4 (2.4GHz) and nvidia geforce4 420 go 32MB. i was so excited when i could play need for speed underground. then i was bummed when i couldnt play prince of persia the sands of time because i didnt have pixel shaders. my envy is my second laptop (2010). it has handled everything ive asked. i wonder when i'll finally get around to playing prince of persia...

 

huh?

I guess it depends on how real you want it to be, so sure. Hopefully you didn't mean "in 10 years - when we have quantum computers".

You don't need atom based objects to achieve realism and surpass a plastic looking render. You do need advanced lighting algorithms, which currently do not run in real time. Faster computers or better lighting algorithms would be plenty. We may get better lighting methods, we will certainly get faster computers.

Bone and muscle don't interact with light. Coincidentally, this is basically how 3d characters are already created (except the muscles and bones are not interacting with light, of course).

You don't need to simulate every aspect of the entire universe to make a realistic simulation. But, yes, this is the idea. In a simulation, the concept is to make an accurate model of the real world and let it go. This is already how it works.

neuron computing? it doesn't matter. the computational device is an engineering problem. There are still physics breakthroughs that need to be met before we can think about using quantum computers or neuron computers to perform algorithms. What you *CAN* except is that computers will keep getting faster. You don't *need* fundamentally new technology to get better looking graphics. You need better software. Turns out, we already have great software for generating very realistic graphics. It just isn't fast enough for real time, so we need faster computers. The type of computer that ends up running it in real time isn't really important. That's my 2 cents.

 

Bare in mind that it is a work in progress and a lot of what you mentioned has already been improved. They plan to release an updated version suitable for the latest patch soon too.

 

My first laptop was the original XPS in 2004. It beat the hell out of every current game (Doom 3, UT 2k4, Far Cry, etc). It was also 3 grand

It was a very bad thing to have for my first semester of college.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't look good, it just looks "mannequin" real. The other thing is until they can smooth the movements of human motion so it looks real, and make faces look real, it will be hard to consider any of it "real".

Until we can get human animation to this level in real-time, we don't even have a chance of making it look "real"

 

having watched the video just went to shoot myself

now seriously, the hardware and prices made great strides, but the quality of the software just went down the drains, for me its not about graphics but gameplay and immersion (which indeed gfx helps).

I actually played more defense grid than any cod (with the exception of the 1st)

 

I still fondly remember my Vostro 1500 w/ 8600M GT DDR2. At that time, I was upgrading from a GMA 950, and I went from playing Dawn Of War at 15fps to 60fps with 8xAA, and was blown away.

 

The processing hardware has come a long way.
The 7xxxGo series compared to desktops of the time was pitiful.
They were expensive, hot, and while a good first step into real gaming on laptops, weren't the refined versions we have now.

Today's i7 mobile + 460m or 560m compare directly with desktop GPUs (underclocked 550ti) and produce playable framerates at 1080p with almost everything and the kitchen sink on in most recent titles. This is for as low as $1100-1200 laptops!

If you spend around $2000, you have a godbox which basically has an underclocked 560TI or 6870 desktop GPU. You will be able to play EVERY game at 1080p with darn near everything on...

From these 1100-2000-dollar laptops you are getting cool and quiet running and high reliability. MSI, Asus, AW, and Clevo resellers make these kinds of laptops quite available and with a bunch of choices.

Frankly, the new AMD $500 laptops are producing gaming frate rates and quality above what we used to see in $3000 units back in the day!

it IS true the games haven't kept up.
Yeah... its because developers are targetting consoles with ancient hardware and 720p gaming. Worse, with only a few exceptions the games are getting dumber, shorter, and less challenging. (honestly, most games can take a notch down graphic wise and make them open-world and with intelligent foes and vibrant NPCs and this makes a better game.)


As for displays... I think perhaps you are all living in dreamworlds. The old ones had trouble with high-speed anything on the screens due to high response times and ended up with major artifacts. The new ones, while not perfect do a lot better job of keeping up.

As for graphics quality... the point is that SMALL refinements in textures take the highest amount of work. Its not the perfection of something that causes the work... its the IMPERFECTIONS. I am not sure what HT is expecting from what is essentially a cartoon... that makes you look twice to make sure it isn't real. 10 years ago, the faces didn't even stay on completely. (clipping issues) Now they can quite accurately depict actual people quite well. (look at the NHL series) or portray real emotion in quite subtle ways.

 

Who really cares! Why do we need to have video games that look exactly like real life? If you want to look at an open world that looks like real life just look outside a window, why do we need games to look exactly like that? Their meant to be used to have fun not to get pissed when it doesnt look exactly like real life. In my opinion once the source engine was released I could care less if graphics got any better, it was a perfect engine that looked nice and had many fun games with it.

 

I like realistic graphics for stuff that's in a real world setting. An example is Crysis/Call of Duty. In Crysis 2, you feel like you're in New York City. You come out of a wrecked building, sun beaming on you, looking down onto a city street, and it's awesome. In CoD, you're ripping through the streets of an Afghani village and it's epic. If it were grainy or cartoony, you just wouldn't get the same feeling.

Some games are better served by a different, less realistic art style. World of Warcraft, for one. I loved the fact that it was exaggerated and goofy looking, because it fits the theme. I think the more realistic a fantasy RPG looks, the more awkward it seems.

 

Well its kinda obvious that some games happen in "our days" so there is no reason for them not to look real.

If we go this way we will need to create artificial intelligence that will deform objects in real time so they have enough different defects and look real. The beauty of programming and coding is that there are no unsolvable tasks — you can do ANYTHING its just a question of resources.
Like:
Reflexes are unrealistic — solved
Textures are repeating — solved
Skin doesnt have enough defects and detalization — that can be easily coded as well
etc

I cant see any breakthrough there. There is no real way to create more details without actually drawing them. So it will need huge investments so people work on it.

 

ok well yes for those games but why do are there people complaining saying they are not good enough basically? They look realistic enough for a video game in my opinion. Like someone posted earlier if it was too real some kid playing it as a soldier in new york killing people or if gta4 got as real as life then that could turn out bad with some people.

 

My whole original point is that we haven't advanced that much graphically considering the amount of horsepower systems have these days comparably. But we've also gone backwards for the most part from gameplay perspective. Sooo many sequels, cookie cutter games, plus paying for expansions that should have been in the game originally.

All the big publishers take the easy path to make money. Why not I guess, they're a company, but that's another problem. It's completely about the money and not about the actual product. If I had my choice there would be an all powerful review board that would kick back crap product or same-as sequels and only a couple dozen games a year at most would make it out the door. That would force publishers to man up and actually take some chances. But we live in a capitalistic society for the most part. Sure money talks.

 

The thing is... I don't mind a sequel if it has solid content.
I don't mind when a developer says: "ok the engine is good enough... let's make a wider world!"

This should allow a developer to ship massively wonderful content. And for games like Neverwinter Nights it did just that! So many wonderful hours playing games that indeed even other consumers had made...

I DO mind when they ship another "addon" for another $50 that gives less play time and value than the original... even though they didn't need to develop the engine from scratch and thus should have had a LOT of time to put into story, plotlines, NPCs, and objects in game for my $50.

I love little touches like lore for a weapon you just found that tells of a sketchy past for that weapon... and hints how the weapon may very well be evil in the form of a sword.

I don't need bigger explosions... I DO like some more realism, but not at the cost of story and plot (and freedom). Sometimes I just need to blow up that key capital ship to see what the NPCs will do...

I'd definitely pay to have another Privateer or Freelancer with a more open storyline/ending sequence.
I'll be buying Diablo 3 when it hits shelves. I still play D2 despite its lack of fitting my widescreen.
I'd love to see another D&D 3.5-based RPG like the Neverwinter Nights series. (but in a lower-magic world than Forgotten realms please)

I don't need photo-realistic... I need plot and story, engaging NPCs, and gameplay which allows me to suspend belief and join another world for a time.

Truth be told, today's laptops not only CAN do that, but do from time to time. and in much better style than 10 years ago.

Our problem is developers who are stuck in "just-another-shooter" mode.
I completely understand about making money... but there is money out there to be had.

Build me a wonderful game designed for a PC's level of potency (I don't care if there happens to be a console that will play it) and I will pay a lot more than $40-50 for it.
Build me a game you intend me to keep playing for 5 years.
No, I don't have a problem with that company making some money.

 

I don't need photo-realistic either, and a good sequel or added content is fine by me too. It's just that these days most games are becoming like EA Sports games. Slight updates to an otherwise same game year after year.

I'll have to say Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 single player campaigns were epic. I enjoyed them, but in no way warrants a $50 or $60 price tag.

I'd be thrilled if a game grabbed my attention for hours on end with engaging gameplay, a good story, and catered to different gaming styles. But those games are few and far between anymore, and the ones I like require super horsepower like Bad Company 2. Granted I still play Battlefield 2 which has ancient graphics and can actually run on a GMA 4500MHD GPU, but it's worth playing.

 

BF2 doesn't look that bad once everything gets maxed out...


If your into starwars/RPG games, check out KOTOR 1 its not a 'pretty' game but it has a good storyline and decent gameplay.

 

Same here! That is what made me join the forum.

Also, don't forget 2011 is not over we still have Skyrim and BF3 coming out at the end of this year. They are detail in graphics and if recent Witcher 2 looks pretty sharp.

Now if we discuss gameplay its another thread...

 

I guess you missed the joke.

 

i totally agree with ht's assessment that graphically there hasnt been much advancement on the pc front and all thanks to the consoles.

most see this as a disadvantage, but personally i dont mind as it makes our hardware, especially mobile hrdware, last longer.

and for me gameplay and story is always what mattered most.

cheers

 

Quantum computing is a process of using the rotations of electrons around atoms to use for calculations, 1 or 0

hopefully, one can always be hopeful.

Thats why I said or a method similar. But atom based objects would be more realistic, or voxels in computer terms.

Your wrong on this, light penetrates skin and muscle, which while being absorbed and bounced off dictates the way your skin looks, some skin releases light more than others. But that is one of the reasons our skin looks the way it does.

basically, but in a shell of what it really is, cloth simulation is non existent in most games, same with volumetric clouds and soft bodies and other sorts of physics goodies.

Silicon will hit its limit, were we will move onto quantum computing or neuron computing. We ARE already using both, if you do some google searches you can find that out yourself. I don't know if your looking for a fight or not but theres no need to be a dink.

 

Processing power has significantly increased both on the CPU and GPU side since 2006 by almost any way that you want to measure it (htwingnut used 3DMark06 in the original post, I believe).

At the same time, cost and thermal profiles for the computing power have decreased.

Not sure what the brick wall will be with the current technology (speed of an electron along the minimum circuit path provided that maintains separation between voltage on and voltage off states? Or the speed of an electron that impacts a material to release a photon for light communication? Unfortunately, I'm not an electrical engineer and those were all the classes that I failed in college.) or how close the engineers are to that wall in the consumer world.

I'm amazed at how much smaller "gaming" laptops have become. My m11x amazes me every time I play Call of Duty or Mass Effect 2 on it...I couldn't even dream of games like that much less playing them on a portable gaming unit of that form factor when I was in college.

By inspection of the laptops in my signature, I'm obviously not on the bleeding edge of laptop gaming so I'm not really qualified to post in this thread, but I enjoyed htwingnut's appeal to the nostalgia of Half-Life 2 vs Crysis 2.

I have no idea what's "holding back" PC gaming...I suspect it's not the hardware. A look at most game production credits these days has very few names under "Programming" or "3D Engine" (which engines are usually licensed anyway), but lots and lots of names under "Graphics Artists."

And "better" is so subjective...I used my m1710 to finally finish Jumpman Jr. (released in 1983) on a Commodore emulator...there's no story and the graphics are, heaven forbid, animated sprites with a large *gasp* non-photorealistic palette of 16 colors (which shamed the Apple II in high-res mode)...see screenshot below...it's not an open world, and the optimal run route was determined by the level designer...BUT I had fun, and played for almost 2 hours straight which I haven't done on my laptop or console for a while...

Progress? *shrug* I'm just old and enjoy being a Luddite...(and for the record, I did enjoy Half-Life 2 more than Crysis 2 [360 version])

 

You are more than qualified! Good post.