Next generation graphics cards just around the corner

neXus9

That's pretty cool. Have a 19 inch samsung syncmaster FST at 1152x864 at 85Hz, with a dot pitch of .20mm. That resoloution does me grand, if I bump it up anymore I'll get a crappy refresh rate. What happens if you overide the refresh rate for your set resoloution???:eek: I'm guessing it'll totally f*ck up.

Checked out the fst FW900. It's about EUR 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matt Simis

Originally posted by neXus9
That's pretty cool. Have a 19 inch samsung syncmaster FST at 1152x864 at 85Hz, with a dot pitch of .20mm. That resoloution does me grand, if I bump it up anymore I'll get a crappy refresh rate. What happens if you overide the refresh rate for your set resoloution???:eek: I'm guessing it'll totally f*ck up.

Checked out the fst FW900. It's about EUR 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It comes up with a message saying "Signal out of Spec" (doesnt even let it try). Ive always bought monitors second hand (ok, except my LCD), when 17" CRTs were expensive I had a 20" that only cost me £100. I think size really matters with monitors, and new ones just cost too much!


Matt

neXus9

Originally posted by Matt Simis
It comes up with a message saying "Signal out of Spec" (doesnt even let it try). Ive always bought monitors second hand (ok, except my LCD), when 17" CRTs were expensive I had a 20" that only cost me £100. I think size really matters with monitors, and new ones just cost too much!


Matt

Thanks for the info. I'll look into getting a second hand one, because my dad needs one for his laptop.

Horsefumbler

What's the story with the 2nd power source thing? What does that mean you'll need? two plugs?

Kiith

could you imagine the kind of games that would be available on the pc, if games developers had to really work on the engines to perform on available hardware, instead of constantly making us buy new graphics cards. look at the consoles. X-box has halo 2, which looks amazing. PS2 has Killzone(i think it's called that), which also looks fantastic. both those consoles have less than a 700mhz processer. yet everytime a new engine comes out, like Source or the unreal 3 engine, we've all got to upgrade. it's really annoying.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Kiith
could you imagine the kind of games that would be available on the pc, if games developers had to really work on the engines to perform on available hardware, instead of constantly making us buy new graphics cards. look at the consoles. X-box has halo 2, which looks amazing. PS2 has Killzone(i think it's called that), which also looks fantastic. both those consoles have less than a 700mhz processer. yet everytime a new engine comes out, like Source or the unreal 3 engine, we've all got to upgrade. it's really annoying.

Thats a very simplistic few of the matter.

For one, consoles run at resolutions people on the PC would laugh at (640x480ish) and thanks to the common low-def TV, textures also need not be near as sharp. They skimp on filtering techniques and generally feature smaller game worlds (look at Deus Ex2 on the XB vs DE1 on PC). They have advantages in the regards the hardware and feature set are static, so games can be designed to get the max out of the machine.

I dont think the fact the PC market is progressive is "annoying", it keeps things interesting, constantly pushes boundaries. If you dont want to upgrade, then dont, you can play all the new engines on old cards, just set the detail to low and the res to blocky, just like the developers on consoles do.



Matt



PS: "CPUs" in the traditional sense are meaningless on consoles, its the graphics engines that matter (much like PCs soon), however the XB has a 733MHz CPU.

Kiith

ok that was wordered badly. what i meant was, at the speed that the pc's graphics are increasing, there's very little time to fully optimise the engine. with new engines out quite often, wouldn't it be better (financially at least) to use that engine to it's maximum. look at the quake 3 engine now compared to when it was released. call of duty uses the quake engine, and that look great. granted it's a highly modified version of the engine, but it show that new ones aren't needed as often as they are released.

i will admit, though, that i like seeing technology jump forward. i only wish it didn't cost as much.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Kiith
ok that was wordered badly. what i meant was, at the speed that the pc's graphics are increasing, there's very little time to fully optimise the engine. with new engines out quite often, wouldn't it be better (financially at least) to use that engine to it's maximum. look at the quake 3 engine now compared to when it was released. call of duty uses the quake engine, and that look great. granted it's a highly modified version of the engine, but it show that new ones aren't needed as often as they are released.

i will admit, though, that i like seeing technology jump forward. i only wish it didn't cost as much.

Thats still all highly subjective. I thought Call of Duty looked awful. Granted, its looked good, for a Quake3 based game, but compared to engines available at the time, its a mod for Q3 or at best, MoH 1.5. If they used a decent engine, the game could have been so much better (still would have been mindless and arcadey tho..).

Thats another thing, new engines dont come out all the time, new gfx cards come out faster than engines. The two most popular engines at the moment are Q3 and Unreal Warfare, both several years old.



Matt

dangerman

I don't understand everyone's obsession with how a game looks.

Granted, graphics are pretty, and they really make a difference...

...for the first 5 minutes of the game. After that your involved in the game and you are no longer concentrating on the bump-mapping on the txtures as you kill your mates in ut2004 or whatever.

My point is, apart from when your friends are over and you want to impress them, its only gameplay that counts.

I've a 733mhz p3, 384megs of ram, geforce3, which can run games such as desert combat, splinter cell: pandora tomorrow, ut2004 just fine. Who cares if my graphics are bad? What makes the game more enjoyable - the fact that you're winning, or the fact that your losing but the water is super-reflective and the gun is all shiny?

I've had the cash to upgrade on and off for the last 12 months - my main reason for upgrading now is the simple reason that its at critical mass now ~ my cpu aint fast enough to play the new breed thats coming out at the mo (far cry etc.).

I'm not saying anyone is a loser cause they get a kick out of getting the most from their rig, i'm just saying I don't understand it.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by dangerman
I don't understand everyone's obsession with how a game looks.

I've a 733mhz p3, 384megs of ram, geforce3, which can run games such as desert combat, splinter cell: pandora tomorrow, ut2004 just fine. Who cares if my graphics are bad? What makes the game more enjoyable - the fact that you're winning, or the fact that your losing but the water is super-reflective and the gun is all shiny?

Some of us like to have our cake and eat it, win and have it look good. You could take your line of thought even further.. why bother with sound.. its not required, why use a DX8 card at all for that matter, put in a TNT2? 384MB of Ram? Pah, the game could work on 64MB... Its all about the standard of quality one can accept. You just happen to have low standards.


Matt

dangerman

why bother with sound.. its not required,

but then i wouldn't hear all your bullets missing me. sound is required.

4000x3000 tru-colour per pixel bump mapping super hard core ****e is not.

I guess I do have low standards when it comes to graphics - because until photo-realism takes hold (anyone want to guess? I say 10 - 15 years) then graphics will always be not-quite-good-enough.

Gameplay is the only important factor. Gameplay gameplay gameplay.

andrew12g

Dangerman has a point, i mean look at Counterstrike or MOHAA, the graphics are not that great but the game is still playable. Good Graphics arent essential

Matt Simis

Originally posted by andrew12g
Dangerman has a point, i mean look at Counterstrike or MOHAA, the graphics are not that great but the game is still playable. Good Graphics arent essential

No one said it was, its simply part of the package. I like to have all the parts at their best and some dont, thats fine. Certainly cheaper to have a different mindset.



Matt