Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looks like the fps future is not good...

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 21, 2007 3:11:40 PM

1. Intel's 45nm CPUs appear to be a bust, but do overclock well (still at most 15% gain)
2. AMD's quad is looking real bad
3. ATI can't keep up with the now aging 8800GTX
4. Where is the nVidia's 9800GTX?

So we're all dialing down the Crysis graphics settings to get playable frame rates (at the higher resolutions 1920+) and hoping the future looks good. Based on current test results, the future doesn't actually look good at all -- it looks pretty bad. The only positive is that Intel's new CPU overclocks well, but still is NOT even close to being enough juice to run Crysis.

Houston, do we have a problem?

On a side note, I have officially sold my Crossfire 2900XT 1GB cards and now back in bed with nVidia. I did try at least but ATI just seem so out of touch and very slow in fixing problems, then they release the 3870 - no faster, but uses less power and costs 1/2 as much. Of course it would be nice to see more than about 4 or 5 titles that can actually work with Crossfire.

I think my strategy from now on is to screw the SLI/Crossfire setups and just overclock the nuts out of single cards and CPU. The 4 GPU setup maybe great for selling more graphics cards, but if the game support for them is the same as 2 GPU crossfire setup (and ATI appear to do little to work with game devs to get crossfire support), then I'll pass on that marketing hype.


More about : fps future good

November 21, 2007 3:18:19 PM

Quote:
On a side note, I have officially sold my Crossfire 2900XT 1GB cards and now back in bed with nVidia. I did try at least but ATI just seem so out of touch and very slow in fixing problems, then they release the 3870 - no faster, but uses less power and costs 1/2 as much. Of course it would be nice to see more than about 4 or 5 titles that can actually work with Crossfire.

I think my strategy from now on is to screw the SLI/Crossfire setups and just overclock the nuts out of single cards and CPU. The 4 GPU setup maybe great for selling more graphics cards, but if the game support for them is the same as 2 GPU crossfire setup (and ATI appear to do little to work with game devs to get crossfire support), then I'll pass on that marketing hype.
Yeah, there are tons of pieces of pc hardware branded as "SLI Approved", but not very many games... The sad part is the volume of computer "noobs" now adays that automatically assume SLI means twice as good, but don't actually research it. I bet nVidia is sleeping in beds made of cash though, happily awaiting the release of their next SLI product (which will have minimal support where it counts, from the game developers). :p 
November 21, 2007 3:23:08 PM

1. Intel is NOT making a completely new architecture, only a small improvement at best, this has been known for quite a while.

2. Agreed

3. Sadly this is the case, however I'd like to see what the HD 3870 X2 has to offer.

4. As you said, Ati is not doing anything for nvidia to feel threatened, so they are taking their time with their new card making sure it's a success while milking as much cash from their G80/G92 chips as they can, in fact unless Ati doesn't start to push nvidia really hard I think the next gen cards will probably be around late Q2 or early Q3 2008, since they have yet to add support for Tri-SLI like they said they will for the 8800s.

I'm playing crysis with all settings on high and I'm happy with it, it was known to most of us that kept track of the CryEngine 2 and Crysis that the game was not only meant to scale 2 years backwards (Which is the part that most people like to quote) but also 2 years into the future, keep that in mind when referring to it.

On a side note, don't you people get tired of the "doomsday" prophecies that you keep spreading every now and then? Don't think this is only targeted at you, I'm referring to all the people that start these apocalyptic threads.
Related resources
November 21, 2007 3:37:19 PM

Quote:
On a side note, don't you people get tired of the "doomsday" prophecies that you keep spreading every now and then? Don't think this is only targeted at you, I'm referring to all the people that start these apocalyptic threads.
It is kinda funny isn't it? I love the thread in the Games General forums about how PC Gaming was dead...
November 21, 2007 3:40:03 PM

I wouldn't say doomsday, but looking at the current performance numbers of new hardware we're not making much of dent.

DX10 really hasn't delivered IMHO -- I'm just not "WOW'd" like I expected to be -- I don't mind taking fps hits so long as I can see the benefits. Maybe my expectations are too high.

AMD/ATI have been forced into a situation of "this is the most we can sell it for" -- can they make a profit operating like this? But more importantly can they make enough money to get back into the performance arena?

I don't think it is doomsday, but I do think the market will remain relatively flat for the next few years. We need a 4X performance improvement to see games like Crysis come to life at max details at higher resolutions. At the current rate of improvements, I can't see that happening in 2 years.

PC Gaming isn't dead, some good stuff is out. I think what has happened is that fewer junk titles are being released for the PC and those are now being released on consoles -- this is good IMHO.

November 21, 2007 3:41:28 PM

1. 45 nm is AMAZING. Overclocking? Yea. However I really think in a revision or two they'll be able to sell 3.4-3.8 GHz processors. New process, not a new architecture.

2. Quad looks bad on B2. B3 isn't out yet, and the platform is ok.

3. ATI never claimed to compete with 8800 GTX. The money isn't in the enthusiast high end.

4. Why would nVidia cannabalize it's own offerings when as you said, ATI can't compete?

FPS's look fine. They live in the main stream. Guess what the HD3870 series did? It brought "high" end performance to a main stream price point. No it doesn't compete on it's own against an 8800 GTX or even an 8800 GT.. however it's not priced to.

The future isn't about benchmarks. Companies will still release games with high end graphics options that won't be playable on mid-range products.

Jan/Feb will be the 8800 GTS refresh, 8800 GTSX2, and perhaps even the 8900 GTX/Ultra. 8800 GTX came out a litlte over a year ago now and you are already complaining about not having the 9800? Maybe nVidia should've just put a 9800 GT sticker on the 8800 GT and made you happy since it's a die shrink. It's what ATI did.. but wait.. ATI also added Shader 4.1 and DX10.1 support.
November 21, 2007 3:44:38 PM

Quote:
I wouldn't say doomsday, but looking at the current performance numbers of new hardware we're not making much of dent.

DX10 really hasn't delivered IMHO -- I'm just not "WOW'd" like I expected to be -- I don't mind taking fps hits so long as I can see the benefits. Maybe my expectations are too high.
Well, if games like Crysis continue to surface... hardware manufacturers will kind of be forced into releasing more powerful cards.
November 21, 2007 3:48:17 PM

rgeist554 said:
Quote:
I wouldn't say doomsday, but looking at the current performance numbers of new hardware we're not making much of dent.

DX10 really hasn't delivered IMHO -- I'm just not "WOW'd" like I expected to be -- I don't mind taking fps hits so long as I can see the benefits. Maybe my expectations are too high.
Well, if games like Crysis continue to surface... hardware manufacturers will kind of be forced into releasing more powerful cards.


How would they be forced into it? I don't get that logic.

They are selling cards just fine. They will continue to sell cards fine even if the best cards on the market don't run a game at max settings regardless of how powerful they are.

All ATI/nVidia have to do is compete with each other. They aren't competing with developers.
November 21, 2007 3:54:33 PM

No one is going to want to play games half-assed (ie. turning down settings) and game developers (gamers as well) are going to demand more graphically advanced games. They also can't just keep selling the same cards they currently have out, because eventually everyone will have one and sales will plummet. (Supply & Demand here - Basic Economics) As soon as supply exceeds demand, profits drop, and something new and innovative must take that products place.

If one of the developers refuses to advance their cards fast enough, surely the other will see the opportunity and capitalize on it. If they don't, then they are retarded and wouldn't be in business for as long as they have been.
November 21, 2007 4:01:20 PM

V8VENOM said:
1. Intel's 45nm CPUs appear to be a bust, but do overclock well (still at most 15% gain)
2. AMD's quad is looking real bad
3. ATI can't keep up with the now aging 8800GTX
4. Where is the nVidia's 9800GTX?

So we're all dialing down the Crysis graphics settings to get playable frame rates (at the higher resolutions 1920+) and hoping the future looks good. Based on current test results, the future doesn't actually look good at all -- it looks pretty bad. The only positive is that Intel's new CPU overclocks well, but still is NOT even close to being enough juice to run Crysis.

Houston, do we have a problem?

On a side note, I have officially sold my Crossfire 2900XT 1GB cards and now back in bed with nVidia. I did try at least but ATI just seem so out of touch and very slow in fixing problems, then they release the 3870 - no faster, but uses less power and costs 1/2 as much. Of course it would be nice to see more than about 4 or 5 titles that can actually work with Crossfire.

I think my strategy from now on is to screw the SLI/Crossfire setups and just overclock the nuts out of single cards and CPU. The 4 GPU setup maybe great for selling more graphics cards, but if the game support for them is the same as 2 GPU crossfire setup (and ATI appear to do little to work with game devs to get crossfire support), then I'll pass on that marketing hype.


1) It's not a radical new design. It's mostly just a die shrink, improved cache, and some new SSE commands.
However, People are getting these chips to 4.5ghz on 1.5v and 4.0Ghz w/ moderate voltage.

If Intel ever felt pushed, they could easily start the Chips as 3.0Ghz for the Entry Level and 4.0Ghz for the top end.
There is plenty of power to be had for all here.

2) AMD still needs to deliver here, but that is only a concern for AMD fans who refuse to buy other brands.

3) Dual Core GPUs are on the way.

4) NVIDIA will have the new cards out soon. They started with the Low End are are moving to the top.
They are phasing in this way to make production easier. The Low End Cards during first runs of the chip and then the faster chips as the process improves. You will have the new 8800GTS in a couple weeks that will best the 8800GT. Most likely, it will also best the 8800GTX. Following that, NVIDIA will like introduce the new GPU to kill the old 8800GTX.

Both NVIDIA and ATI have just shrunk their die process. The new chips should follow shortly thereafter.
Most chip producers normally shrink the die but keep the same basic processor intially to ease the transition.
Then shortly after the new chips are out you see the next gen stuff.
November 21, 2007 4:03:26 PM

rgeist554 said:
No one is going to want to play games half-assed (ie. turning down settings) and game developers (gamers as well) are going to demand more graphically advanced games. They also can't just keep selling the same cards they currently have out, because eventually everyone will have one and sales will plummet. (Supply & Demand here - Basic Economics) As soon as supply exceeds demand, profits drop, and something new and innovative must take that products place.

If one of the developers refuses to advance their cards fast enough, surely the other will see the opportunity and capitalize on it. If they don't, then they are retarded and wouldn't be in business for as long as they have been.


ATI has had plenty of chances to catch up. They aren't going for the high end from what I've seen (until the X2 solution).

I agree with the statement once everyone has one the sales will drop.. However, do you really think if nVidia released an 8800 GTX refresh tomorrow at the same price most people would run out and buy it? Their bread and butter is the 8800 GT right now (previously the 8800 GTS).

You are right about not wanting to play games with settings turned down.. but how many people out there do you think really play all their games with everything maxed out? It's a balance in PC gaming because it has to scale on multiple hardware setups.

The solution (as where the industry is moving) is not in more powerful GPUs. It is in more GPUs. CFX/Tri-SLI at work.
November 21, 2007 10:42:34 PM

If we could play maxed out we would -- who wouldn't? Seeing as 24" LCD's are dirt cheap (1920 x 1200) and we have at last a good gaming 30" LCD (2560 x 1600). These will be the the "norm" monitors in 2 years and I just don't see hardware being able to do much at these resolutions with all the eye candy.

If the PC can't produce the eye candy, then the PC gaming market may as well toss in the towel and let consoles be the only choice. So yes, nVidia DO need to release more powerful solutions, just as Intel and AMD and ATI do. Has nVidia got anything invested in the Console market?
November 21, 2007 10:50:53 PM

nVidia does the PS3's graphics.
November 21, 2007 11:42:03 PM

V8VENOM said:
If we could play maxed out we would -- who wouldn't? Seeing as 24" LCD's are dirt cheap (1920 x 1200) and we have at last a good gaming 30" LCD (2560 x 1600). These will be the the "norm" monitors in 2 years and I just don't see hardware being able to do much at these resolutions with all the eye candy.

If the PC can't produce the eye candy, then the PC gaming market may as well toss in the towel and let consoles be the only choice. So yes, nVidia DO need to release more powerful solutions, just as Intel and AMD and ATI do. Has nVidia got anything invested in the Console market?



And who do you think makes all the consoles GPU's...
November 21, 2007 11:42:29 PM

ATI has a custom 256mb graphics card for xbox 360. IT'S ON!
November 21, 2007 11:46:24 PM

oops srry forgot to answer the actully post...
1. How is 4.0Ghz on air a bust? Even without a oc it's good.
2. obviously...
3. obviously... I've had this beast for 7 months are it's served me well every second of it.
4. It's like the Radeon 3870 not really next gen is it? Nvidia has to have to make the new technology. ATI is the competitor... if they fail to beat the 8800GTX people will say they made another mistake. If Nvidia releases a "9800GTX" that can't cant even beat the 8800GTX people will call them idiots.
November 22, 2007 12:29:12 AM

In regards to the original post. I don't believe FPS's are in trouble. People have been saying that for years, yet here they are. As for 45nm chips, no one can call them bust or otherwise as only the very high end Yorkfield models are available at stratosphere prices and duo Penryns are not even available.

As for Crysis, how come people keep saying todays CPU's can't run Crysis at full speed. Crysis doesn't really use that much of the CPU's resources. It WANTS and NEEDS lots of GPU power, not really CPU power. We need next gen graphics is what we really need. We would have it if ATI hadn't come out with such a tame series of cards.
November 22, 2007 1:30:37 AM

To the first point in the OP's post - 45nm was never meant to be a massive performance increase. It's a die shrink and the introduction of HiK, with some tweaks to the core. It's *still* a Core 2 dervitive CPU. Intel never said that Penryn would give massive performance gains.

What *is* amazing about these CPU's is the fact, as stated numerous times above, that you can get 4.0ghz on air UNDER the rated thermal envelope...the 5-10% perf increases are just gravy.
November 22, 2007 1:35:26 AM

fps future not looking good? Where have you been the this month? Crysis, COD4, UT3, Hellgate, Timeshift, Orange Box, whatever the new FEAR thing is, Quake Wars I can't even keep track of them all. And this is just over the past few weeks.
Crysis in itself completely upends your argument that fps' have a dim future. On lowered settings this game looks amazing and will draw huge just based on that. The allure to play at max settings will drive both gamers to buy new hardware and manufactures to develop more advanced products - both hardware and software.
November 22, 2007 1:40:22 AM

Crysis = until friday it's still a show of graphics to me
COD4 = yes it's amazing
UT3 = probably gonna be good.
Hellgate = crap
Timeshift = boooring
Orange = awesome
NEW FEAR = BS
just my thoughts
November 22, 2007 2:26:42 AM

I bought UT3 a few days ago and so far have been slightly disappointed. I mean, it's not a bad game, but I feel like some of the things were changed from UT2004 too much, and I loved UT2004.
November 22, 2007 2:35:27 AM

Orange box. Can't wait to get it after I get my new PC.

A lot of hyped up games have come out recently but only a small percentage seem to have lived up to it.
November 22, 2007 2:37:06 AM

jason344 said:
Orange box. Can't wait to get it after I get my new PC.

A lot of hyped up games have come out recently but only a small percentage seem to have lived up to it.



Great thing about TF2 is it looks GREAT with a half decent video card!
November 22, 2007 2:51:05 AM

One doesnt need 100+ frames to play a game. Some older games achieve this big deal, the hardware passed up the software. Now Crysis raised the standards and hardware has to catch up again. In two years Crysis will be maxed out on integrated graphics. Its called technology and theres no stopping it.
!