The Future of Systems trends

Hi All.

I'm looking for when the next big "step" is.
For example I still have a 3 year old Yorkfield CPU and a 2 year old 4870 1 gig video card that can play Crysis, GTA4, etc on high settings and newer titles like Dirt2 doesn't look worse than with a DX11 card.

So, I'm guessing I won't need any update for 2-3 years to come? (unless I want some specific feature or lower TDP)

Any suggestions when I will NEED a new graphics card to play games on high-settings that fully utilize more than 8 gigs of RAM, OpenCL, etc ?

This is hard to imagine since Crysis still only uses about 2 gigs and 2 cores.
I hear Crysis is old (and it is), so what is a modern FPS today then? (Crysis-2 that can run on a Xbox 360 ?)

I like the cutting-edge and photo-realistic rendering. But I just don't see it now. I also hope we are not stuck in a 32bit/ 1 gig world 5 years from now :(. Getting a little depressed.

Ok, thanks.
18 answers Last reply
More about future systems trends
  1. What kind of Yorkfield? what speed?
    RAM?
    HD4870 is still good enough to handle any games recently with decent setting...
  2. I would only say games like STALKER, with it's great looking textures and lighting would be the only game that may tax out your system.
  3. the next biiigg jump will probably be when the next generation of consoles comes out.
  4. yea. in a world of console ports we're probably looking at new iteration of consoles to be when software starts catching up ie dx11 being in all or most titles and hopefully making 4 threads the standard... and yes i realize thats very high above my own system >_<
  5. games like Metro 2033 can give you a heads up on your pc's performance
  6. Im thinking (hoping), the coming of more powerful igps will force console makers hands
    If the igps become strong enough to play most all of todays games, with a great experience, the console makers may fiiiinally have to upgrade their boxes

    Earlier predictions were 2012, and still appear on track, and when they move, everything will move
    I give it 1 more year
  7. im glad i dont have to buy a $600 gpu and $600 CPU every year just to keep up with the latest games. There are many other levels you can enjoy a game on apart from photo realistic graphics. If you want that, go out and live life. I play games because they are NOT realistic.
  8. iam2thecrowe said:
    im glad i dont have to buy a $600 gpu and $600 CPU every year just to keep up with the latest games. There are many other levels you can enjoy a game on apart from photo realistic graphics. If you want that, go out and live life. I play games because they are NOT realistic.


    You can also enjoy photo-realistic graphics while enjoying non-realistic content, no? Each to their own. For me it's more about the atmosphere in a game, which is usually achieved by more realistic sound and visuals, first example that springs to mind is something like Bad Company 2 with the explosions and bullet whistles and cracks. As much as I enjoy the game I have no intention to experience that in real life.

    On the other hand there are games like the Final Fantasy series which is more about the storyline/gameplay.

    Metro 2033 brings most systems to their knee's on high settings, from what I've seen. Unless, of course you have the latest and greatest parts.
  9. Thanks for the replies.

    I have a 3 Ghz Yorkfield (not OCed) and 8 gigs of RAM. Can't imagine needing more than this for the seeable future.
    So, I'm guessing I'll just need a new graphics card in at LEAST 1 year and that will last me a generation after that before I'll need new everything.

    I'm also hoping the igps (like the “Zacate” and “Ontario” ) will finally force developers to create software for PCs with greater than the usual Pentium 4/ DX9 card. You know, actually use those compute shaders for transcoding, tessellation, finally fix/offload physics, etc. Also force console makers to update .

    I will look at the titles people here suggested that may finally get my rig to show it's age.
    Yes, I also very much appreciate "low tech" games like the 10 year old Pharoah/ SH3/ EE1/ Galactic Civilizations/ etc, which is great to have when I have a slow notebook and lots of time to kill.

    I'm also still waiting for games to look about as good as this video (except in real-time):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZjxoJyI8g
  10. im just saying im glad games arent advancing in system requirements so fast, where as some people say they are not advancing fast enough. yes good graphics are nice, but not if i have to upgrade all the time to play games. I know some people always spend all their money on the latest and greatest tech, but unfortunately i cant do that, nor can most people, and it would be a shame for game developers to make everything have super steep system requirements, as they would lose much of their audience, in favour of making everything look super pretty.. You all need to think of the big picture.
  11. Heres a cool video, if you have not seen it.
    The new Crysis 2 engine.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6a6tUIA7LA
  12. You are right of course, it would not be in the interest of the developers to create games that only a small percentage of pc gamers can enjoy, however they never will do this, except in some special circumstance to showcase a new technology.
    It wouldn't make business sense and at the end of the day they do run a business. I think certain games, can spur people to buy new parts. They will always cater to the largest market sector.
  13. If availability is defined as the least capable, thats igps
    Since theyll be in every PC sold, at minimum, the bottom line, or minimum has been raised
    This means, either consoles will have to step up, or just let PCs eat into their market

    All this means is, better gfx, and possibly better games as well, since the market will be expanded, no matter what the consoles do, and with a greater market, comes more ideas
  14. I'm with iam2thecrowe on the not wanting things to go too fast. but while my system won't play everything now its nice to know my pc which is slightly behind current gen consolses is now outdated (excuse to justify building a new system workign on parts right now :D ) it means progress is happening .. albeit clow progress as my pc is almost 6 years old shans the 3 year old gfx card
  15. I just get confused when you can't get a game because the developers never ported it to the PC. Even if it is a crappy port, I would like to see it exist for the console and PC if it's available for more than one console.
    2012?
    Like Ive stated before, how would the generic console gamers feel about paying 500+$ for a console? At the time, the highest-end graphics themselves cost over 500$, along with the extra hardware, the Companies wouldn't be able to sell their console for under 500$.

    Nintendo on the other hand, could easily manage to use a Radeon 5670/6*** and AMD processor while remaining cheap, small, and it would be a huge step over the gamecube to Wii, which wasn't much at all. I sense Nintendo trying to pull the same stunt though, where the graphics are hardly upgraded, and the processor is still weak where 1920x1080 videos would be too much for it.
  16. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    If availability is defined as the least capable, thats igps
    Since theyll be in every PC sold, at minimum, the bottom line, or minimum has been raised
    This means, either consoles will have to step up, or just let PCs eat into their market


    Oh No.
    If the next gen consoles use DX12, the new generation will begin. Then we will FINALLY begin moving out of the Pentium4/ DX9 era (around early 2013).
    However, it will be at least 5 years before the "igps" (even integrated Intel and VIA graphics) run with native DX12 hardware and Bulldozer/Haswell generation CPUs.
    It's going to be a LONG wait :(
  17. We still really havn;'t seen much of dx11 in games, as far as use of tesselation. Also DX11 is barely an improvement over 10 and 10 was barely an improvement over 9. Id like to see some screenshots of games dx11 vs 9 and see how much of a difference there is.
  18. I know Intel will lag, as they wont support DX11, but AMD will, and if this makes a difference, I dont think Intels just going to sit it out either, and we will see Intel DX11 capabilities within their SoC's sooner, rather than later IMO
    If it at all involves marketshare, Intel will be on it

    Also, since this is mostly mobile driven, screens/resolutions will be much smaller, and also, since the better gfx havnt entered into the HKMG advantages, I think many will be surprised as to what these gfx solutions can do, especially concerning power envelope
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Crysis Graphics