Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GeForce 4 comming - but where are the games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 14, 2001 12:24:45 AM

Well GeForce 3 seems established, the Ultra and MX cards are due out next week (the Ultra costs and sells for less than the GF3 in the USA as the manufacturing process is cheaper).

GeForce 4 specs are appearing in China and German and half a dozen good Aus, UK and USA websites, a card with 128MB memory 630MHz (DDR) memory, 6 rendering pipelines, a 300MHz core clock on 0.13 micron technology, 10 * FSAA ??? etc...

But where the FARK are the games????? Auqanox just went to GOLD CD, Dinosaur Island are still months away - not other games yet utilise a GeForce 3 fully.

The GeForce 4 is due between Feb and April 2002. I find it staggering in a $40 billion industry with only 2 major hardware vendors, delivering generational product only once a year, and only 20 major gaming houses, that we have to wait a year till 18 months for software to exploit the hardware capabilities. (a.k.a. the GeForce 3 fiascio)

An industry of this pace, size and incredible concentration of focus should be able to do far, far better.

Will we have to wait for the GF6 before software is around supporting the GF4? What do you folk think?

More about : geforce comming games

October 14, 2001 1:08:11 AM

Any links to that information?

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
October 14, 2001 1:49:20 AM

Yes, where is the link? There won't be a GeForce3 Ultra or MX as far as I know because the TI200 and TI500 are taking their places.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Related resources
October 14, 2001 2:14:36 AM

The GeForce 4 aside, the reason the games always lag behind the hardware is because.
1) You can instantly create a program that supports the features of a graphics card that was only just released. Programming a game engine takes time.
2) Not enough people have the latest hardware for it to be profitable making a game that supports all those features. Games are always built for last years tech or earlier.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
October 14, 2001 9:36:31 PM

Guys apologise for any confusion, yes the MX is the Ti200 and the Ultra is the Ti500.

***

The GF 4 (or ecilipse?) comes from 5 sites now, particularly nvMax

http://www.theinquirer.net/15080111.htm

http://www.nvmax.com/cgi-bin/bb/YaBB.pl?board=News_Comm...

***

Game development bottle necks... some of my thoughts...

Consider at what pace do games introduce new features found in the leading cards?

If 5 of the big 20 guys support the new cards well they get the limelight and credit and this forces the others to respond.

The main point of the original post was hardware and game development are badly out of sync, yet one feeds the other.

Game development shouldn't require a major re-write of all graphics libraries when new features are released in hardware, that’s called modular coding and extensibility. And once you have coded it for a single game engine you have it for all your games.

To the game industry could encourage / work with the hardware manufactures to develop a common graphics library utilities by all their own gaming engines. So the hierarchy would be

1. 3D Video card hardware (proprietary cards)
2. Drivers (e.g. Detonator or Radeon)
3. Directx7, 8.0, 8.1 or OpenGL 1.2 or 1.3 APIs

*********** Why not develop and continually extend **********

4a. Collaborative Graphics libraries (low level)
4b. Collaborative GL (high-level, card independent)

******************************************************

5. Game graphics engine (proprietary code)
6. Game engine - physics, I/O, AI, LAN, (re-usable code like Quake 3 engine)

7. Game code/data specific to a particular game

So yes games take a long time to develop - but if your a major company (like id Software) why not 1) stick with a reusable game engine and 2) work collaboratively to develop common Game graphics libraries with the hardware manufacturers and even you direct competitors? That way you decrease both the cost and the time to bring a new game to market...

If someone doesn't make a stand and catch the other guys sleeping games will just keep on being written for those TnT 2 forever. iD Software are now targeting all new games at a minimum of a Geforce card. Fine that’s the floor, I want gaming software that will also recognise if you have a very high end card and turn on ALL the bells and whistles!!!
October 15, 2001 12:28:46 AM

What you're saying makes sense, and would work in theory. In practice however 'modular coding and extensibility' is second in line behind 'getting it done right now'.
Using good object oriented techniques can save heaps of time and money in the long run but in takes more time initially, and big software publishers aren't known for their patience *coughsierracough*.
As for 'working with their competitors', problem is that two games built on the same engine at the same time will almost certainly but in direct competition with each other, and sharing is not something that big businesses do well.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
October 15, 2001 1:22:21 AM

I highly doubt they are even thinking Gforce 4 right now, rumours are always something I find BS. People tend to use words we take for granted, yet they never end up true.
Nvidia is focusing right now on most likely an Ultra GF3, or something for the next 6 month cycle, but certainly not gonna go already for something yet to be programmable. Geforce 2s were here for quite a long time now, with the inclusion of the Ti, I'd say around 2 years???
Again, I doubt GF4 is in works, people would feel sold off if they have bought a GF3 and think it will be for long time then. GF3s are already something where no one is complaining FPS wise. I don't know anyone who had FPS skips considering all is well working, no hardware conflicts. Plus it has loads of features for an Infinity of programmable effects, so what the hell is a second Infinity engine for! It's already infinite! I say down with rumor posts... they always are fake and loaded with BS, and they annoy me...
October 15, 2001 2:26:18 AM

aha, but you see there is the professional market, in which there is never too much power. And are you saying that running aquanox at 1600x1200 w/ 4x FSAA will get me 30+ FPS on a GF3?

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 15, 2001 3:17:00 AM

Flamethrower is right. Have you seen AquaNox benches? Terrible, terrible, terrible.

I have a GF2 Ultra, which is a year old now, but is still the fastest card on the market in how I play my games. Only now are games coming out where the GF2 is disadvantaged. Just look at Unreal Tournament, still a very popular game, which runs best on a freakin Voodoo4 at Standard settings (Source, PCMag from last December). There is quite a gap between hardware and software.

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.
October 18, 2001 5:37:01 AM

I doubt anyone outside Massive Development has seen any Aquanox benchmarks??? I have seen plenty of Aquamark benchmarks (Aquamark is the alpha or beta build benchmark stress test they did on the Krass engine to fine tune Aquanox).

And industries do compete and cooperate simultaneously - its called strategic alliances - you only compete in areas where you need points of differentiation. And remember that a gaming engine is like a operating system; it gives you a excellent or poor framework to develop something interesting on.

Nvidia are scheduled to bring GF4 between Feb and April (I reckon 19th March - think major games conference to announce something wow at) to keep up with the competition...

The pace at which 3D graphics cards advance is like a an arms race. And switching to 0.13 micron fab should really up core and memory speeds as well as allowing for a massive transistor count and better heat dissipation characteristics.

The shame is anything we buy dats so incredibly quickly now...
October 19, 2001 4:16:38 AM

Did you notice in your list of what the Geforce 4 might be there isn't any new technology, or new features listed? Its basically a geforce 3 thats
1. faster
2. more ram
3. two more pipelines
4. Higher FSAA (or quincuxx) capability
Which means geforce 4 will basically be a more powerful Ti500. UNLESS they do add in some new technologies, then it would be pointless until games support it.
And if game developers worked with video card manufacturers then we would have games that would only run on nvidia graphics cards, or games that would only run with ati graphics cards. Possibly if a game did work with both cards in an infomation sharing environment one card might not get the same support as another.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2001 8:39:49 AM

Well, it's kinda pointless for game industry to implement the new features of GeForce3 now, sinc eit won't increase sales much (even any, and it will increase the cost and program complexity (whch leads to bugs).

We generally wait one year before some major games implement the new features, but meanwhile we can always set the resolution to 1600*1200 with 4xFSAA and laugh at those 1024*768 screens ^^
October 19, 2001 9:49:09 AM

Oni - good points - three thoughts on that:

1) the programmability of even a GF3 may give us over kill already - we don't how powerful and flexible it is because no one has really informed us what it can and can't do in plain english and no one has yet built such a demonstration engine (wait 17 more days though)

2) there might be more features then those leaked, not yet leaked because its a bit complex to explain easily

3) even what is leaked is a very significant step up in power
October 19, 2001 11:01:22 AM

What's happening in 17 days?

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
October 19, 2001 5:31:02 PM

That might be the case but "why the hell not"??
you cant just jomp to the next level you have to walk all the stairs, i have a geforce 3 card and im not that happy with it, untill i take a look at a game that was released up to a year back..

besides look at these bottle necks:monitors,AGP slot capabillity, graphic post standard.

and most impostantly -getting a product mainstream!
otherwise how do u expact them to make money?

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
October 21, 2001 1:38:01 AM

lol, thats another thing, i got that aquanoz crap on my ELSA 920 instalation CD and it wont run!DUH!
optimised for G3 my ass, it says something like "OUTOFVIDEOMEMORY" DUH?!
it runs slowly on a 32MB card but it doesnt have anough vid mem on a G3-64MB??

i send them the bug report but u guessed it, they didnt reply..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
October 21, 2001 2:03:02 PM

Well if there a Geforce 4 coming then in i want to a the Radeon 8500 Maxx "256mb's, 300/600" and 128mb 300/600 Radeon 8500 come out then.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
October 21, 2001 2:20:50 PM

what range is maximum memory adressing for AGP bus?

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
October 22, 2001 2:40:37 AM

1gb's in the max for 4x AGP. Intel 8x AGP is going 2gb's. Well also R300 is 8x agp w00t w00t.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
!