There's nothing quite like a 30-second tech demo clip to get our hearts racing. Maybe, just maybe, the inclusion of some steaming hot data to go with that footage, perhaps from a big PC hardware company like Nvidia regarding its next graphics chip. Good thing then that we have just that (we're shaking in anticipation just putting down these words), as Nvidia unveiled its "GF100" (a codename) alongside said video clip (embedded after the break) just recently.
What about those pulse-pounding specifics, you say? Well, the chip features "3 billion transistors, double the CUDA cores of previous generation GPUs, a high speed GDDR5 memory interface, and full DirectX 11 support." Whoa, whoa, settle down there kiddo, there's more. Reports have gauged it as running games like FarCry 2 at 84.3 frames per second with the resolution cranked all the way up. No price has yet been given, but can you really put a price on quality? (The answer is yes, and it could be a high one.)
Probably yes, albeit their 5970 is the one, GF-100 should be focusing on ousting out. Detailed point of view about Nvidia Tesla and Tegra.,,: http://tiny.cc/nvidia_tesla_tegra
Maybe I'm just super tired... or blind, but those graphics look pretty much on par with any current gen Ratchet & Clank game. Or maybe I've just gotten to the point where marginal graphical upgrades aren't as impressive. Who knows. I'm going to sleep.
Unless see it in person on a monitor/tv, can never tell if it is because it is a marginal difference, or if just your graphics card on your PC, or the low quality of the video, are inhibiting the quality of the image you're seeing.
It's the same with when a HD tv advertises that HD is better than SD, and for a long time (and still mainly) the person watching the ad is seeing it through a SD tv on an SD channel.
The last one always gave a little smile when I saw them on tv.
It's weird how you thought the same embassy, this doesn't impress me at all. Of course, I know that its youtube, and the quality sucks, but I don't think that's all part of it, I think its more about the realism and physics on the video. That game you mentioned, Rachet, and I'll go a step forward by saying uncharted 2, shows some AWESOME physics, thisis all thanks to the Cell. How the things react and flow is very noticeable, well to me. When I see a game built with the Unreal engine everything feels "fast" to me like Unreal the game, for example gears of war. Then you look at U2 and it blows your fucking mind with the characters weight movement, guns , the way the camera moves.. explosions ...PS3 games have more "life" to them, If you can call it that. I think that's whats happening to me and you ...IDk I could be wrong..Now Forza has some awesome physics, l know GT5 is going to blow it away in that criteria..I just know it. I think it's a PS3 thing, you know since its Opengl vs Nvidia. But of course you can only tell on exclusives, unlike Arkham Asylum where they look great and work the same on both consoles.
Oh god. This is not a graphical demonstration of high poly meshes and high resolution textures. It is showing how fast the GPU can stream environments, produce fire effects, smoke and high density particle collisions - which are the hardest on your system.
That looks almost like a beautiful painting come to life. It looks so real, but at the same time so beautiful. I can't wait until we start seeing things like that as standards on all platforms.
Now that is how you really sell a product. That tech demo is just all sorts of amazing.
That hair demo really makes me marvel at what Team Ico has done with The Last Guardian, or more specifically, with the creature Torico and its individually rendered hair and feathers. Just imagine if a studio like that had been working with one of these GF100's.
We've come a long way from the awful hair of Dead or Alive: Xtreme 2, and DOA4.
I don't see what is good about that tech demo, sure it looks nice but as he said- when it's at a normal distance from the camera the GPU can only handle it at 25fps. That is with the card ONLY HAVING TO RENDER HAIR, what do you think would happen if you put that in a full level with multiple characters.
You're right, at the moment this hair is too complex to be useful in a game, but give it 2 or 3 years and it will be a different matter. That's what's getting me excited.
The "awful hair" was more of an engine choice than a hardware limitation, although I wont deny that this chip might have helped. Just like how all engines have ups and downs, so does the DoA engine. It makes for some really sexy ladies, high polygon counts, and "jiggle." But it makes hair look like paper.
Im sure someone could design a "hair engine" that would make hair look amazing but would probably have crappy textures or something.
Sure, maybe early Pixar... being rendered in real-time.. with a sh*t ton of particle effects.. and physics being calculated. Yeah, nothing impressive here at ALL. >.>
I recall Toy Story 2 having 500mb to 1gb of data per scene, and that's just the geometry. I imagine rendering that in real time on a single machine would probably would probably take a bus architecture 500 times faster than PCI-X. It's no wonder they use render farms with over 1,000 expensive, high performance PCs to render a 1.5 hour movie in just under 2 months.
It's hard to get excited when the most taxing game on the market is still Crysis. Some company needs to step up to the plate with a game that will tax these new GPU's before I feel the need to upgrade my older HD4870.
I remember when DirectX 9 was finally turning the corner in game development. I simply couldn't wait to get my hands on a card that could play all the games using it. I have not experienced that excitement in some time. Basically now, I only had to upgrade twice. Once to play Oblivion and its mods comfortably and another time to play Crysis and have the headroom that came with that upgrade to be able to play SHITACULAR PORTS of 360 games at decent frames.
Right now the only usable feature on this card is the better CUDA support, which is kind sad for PC gaming the world around. Developers need to start developing games for the future, not the present. Oh, and give FPS a break for a little bit.
I also want more games pushing the graphical envelope like Crysis. And yet that elicted negative responses from those that couldn't run it "perfectly". Now, we are stuck in a console dominated world with these outdated consoles being around for another few years while the PC has to tap its feet and have its power go largely to waste. Great.
The only reason I am excited for this card is the fact that it will cause ATI to drop the price on the 5870.
@BananaBoat Until we have a new generation of consoles PC games will not make a huge graphical leap. The 4870 is already more powerful than the graphics card in either the 360 or PS3.
You are right. We have to wait until the next gen of consoles come around largely before seeing a boost in PC graphics. And so I wonder why ATI/Nvidia are releasing these new cards when sadly the game industry will largely ignore them? We need more Crysis' damn it!
It's a shame that graphical innovation seems to be tied to console game development in this post-Crysis era. The days of games like Farcry, Oblivion, and Crysis coming out and requiring an entirely new gaming rig are over. Maybe that is a good thing (it's certainly cheaper for the end-user), but it's also a waste. Sony and Microsoft better pack some serious hardware inside their next consoles, or Crysis might be the best we get for years.
@nerdydesi I'm happy that they keep releasing these new cards, GTA IV looks great on my 4870 at 1920x1200. But yeah the next time I upgrade my PC I think it will be a whole new rig and not just a graphics card update.
As for the next gen of consoles, I really hope they don't hamper them like the did this gen with a limited memory bus and ram. They better be capable of 1080p at 60fps with 8xAA.
You guys do realise that gamers aren't the only people that use video cards right? The people that actually MAKE these games, and the people that MAKE movies and television shows or just make things for fun benefit WAY more with the top of the line video cards than you guys EVER do.
The faster the video card, the more they can work on in one scene, meaning they can work on more at once, which is faster production, which gets things finished earlier, which means more profits...
gamers aren't the only people that buy high quality video cards...
Probably yes, albeit their 5970 is the one, GF-100 should be focusing on ousting out. Detailed point of view about Nvidia Tesla and Tegra: http://tiny.cc/nvidia_tesla_tegra
The sad thing is that very few games will take advantage of its power due to attention being paid to the outdated consoles which are going to stick around for quite a while longer.
And games never look as great as tech demos, at least not years later.
Ok, so whats the point of this card? My 9800gtx still runs every new game very well with max settings, and I got that thing for $110 a long time ago. Every PC game just ends up being a console port these days, so all the old cards that easily surpass 360 level graphics still work perfectly and will continue to work perfectly until the next console release.
I simply cant imagine why this card would be useful, todays cards are already way more powerful than they need to be. If Nvidia was smart theyd be trying to make a high performance cheap card to get more people into PC gaming rather than a more expensive one.
You obviously don't play recent titles at high resolutions with maxxed detail and/or have no concept of what 'smooth' framerates are.
I can bring my dual 295GTX's to their knees (under 30 FPS) when playing some of the newer apps at 5040x1050 and all options at their highest with FSAA cranked.
@Biggie: Yeah. I just hope this card has somethig akin to Eyefinity (a morsel of information I've yet to be able to dig up anywhere) so I can dump the cumbersome TripleHead2Go and the low-res 1680x1050 panels.
Anything above 30fps is smooth enough, and anything that qualifies as HD is high enough. I could care less about AA since it makes pretty much no difference outside of screenshots but I can usually get away with 2x or 4x, I find AF much more valuable and it barely causes a performance hit. The only game that has ever forced me to lower the detail settings has been STALKER Clear Skies, but that game was too buggy to play for very long anyways.
Games like Crysis and STALKER that actually use modern technology are few and far between, and they definitely arent worth the hundreds of dollars a new card costs just to make them look a little better.
