Tech and Talk > Gaming > PC gaming Tech > Steam survey says pcs used for gaming are getting "worse&qu

reply to DarkLogix

Re: Steam survey says pcs used for gaming are getting "wors

reply to TruSm0ke
Yeah, we don't need to uber high end parts to get very good graphics anymore, we have nearly reached a good enough point. Sure we "can" get better graphics, but a) the consoles couldn't play it, and b) it would require more hardware expenses that its worth.

The consoles may have held back pc development a bit, but thats for the best I feel. Sure we don't have amazing real life graphics yet, but we also don't have to buy a new rig every two years. a Q/E6600 overclocked and a 460(or equivalent), even with only having pcie 1.0 and ddr2, is enough to play games at better then med settings today at 1080p. To play at just native res and not really care about the other settings not much is needed. And thats partially because of console development being the main focus, being 'held back' by consoles has also saved us money since we don't have to upgrade so thats always a good thing.

Like you said though it has made the devs think about game play more. tf2, the indie scene, portal 2, alice madness returns. Those are not the most gaphically advanced games, but they all have a wonderful graphic style(especially alice) and good game play. I personally like that devs are once again finally starting to focus on gameplay over graphics.

reply to me1212
I think we are at a point where it's not the hardware that needs the next big breakthrough, i believe it to be the output devices like monitors etc. It seems like most any game can be written to at least perform decently on a laptop.

Until we have some sort of breakthrough on monitors, we'll be in a good situation for not needing a thoroughbred GPU.

@Blockfire - I just want to add that I think the breakthrough on monitors that you've mentioned is two-fold.

1) Better, larger, monitor specs than we have now

And perhaps just as important or even more so as #1 ...

2) Lowering of prices

When it comes to output devices like monitors though, they are being held back from an unlikely source. Big TV and Hollywood. These 2 content giants indirectly dictate what resolutions become "standard" and at this point 1080p is the golden child. Explains why in just the last couple years there has been such a huge boom in 1080p resolution devices. Most people now have 1080p monitors and tv sets, not even thinking twice about it.

what I meant by breakthrough in visual output devices is some sort of new type of monitor or display device. I think GPU's are at a point that it wouldn't take much of one to get good framerates on most any monitor at an acceptable resolution.

i'm thinking like VR, holographic displays, etc

reply to me1212
Try playing BF3 online with a low end computer and see how that works out. .... Sure there are alot of games out that are designed for lower end machines/consoles because it applies to a larger concentration of people. the #1 goal of most companies is to make money so of course they are going to appeal to the masses. But as far as gaming PC's getting worse, I totally disagree. Kris nailed it, the technology has expanded so far that You can build a pretty badass setup for $1000. When the next wave of games come out in the near future I imagine it will test the will of many PC's.

I also agree that if AMD does not get their act together they are going to be in for a fun ride.

reply to TruSm0ke

reply to DarkLogix
No, I have nothing against Nvidia doing so. I might change my opinion of them knowing things about CPU's if they are able to grab market share.

reply to Krisnatharok

Ouya?

Ouya on Wikipedia

reply to me1212
Firstly, the only reason I would ever have the intel video exist on my system on a new build, is because their video solution is apparently superior to everything else as far as video de/en/transcoding. Much the same reason that I even bothered to put up with the X1600 Pro until it tanked on me was much the same reason... at the time, its video processing was better than anything else out there. And the only reason the SB/IB intel video would even exist in my system, is for much the same reason. Otherwise, it would have no place in any of my systems.

Intel video is treated with disgust for a reason. Heck, even now with the current HD 3k/4k series that are in SB/IB chipsets, can't even run some of the games used for benchmarking on sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, while at least the AMD Fusion chips have a GPU that is more proper, and more capable. Still a bit behind the desktop parts for raw power, but far better than what intel has been putting out.

As far as his dual vs. more cores argument, I can sort of see where the author is coming from. More cores usually means better multitasking and being able to do more with the system. But if a fast enough dual-core is already good enough to handle the most intensive/demanding game that you're worried about, and the system in question is made for that, then go with it. I know I would love to make myself a gaming workhorse around something like an SB-E and a GTX 6*0 SLI, but money won't go that far. As it is, I'm still grateful that my main system has been as useful as it is for this long.

I just wish there were more 16:10 displays of a suitable resolution. It's like monitor makers got lazy and decided to only shove 16:9 on everything. Well, here's hoping that Apple's high-dpi displays finally start showing up on other products soon. Though I'm not holding out my hopes... one reason that it takes so long for stuff like that is because when Apple first designs a new tech with a company it sources parts from, they tend to basically buy all the stock that passes QA from that company, leaving little to none for any competitors. So it'll be a good while before we start seeing print-quality displays from everyone else.

I get that there are people that love the hell out of minecraft, but I just don't see it... and maybe part of that is that no other game i've played has felt like it was actively attacking my eyeballs with its eyesore graphics. Which is strange.. I have no problem playing 8-bit classics for NES, or even the odd atari/coleco here and again. But minecraft just hurts my eyes... literally.
--
Because, f*ck Sony

reply to Moos
What do you mean by many? Like the 2500k and 560(or higher) builds, or just the lower end stuff like pentium with intel hd 3-4000? The latter I can see easily, but the former eh with consoles holding back development(which isn't necessarily a bad thing, saves us money on computers) and the next gen consoles not going to be amazing(I believe nintendo confirmed a 48x5 gpu for the wiiu and the 720 is aiming to take a path similar to the wii with its kinect controller being the standard one) then I don't see the 2500k & 560+ builds being pushed to their limits* for a while.

*playing at native res with some AA and med-ish settings

reply to C0deZer0
I don't see apples his res stuff like 1440p becoming standard for 3 or 4 years at least. 1080p is where it is now because of movies and tv, 1080 is the standard there so people get that and use it because its so common that its cheap. And for not much more than the cost of a 1080p monitor you can get a 1080p tv and have something you can plug everything in to. As far as I know you can't plug everything into a 1440p apple screen, a 1080p can have everything for entertainment systems plugged in to them.

EDIT: And the intel hd 4k is benches roughly equal to the highest end amd fusion chip's integrated gpu; however, its only on the highest end intel chips so it costs a lot more. And if its enough to play the games you want to play then thats the main thing. Not that its enough to play all the games I want to, cause its not I need my 460 ftw.

reply to me1212
The majority of the graphics market *gasp* isn't for intense games . . . so if integrated GPU's can run low to mid level stuff . . that's where all the cheddar is.

reply to me1212

I'm not a low end gamer, but I still think AMD is well positioned for the low and midrange market --- they need to get their CPU performance in line with Intel.

reply to C0deZer0
Intel HD may not be much, but its enough to do low end stuff that can get people interested in pc gaming. Everyone I know, everyone, that started out with a low end laptop(like those with intel hd) now own a dedicated gaming pc. Most of them home built gaming desktops, but a couple people have gaming laptops.

The bench marks I saw when the mobile trinity first game out had 4k and the high end trinity trading blows. But that was with beta drivers I think.

I agree 100% on the video encoding, thats the only reason I would use intel video.