Graphics cards - am I correct with this theory?

Every time a new graphics generation comes along, you tend to get a courtesy 15-25% increase in performance over the last generation.

Doesn't this linearity seem a bit strange? I often wonder whether the manufacturers are deliberately holding back better tech or better performance so they don't 'show their hand' to the competition and to ensure a future release line of their products.

Take for example the Nvidia GTX 680. I believe they throtted back the bus bandwidth on this card compared to the GTX 580. Its almost like the engineers said 'oops, this card is gonna be so far ahead, lets dial it back so the 7 series wont look too weak when that comes along.'

I bet if economics and competition didnt exist, the ultimate graphics card with current technology would be many times more powerful than what we have now.

What does everyone think?

This happens in everything.JigglyWiggly_

I bet if economics and competition didnt exist, the ultimate graphics card with current technology would be many times more powerful than what we have now.

What does everyone think?

en3sge

I agree that it's strange to see such a relatively constant linear increase in performance. I would expect to see more leaps and bounds if the engineers and accountants were really giving it their all. It seems like they go through the same process over and over again.

New chip design ---> die shrink and/or accompanying increase in energy efficiency

Rinse and repeat. This goes on for years.

When I look at that and how even AMD/ATI and Nvidia have been from generation to generation over the last decade, it's boring. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some kind of collusion going on between the top execs from each company. That happens in many industries, as it does in government.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]This happens in everything.en3sge

I agree with the posts here that mention the monopoly politics that would occur if one of the main players (Nvidia or AMD) put the other out of business.

Lets be honest here, unless you are a completely loyal customer of either brand, you will always buy the card that performs best (this used to be overall performance although now I guess we have to factor in performance per Watt, drivers and SLI capability). Therefore, if (say) Nvidia released the GTX 780 and found a 100% improvement on the GTX680 but AMD found only a 15% improvement on their 7970 then its quite likely AMD would be absolutely mauled at market.

So there must be some background gentlemans handshakes to ensure the two companies stay at least in the same ball-park as eachother.

I do agree that competition drives performance but I also fell that competition can also throttle performance gains somewhat when you look at the politics of the situation.

I don't want to bring consoles into the debate too much as this is a PC forum but I always find it interesting that competing consoles seem to follow this pattern too. SNES was roughly in the same ballpark as Genesis/MegaDrive and the same with PS1/N64 (although perhaps this was more a substantial gap) and then with Xbox/PS2 and Xbox 360/PS3. No one console completely blows the other out of the water in terms of technology.

this happens with CPUs also. Intel released almost too powerful a cpu with the i3's, i5 and i7's. I bought my i7 2600k almost 2 years ago now and it still destroys anything amd has... I think if Intel was to do it again they maybe would have released a bit weaker cpu back than and later came out with the stronger ones when the Bulldozer came out.

It wouldnt surprise me if AMD and Nvidia exchange tech specs for their new chips just to keep things balanced... its surprising how similar and almost exactly the same the performance is between the two video card makers... but we pretty much know Nvidia could release a super rigged video card if they wanted, but they'll milk things along and be happy with the competition with AMD.

this happens with CPUs also. Intel released almost too powerful a cpu with the i3's, i5 and i7's. I bought my i7 2600k almost 2 years ago now and it still destroys anything amd has... I think if Intel was to do it again they maybe would have released a bit weaker cpu back than and later came out with the stronger ones when the Bulldozer came out.

It wouldnt surprise me if AMD and Nvidia exchange tech specs for their new chips just to keep things balanced... its surprising how similar and almost exactly the same the performance is between the two video card makers... but we pretty much know Nvidia could release a super rigged video card if they wanted, but they'll milk things along and be happy with the competition with AMD.

Yams1980