Graphics are stagnating.

During Radeon HD 5870 desktop era, the fastest mobile Radeon HD was Mobility 5870 i.e. rename Radeon HD 57x0. Radeon HD 48x0 level power is around 12 to 16 months behind 5870 desktop.ronvalencia

Figure this out...

Desktopcost =Laptop cost.

Desktop > Laptop

You can build a gaming desktop for around $600-$700. Which can play all modern games in 1080 res on medium settings.

You buy a $700 laptop and you can't play any game at a higher res then 1440x900 at low - medium settings.

Desktop parts will always bet better preformance per dollar (3-4 times)then any laptop size parts.

AVP on Llano was running DX11 mode.Note that rumored Fusion refer to it's second generation.

ronvalencia

You are never going to get the preformance of dedicated parts. Because they use more tarnsisters and have the same die size all to them selfs.

Llano is a 2011 part. They said 20-25% increase year to year. So If Xbox launches in 2013 we'll be lucky if this APU even equals 2010 system.

Right now it's more equal to a 2008 system with a GTX 460 (which is = to GTX 280 from 2008 ).

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]During Radeon HD 5870 desktop era, the fastest mobile Radeon HD was Mobility 5870 i.e. rename Radeon HD 57x0. Radeon HD 48x0 level power is around 12 to 16 months behind 5870 desktop.Truth_Hurts_U

Figure this out...

Desktopcost =Laptop cost.

Desktop > Laptop

You can build a gaming desktop for around $600-$700. Which can play all modern games in 1080 res on medium settings.

You buy a $700 laptop and you can't play any game at a higher res then 1440x900 at low - medium settings.

Desktop parts will always bet better preformance per dollar (3-4 times)then any laptop size parts.

Wrong that 600-700USD PC could play just about any game at 1080P max settings.

Heck a 350-450USD PC can play most games near max at 1680x1050 res.

Also a 750USD laptop can play most games at medium-high settings at whatever weird lower resolution it has.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]During Radeon HD 5870 desktop era, the fastest mobile Radeon HD was Mobility 5870 i.e. rename Radeon HD 57x0. Radeon HD 48x0 level power is around 12 to 16 months behind 5870 desktop.Truth_Hurts_U

Figure this out...

Desktopcost =Laptop cost.

Desktop > Laptop

You can build a gaming desktop for around $600-$700. Which can play all modern games in 1080 res on medium settings.

You buy a $700 laptop and you can't play any game at a higher res then 1440x900 at low - medium settings.

Desktop parts will always bet better preformance per dollar (3-4 times)then any laptop size parts.

To bridge the gap between laptop and desktop PC, I was able to link AMD Radeon HD 5770 (desktop) to my laptop i.e. Sony VGN-FW45 laptop. Refer to http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/418851-diy-vidock-experiences.html

A cheap laptop needs ExpressCard 2.0 slot and proper ExpressCard memory address allocation.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

AVP on Llano was running DX11 mode.Note that rumored Fusion refer to it's second generation.

You are never going to get the preformance of dedicated parts. Because they use more tarnsisters and have the same die size all to them selfs.

Llano is a 2011 part. They said 20-25% increase year to year. So If Xbox launches in 2013 we'll be lucky if this APU even equals 2010 system.

Right now it's more equal to a 2008 system with a GTX 460 (which is = to GTX 280 from 2008 ).

here is my new PC,

amd x6 3.2 ghz, 8gb ddr3, evga geforece 470 1.2gb... my frist game metro 2033, i've played through crysis on max, will say metro is much much better with atmosphere, to such an extent I'd say its a pretty game then crysis, really teh thing that makes cysis stand out so much is the mass amount of foliage, which really is a bunch of instances of super detailed leafs...

At 1280x720p, AVP DX11 runs smoothly on my mobility Radeon HD 5730 aka Radeon HD 5570 on the desktop.ronvalencia

That pretty funny really. Because I own a GTX 460 and it runs like crap at times. Plus the fact that Nvidia > ATI at DX 11. So yeah. Find it hard to believe.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5730.23825.0.html

Plus this link states.

"Despite the name, the HD chip does not stem from the desktop HD 5700 series"

Which would mean thatATI radeon mobilityHD 5770 would be = to 5570 desk top.

"all modern games (of 2009) should run fluently on this graphics card in medium to high detail settings with lower resolution settings (e.g. 1366x768 )."

Which I assume they mean DX9 and DX10 games. Because the mobile part doesn't have all the tessellation a desktop part would have.

As we all know AVP is from 2010.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="Heyhuub"]

How Activision managed to spend 50 million developing a Call of Duty game which still runs on an Idtech 3 engine is also beyond me.

Bohemia with Arma is also a good example of small developer with a relatively small budget building on pretty amazing technology.

Heyhuub

Yeah, funny isn't it? A decade old engine that is more impressive than most engines/games out there.

here is my new PC,

amd x6 3.2 ghz, 8gb ddr3, evga geforece 470 1.2gb... my frist game metro 2033, i've played through crysis on max, will say metro is much much better with atmosphere, to such an extent I'd say its a pretty game then crysis, really teh thing that makes cysis stand out so much is the mass amount of foliage, which really is a bunch of instances of super detailed leafs...

savagetwinkie

The fact that Metro has weak/very few physics and runs like ass to boot also makes a difference. It has great textures but most of the enviroments could have just as well consisted of brick walls as far as interactivity goes.

That's Metro maxed out vs modded Crysis. Metro runs worse and can only really compete in a screenshot war IMO.

All shots are taken by yours truly so none of that "it looks better on my rig!!!" please.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]At 1280x720p, AVP DX11 runs smoothly on my mobility Radeon HD 5730 aka Radeon HD 5570 on the desktop.Truth_Hurts_U

That pretty funny really. Because I own a GTX 460 and it runs like crap at times. Plus the fact that Nvidia > ATI at DX 11. So yeah. Find it hard to believe.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5730.23825.0.html

Plus this link states.

"Despite the name, the HD chip does not stem from the desktop HD 5700 series"

Which would mean thatATI radeon mobilityHD 5770 would be = to 5570 desk top.

"all modern games (of 2009) should run fluently on this graphics card in medium to high detail settings with lower resolution settings (e.g. 1366x768 )."

Which I assume they mean DX9 and DX10 games. Because the mobile part doesn't have all the tessellation a desktop part would have.

As we all know AVP is from 2010.

Why did you expect a higher mid ranged Direct x 11 card to be able to perform good with all the bells and whistles? When through out pc gaming mid ranged cards of all generations never could run all features of a new direct x smooth.

04dcarraher

It a low end part not a mid range part.

I never said any where that this card can run everything maxed. So where did you come up with this whole big statement about me saying anything about a low end part maxing stuff out at a smooth frame rate?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Why did you expect a higher mid ranged Direct x 11 card to be able to perform good with all the bells and whistles? When through out pc gaming mid ranged cards of all generations never could run all features of a new direct x smooth.

It a low end part not a mid range part.

I never said any where that this card can run everything maxed. So where did you come up with this whole big statement about me saying anything about a low end part maxing stuff out at a smooth frame rate?

This, ""That pretty funny really. Because I own a GTX 460 and it runs like crap at times"" Also a GTX 460 is a mid ranged direct x 11 card at the moment.04dcarraher

Still don't get it... Where you get this whole big thing i said. But any ways. It is a low end part.

GTX 465 =< 460, 470, 480, 580

It's Nvidia low end part for the year.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]This, ""That pretty funny really. Because I own a GTX 460 and it runs like crap at times"" Also a GTX 460 is a mid ranged direct x 11 card at the moment.Truth_Hurts_U

Still don't get it... Where you get this whole big thing i said. But any ways. It is a low end part.

GTX 465 =< 460, 470, 480, 580

It's Nvidia low end part for the year.

You typed it I didnt... Lol, no it isnt a low ended card Gt 430 is Nvidia's lowest DX 11 card then you need to include the fact that a overclocked GTX 460 can reach nearly to GTX 470 performance level then you need include ATI's Direct x 11 cards also. The GTX 460 in the Direct x 11 market it is a mid ranged card...

04dcarraher

maybe your not on the same page as me. But I'm talking about the GTX line not the GTS line.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

You typed it I didnt... Lol, no it isnt a low ended card Gt 430 is Nvidia's lowest DX 11 card then you need to include the fact that a overclocked GTX 460 can reach nearly to GTX 470 performance level then you need include ATI's Direct x 11 cards also. The GTX 460 in the Direct x 11 market it is a mid ranged card...

Truth_Hurts_U

maybe your not on the same page as me. But I'm talking about the GTX line not the GTS line.

the GTX line is the performance line of cards, so I guess calling the weakest (second weakest really) performance card "mid range" is fairly accurate.

Besides, a single 460 can max out most current games at 1920*1080 unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps. That's not low range by any definition.

the GTX line is the performance line of cards, so I guess calling the weakest (second weakest really) performance card "mid range" is fairly accurate.

Filthybastrd

Yep, I don't consider anything in the GT or GTS line for any kind of meaningful gaming.

Just because it says DX 11 means jack and squat... Because you can't play DX 11 game at HD res with them at 30 fps even on low settings.

Besides, a single 460 can max out most current games at 1920*1080 unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps. That's not low range by any definition.

Filthybastrd

460 cannot max out most current games at 60 fps and 1080 res.

I'm running the Overclocked one with 1GB and I can tell you any newer game puts a hurting on this. I'm running at 1680x1050. I have to compromise alot of the time. I can't set every game to max. Es specially Physix games.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Besides, a single 460 can max out most current games at 1920*1080 unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps. That's not low range by any definition.

Truth_Hurts_U

460 cannot max out most current games at 60 fps and 1080 res.

I'm running the Overclocked one with 1GB and I can tell you any newer game puts a hurting on this. I'm running at 1680x1050. I have to compromise alot of the time. I can't set every game to max. Es specially Physix games.

That's what I said ;)

"unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps". I should know, I use two of them.

460 cannot max out most current games at 60 fps and 1080 res.

I'm running the Overclocked one with 1GB and I can tell you any newer game puts a hurting on this. I'm running at 1680x1050. I have to compromise alot of the time. I can't set every game to max. Es specially Physix games.

Truth_Hurts_U

Sounds like coding bloat to me rather than the cards fault, particularly with PhysX; which is nothing more than a petty upgrade justification from Nvidia.

My 1GB GTX 460 has done very well in every game I have put it against, provided I avoid Nvidia's quite frankly useless performance eaters.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Besides, a single 460 can max out most current games at 1920*1080 unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps. That's not low range by any definition.

Filthybastrd

That's what I said ;)

"unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps". I should know, I use two of them.

Can not max out at that res. Nor do any game run near 60 FPS without AA or physix. I should know I use 1 of them.

Then you talk about using 2...

***shakes head***

coding bloat to me rather than the cards fault, particularly with PhysX; which is nothing more than a petty upgrade justification from Nvidia.

My 1GB GTX 460 has done very well in every game I have put it against, provided I avoid Nvidia's quite frankly useless performance eaters.

AnnoyedDragon

Def a great card if you wanna get into DX 11 gaming. It runs just like my old BFG GTX 280 did till it died... But has the added bonus of half decent DX 11 features.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Besides, a single 460 can max out most current games at 1920*1080 unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps. That's not low range by any definition.

Truth_Hurts_U

That's what I said ;)

"unless you like high levels of AA and demand constant 60 fps". I should know, I use two of them.

Can not max out at that res. Nor do any game run near 60 FPS without AA or physix. I should know I use 1 of them.

Then you talk about using 2...

***shakes head***

Before I had 2, I had 1.

And I don't know what you did to your card but mine ran most games just fine at 1920 * 1080, maxed although as I mentioned AA was'nt a given.

Edit: Unless we're specifically talking Crysis and Metro one of which is just a really heavy game while the other is a huge mess in terms of code.

Editedit: As in, the games that make the 460 choke also happen to give all the high end cards issues.

the only reason theyre stagnating is because theres been a sharp decrease in pc-exclusive games.

imagine if crysis 2 was pc exclusive, like crysis 1.

useLOGIC

Thats all there is to say, and to those who say it is a lame excuse.. no it isn't..SPBoss

As I keep finding myself repeatedly having to remind people, PC has considerably more exclusives than consoles.

It is not a reduction in exclusive development, it is a reduction in budgets of exclusive games. Those with the big budgets tend to go cross platform to accommodate those costs, which means lowest common denominator design.

Cryostasis can give Crysis a run for it's money. Also we won't see any major advances until the consoles get a boost in power. Thirdly at some point graphics will stop advancing due to production costs at that point you'll have to wiat for ray tracing to become feasible or HD 3D scanners to reduce the workload.markop2003

IDK really. It sure looks....Inspired. In fact, you made me load it up and actually try it for more than 2 minutes. The system reqs are insane! It was barely playable with a single GTX460 (at 1920*1080, decent settings at least) but It definitely seems worthwhile.

Wonder why I never gave it a chance. Probably because I could'nt run it well till recently :P

Edit: As those images portray, it's a very pretty game but it's significantly more static than Crysis. Same goes for Metro 2033.

Editedit: please don't mention anymore games I own. Crysis, Metro and now Crystasis make for enough screenies for one day.

I don't get why people speak about stagnating graphics.

are you looking for a hardware that magically upgrades itself?

do we play graphics or games?

Graphics are just a nice add, what I really see lacking this gen is the amount of good exclusives on the consoles, except for the Wii, which can actually only count on them when it comes to "quality".

IDK really. It sure looks....Inspired. In fact, you made me load it up and actually try it for more than 2 minutes. The system reqs are insane! It was barely playable with a single GTX460 (at 1920*1080, decent settings at least) but It definitely seems worthwhile.

Wonder why I never gave it a chance. Probably because I could'nt run it well till recently :P

Edit: As those images portray, it's a very pretty game but it's significantly more static than Crysis. Same goes for Metro 2033.

Editedit: please don't mention anymore games I own. Crysis, Metro and now Crystasis make for enough screenies for one day.

Filthybastrd

It runs bad because of the physics settings.

You can change the config to make it run much better.

It runs fine on an old 8800gt with high settings and 1680x1050 res.

I remember changing the particle count to much lower with things like icicles breaking and that helped a lot.

I

do we play graphics or games?

aia89

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

IDK really. It sure looks....Inspired. In fact, you made me load it up and actually try it for more than 2 minutes. The system reqs are insane! It was barely playable with a single GTX460 (at 1920*1080, decent settings at least) but It definitely seems worthwhile.

Wonder why I never gave it a chance. Probably because I could'nt run it well till recently :P

Edit: As those images portray, it's a very pretty game but it's significantly more static than Crysis. Same goes for Metro 2033.

Editedit: please don't mention anymore games I own. Crysis, Metro and now Crystasis make for enough screenies for one day.

Hakkai007

It runs bad because of the physics settings.

You can change the config to make it run much better.

It runs fine on an old 8800gt with high settings and 1680x1050 res.

I remember changing the particle count to much lower with things like icicles breaking and that helped a lot.

.......No.....Way....

I did'nt even try and fiddle much with the settings. The game just stroke me as a terrible case of optimization.

Oh well, if you're going to kick the settings high, you still need a powerfull rug :D

.......No.....Way....

I did'nt even try and fiddle much with the settings. The game just stroke me as a terrible case of optimization.

Oh well, if you're going to kick the settings high, you still need a powerfull rug :D

Filthybastrd

Not really. Maybe if you meant max.

Like I said even an 8800gt can run it ok on high.

You just need to edit the particle count to be lower and the change is not really noticeable visually but you get a good boost in frame rate and avoid the big drops in fps.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

.......No.....Way....

I did'nt even try and fiddle much with the settings. The game just stroke me as a terrible case of optimization.

Oh well, if you're going to kick the settings high, you still need a powerfull rug :D

Hakkai007

Not really. Maybe if you meant max.

Like I said even an 8800gt can run it ok on high.

You just need to edit the particle count to be lower and the change is not really noticeable.

Oh I'm fine. got my second GTX460 a few days ago so now there are no issues;)

And yes, I meant max (I just think "max" is a somewhat relative term).

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]At 1280x720p, AVP DX11 runs smoothly on my mobility Radeon HD 5730 aka Radeon HD 5570 on the desktop.Truth_Hurts_U

That pretty funny really. Because I own a GTX 460 and it runs like crap at times. Plus the fact that Nvidia > ATI at DX 11. So yeah. Find it hard to believe.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5730.23825.0.html

Plus this link states.

"Despite the name, the HD chip does not stem from the desktop HD 5700 series"

Which would mean thatATI radeon mobilityHD 5770 would be = to 5570 desk top.

"all modern games (of 2009) should run fluently on this graphics card in medium to high detail settings with lower resolution settings (e.g. 1366x768 )."

Which I assume they mean DX9 and DX10 games. Because the mobile part doesn't have all the tessellation a desktop part would have.

As we all know AVP is from 2010.

On ATI vs NV, it depends on energy consumption, price and performance. Within 20-26 watt parts and performance level, Radeon HD 5730M (26watts) > Geforce GT435M (40-45 watts)(1).

1. http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-435M.35836.0.html

I run games like

1. NFS-HP 2010 at 1280x720p or 1600x900 and high details.

2. Mass Effect 2 at 1600x900 and high details.

3. Drgaon Age at 1600x900 and high details.

Xbox 360 ported games generally runs fine. AVP is optimized for Radeon HDs e.g. adaptive tessellation mode. Certain NV benchmarks doesn't use adaptive tessellation mode.

There are talks on future AMD Catalyst drivers that will force adaptive tessellation mode e.g. you don't generate dots that you don't see.

AMD Mobility Radeon HD 5730 has hardware tessellation. http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/NOTEBOOK/GRAPHICS/ATI-MOBILITY-HD-5700/Pages/hd-5730-specs.aspx

Mobility Radeon HD 5730 uses the same Madison GPU core as desktop Radeon HD 55x0 and 56x0 i.e. mobile part is speed-bin part. It's able run at lower voltage and amps.

Graphics won't make as big a leap for MS and Sony next gen... But they don't have to

1. Nintendo will make the largest graphic jump next gen "Because they have to" their next system will be very modest and prob around the performance of the 360 or just a little better, their next system will also have a HDD.

2. Microsoft will release a very modest system with a slight bump in graphic performance, they also have to address initial cost and reliability.

3. Sony will release a much, much more modest console next time around, they have learned the hard way that 500 dollar consoles don't work.

All 3 companies will innovate in their motion controls AND digital distribution, both Microsoft and Sony won't let Nintendo beat them so badly on price out of the gate, they will all fairly cost the same and generally have similar graphic capabilities.

All 3 consoles will release in a still bad economy and i'm gonna go on record to say they all debut at 250.00.

[QUOTE="aia89"]

I

do we play graphics or games?

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="aia89"]

I

do we play graphics or games?

aia89

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]There's still room for improvement. As it is, textures are still essentially paint on a canvas. Realistically, "textures" would be a part of the object in question, and change dynamically. We don't have anything remotely like that yet. That and everything is still made of hollow "meshes". Literally there is nothing on the inside of a video game character or object.Eggimannd

Of course there's still place for improvement. I just don't think we will ever see the kind of huge graphical leap from last gen to this current gen. Next gen games are just gonna slightly improve over time until the reach another peak.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]There's still room for improvement. As it is, textures are still essentially paint on a canvas. Realistically, "textures" would be a part of the object in question, and change dynamically. We don't have anything remotely like that yet. That and everything is still made of hollow "meshes". Literally there is nothing on the inside of a video game character or object.SteveTabernacle

Of course there's still place for improvement. I just don't think we will ever see the kind of huge graphical leap from last gen to this current gen. Next gen games are just gonna slightly improve over time until the reach another peak.

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"][QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

Of course there's still place for improvement. I just don't think we will ever see the kind of huge graphical leap from last gen to this current gen. Next gen games are just gonna slightly improve over time until the reach another peak.

ferret-gamer

Not too bothered, need to put more effort into effective AI, right now it is all scripted. I want real interactive npc's :DSPBoss

Someone should create a long script of a complex AI system that allows for a large number of personalities and reactions to various things.

Then make it easy to use in games.

Basically lay out the ground work so developers have more time to add the subtle nuances.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"] People said that when this gen started, and the one before that. They were wrong, and you will be as well.Birdy09

I'm gonna LOL when a publisher like Activision puts out the the absolutely most graphically stunning console benchmark test and sells it as $15 DLC.