DarkMatter
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,714 (0.27/day)
| Processor | Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now) |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | Asus P5Q-E |
| Cooling | Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu |
| Memory | 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15 |
| Video Card(s) | GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory |
| Storage | 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0 |
| Display(s) | HP p1130, 21" Trinitron |
| Case | Antec p180 |
| Audio Device(s) | Creative X-Fi PLatinum |
| Power Supply | 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency |
| Software | Windows XP |
kysg, newtelie and rebo, it's obvious that we disagree, so it's better to agree to disagree, but think about these things:
- We are able to get a better card for the same money now than when only a card or two a year were released, because competition brings prices down. Maybe is not going to be the best after a month, but it certainly is comparatively better. If only few cards were released competition wouldn't exist, think about G80 days. So what is what we want, better cards to be able to play better games or the best card for a long period of time (even if that's not the best that could exist) that serves nothing but to be able to say you are above others...
- Forget about one mayor release per year, a release that will make a card 2x as fast, that's something of the past. As complexity has incresed the development cycle is goig up, just as with CPUs and is probably now somewhere around 18 months or more. Companies just can't be the loser for so long, again remember G80 days. In that time, new processes can appear, yields can improve and so on, and those things make it pssible to release cards that are up to around 50% faster. It'd be stupid not to use those improvements. Specially if you are the one behind.
- Related to the above: this industry is an egg and chicken thing. Without a card that could run it, games would never improve, they just can't take the risk. On the other hand GPU manufacturers can't neither take the risk of releasing a card that would be overkill. But in order to improve someone has to take the risk. Well Crytek took the risk and we know how that ended up. Yet they knew better cards were coming out soon, imagine if they had to wait 18 months, that simply wouldn't be profitable and all developers would just make their release coincide with card releases. Even then that wouldn't be profitable, only best games would sell and developers don't know if their game will be the best one, they can hope, they can put as much energy as they can, but they never know. And that's unsustainable, no one works for 3 years just to get nothing in turn.
That also applies to the technologies behind the GPUs: fab process, ram, PCBs, everything. If they know their advancements will not be used until 18 months later they wouldn't put much effort into it. Who would want to put money into something so uncertain that would happen every 2 years without knowing you could have a second chance they use your tech in a later product? Bacause if you develop something every 18-24 months and you happen to loose to another company or if you end up better but you are late, you'd have to wait another 18 months and by then your product wouldn't be the best one anyway.
The industry advances so fast because the wheel keeps rolling for every link in the chain and the ones above in the chain use the best at their hands to make the best they can in all moments. Break one link and everything falls apart.
- Sorry for the rant, but there's one more thing to take into account: the market today is not as it was in the past, it's already saturated. In it's infancy all markets are easier. When only a 10% of the target population has your product or one of your competitors product, you fight so that you can convince buyers into buying your product. You don't care about competition. But when it's saturated, you have to convince them to upgrade over what they have, so being the looser even if it's only by a bit is unaceptable. People will upgrade to what is better. Price wars doesn't help there, the competitor with the best product can always fight you there: Intel vs AMD.
- We are able to get a better card for the same money now than when only a card or two a year were released, because competition brings prices down. Maybe is not going to be the best after a month, but it certainly is comparatively better. If only few cards were released competition wouldn't exist, think about G80 days. So what is what we want, better cards to be able to play better games or the best card for a long period of time (even if that's not the best that could exist) that serves nothing but to be able to say you are above others...
- Forget about one mayor release per year, a release that will make a card 2x as fast, that's something of the past. As complexity has incresed the development cycle is goig up, just as with CPUs and is probably now somewhere around 18 months or more. Companies just can't be the loser for so long, again remember G80 days. In that time, new processes can appear, yields can improve and so on, and those things make it pssible to release cards that are up to around 50% faster. It'd be stupid not to use those improvements. Specially if you are the one behind.
- Related to the above: this industry is an egg and chicken thing. Without a card that could run it, games would never improve, they just can't take the risk. On the other hand GPU manufacturers can't neither take the risk of releasing a card that would be overkill. But in order to improve someone has to take the risk. Well Crytek took the risk and we know how that ended up. Yet they knew better cards were coming out soon, imagine if they had to wait 18 months, that simply wouldn't be profitable and all developers would just make their release coincide with card releases. Even then that wouldn't be profitable, only best games would sell and developers don't know if their game will be the best one, they can hope, they can put as much energy as they can, but they never know. And that's unsustainable, no one works for 3 years just to get nothing in turn.
That also applies to the technologies behind the GPUs: fab process, ram, PCBs, everything. If they know their advancements will not be used until 18 months later they wouldn't put much effort into it. Who would want to put money into something so uncertain that would happen every 2 years without knowing you could have a second chance they use your tech in a later product? Bacause if you develop something every 18-24 months and you happen to loose to another company or if you end up better but you are late, you'd have to wait another 18 months and by then your product wouldn't be the best one anyway.
The industry advances so fast because the wheel keeps rolling for every link in the chain and the ones above in the chain use the best at their hands to make the best they can in all moments. Break one link and everything falls apart.
- Sorry for the rant, but there's one more thing to take into account: the market today is not as it was in the past, it's already saturated. In it's infancy all markets are easier. When only a 10% of the target population has your product or one of your competitors product, you fight so that you can convince buyers into buying your product. You don't care about competition. But when it's saturated, you have to convince them to upgrade over what they have, so being the looser even if it's only by a bit is unaceptable. People will upgrade to what is better. Price wars doesn't help there, the competitor with the best product can always fight you there: Intel vs AMD.
Last edited:
