Nvidia: Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC Graphics

[jimmysmitty]

What about Doom3 that was a good looking game back in the day.

Really? It went up against Half Life 2 then as well and I always thought Doom 3 was pretty bland overall. Even the newer BFG edition still has the same blandness.

HL2 on the other hand was far better looking in my opinion and in 2004 it was pretty revolutionary as the closest you saw those type of graphics was normally cut scenes.

 

[bgunner]

What about Doom3 that was a good looking game back in the day.

Really? It went up against Half Life 2 then as well and I always thought Doom 3 was pretty bland overall. Even the newer BFG edition still has the same blandness.

HL2 on the other hand was far better looking in my opinion and in 2004 it was pretty revolutionary as the closest you saw those type of graphics was normally cut scenes.

Not to start an argument over old games or your opinion But I own both Doom 3 and Half life 2 and by far IMO Doom 3 has a graphics edge hands down to half life 2. Game play may be totally different. The BFG edition I thought was just a culmination of all the Doom franchise games. Not a remastering of the games.

 

[stevejnb]

What about Doom3 that was a good looking game back in the day.

Really? It went up against Half Life 2 then as well and I always thought Doom 3 was pretty bland overall. Even the newer BFG edition still has the same blandness.

HL2 on the other hand was far better looking in my opinion and in 2004 it was pretty revolutionary as the closest you saw those type of graphics was normally cut scenes.

Not to start an argument over old games or your opinion But I own both Doom 3 and Half life 2 and by far IMO Doom 3 has a graphics edge hands down to half life 2. Game play may be totally different. The BFG edition I thought was just a culmination of all the Doom franchise games. Not a remastering of the games.

This is kind of a two pronged thing... On the one hand, I thought that Half-Life 2 was an as good or arguably *slightly* better looking game based on art style when compared to Doom 3. Doom 3, on the other hand, was the clearly technically better looking game outside of the fact that it was 95% closed, cramped spaces where HL2 actually had some open spaces. The lighting in Doom 3 blew HL2 out of the water, and it was comparable or better in pretty much every other area, except being able to handle open spaces - for which I have no frame of reference, since Doom 3 had next to none of them.

Doom 3's art style was dark and depressing and, one could argue, bland. The engine itself out though put out more detail and far better lighting than what I saw in HL2. HL2 just tended to be more open and organic and vibrant looking. I think Doom 3's engine was the more technically proficient, but Valve just had better art direction. It's kind of a toss up between the two, depending on what you valued.

 

[Thedragonixxx]

True what's said, but where's the sense to always compare the consoles with the absolute high-end PCs? You still have a quite hard time to build a PC+OS with a similar power like a console _at the same price_!
In terms of power per price both are still on the same page, if you ask me... So consoles are definitely not about to die...

 

[youssef 2010]

Quote: I wonder if the graph he's looking is showing how fast the share of PC desktops is declining vs laptops, and how fast the share of tablets is taking over both.

More and more, PC games will have to squeeze into the power budget of 25W or whatever the average laptop is going to be. Unless there's a reverse in the current trend, the consoles are going to win the power race."

I think you'll see a very different trend if you focus on PC gamers only. Tell me how many PC gamers leave gaming on the PC for a console? Why should I restrict myself to a collection of hardware that will remain the same for years and years? It's the PC's upgradability that's keeping it alive. I'm going to buy an R9 290X today that'll replace my unlocked 6950. So, the only way is to have consoles with upgradable graphics cards. Because the need for processing power in games is increasing at a far slower rate than the need for more graphics muscle.

 

[jsoup27]

Consoles are crap??!!? hell i still have my xbox (original) for playing Dance Dance Revolution. Not because it's graphically superior to PC Ports *i know there's DDR for PC and USB dance pads* but because it's SIMPLE and CONVENIENT to power on and already connected to a big screen. Mainstream gamers will settle for the convenience of the console JUST because.. (it's "different")

A very niche situation with my old XBOX, but I think we need to take a step back and think about the audience that is the "mainstream". Those unwilling and unknowing to spend $600-1000 on a modern gaming machine that will start lagging after 2 generations of top-shelf video games.

PS
I have a recent generation SLI (670s) and i5-2500k and it kicks like a mule still (OC and custom WC) and play top-end games without a hitch =]

 

[jsoup27]

Consoles are crap??!!? hell i still have my xbox (original) for playing Dance Dance Revolution. Not because it's graphically superior to PC Ports *i know there's DDR for PC and USB dance pads* but because it's SIMPLE and CONVENIENT to power on and already connected to a big screen. Mainstream gamers will settle for the convenience of the console JUST because.. (it's "different")

A very niche situation with my old XBOX, but I think we need to take a step back and think about the audience that is the "mainstream". Those unwilling and unknowing to spend $600-1000 on a modern gaming machine that will start lagging after 2 generations of top-shelf video games.

PS
I have a recent generation SLI (670s) and i5-2500k and it kicks like a mule still (OC and custom WC) and play top-end games without a hitch =]

 

[jonainpdx]

When the 360 came out, I had just purchased the 8800gtx which at that time was a beast. But the new consoles where just about the same.

At the start of the PS4 XB-One. I estimate my GTX to be about 2 times as powerful as these new consoles. And this generation is just getting started. What is going to happen when 4K displays are the ticket?

One possible solution for Sony and MS is come out with a new console every 2 years that can scale the game, depending on which system player has. a PS4 or a PS4.1 or a PS4.2

 

[Unolocogringo]

oh god shut up nvidia! While Ive bought your cards since the TNT2 I cannot support your inept statements and actions when it comes to marketing. You guys dont share your physx tech with other people or even release a dedicated card for amd users to have your physx on their systems. Then you claim putting one of your cards (or even tegra chips) in the new consoles "wasnt worth the investment". Now youre going to drone on about how console graphics will never be as good as pc. just shut it! We all know that every new console generation makes a graphical jump to catch up to pc and then the pc surpasses it soon after. The only problem is this time around the jump in graphics quality and perceptible difference is very small on consoles since the card amd chose to put in them in combination with their apu chip is a low end second gen dx11 amd pc chip. If they put in their newest pc gpu you wouldnt be running your mouth so much... you know since it beats titan. We all have been over why the current consoles have been so popular and how they were holding back PC game development ad nauseam so I wont reiterate it here. But you all know that this is just nvidia bloviating (speaking pompously) so lets just let them vent and move on.

More nonsense.
When Nvidia first bought Ageia they made Phys-x available to Nvidia and ATI cards. Not an Nvidia exclusive.
ATI at the time stated they did not want Phys-x for ATI cards they would use Havok or Bullet software for the cpu instead.
Nvidia stopped development of phys-x for ATI/AMD hardware.
So if you want to blame someone for Phys-x being Nvidia only ,BLAME ATI/AMD.

 

[SonSon1]

In other words:

We couldn't be part of the next generation of consoles so now we have PR badmouth them.

 

[Unolocogringo]

In other words:

We couldn't be part of the next generation of consoles so now we have PR badmouth them.

Nvidia did not want the headache of the PS3 to be repeated.
Sony reneged on the deal for the PS3 video chips.
After the chips were completed and finalized ,Sony decided that they wanted the chips at a cheaper price than the original contract.
They then tried to have the chips fabbed and delivered directly to them and cut Nvidia out of the supply chain.
Nvidia had to take Sony to court to protect their IP which Sony claimed to own since they paid Nvidia to develop the chip for the PS3 and they owned all rights to it.

After development costs and litigation costs ,Nvidia did not make much money on the PS3 chip.

Why spend time, money and development resources on something with a small investment return?
When you can use those same resources on something with a big return on investment.

 

[teh_chem]

In other words:

We couldn't be part of the next generation of consoles so now we have PR badmouth them.

Nvidia did not want the headache of the PS3 to be repeated.
Sony reneged on the deal for the PS3 video chips.
After the chips were completed and finalized ,Sony decided that they wanted the chips at a cheaper price than the original contract.
They then tried to have the chips fabbed and delivered directly to them and cut Nvidia out of the supply chain.
Nvidia had to take Sony to court to protect their IP which Sony claimed to own since they paid Nvidia to develop the chip for the PS3 and they owned all rights to it.

After development costs and litigation costs ,Nvidia did not make much money on the PS3 chip.

Why spend time, money and development resources on something with a small investment return?
When you can use those same resources on something with a big return on investment.

When did Sony and Nivida enter litigation over the RSX for the PS3? I thought it was readily established that Sony was paying Nvidia for the IP related to developing the RSX for the PS3--there was never any agreement to pay Nvidia to produce the hardware, and Sony owned the content. I'm not--repeat not--saying you're wrong, but I don't recall any litigation between Sony and Nvidia, and doing a few web searches doesn't come up with anything like that surrounding the RSX and PS3.

Nvidia did announce--after both Sony and MS stated they were going with AMD--that they didn't view consoles as worthwhile because the profit-per-item wasn't lucrative enough; but I take that with a giant grain of salt since it's all said after the fact. I'm sure the margins on consoles aren't as good as selling your own hardware (or licensed cards).

 

[Unolocogringo]

December 2004 saw the announcement that Nvidia would assist Sony with the design of the graphics processor (RSX) in the PlayStation 3 game console. In March 2006, it emerged that Nvidia would deliver RSX to Sony as an IP core, and that Sony alone would organize the manufacture of the RSX. Under the agreement, Nvidia would provide ongoing support to port the RSX to Sony's fabs of choice (Sony and Toshiba), as well as die shrinks to 65 nm.

Settled out of court with Non-disclosure clause.

 

[teh_chem]

But do you have a source for the lawsuit though? I know that Sony paid for the ip core, I looked it up on Wikipedia: "December 2004 saw the announcement that Nvidia would assist Sony with the design of the graphics processor (RSX) in the PlayStation 3 game console. In March 2006, it emerged that Nvidia would deliver RSX to Sony as an IP core, and that Sony alone would organize the manufacture of the RSX. Under the agreement, Nvidia would provide ongoing support to port the RSX to Sony's fabs of choice (Sony and Toshiba), as well as die shrinks to 65 nm. This practice contrasted with Nvidia's business arrangement with Microsoft, in which Nvidia managed production and delivery of the Xbox GPU through Nvidia's usual third-party foundry contracts. Meanwhile, in May 2005 Microsoft chose to license a design by ATI and to make its own manufacturing arrangements for the Xbox 360 graphics hardware, as had Nintendo for the Wii console (which succeeded the ATI-based Nintendo GameCube).[13]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia

Nothing there nor anywhere else even implied a lawsuit between Nvidia and Sony regarding the RSX or anything even close. Nor do I recall anything like this when the console was being developed or after it came out.

 

[leandrro]

check this video about PS2's graphics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGLH5gmQc4