The Graphics Performance Debate

krazyskillz

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2008
31
0
18,530
Oh dear,

it would seem that I accidentally mentioned the D word in a thread title.

Please everyone, replies only if you have something intelligent and have rationed... Eh, as if that'll make a difference.

Anyway, the argument I wish to put forward to everyone is:

I can't understand why some people seem to feel that graphics horsepower is becoming kinda superflous. Ok, I can understand that endless tech demos, "new features" and "Support for raytracing!" claims are annoying but there are plenty of productive ways that more power can be harnessed in to today's games.

For example extra detail, be it in models, textures, shadows, animations, draw distances, etc. can only be a good thing. I appreciate that returns diminish but games still have a long way to go in this respect. Take (yes, perhaps not the best.. :D) Arma2, although the engine supports a 10km draw distance, detail is not maintained to this distance and a select few users are able to access this level of detail with mainstream hardware.

Second, resolution. I realise that we are approaching Nyquist Frequency for most normal displays, but with large or multiscreen setups, how many games are easily playable with maxxed details?

Lastly, Anti-Aliasing. If like me, you can't stand playing without AA, you'll appreciate that it makes a massive difference to the gaming experience. More performance = better sampling techniques.

IMO, DirextX 9.0 was the start, it can do everything that DX10/11 can do, just, not very effciently. If new hardware generations let us program and use resources more effciently then thats as big or bigger achievement than offering new features.

 

Dekasav

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2008
1,243
0
19,310
You should mention 3D, takes twice as much power to render things in 3D as we do now (as you show 60fps per eye, but you have to render 120fps).

And there are several things that cannot "feasibly" be done in DX9 because of its lack of efficiency.