Next Gen Console Tech What if...what if....
#1
Posted 07 March 2005 - 09:04 PM
I feel kind of freaked out by the idea that I can actually picture that as a next generation console's graphics. It looks so good right now, but it would be easy to accomplish with the next xbox and ps3(maybe revolution, though it sounds like the revolution will go the same direction as the DS, innovation over power). Here's a good example of why I think that...
http://www.altpop.com/stc/pics-large/sm64ost.jpg
Super Mario 64 concept art, turned into...
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/mariosunbroll_052902_14.jpg
practically what we saw in Super Mario Sunshine. If this kind of thing continues, we're going to keep seeing huge boosts in console power each generation, and will reach that level of realism quite quickly. What do you think?
#2
Posted 07 March 2005 - 09:12 PM
#3
Posted 07 March 2005 - 09:31 PM
#4
Posted 07 March 2005 - 09:43 PM
#5
Posted 08 March 2005 - 10:07 PM
And the graphics of the XBOX2, PS2, N5, won't be THAT much different. Just smoother, more detail, and finer graphical fixups.
It's not like a jump from N64 to Xbox.
#6
Posted 09 March 2005 - 06:00 PM
#7
Posted 09 March 2005 - 07:09 PM
#8
Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:34 AM
As for graphical capabilities, advances will be slow for consoles due to their release schedule. You'll see "leaps" in the graphical capabilities of systems, but only because they are being upgraded from three year old components.
Due to the fast advances in the PC sector with graphics (PCI-Express) and processing power (AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Socket 939), expect the quality of consoles to hit a brick wall by the next NEXT gen systems. They already are starting to hit some, and it will take some more accidental finds (such as how the heck to make parts even smaller) until more advances come along.
We won't be seeing ultra-realism for games next year just yet folks.
#9
Posted 11 March 2005 - 10:38 PM
I read this insider where they talked about the N64, they called it N64 because it sounded better than N62, also leading people to believe it had a 64bit graphic card, when really it had a 64 bit.
but other than that they have always doubled eachother, so i hope the next will be 512. then 1024 so on, I also heard that its either 3000 or 5000 which is max and cannot improve anymore.
#10
Posted 12 March 2005 - 09:49 PM
Most cards won't be climbing any higher than 512MB, but those are virtually non-existant; I'm not even sure if there is such a thing. With PCI-Express out, there'd be no need.
It's really just the features and certain specs that people look for. How fast can it render polygons, how large can the picture be without the detail degrading, how does it handle dynamic shadows, etc.
#11
Posted 12 March 2005 - 10:40 PM
#12
Posted 13 March 2005 - 04:49 PM
#13
Posted 14 March 2005 - 05:24 PM
Anyhow, if graphics aren't central to a new system, how come we're not still using the PSX, the N64, and the Sega Saturn? Sure, more storage leads to more innovative and extensive games, and new player contol options lead to new gameplay advances, but then why didn't they just update those systems to hold more data and offer new controllers? The thing is, even though gameplay quality is a very important part of what makes a good game, if graphics we're a major factor as well, there would be much less pressure to make more powerful, graphics-pumping systems than there is now.
And Bluemage, don't confuse color bits with memory bytes. The xx-bit systems you keep hearing about refer to how much memory, in bits, is alloted to colors and alpha-channels. The XBOX, for example, may have 256-bit graphics, but it only has 64 megs of RAM. (Andross covered a somewhat different point, FYI.) Higher-level graphics won't do diddly squat without the RAM to hold all the data and CPU/GPU power to cruch that data.
And Andross, PCIx is just a new standard for data transfer between the GPU and southbridge (or northbridge, in the case of AGP). More speed leads to a smaller chance of a bottleneck, but more RAM leads to a smaller chance of the data running dry and greater ability for the developer to include higher-quality textures and models. While we won't be seeing much improvement in the performance with todays games, just wait until developers add paralax mapping, dynamic models (for truly realistic destructible environments), and vastly more complex physics engines.
#14
Posted 14 March 2005 - 05:30 PM
#15
Posted 14 March 2005 - 05:37 PM
Still, even though games in and of themselves are what consoles are for, better graphics are central to the development of new systems nonetheless.
#16
Posted 14 March 2005 - 05:42 PM
Tachyon360, on Mar 14 2005, 03:24 PM, said:
Anyhow, if graphics aren't central to a new system, how come we're not still using the PSX, the N64, and the Sega Saturn? Sure, more storage leads to more innovative and extensive games, and new player contol options lead to new gameplay advances, but then why didn't they just update those systems to hold more data and offer new controllers? The thing is, even though gameplay quality is a very important part of what makes a good game, if graphics we're a major factor as well, there would be much less pressure to make more powerful, graphics-pumping systems than there is now.
And Bluemage, don't confuse color bits with memory bytes. The xx-bit systems you keep hearing about refer to how much memory, in bits, is alloted to colors and alpha-channels. The XBOX, for example, may have 256-bit graphics, but it only has 64 megs of RAM. (Andross covered a somewhat different point, FYI.) Higher-level graphics won't do diddly squat without the RAM to hold all the data and CPU/GPU power to cruch that data.
And Andross, PCIx is just a new standard for data transfer between the GPU and northbridge. More speed leads to a smaller chance of a bottleneck, but more RAM leads to a smaller chance of the data running dry and greater ability for the developer to include higher-quality textures and models. While we won't be seeing much improvement in the performance with todays games, just wait until developers add paralax mapping, dynamic models (for truly realistic destructible environments), and vastly more complex physics engines.
Actually the Radeon Company has just released a 512MB card, but I do think that the more memory it takes somewhat improves on the Graphics...but Tachy PCIx is faster than AGP and that is why PCIx cards take half the speed of AGP cards and are still a bit better.
#17
Posted 14 March 2005 - 05:43 PM
But once they hit brick walls in performance, who knows. It depends on how fast they start developing graphics even more, because that hasn't hit the brick wall just yet. PCI-Express isn't the final frontier, as you probably know already.
#18
Posted 14 March 2005 - 06:32 PM
l3lueMage, on Mar 14 2005, 06:42 PM, said:
Anyhow, you contradicted yourself (and I never even so much as implied AGP can outperform PCIx in the same tier or performance [such as 1x, 2x, etc.]), so I take it you're a bit confused (though I could be, and often am, wrong about that). This page explains PCIx vs PCI and AGP in laymen's terms. Y'know, just in case you might want to read it.
#19
Posted 18 March 2005 - 01:55 AM