• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia Ampere might launch as GeForce GTX 2070 and 2080 on April 12th

Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
The subject:- PC gaming is dying.

Real PC gaming is dying. What thrives is some stupid casual online gaming that demands notebooks or Pentium 3-kind of performance.

Look at games like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Ryse Son of Rome, Witcher 3, GTA V etc. they all look fantastic.

lol GTA V is very ugly game. It is anime all over the place.
Can you really compare it with such title like the original FarCry at the time of its release, or F.E.A.R? Actually, have you played F.E.A.R? Or Quake?
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,019
No wonder you can't read long posts,when you can't even read 4 lines TBH. I was not even fully agreeing with him,but whatever. 2 out of 2 so far.

And as I said in my directly reply to that post, you can't change the goal posts to suit your argument. You are just arguing that there is a slowdown in hardware. And there is no proof that that slowdown has made any difference to PC gaming.

The fact still remains, that PC gaming isn't dying. It's been growing for the past 2 years.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,019
Real PC gaming is dying. What thrives is some stupid casual online gaming that demands notebooks or Pentium 3-kind of performance.



lol GTA V is very ugly game. It is anime all over the place.
Can you really compare it with such title like the original FarCry at the time of its release, or F.E.A.R? Actually, have you played F.E.A.R? Or Quake?


Oh my god, i heard it all now. "REAL" PC gaming is dying, lol.

I played all those games. You think there are no good games now? Really?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,771
Location
Planet Earth
No, the GTX 1060 is almost twice as fast as the GTX 960 (100% vs 53%). You're comparing the wrong products. Note also that the GTX 1060 is a smidge faster than the GTX 980.

The price also went up. RRP for the GTX1060 6GB was $299. The GTX970 4GB RRP was just over $300.

The GTX960 was $170 by the time of the GTX970 launch.I also had a GTX960 too,and Nvidia replaced the 2GB model with the 4GB model partly through its lifespan. It cost under £150 for a 4GB model as I had one. The GTX1060 6GB ended up in the same price tier as the GTX970,as the pound also weakened a bit,but most of the price increase was the RRP increase.

Everyone I know in the realworld goes by price,not model,so it will be whats the fastest card for £250 and so on.

I could also link you to HUKD,if you want to check the realworld pricing of said cards,since in the end we pay in pounds not dollars,and you could get an R9 290 nearly 4 years ago for close to £270,and GTX970 models undercut it. AMD refused to drop prices and they got hammered by Nvidia,and in the end R9 290 cards were going for nearly £170 in 2015.

The R9 390 rebrand with moar VRAM actually helped AMD stablise R9 90 series card prices.

Look at all the companies which track card sales and shipments,comments from Nvidia and AMD,etc - sub £300 is still the biggest sector for card sales overall,which is confirmed by Steam.

Also look on Steam,the price increase of the GTX1070,meant instead of being in the top 3 like the GTX970 was its at number 11 now.The GTX970 still has slightly greater numbers than the GTX1070. The GTX1060 now is in a similar position to the GTX970 one year after launch.

I have a feeling that even the GTX1070 position is more down to people wanting a GTX970 upgrade and caving in since the sub £300 area is not really much of an improvement. Why spend £250 for 20% improvement when you can spend £100 to £150 more and get a more useful improvement??

Its also been matched by a massive increase in reported 1080p monitors,IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Oh my god, i heard it all now. "REAL" PC gaming is dying, lol.

I played all those games. You think there are no good games now? Really?

Yes, man. That's one of the reasons why at the moment I'm without a desktop computer.
No real games to be played, man.

Will wait for Ryzen 2 and a decent 4K monitor, and then try to replay some of the classics.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,019
Yes, man. That's one of the reasons why at the moment I'm without a desktop computer.
No real games to be played, man.

Will wait for Ryzen 2 and a decent 4K monitor, and then try to replay some of the classics.

Just a few games for starters.
The Tomb Raider games.
The Metro Games,
Alien Isolation,
GTA V
The Witcher 3.
Elder Scrolls Skyrim
Divinity Original Scene 1/2
Subnautica

The list could go on and on.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,940
Location
Dalek flagship
4K is 4 times the number of pixels than 1080p and qHD is double the number.

In the end the cheaper higher resolution monitors are already here. My 10 bit 25" qHD one cost £230 to £240 IIRC in 2016.

I mean you can get 1080p FreeSync monitors like for a £100 IIRC,and there are even 120HZ/144HZ 1080p ones which have dropped under £200. 4K monitors have dropped as low as £180,and you can get a 32" qHD monitor for £200.

In the end if Nvidia and AMD can barely push 1080p 120HZ/144HZ performance,with a taxing game on a sub £200 and below monitor on an under £300 card,why should monitor companies care either??

Even on TV,4K is the de-facto standard there,and how is 20% to 25% improvements at £300 and under even going to help with something like a Steam Box for example??

Monitor and TV companies have tested the waters with displays with 4 times the resolution of the 1080p monitors and TVs which were out before.

Having actually used the RX470/RX480 they get even taxed at qHD in a 2015 game like The Witcher 3 if you start using more taxing settings. Looking at my experience of a GTX1070 and a GTX1080,that is the level I would be expecting for qHD now,let alone in the next few years.

So,yeah I would expect at least GTX1070 level performance for a 1080p card,if it is to handle more taxing 1080p games for the next two years or so.

The thing linking all of this is AMD and Nvidia. It makes more sense for them to prod each other as little as they can,then only make an improvement when they have exhausted their own sales of said products,ie,more competing against their own products.

They can use the same PR companies as other tech firms to sell "revolutionary" and "innovative" words like Apple,whilst milking it all. Then they both put more money to AI and mobile,and other areas which is where all the true R and D spend is going. Don't believe me?? Nvidia spent billions on getting Tegra to work in mobile devices,and they lost lots doing that too. Intel did the same - they used PC gamers as a cash cow,and spent billions on concentrating on mobile and spending billions on Atom. AMD cut R and D on dGPUs,and spent most of it on CPUs. Guess what they concentrated the little GPU R and D left on?? AI and companies like Apple. Hence the use of expensive HBM2. No issue with the Vega supply for Apple and Intel. Polaris seems partly subsidised by the consoles and companies like Apple too.

We are just getting the scraps of their R and D efforts TBH.

2160p/60htz is ancient history and has been around for ages.

A GTX 1080 Ti or better can make quite a good job of driving the resolution.

We need something like 4320p/144htz to give the GPU vendors something to chase.

NVidia could put out a brute of a card now if they wanted to but there is no pressure on them to do it. If they used the same node as Volta uses and produced a chip with 21 billion transistors all dedicated to SP work the performance would be jaw dropping, they could even put 2 chips on the same PCB for a dual card. Unfortunately there is little market for such cards as monitors that could use the performance don't exist.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,771
Location
Planet Earth
2160p/60htz is ancient history and has been around for ages.

A GTX 1080 Ti or better can make quite a good job of driving the resolution.

We need something like 4320p/144htz to give the GPU vendors something to chase.

NVidia could put out a brute of a card now if they wanted to but there is no pressure on them to do it. If they used the same node as Volta uses and produced a chip with 21 billion transistors all dedicated to SP work the performance would be jaw dropping, they could even put 2 chips on the same PCB for a dual card. Unfortunately there is little market for such cards as monitors that could use the performance don't exist.

Yet,sub £200 4K monitors have existed - look on HUKD. I could have got one at the end of 2016 for that price. You can get a qHD 32" monitor for £200.

Monitor resolutions didn't suddenly jump when the 8800GT was launched?? Or the 6600GT??

Then if that is the case,its telling that AMD and Nvidia can't even release a sub £300 card that can effectively run these games at qHD. I have tried the RX470 and RX480. I use a GTX1080 and a mate has a GTX1070.

In the end dude,but everything from Steam,analysis firms shows the sub £300 cards are the most representive of all the groups.

20% to 25% improvements at under £300 means even if someone upgrade from 1080p from a GTX970 to qHD with a GTX1060 they will get worse gaming performance. If the mainstream market has such piddly improvements then why should monitor companies push,let alone games devs?

You need to tell these companies beforehand the GPU power is coming,as games and higher resolution monitors will still take time. The fact they CBA means,they know something we don't! ;)

I don't blame anyone but the card companies - they can barely make cards at under £300 which can run games at qHD properly.

Goodness grief if you want to use a budget 4K monitor or a TV and expect the card to have any relevance for the next year or two.

Edit!!

I will also tell you this from the PC gamers I know - the one reason NONE of them are upgrading from 1080p,is since they will need to spend a significant amount on graphics cards to make it viable. Even the people with GTX1070 cards.

The people I know(and me) who have qHD and 4K monitors are into photography and graphic design!!
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
2160p/60htz is ancient history and has been around for ages.

A GTX 1080 Ti or better can make quite a good job of driving the resolution.

We need something like 4320p/144htz to give the GPU vendors something to chase.

NVidia could put out a brute of a card now if they wanted to but there is no pressure on them to do it. If they used the same node as Volta uses and produced a chip with 21 billion transistors all dedicated to SP work the performance would be jaw dropping, they could even put 2 chips on the same PCB for a dual card. Unfortunately there is little market for such cards as monitors that could use the performance don't exist.

I think that the things are connected and the primary reason for the PC gaming decline lies in the too wide spread piracy and devs being not happy with their profits. Hence, they stopped making such games like FarCry, Crysis, Need for Speed, DiRT, Quake, Counter-Strike, StarCraft, Diablo, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R, etc. Games with which we used to benchmark our systems and always looked for more powerful components to upgrade in order to run the games.

They make some but those look like low-budget low-quality products (maybe with some exceptions):

Just a few games for starters.
The Tomb Raider games.
The Metro Games,
Alien Isolation,
GTA V
The Witcher 3.
Elder Scrolls Skyrim
Divinity Original Scene 1/2
Subnautica

The list could go on and on.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,771
Location
Planet Earth
I think that the things are connected and the primary reason for the PC gaming decline lies in the too wide spread piracy and devs being not happy with their profits. Hence, they stopped making such games like FarCry, Crysis, Need for Speed, DiRT, Quake, Counter-Strike, StarCarft, Diablo, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R, etc. Games with which we used to benchmark our systems and always looked for more powerful components to upgrade in order to run the games.

They make some but those look like low-budget low-quality products (maybe with some exceptions):

True,its easier to make wall gardened systems more of a cash cow,and companies like EA are trying to do the same for PC now. However,these companies also must have an inkling of what cards are coming.

Think about it. Crysis was released and a 8800GTX was not cheap. But within the same rough time period all of a sudden we had 8800GTX level performance in significantly cheaper 8800GT and 8800GTS 512MB cards and ATI basically had 2900XT performance in £100 to £150 cards. Good timing,right??

Crytek must have known this - imagine if they had released Crysis before the 8800GTX was released(it was essentially mostly a DX9 game with some tacked on DX10 features),it would have probably not sold even the number it did originally.

Then look at Half Life 2 - we had fantastic cards like the 9500 and 9700 PRO. A lot of these taxing games,tended to come when at least ATI or Nvidia had released a really decent value card. At least that is how I remember it!

If they know the market is stagnating unless AMD or Nvidia pay these companies to push features,it makes more sense for companies to not really try and push games technically.

Look at the Final Fantasy demo benchmark - it looks like they tacked on all the Gameworks features at the last minute so it ended up being an unoptimised mess.

Sure,we have poorly optimised Early Access games,but then you buy those with the view they are incomplete and will have crap performance,but its cheaper than the finished product.

However,in the end it is what it is,so what to do?? :(

I will simply just upgrade less if the performance jumps I need to materialise don't happen,and I need to spend more at each upgrade cycle.

Edit!!

I still hold out hope the GTX2060 will be a decent upgrade over a GTX1060,as Metro:Exodus is out this year. New uarch,12NM,etc.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,019
I think that the things are connected and the primary reason for the PC gaming decline lies in the too wide spread piracy and devs being not happy with their profits. Hence, they stopped making such games like FarCry, Crysis, Need for Speed, DiRT, Quake, Counter-Strike, StarCraft, Diablo, F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R, etc. Games with which we used to benchmark our systems and always looked for more powerful components to upgrade in order to run the games.

They make some but those look like low-budget low-quality products (maybe with some exceptions):


What? Your argument falls flat when you use Counter Strike as a great game for visuals. LOL, It was always behind the times with graphics.

There were lots of howlers back then too. Can't you even remember the buggy mess that Stalker games were? Without mods they were nearly unplayable.

Forza, Project Cars, Prey, Doom 2017, Destiny 2, Diablo 3, Kerbal Space Program, Faster than Light, Fallout New Vegas, Total War, War hammer 2, Xcom 2, Portal 2. As well as the games I lised in Previous posts.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg. We have never had it so good for games. Yes, there were lots of classic games in the past, but, to say there are no good games now and they don't look good is flat out lying.

You keep saying the decline of PC gaming. But, it's becoming clear that you aren't talking about the PC gaming in general. It's that PC gaming is dead to you.

There are no figures to prove what you and Cat the Fifth are saying. None. PC gaming is growing. So if you mention that PC gaming is in decline again, can you back it up with some figures please. thanks.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
@CAT-THE-FIFTH
If we trust 3DCenter, they say GTX 2060 will be in the GTX 1080 region.

Forza, Project Cars, Prey, Doom 2017, Destiny 2, Diablo 3, Kerbal Space Program, Faster than Light, Fallout New Vegas, Total War, War hammer 2, Xcom 2, Portal 2.

Of these, I'd pick up Forza, Doom 2017, Porta 2 as being more interesting.
Doom 2017 has improved graphics compared to Quake 4, for instance.
But Portal 2 looks like with the Crysis 2 game engine and level of visuals. 2011 year of release? :confused:

Oh, I forgot Unreal Tournament and its game engines.

What? Your argument falls flat when you use Counter Strike as a great game for visuals. LOL, It was always behind the times with graphics.

There are no figures to prove what you and Cat the Fifth are saying. None. PC gaming is growing. So if you mention that PC gaming is in decline again, can you back it up with some figures please. thanks.

Counter-Strike G.O. and Source are ok, given how popular they are and that almost every computer must run them.

I am asking you the same - which part of the PC gaming market is in an increase?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,771
Location
Planet Earth
@CAT-THE-FIFTH
If we trust 3DCenter, they say GTX 2060 will be in the GTX 1080 region.



Of these, I'd pick up Forza, Doom 2017, Porta 2 as being more interesting.
Doom 2017 has improved graphics compared to Quake 4, for instance.
But Portal 2 looks like with the Crysis 2 game engine and level of visuals. 2011 year of release? :confused:

Oh, I forgot Unreal Tournament and its game engines.



Counter-Strike G.O. and Source are ok, given how popular they are and that almost every computer must run them.

I am asking you the same - which part of the PC gaming market is in an increase?

If it ends up at GTX1080 level and does not breech £300,that would actually be a big improvement TBH,and I might feel a bit more optimistic.

I would say most of those games,don't really need mega cards to run though,having run them on a range of cards(a GTX960 being one of them). Portal 2 is Source engine based.

As I mentioned it makes sense for most devs to target the middle ground to maximise sales,so if the middle ground slows down,most games will try not to push too hard.

There is no doubt a lack of real "tech demo" type games,which can push hardware since they are pushing what can be done(not simply being poorly optimised).

I think Metro:Exodus and possibly Cyberpunk 2077 could be the only games which might push things a bit,as historically games by those devs have and generally have been quite pretty looking games. However,they will be on consoles too. But those are the only big games I am looking forward to.

The Witcher 3 for example was demoed initially on PC,but it was graphically downgraded on eventual release.

TBH,the only game I can think which is attempting to really push the PC is Star Citizen and its probably why so many have thrown money at it. However,it has a rather leisurely release schedule,so I have no clue when it will be finished.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,019
Of these, I'd pick up Forza, Doom 2017, Porta 2 as being more interesting.
Doom 2017 has improved graphics compared to Quake 4, for instance.
But Portal 2 looks like with the Crysis 2 game engine and level of visuals. 2011 year of release? :confused:
Oh, I forgot Unreal Tournament and its game engines.

Counter-Strike G.O. and Source are ok, given how popular they are and that almost every computer must run them.


You are the one making the argument that PC games are only good if they look amazing. PC gaming isn't all about the visuals. You even used counter strike as an example of a great game, and it isn't a great game visually at all.

That's my argument, all the games that I have listed are amazing games, as good as any of the ones you listed. Some look fantastic, but others are just really good games.

Good graphics does not always mean a good game. Look at the thriving indie gaming scene.

I am asking you the same - which part of the PC gaming market is in an increase?

The whole PC gaming market.

Look at GTA V how many players are still playing that game? PUBG has surpassed both DOTA 2 and Counter strike for number of players. Hardly a sign of decline.

Nvidia had record breaking sales with Pascal. And Steam is growing at a rate of 1.5 million new subscribers every month.

So, how exactly is PC gaming declining? Just because you say so?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Posts
12,812
Location
Surrey
Bloody hell! You agreed with me on something :D

@chroniclard I know you was joking bud but some not so as you can see. All good though and everyone is entitled to their opinions.

They are, but it depends on what. You can't say something is dying when it's not, it goes against the facts. When you look at the number of games on steam released in the last 2 or 3 years alone, where is the proof? :D
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Sep 2014
Posts
3,431
Location
Scotland
NVIDIA says tensor cores could be useful for gaming too

https://www.dvhardware.net/article68217.html

During yesterday's earnings call, analyst Mark Lopasif with Jefferies asked NVIDIA if the new Tensor Cores that are found in the company's Volta-based datacenter products could make a splash in the gaming market too.

NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang replied that in the future, Tensor Cores could definitely play a role to boost inferencing performance. He said this is useful to improve video game texture quality and character animation. It's still in its infancy, but Huang said they have some impressive demos that show the benefits. And I think I already really appreciated the work that we did with Tensor Core and although the updates they are now coming out from the frameworks, Tensor Core is the new instruction fit and new architecture and the deep learning developers have really jumped on it and almost every deep learning frame work is being optimized to take advantage of Tensor Core. On the inference side, on the inference side and that’s where it would play a role in video games. You could use deep learning now to synthesize and to generate new art, and we been demonstrating some of that as you could see, if you could you seen some of that whether it improve the quality of textures, generating artificial, characters, animating characters, whether its facial animation with for speech or body animation.

The type of work that you could do with deep learning for video games is growing. And that’s where Tensor Core to take up could be a real advantage. If you take a look at the computational that we have in Tensor Core compare to a non optimized GPU or even a CPU, it's now to plus orders of magnitude on greater competition of throughput. And that allows us to do things like synthesize images in real time and synthesize virtual world and make characters and make faces, bringing a new level of virtual reality and artificial intelligence to the video games.

It possible that Nvidia Ampere may will have small Tensor cores than Titan V that could find it useful for games while CUDA cores size could stay the same size as Pascal so CUDA could offload some Compute, PhysX, FP32 and NVENC operations to Tensor cores that will perform about 12 times faster than CUDA.
 
Back
Top Bottom