Comment

Comment on “I genuinely feel GameNative could replace handheld PCs like the Steam Deck” — Inside Android’s Fastest-Moving Gaming Project, GameNative (my article!)

<- View Parent

mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

We know there’s a growing number of people who use their phone as their primary and only computing device

There’s also some people moving in the other direction, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that grows. My parents only had their smartphones for years, but recently had me pick out a laptop for them because trying to use their phones for everything was a headache.

I think one thing to consider is that cost of living has been going up in the US with wages not keeping up. So budgets are getting tighter, and if you can only afford a single device to buy, you’re going to buy the phone, even if a PC makes a lot of things significantly easier.

None of that will change the fact that gaming will always push technology forward with the need for faster CPUs and GPUs

Tbh, I think we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns on video game graphics. Do we really need games to be any more photorealistic and power hungry than they are now?

That being said, I don’t think android phones are going to usurp this domain any time soon. Power requirements for 4k 60fps are way too high, and mobile devices simply can’t distribute enough heat to handle it unless there’s enormous bumps in efficiency. And advancements in chip design have seriously slowed down the past few years

source

Sort:hotnew top

ericwdhs@discuss.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I definitely think graphical fidelity is “good enough” now, but there’s still quite a bit of advancement available in other areas still drawing on the CPU and GPU, VR and local AI being a couple. I’ve been all in on VR since the Vive, and while I reject corporate AI as much as most people here, I do run local models occasionally and would like to have NPCs using the tech.

source
darcmage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Tbh, I think we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns on video game graphics. Do we really need games to be any more photorealistic and power hungry than they are now?

Need? No. Want? Absolutely.

There are two interesting articles that have shaped my view on this:

blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-…

www.microsoft.com/en-us/…/perfectillusion.pdf

I’m not hung up on who is right about 1000Hz vs 1800Hz, only that >=1000Hz at >=1000fps is the goal. We’re a long way away from that when the best gaming CPU can only manage ~600fps in CS2 at 1080p.

One of the digitalfoundry guys got hands-on time with a prototype monitor at CES and played a game at >500fps and while he couldn’t really convey what it was like, it was clear that the experience is very different than even playing on 360Hz displays.

We’re at least 2-3 hardware generations away from being able to push >1000fps with relatively simple games and much further away for AAA games. I think it’s something worth looking forward to.
source
- mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  No, people aren’t going to want 1000+fps in games. As someone else pointed out in the thread, 4k 60fps is <5% of builds in Steam hardware surveys. Going even higher framerates just adds more and more cost, with reduced returns.
  
  If you could build a system that goes from 500fps to 1000fps, you’re theoretically reducing latency by 1ms (it’ll most certainly be less though). But how much more expensive is the 1000fps build? Based on tech trends the past few years, that’s probably going to be a lot more expensive, since architectural improvements of chips has slowed down over the past few years. Right now, Nvidia’s just pushing more and more power into their cards to get more performance, because efficiency has plateau’d
  
  Add to that, the human eye only sees up to 500fps in ideal conditions. Why would you pay a bunch of money for extra framea that you physicall can’t see?
  
  source
  - darcmage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    Add to that, the human eye only sees up to 500fps in ideal conditions. Why would you pay a bunch of money for extra framea that you physicall can’t see?
    
    Eyes don’t work in fps and the 500fps limit is a myth that is shown to be false in the linked articles. The need for >1000fps is more about how our brains perceive motion and getting as close as possible to eliminating judder.
    
    Also, talking about costs isn’t really relevant when we’re talking about future tech. What is aspirational today will be the norm tomorrow. We’ll get there first with upscalers and mfg and who knows what else is in the pipeline to improve the rendering process.
    
    source