Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 290 posts

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#241

Post by [deleted] »

nerdsniper wrote: post #133
mikepurvis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not targeting high-end PCs. They're targeting current generation consoles, specifically the PS5 + 1080p. It just turns out that when you take those system requirements and put them on a PC—especially a PC with a 1440p or 2160p ultrawide—it turns out to mean pretty top of the line stuff. Particularly if as a PC gamer you expect to run it at 90fps and not the 30-40 that is typical for consoles.

Without disagreeing with the broad strokes of your comment, it feels like 4K should be considered standard for consoles nowadays - a very usable 4K HDR TV can be had for $150-500.

[deleted]

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#242

Post by wlesieutre »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #239
futureshock wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a waste of image quality for most people. You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution. On PC you could be 2 feet from a huge gaming monitor, but an extremely small percentage of console players have the tv size and distance ratio where they would get much out of full 4k. Much better to spend the compute on higher framerate or higher detail settings.

> You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution. Wait, are you sure you don't have that backward? IIUC, you don't[ ] notice the difference between a 2K display and a 4K display until you get up to larger screen sizes (say 60+ inches give or take a dozen inches; I don't have exact numbers :) ) and with those the optimal viewing range is like 4-8 feet away (depending on the scree…

My first 4K screen was a 24" computer display and let me tell you, the difference between that and a 24" 1080p display is night and day from 1-2 feet away. Those pixels were gloriously dense. Smoothest text rendering you've ever seen.

I didn't use it for gaming though, and I've "downgraded" resolution to 2x 1440p (and much higher refresh rates) since then. But more pixels is great if you can afford it.

It's one thing to say you don't need higher resolution and fewer pixels works fine, but all the people in the comments acting like you can't see the difference makes me wonder if they've ever seen a 4K TV before.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#243

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

eek2121 wrote: post #231
wnevets wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not thinking big enough. Their ultimate goal is gaming (or any computing really) available only in the cloud.

That may or may not be an INTERNAL NVIDIA goal, or even a goal for multiple companies, however, that is NOT how the situation will play out. The ecosystem isn't closed. TSMC doesn't exist in a vacuum. They may be the most advanced, however, there are a few reasons this will never work: 1) older fabs can be built in a garage by a smart person (it's been done a few times, I'd link the articles, but I don't have them ha…

> "older fabs can be built in a garage by a smart person"

Yeah, with 1970s-era feature size. That's fine if your idea of AAA gaming is Hunt The Wumpus or Pong.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#244

Post by mikepurvis »

lotusw0w wrote: post #232
zozbot234 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1440p and 2160p is a total waste of pixels, when 1080p is already at the level of human visual acuity. You can argue that 1440p is a genuine (slight) improvement for super crisp text, but not for a game. HDR and more ray tracing/path tracing, etc. are more sensible ways of pushing quality higher.

You sounded like someone who doesn’t have 1440p or 2160p. I have a 77’ S95D and my 1080p Switch looked horrible. Try it also with a 1080p screen bigger than 27 inch.

I also have a 77” OLED and there’s no question that 4K content is noticeably better looking on it that 1080p content.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#245

Post by wkat4242 »

eek2121 wrote: post #231
wnevets wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not thinking big enough. Their ultimate goal is gaming (or any computing really) available only in the cloud.

That may or may not be an INTERNAL NVIDIA goal, or even a goal for multiple companies, however, that is NOT how the situation will play out. The ecosystem isn't closed. TSMC doesn't exist in a vacuum. They may be the most advanced, however, there are a few reasons this will never work: 1) older fabs can be built in a garage by a smart person (it's been done a few times, I'd link the articles, but I don't have them ha…

It's probably not an Nvidia goal no but the publishers want that too. It's the wet dream of copy protection for them. It's easy to record a cloud streamed movie but a game not so much.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#246

Post by vablings »

ogogmad wrote: post #185
guerrilla wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already here right now, unironically. There's no need for Windows for gaming now. I just build a new rig with a 7900 XTX and with Steam on Arch Linux everything just works with absolutely no hassle or thinking. This was the only value Windows still had and now that's over.

There are still some pain points with Linux distros: With some, an upgrade can leave you unable to boot into a graphical login screen. This can also happen if you leave a Linux installation, like Manjaro, alone for a year and then do an update.

The problem is you are exposing yourself to brain injury by trying to use Manjaro. Just Use Linux Mint.

Is it the best? No! Is it the most performant? NO! is it rock solid reliable out of the box? YES!

CachyOS and Fedora also looked tempting but bog standard linux mint is my powerhouse right now

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#247

Post by wkat4242 »

wlesieutre wrote: post #242
encrypted_bird wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution. Wait, are you sure you don't have that backward? IIUC, you don't[ ] notice the difference between a 2K display and a 4K display until you get up to larger screen sizes (say 60+ inches give or take a dozen inches; I don't have exact numbers :) ) and with those the optimal viewing range is like 4-8 feet away (depending on the scree…

My first 4K screen was a 24" computer display and let me tell you, the difference between that and a 24" 1080p display is night and day from 1-2 feet away. Those pixels were gloriously dense. Smoothest text rendering you've ever seen. I didn't use it for gaming though, and I've "downgraded" resolution to 2x 1440p (and much higher refresh rates) since then. But more pixels is great if you can afford it. It's one thing…

I still use 4K@24", unfortunately they're getting scarce. 4K@27" is where it's at now unfortunately. But I'll never go back to normal DPI. Every time at the office it bugs me how bad regular DPI is.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#249

Post by futureshock »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #239
futureshock wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a waste of image quality for most people. You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution. On PC you could be 2 feet from a huge gaming monitor, but an extremely small percentage of console players have the tv size and distance ratio where they would get much out of full 4k. Much better to spend the compute on higher framerate or higher detail settings.

> You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution. Wait, are you sure you don't have that backward? IIUC, you don't[ ] notice the difference between a 2K display and a 4K display until you get up to larger screen sizes (say 60+ inches give or take a dozen inches; I don't have exact numbers :) ) and with those the optimal viewing range is like 4-8 feet away (depending on the scree…

It’s best to think about this as angular resolution. Even a very small screen could take up an optimal amount of your field of view if held close. You get the max benefit from a 4k display when it is about 80% of the diagonal screen distance away from your eyes. So for a 28 inch monitor, that’s a little less then 2 feet, pretty typical desk setup.

Re: The post-GeForce era: What if Nvidia abandons PC gaming?

#250

Post by rerdavies »

zozbot234 wrote: post #217
mikepurvis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not targeting high-end PCs. They're targeting current generation consoles, specifically the PS5 + 1080p. It just turns out that when you take those system requirements and put them on a PC—especially a PC with a 1440p or 2160p ultrawide—it turns out to mean pretty top of the line stuff. Particularly if as a PC gamer you expect to run it at 90fps and not the 30-40 that is typical for consoles.

1440p and 2160p is a total waste of pixels, when 1080p is already at the level of human visual acuity. You can argue that 1440p is a genuine (slight) improvement for super crisp text, but not for a game. HDR and more ray tracing/path tracing, etc. are more sensible ways of pushing quality higher.

Text rendering alone makes it worthwhile. 1080p densities are not high enough to render text accurately without artefacts. If you double pixel density, then it becomes (mostly) possible to renderi text weight accurately, and things like "rythm" and "density" which were things that real typographers concerned themselves with start to become apparent.
Post reply on HN