51–60 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do photogrammetry. That's one use that will max out the entire system (not just the graphics card) for hours on end that has nothing to do with games or cc's. Just as an example.
600W worth of photogrammetry?
Yes, no doubt. Specially nowadays when point clouds are all the rage.
I’ve always thought of gaming as a virtuous low-impact form of entertainment, insofar as it displaces real-world pursuits like foreign ski holidays, gasoline-powered road trips, or land-hogging golf courses. But burning nearly a kilowatt on a gaming rig feels like a step too far. Sure, the power could be sourced from wind or solar plants, but there’s still a level of excessive conspicuous consumption going on here th…
Definitely agree that a kilowatt seems very high for gaming and starts to have an environmental impact. Still, driving a car at 100kph takes around 20 kW of power, so driving somewhere is still a bigger burden on the environment than gaming.
I'll be honest, it's very hard for me to imagine what I would do that would demand anywhere near 600 watts for a graphics card alone. I mean my PC can draw at most 120 watts and that feels like a lot, although the PC is pretty old by now. All of this for crypto? How many games are there out there that draw anywhere near this level of wattage just for graphics?
Well, since its the brand new, top-of-the-line connector, hopefully very few current applications will max it out.
I’ve always thought of gaming as a virtuous low-impact form of entertainment, insofar as it displaces real-world pursuits like foreign ski holidays, gasoline-powered road trips, or land-hogging golf courses. But burning nearly a kilowatt on a gaming rig feels like a step too far. Sure, the power could be sourced from wind or solar plants, but there’s still a level of excessive conspicuous consumption going on here th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely agree that a kilowatt seems very high for gaming and starts to have an environmental impact. Still, driving a car at 100kph takes around 20 kW of power, so driving somewhere is still a bigger burden on the environment than gaming.
That's peak power. You don't run at 100kph straight for hours but you will run your gaming rig at say 500W for three hours in a day (particularly for people willing to shell out money for such a gaming rig). The total energy per day might not be that different, you'd have to account for how much is involved in commuting in traffic.
My commute to and from the office alone would be about 90 minutes at that speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4K Gaming at 120FPS with Ray Tracing would easily push pass 300 to 400W. Even on a hypothetical 5nm GPU.
Ok, this is a tangent, but this kind of stuff irks me. Is there no love anymore for making things pretty enough but actually keeping things efficient? Do game devs (even AAA people) not like the family of things like 0x5F3759DF anymore? Efficiency aside, simply pushing the power requirements doesn't even bring home the bacon. Nintendo's "lateral thinking with withered technology" works super well, just look at the sw…
1. Should Games really be pushing GFx heavy / realism vs Nintendo Style Game?
Well first I absolutely love Nintendo and their Games. But the answer is first, Nintendo's target market is very different to PS5, Xbox / PC. I am sure Battlefield fans just dont think it will work on Nintendo style graphics. Second it really have nothing to do with Game Dev, more to do with Games priorities. i.e The question then becomes a Design / Market Fit / Choices questions rather than a technical question.
2. Keeping Games Efficient.
AAA Games, or as a matter of fact nearly all Games are efficient, comparatively speaking. Just look at how browsers, one of the most optimised piece of software is still learning their lessons from Game Dev. Games are using as much power as they could to push the limit on Graphics, and Physics within Games. That is not an efficiency question, but how much power they could push the boundary. Remember 4K Res is FOUR times the resolution of 2K. 120 Fps will be TWO times the normal standard of 60fps, that is 8 times the complexity alone excluding any additional high quality asset or modelling. I didn't even put Ray Tracing in that equation into it. Even if you assume 600W gives you double the performance of 300W ( which it doesn't ). You already see the disparity between complexity and performance improvement.
Finally, the third point I want to mention is hypothetically speaking Ray Tracing will lower the cost of Graphics Asset, which is by far the largest cost centre for Modern Games. Since designer no longer have to do all sort of special tricks for effects and save them some time. Although I imagine in reality these saved cost and time will only be used somewhere else for even better graphics.
Why does the author/publisher feel the need to overlay their own logo over drawings they copied from someone else's datasheet?
If someone wants to copy and paste his article, they’ll at least have to go to the effort of finding the images themselves
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4K Gaming at 120FPS with Ray Tracing would easily push pass 300 to 400W. Even on a hypothetical 5nm GPU.
Ok, this is a tangent, but this kind of stuff irks me. Is there no love anymore for making things pretty enough but actually keeping things efficient? Do game devs (even AAA people) not like the family of things like 0x5F3759DF anymore? Efficiency aside, simply pushing the power requirements doesn't even bring home the bacon. Nintendo's "lateral thinking with withered technology" works super well, just look at the sw…
You're also conflating graphics, game design, and hardware design. These are not the same groups. Every pillar is pushing forward. There's no zero sum game there.