The GeForce 9-series has been released

I wonder if we'll remember this thread two years from now

1k and 2k textures are plenty when running 1080p, the new console standard. And it's only when you get up into 4k/8k texture sizes that you really start bogging down VRAM. Personally, I think such textures are an utter waste of resources at 1080p… and I find it hard to believe even the most inept of devs would make such sizes the standard "minimum" anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Of course, VRAM capacity is predicated by more than simply texture sizes but it's the primary piece of the puzzle.

Simply put, if a game has a minimum requirement for 4gb VRAM anytime soon, it will be due to incompetence rather than superior graphical fidelity.

Well, I happen to love graphic discussions, so we can go ahead.

I just don't agree with you.

First of all, I think that 4k textures will give benefits even on 1080p resolutions. Maybe not so much for normal object textures, but you have so many other types of maps, for shadows, for normals, for occlusion, Parallax occlusion mapping and so on. Besides if you are talking about your own experience, it would have made a huge difference if a game is created from the core with 4k textures, and not aimed at 2k or even 1k, and then there is a high-res texture pack with the same textures.

Even if games decide to stop at 2k and you want to play without anti-aliasing and such, yes you are probably right, it'll be possible for years to come. But we are seeing some games now, that use complex processing methods, which makes it not possible to force anti-aliasing in the normal way, which could mean that they need to implement their own anti-aliasing method in the rendering pipeline. In this case, I am not sure if they would include an option in one year from now, to disable it, just for a PC port.

Originally Posted by sakichop

I believe they'll be some games that require more than 2 GB you don't.

The only way to find out is wait 2 years. I'm starting now.

Now you're saying that "some" games will require more than 2BG of RAM in 2 years. That's not quite the same as what you were saying before when you disagreed with my statement that most games will still run fine with a 2GB card, but that's ok.

I'm confident that "most" means the vast majority in this case, but yeah… we'll see.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Even if games decide to stop at 2k and you want to play without anti-aliasing and such, yes you are probably right, it'll be possible for years to come. But we are seeing some games now, that use complex processing methods, which makes it not possible to force anti-aliasing in the normal way, which could mean that they need to implement their own anti-aliasing method in the rendering pipeline. In this case, I am not sure if they would include an option in one year from now, to disable it, just for a PC port.

That simply isn't likely to happen. The fact is that even the PS4 and Xbox One are struggling to provide consistent framerates in many games that run fine even on PC hardware that is several years old already. Here's an example.

I'm sure we'll see games running better as developers become more familiar with those consoles, but we're not going to see games being rendered at 4K for home consoles anytime soon. My guess is that that won't become reality until the next generation of consoles is released.

Well, I think we'll probably not need to wait two years to determine who is right in this one, here is the requirements for http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for…in%27s%20Creed

I thought I would update this thread with the info, but the discussion is on going in another thread:

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26301

We are hitting a plateau with GPU performance, which makes it impossible to have games run smoothly at 4K resolution. The only solution would be to use multiple cards, and even then this isn't a solution that works very well. And especially on consoles which are extremely power constrained I don't think we're going to see this, it's just not feasible.

Um… It clearly says 2gb.

Yes, I know, the minimum requirement is already 2 gb this year, and I find it hard to believe there'll be no increase at all in the coming year.. so I don't think we'll need to wait 2 years.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Yes, I know, the minimum requirement is already 2 gb this year, and I find it hard to believe there'll be no increase at all in the coming year.. so I don't think we'll need to wait 2 years.

We owe this to the current generation of consoles, since they allow to have VRAM up to 6GB, multiplatform games will show an increasing number of required VRAM even on the PC. This is just lazy programming as far as I'm concerned but that's how it is (as far as I see it).

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
the minimum requirement is already 2 gb this year

Nice generalization based on a single example, but ok.

I have a 4 gig card so I'm good till at least Xmas

I honestly find console ports more and more irrelevant and uninteresting, I can't get excited over the latest AAA game like Assassin's Creed or whatnot.

As such it seems to me the games worth playing on PCs are ones that don't demand much in the way of high specs.

Originally Posted by Humanity has risen!
I honestly find console ports more and more irrelevant and uninteresting, I can't get excited over the latest AAA game like Assassin's Creed or whatnot.

As such it seems to me the games worth playing on PCs are ones that don't demand much in the way of high specs.

This is how I am at the moment. There isn't a single AAA title I would spend money on, even if I was inclined to install Win7 again. The only new titles I'm interested in are indies, and generally don't require much in the way of system specs.

Of course, it'd help if the AAA titles could be summed up in more than "generic FPS/generic 3PS/generic beat-em-up" on annual releases that put sports titles to shame. And they didn't require extraneous programs that have no business or need to be on anyone's system, and mostly serve to act as keyloggers. And they weren't trying to sell 25% of the game full price, and then 75% is unlocked through various "DLC" that's already on the disc.

I keep thinking about building a new rig, and nothing has made me think I have to.

I'm the exact opposite right now. I've never had so much interest or enjoyed so many AAA games.

Indeed, there are tons of potentially great AAA games coming out soon and beyond. With games like The Witcher 3 and Star Citizen on the horizon - there has never been a better reason for upgrading at any point in time.

Originally Posted by azraelck
Of course, it'd help if the AAA titles could be summed up in more than "generic FPS/generic 3PS/generic beat-em-up" on annual releases that put sports titles to shame. And they didn't require extraneous programs that have no business or need to be on anyone's system, and mostly serve to act as keyloggers. And they weren't trying to sell 25% of the game full price, and then 75% is unlocked through various "DLC" that's already on the disc.

I take it you're a "glass half empty" sort of guy?

running crossfire 7950 at the moment and with a 1080p screen I cant justify more hp.
Have to see what star citizen needs before making any investments.

on that note, anyone having a 32" screen on your desk?
Is it obscene or can you get used to it?
Im mildly curious on getting an Benq 3200PT

C

Originally Posted by Crilloan
running crossfire 7950 at the moment and with a 1080p screen I cant justify more hp.
Have to see what star citizen needs before making any investments.

on that note, anyone having a 32" screen on your desk?
Is it obscene or can you get used to it?
Im mildly curious on getting an Benq 3200PT

C

I'll be getting that exact monitor in the next couple of months.

My 27" monitor just died - and that wasn't too big at all.

Funny thing about screen size is that you (very) quickly adjust to it, and then you don't really notice much of a difference after a while. It's only when you go back to a smaller screen it gets really noticable.

Ironically, you can quickly adjust to a smaller screen as well.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'll be getting that exact monitor in the next couple of months.

My 27" monitor just died - and that wasn't too big at all.

Funny thing about screen size is that you (very) quickly adjust to it, and then you don't really notice much of a difference after a while. It's only when you go back to a smaller screen it gets really noticable.

Ironically, you can quickly adjust to a smaller screen as well.

I had planned to get it for myself for christmas and it seems like a good all around screen.

About screens sizes, youre probably right. I remember how huge my 19"CRT felt (and weight, at 25 kg…)
C

I've never played on any monitor bigger than 17 inch unless you count me using my tv once in a while and when the backlight of my laptop died….