Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_Rahl
More cards don't make a game better. Games needing so much cards to be fun to play, can not be called "good" at all. Whatever stuff nvidia/amd come with, it is all going towards a dead end. Unlike most of you, I am in the opinion that current (and future) developments are not that good at all.
I mean, those developments are not really to make games (look) better, but to make it possible to run them. Just think of Crysis, and you get my point. Developers should program efficiently again, and not only in case of games. Needing a P4 to be able work with Word (in 2000/XP) or a dual core to check your e-mail (in Vista), is not as things should be. And if the software is "all right", hardware manufacturers do not have to do all that tricks they are doing, to get sufficient performance. Instead they could, for example, try to get better performance/watt ratios. That would be a desireable development!
|
Well I must agree at least in the case of crysis that game is so poorly optimized "it doesn't benefit from multicore systems as they said it would neither does it utilize sse" it shouldn't be used to benchmark in any sense.
And no doubt programmers have become lazy in the ingenuity department counting too much into hardwares ability to stretch the way its been utilized now but the industry doesn't and shouldn't count on some miracle revolutions so they keep on building faster architectures based on the "tricks" programmers are used to, does allowing things to move forward.
Though lately its become very clear we could be close to that architectural limit with all these dual gpu garbage designs so John carmack! if your reading this we are counting on you to come up with new exiting gimmicks! XD