One thing that most people don't think about, is that, at some point, not too far away in the future, we will have finally reached realism. At that point, what more will we need?.....When we can have a computer generated game, or real time movie at 1920 x 1200p that can't be distinguished from a hi def movie, then we will have reached pretty much "The End". I suppose some wags will want to go to 2560 x 1600, or even further, but we won't see large screen displays in that rez for a while, and by the time we do, the boards will do that as well.........
Nope, you're thinking old skool, mel, establishing a film-print photorealistic visual effect as the endpoint for video game experience.
Next stage, let's not forget my friends (as geeks we must keep it in mind..!) Do not be fooled by getting 100,000fps @ 2560x1600 with a 128-core nVidia GPU @ 100ghz and all that...!
Immersive Virtual Reality. THAT, my friends, is the next stage. Star Trek Next Gen's "Holodeck" as the high benchmark. THAT, is what comes next.
Yes, I thought of that when I was finishing my post. But that is a completely different technology, so I wasn't getting into it.
Actually, about five years ago Mercedes asked me to make a holographic display of a car that was actual size, and that you could walk into. I told them to come back to me in fifteen years.
Too bad the Holodeck is impossible. The closest we can come to that is direct brain stimulation, if it is ever possible to build one complex enough, once we (hopefully) learn sufficiently about the brain to do it.
Heh. There's "hardware enthusiast" sites which yeah, give you a heart attack at first, then there's the "extreme overclocking" sites which are only for those WWAAAYY too into their frames-per-second. And not to mention the forums section on those sites, and the "special news" about overclocking achievements: "OMFG I reached XXXXXghz by liquid nitrogen cooling down to -60deg C and super Pi ran XXXXXsecs OMFG I RULZ!!!!!111oneo!!!one"
When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile
I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..
PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?
I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.
Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"
Of course, the 1900 cards are not there. As the 1900 outruns the 1800 series by 25 to 40%, the chart isn't all that accurate, as it's outdated.
Well, interesting times ahead. With the new edu iMac (dual core), one would obviously say that the Power Mac replacement is going to be a 3/3 or at least 2/3 quad line.
Excellent point.
Everything is dual core, so the PrOtowars11111froooood shall be...more.
Historically. (until recently) Mac's were considered the graphic app users platform of choice.
Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.
Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
I would contend that for web design level creative/ production/ coding work Intel Integrated Graphics is sufficient.
Someone posted a link on Video work, cool.
As for print design with massive InDesign, Quark, or Illustrator files, I can't comment on how Intel Integrated holds up in those cases.
As for the gaming issue, it simply comes up because Apple has had a tendency to have very decent CPUs, but generally "dismal by PC/Console gamer standards" GPUs required to run the latest games.
The x1600 128mb vram in the iMac and MacBookPro [256mb vram in MBP 17"] is a good example. It would do well in general web, print and video work, definitely. But please be under no illusions when it comes to booting into Windows and playing the latest games. Or Mac games in OSX. The x1600 (Note: NOT the X1600 XT), certainly in it's underclocked state in iMac and MBP, is considered "midrange mainstream" and plays the latest PC games at "medium" settings in 2006. In 2007 this will slide a bit to playing PC games at "medium-to-lower" settings.
Then suffice to say that Intel Integrated, you can forget about playing any games except for older 3D games at medium settings, and only newer puzzle-type Mac games.
[CPUs and GPUs in overall system performance...] they tend to go hand in hand. If one gets too far ahead of the other, the system gets bogged down...
Precisely why GPU and CPU specs should be considered collectively when looking at various Macs, just as you would look at Hard Disk speed/space and effects of 512mb-2/4gb/etc of RAM.
In motion, it's virtually unnoticeable, and you could just slap some 16x FSAA on, and it would fix itself.
I'm gonna be an a$$ here Placebo and say that PC/Console gamers are used to a certain "aesthetic" and enjoy the look and progress in better visuals over the past few years.
But film VFX people have a different "photorealistic/ cinematic-wow-factor" view of things. 16x FSAA is a probable first step in that screenshot, next is the texture of the wooden boxes being a bit higher-res, a bit more polygons, and a bit more realistic.
I would even contend that some of the water-splashing effects in Xmen3, eg. Bridge Sequence (which was stunning in general) were slightly not-that-superb. Poseidon's opening sequence was a tour-de-force of VFX IMO. And their water effects was quite spot-on.
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
Didn't think so?
;^p
I would. Most of the time I'm in Photoshop or Illustrator. Up until a couple of years ago I was using a G3 with 8MB Rage128. It makes very little difference.
Unless Adobe start adding Core Graphics real time rendering to Photoshop, the GPU is pretty irrelevant. A fast blitter and decent 2D line drawing is pretty much all the card has to do.
I think we should make it pretty clear here again. When it comes to 2D graphics, the card isn't under any strain at all. Even a modern IG chip will have no problem, unless you're talking 2560 x 1600. But, if you are, why are you then using a machine with an IG chip anyway?
I think we should make it pretty clear here again. When it comes to 2D graphics, the card isn't under any strain at all. Even a modern IG chip will have no problem, unless you're talking 2560 x 1600. But, if you are, why are you then using a machine with an IG chip anyway?
It's 3D apps that need these powerful cards.
It's properly designed 2D apps that can benefit heftily from these cards. Have you ever played around in Core Image Funhouse with a 9800 or better graphics card? Compared to performing the same blurs and distortions in Photoshop or Fireworks, it's ridiculously fast. Literally as fast as you can drag the blur slider.
No point to it. The performance of a low voltage Woodcrest would be below that of a regular Conroe, and possibly that of the Merom as well, and the only other advantage is that it supports SMP, which Conroe doesn't. So, unless Apple plans to have a dual socket iMac, which would be VERY nice, but unlikely, at least, at this time, there would be no reason to use it.
unless there is a chance of the infamous 23 inch pro-ish iMac surfacing...
It's properly designed 2D apps that can benefit heftily from these cards. Have you ever played around in Core Image Funhouse with a 9800 or better graphics card? Compared to performing the same blurs and distortions in Photoshop or Fireworks, it's ridiculously fast. Literally as fast as you can drag the blur slider.
ummm...PS blurs are as fast as I can drag the slider when the system has a gig of ram or more unless you are working on a super hi res image (say 4MP+) what res were you using to do your comparison? same image in the same res in both?
I know CI is faster but you are talking about a blur, I havent seen PS choak on a blur since v6 if the image is less than like 1600.1200.
Comments
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
One thing that most people don't think about, is that, at some point, not too far away in the future, we will have finally reached realism. At that point, what more will we need?.....When we can have a computer generated game, or real time movie at 1920 x 1200p that can't be distinguished from a hi def movie, then we will have reached pretty much "The End". I suppose some wags will want to go to 2560 x 1600, or even further, but we won't see large screen displays in that rez for a while, and by the time we do, the boards will do that as well.........
Nope, you're thinking old skool, mel, establishing a film-print photorealistic visual effect as the endpoint for video game experience.
Next stage, let's not forget my friends (as geeks we must keep it in mind..!) Do not be fooled by getting 100,000fps @ 2560x1600 with a 128-core nVidia GPU @ 100ghz and all that...!
Immersive Virtual Reality. THAT, my friends, is the next stage. Star Trek Next Gen's "Holodeck" as the high benchmark. THAT, is what comes next.
Yes, I thought of that when I was finishing my post. But that is a completely different technology, so I wasn't getting into it.
Actually, about five years ago Mercedes asked me to make a holographic display of a car that was actual size, and that you could walk into. I told them to come back to me in fifteen years.
Too bad the Holodeck is impossible. The closest we can come to that is direct brain stimulation, if it is ever possible to build one complex enough, once we (hopefully) learn sufficiently about the brain to do it.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Heh. There's "hardware enthusiast" sites which yeah, give you a heart attack at first, then there's the "extreme overclocking" sites which are only for those WWAAAYY too into their frames-per-second. And not to mention the forums section on those sites, and the "special news" about overclocking achievements: "OMFG I reached XXXXXghz by liquid nitrogen cooling down to -60deg C and super Pi ran XXXXXsecs OMFG I RULZ!!!!!111oneo!!!one"
When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile
I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies
Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..
PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?
I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.
Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"
Of course, the 1900 cards are not there. As the 1900 outruns the 1800 series by 25 to 40%, the chart isn't all that accurate, as it's outdated.
Originally posted by PB
Well, interesting times ahead. With the new edu iMac (dual core), one would obviously say that the Power Mac replacement is going to be a 3/3 or at least 2/3 quad line.
Excellent point.
Everything is dual core, so the PrOtowars11111froooood shall be...more.
Originally posted by wwwork
why do processor threads always turn into video cards threads?
Gamers. Bloody obsessed!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Gamers. Bloody obsessed!
Historically. (until recently) Mac's were considered the graphic app users platform of choice.
So when we get going on graphics it's not necessarily about games. It;'s about the way we prefer our hardware. Smokin fast...
Originally posted by wwwork
why do processor threads always turn into video cards threads?
You need a faster cpu to feed a faster gpu, so they tend to go hand in hand. If one gets too far ahead of the other, the system gets bogged down.
That's assuming the pipes have enough bandwidth.
Originally posted by onlooker
Historically. (until recently) Mac's were considered the graphic app users platform of choice.
Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.
Originally posted by Placebo
Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
Didn't think so?
;^p
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
Didn't think so?
;^p
I'll call that a bad argument.
In fact, Integrated Graphics is NOT a restraint for this type of program. Here's a test that compares the MB with MBP using parts of Final Cut Studio:
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717
Most of the differences are pretty minor.
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!
No, it means you can't read.
Someone posted a link on Video work, cool.
As for print design with massive InDesign, Quark, or Illustrator files, I can't comment on how Intel Integrated holds up in those cases.
As for the gaming issue, it simply comes up because Apple has had a tendency to have very decent CPUs, but generally "dismal by PC/Console gamer standards" GPUs required to run the latest games.
The x1600 128mb vram in the iMac and MacBookPro [256mb vram in MBP 17"] is a good example. It would do well in general web, print and video work, definitely. But please be under no illusions when it comes to booting into Windows and playing the latest games. Or Mac games in OSX. The x1600 (Note: NOT the X1600 XT), certainly in it's underclocked state in iMac and MBP, is considered "midrange mainstream" and plays the latest PC games at "medium" settings in 2006. In 2007 this will slide a bit to playing PC games at "medium-to-lower" settings.
Then suffice to say that Intel Integrated, you can forget about playing any games except for older 3D games at medium settings, and only newer puzzle-type Mac games.
[CPUs and GPUs in overall system performance...] they tend to go hand in hand. If one gets too far ahead of the other, the system gets bogged down...
Precisely why GPU and CPU specs should be considered collectively when looking at various Macs, just as you would look at Hard Disk speed/space and effects of 512mb-2/4gb/etc of RAM.
In motion, it's virtually unnoticeable, and you could just slap some 16x FSAA on, and it would fix itself.
I'm gonna be an a$$ here Placebo and say that PC/Console gamers are used to a certain "aesthetic" and enjoy the look and progress in better visuals over the past few years.
But film VFX people have a different "photorealistic/ cinematic-wow-factor" view of things. 16x FSAA is a probable first step in that screenshot, next is the texture of the wooden boxes being a bit higher-res, a bit more polygons, and a bit more realistic.
I would even contend that some of the water-splashing effects in Xmen3, eg. Bridge Sequence (which was stunning in general) were slightly not-that-superb. Poseidon's opening sequence was a tour-de-force of VFX IMO. And their water effects was quite spot-on.
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
Didn't think so?
;^p
I would. Most of the time I'm in Photoshop or Illustrator. Up until a couple of years ago I was using a G3 with 8MB Rage128. It makes very little difference.
Unless Adobe start adding Core Graphics real time rendering to Photoshop, the GPU is pretty irrelevant. A fast blitter and decent 2D line drawing is pretty much all the card has to do.
It's 3D apps that need these powerful cards.
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM??!?
Didn't think so?
;^p
Maybe not for OS X, where there's more transparency calculation going on in the GUI than inside the actual Photoshop document you're working on.
Originally posted by melgross
I think we should make it pretty clear here again. When it comes to 2D graphics, the card isn't under any strain at all. Even a modern IG chip will have no problem, unless you're talking 2560 x 1600. But, if you are, why are you then using a machine with an IG chip anyway?
It's 3D apps that need these powerful cards.
It's properly designed 2D apps that can benefit heftily from these cards. Have you ever played around in Core Image Funhouse with a 9800 or better graphics card? Compared to performing the same blurs and distortions in Photoshop or Fireworks, it's ridiculously fast. Literally as fast as you can drag the blur slider.
Originally posted by melgross
No point to it. The performance of a low voltage Woodcrest would be below that of a regular Conroe, and possibly that of the Merom as well, and the only other advantage is that it supports SMP, which Conroe doesn't. So, unless Apple plans to have a dual socket iMac, which would be VERY nice, but unlikely, at least, at this time, there would be no reason to use it.
unless there is a chance of the infamous 23 inch pro-ish iMac surfacing...
Originally posted by Placebo
It's properly designed 2D apps that can benefit heftily from these cards. Have you ever played around in Core Image Funhouse with a 9800 or better graphics card? Compared to performing the same blurs and distortions in Photoshop or Fireworks, it's ridiculously fast. Literally as fast as you can drag the blur slider.
ummm...PS blurs are as fast as I can drag the slider when the system has a gig of ram or more unless you are working on a super hi res image (say 4MP+) what res were you using to do your comparison? same image in the same res in both?
I know CI is faster but you are talking about a blur, I havent seen PS choak on a blur since v6 if the image is less than like 1600.1200.