Will there ever be a halt in Graphics progression?

[Deleted]

Just wondering if there ever will be a time where graphics are high enough so we don't need to upgrade our PC specs to match the game system requirements anymore.

[Immitis]

eventually robit people will look more real then we do

[YuneKirby]

Seems possible, but won't happen anytime soon. Current hardware has a long way to go.

[stellvia]

Probably, but I don't think that's likely for at least another 10-20 years. With UltraHD and new games like Star Citizen offering 4K resolution/textures, we're approaching photo-realism. We have a ways to go as far as number of those items on the screen at once is concerned, and character models can still have a bit of that uncanny valley going on. After that IMHO is pushing a higher framerate, and I assume lower power consumption will come into play. PCs also haven't been pushing any boundaries in graphics since Crysis1 came out. Been very small gains IMHO. That seems to be about to change though, as I mentioned Star Citizen, and there is EQnext with that voxel engine, etc.

The issue is, the difference between close and all the way there, is an exponential amount of processing power.

[Fencers]

No. Graphics will always continue to progress.

There are stopgaps in manufacturing, however. This is a matter of thermal management though. Which is also solved progressively in varying ways over time. But that is where the real bottleneck exists for current methodology based on digital transistors.

It is very likely that in the future we will not use the method of computation currently that is based CPU and array circuits. But that's kind of a long complicated thing to described accurately within the context of this thread.

The short of it is thus: Graphics will only ever get better, it will never stop. There will be gaps where the quality difference though present is almost unnoticeable until we can manufacture circuitry that handles heat better and better. Which we will. By the time we top out due to physical limitations you will be dead and the question moot.

[Deleted]

Probably, but I don't think that's likely for at least another 10-20 years. r.

So for 20 years I have to keep buying new parts for my PC, that's lame imo. It wouldn't bother me if the graphics nowadays stayed the same if that means I can keep my PC specs and not spend a fortune.

[Fencers]

They make consoles for people adverse to upgrade cycles and ala carte gaming. To desire to play on PC is implicitly to want to upgrade per usage. Desire otherwise is illogical and irrational to the market and physical reality of personal computing and video games.

[stellvia]

So for 20 years I have to keep buying new parts for my PC, that's lame imo. It wouldn't bother me if the graphics nowadays stayed the same if that means I can keep my PC specs and not spend a fortune.

Yes and no. If you buy a good card (not top of the line), you can get away with not upgrading for a solid 3-4 years without feeling too pinched. That's why games offer settings to turn down graphics and certain intensive options. Then again, once you have a real job, a couple hundred dollars every few years for a new GPU really isn't a big deal.

We've been in a lull lately, so not a lot of upgrades have really been necessary. This spring will be 3 years with my Core-i7 3770K for example, and there still won't really be any reason to upgrade it. Their newer offerings are only like 15% better atm, and the new gen CPUs they're finally releasing in spring are a decent upgrade finally, but still only amounts to like 35% better. Yet the 3770K still chews up pretty much anything really well.

[Remilia]

Depends on how you want to go about it.
You have to remember there are different graphical styles.
More stylized with cell shading requires less power and pushing it further would yield you nearly nothing.
If we're talking about as realistic as possible, not for a long time. Perceptually there can be a point in which you most likely won't notice a difference.

Now in terms of system requirement, there are many factors. The obvious being CPU and GPU.
Games can progress to become very heavily object orientated. This makes it more burdening for the CPU and thus requires better IPC. This becomes nothing related to graphics.
Increase in resolution would increase burden on the GPU and since we're already progressing to 5120x2880 monitors (5k), the more powerful GPU will be needed.

Whether the current trend of computer displays stay the same or progresses. Current 'standard' in that term is sRGB color gamut and 8bit color channel. More monitors are gaining 8bit+FRC (10bit support) which if games can take more advantage of it does allow for some better color accuracy and display. Increased color gamut passed sRGB would also be great instead of coming off as oversaturation on monitors with it. The aforementioned however will mean more information would need to be sent to the display and processed.

GPU tech becoming more and more efficient with Maxwell architecture coming down massively in TDP while also being better performing than the predecessor Kepler is great.
AMD's rumored next R9 380X/390X is following that trend. Great for some consumers in able to take advantage of SLI/Crossfire without investing in massive PSUs.

Input more technical garble here cause i forget stuff.

[Az0na]

The day we can stop upgrading our hardware is the day everything runs as smooth and detailed as real life, that not gonna happen anytime soon and wonder if we even want to go that far.

[Nachturnal]

They make consoles for people adverse to upgrade cycles and ala carte gaming. To desire to play on PC is implicitly to want to upgrade per usage. Desire otherwise is illogical and irrational to the market and physical reality of personal computing and video games.

I wholeheartedly agree wit this statement. If you're going to stick to PC gaming, then you're fully aware that upgrading hardware, especially graphics cards, is par for the course.

I don't know about everyone else, but I very much enjoy and look forward to upgrading hardware. As for whether we'll reach a graphics level that will be tough to surpass? Definitely, but I believe the time for that will not be any time soon.

[Cattleya]

Not until we get our fully-functional virtual reality and holo-decks. So, no, not in this lifetime, if ever.

[Yunru]

Well it gets more expensive too make games with better grafic (and also time consuming). They will have to stop at one point.
Right now its *grafic grafic grafic* , in few new years its gona be *gameplay gameplay*.

Think of a computer like a evolution of a car. We still dont have flying cars....but thats because it would be too expensive and not worth it for companys to do it.

[Remilia]

Think of a computer like a evolution of a car. We still dont have flying cars....but thats because it would be too expensive and not worth it for companys to do it.

I think for this one in particular that has a lot to do with logistics, >.>

[Dastreus]

I am frankly surprised they've upped the graphics as much as they have on a 2002 engine.

[mittacc]

You will still have to upgrade for better physics! CAn't leave out God's particle and gamma radiation, can we?

[stellvia]

Because it's not really the same engine anymore (I assume you're talking about WoW). They've added a lot to it over the years. Much like "Unreal Engine" has had many iterations.

IE: My first laptop got 90fps doing 40man raiding in MC, and still had like 60fps doing Naxx40. By the time Wrath and Naxx25 came out, even on lowest settings I would lag out during a number of fights, despite it being the same dungeon and 15 less people ostensibly.

[Fencers]

I think for this one in particular that has a lot to do with logistics, >.>

Also physics. A Cadillac is pretty terrible as a flying vehicle.

I mean we already can make very good flying vehicles. Like pretty damn good ones. We call them airplanes. XD

[apepi]

Eh...I do think we will hit the 'magical' resolution number where we can't tell the difference and will hit diminishing returns on it and it will just be a number. Maybe one day it will happen, but maybe some other advancements will put more pressure on our computers, like vr.

I do think we are coming closer and closer from lessening the gap from mobile and desktop computers more and more, there is not too much difference from a 980m and a 980, a 980m is like 75% of a 980.

[Halicia]

Eh...I do think we will hit the 'magical' resolution number where we can't tell the difference and will hit diminishing returns on it and it will just be a number.

To be fair, I think long before we hit the point where 'we cant tell the difference', we'll hit the point where development time/costs on these sorts of graphics will prevent developers from using them to their full potential.