In your opinion, is this what you think an average mid-high end gaming PC will be like in, say, 2015?
Intel Ivy Bridge processor
32gb RAM
x2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 880
8tb HDD
1tb SSD
1000W PSU
Blu-Ray Drive (with games that come on Blu-Ray, if discs are still around, but I don't think retailers will let them phase out)
1920x1080 monitor
some odd input device in addition to the mouse/keyboard
1gb/s internet
I was just curious, and I think that this is a pretty good prediction. What about you?
Next-Gen Gaming PC?
1920x1080 monitor
Why restrict your speculation to decade-old technology, especially when there's already a host of gaming machines (iPads, iPhones, etc) with better than 96 dpi tech?
At least 3840x2160 if you need to reproduce the native resolution of WWII-era entertainment tech, maybe in a nice 32" form factor. For your first monitor. The second and third can be the same.
In your opinion, is this what you think an average mid-high end gaming PC will be like in, say, 2015?
Intel Ivy Bridge processor
This is pessimistic.
32gb RAM[/quote]
This is pessimistic.
x2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 880[/quote]
This is very pessimistic. (Wait, are you just assuming they'll keep using the naming convention they have been? Because I guess that's also optimistic)
Blu-Ray Drive (with games that come on Blu-Ray, if discs are still around, but I don't think retailers will let them phase out)[/quote]
This is optimistic. (Although only because I think optical drives will be even more rare on computers at that point)
1920x1080 monitor[/quote]
This is absurdly pessimistic.
some odd input device in addition to the mouse/keyboard[/quote]
This is optimistic.
1gb/s internet[/quote]
This is probably optimistic.
Frankly for game PLAYING above 8gig isn't going to be all that useful; there is after all a limit to the amount of memory you can touch in a frame.
CPU wise; Haswell is coming soon so Ivy Bridge already has its replacement.
Powerwise; power consumption is going down/staying level rather than climbing
GPU wise; SLI/Crossfire is not 'average' so forget that.
Optical media is already on the way out.
CPU wise; Haswell is coming soon so Ivy Bridge already has its replacement.
Powerwise; power consumption is going down/staying level rather than climbing
GPU wise; SLI/Crossfire is not 'average' so forget that.
Optical media is already on the way out.
That's what I thought. 1000w PSUs for reasonable high end PCs? That's a disaster.
No single PC with one CPU and two GPUs should require 1Kw to function, that said, there are times in CPU/GPU development history when some architectures dont scale well enough and for the required increase in performance, a heavy hit to power consumption is made. ie, Pentium 4s, Bulldozers arent that good either, nVidia FX5xxx series, nVidia went along the high power consumption wagon for a long time with GF8xxx series, GTX2xxx series, first fermi chips, and AMD had their fair share of power beasts before the HD4xxx series came along, and today HD7xxx series does fairly worse than nVidias GTX6xx in power consumption.
You can buy a GTX680 that has twice the performance of my GTX560, yet its consumption is roughly the same. Sandy bridge and Ivy bridge CPUs are very, very power efficient given their performance, and Intel plans to make Haswell scale up in power consumption from mobile segments to high end server stuff.
1Kw as a "common thing" it'd be very bad imo.
No single PC with one CPU and two GPUs should require 1Kw to function, that said, there are times in CPU/GPU development history when some architectures dont scale well enough and for the required increase in performance, a heavy hit to power consumption is made. ie, Pentium 4s, Bulldozers arent that good either, nVidia FX5xxx series, nVidia went along the high power consumption wagon for a long time with GF8xxx series, GTX2xxx series, first fermi chips, and AMD had their fair share of power beasts before the HD4xxx series came along, and today HD7xxx series does fairly worse than nVidias GTX6xx in power consumption.
You can buy a GTX680 that has twice the performance of my GTX560, yet its consumption is roughly the same. Sandy bridge and Ivy bridge CPUs are very, very power efficient given their performance, and Intel plans to make Haswell scale up in power consumption from mobile segments to high end server stuff.
1Kw as a "common thing" it'd be very bad imo.
Frankly for game PLAYING above 8gig isn't going to be all that useful; there is after all a limit to the amount of memory you can touch in a frame.
Isn't it less a question of needing everything in a single frame and more a question of not knowing what you'll need in the next frame? Being able to have larger chunks of game stay in memory for longer seems like a useful thing to me. Besides, increasing the amount of RAM over time is generally comparatively cost effective, so frankly I'd be disappointed if people didn't find some way to make it "useful."
2015 hmm.. three years away that's two periods of 18 months according to Moores law assuming the current top of the line has a 6 core i7 and 16 gb of ram it would be more like this: 24 core processor, 64gb of ram, 8 tb hard drive, 1 tb ssd. So you were right on with the HDD and SSD but try doubling your ram again. As for 64 cores I think the doubling of transistors will go into something more important like a new instruction set similar to SSE.
In Australia, the National Broadband Network (optic fibre) is rolling out now that will provide fibre plans based on 12/1 Mbps or 25/5 Mbps and there are high-range plans giving at least up to 100/40 Mbps. And it isn't expected to be complete before 2015. So I think 1Gbps is way too high. These things take many years to develop and deploy. And you'll find that internet speeds will be staggered over time and across nations rather than gradually improving. Note that I currently have 8.5 Mbps (Our national average is 4.9 Mbps). I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
Author
I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
But Korea is so small, so that really isn't a fair comparison.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
