Noctua_Boy

SEGA SATURN

This is not telling the dev to run the game the game at x frames and Y resolution.This is for them to invest more time on a set of hardware , for their and our benefit. No one is Limiting anything , they can do whatever they want.

You would get better results in speeding more time optimizing for a specific set of hardware rather than spiriting it between multiple scenarios. Have a standard would make it easier for gamers and devs to develop games that would run better. Im not suggesting games to run at 4k , Im suggesting aspects such as high end physics and particle effects which can be accounted for if certain hardware set is available. Many devs shy away from it because how differnt it is to archive such results from either Nvidia or AMD hardware. Lets get close to the metal has we can , sort of like a console. Obviously people will more powerful hardware will always have enough horse power to run all that even if this not has optimized.

But no E sport is exactly pushing any technical feats like Crysis did. This is about pushing the latest Software feats on a balance way on humble hardware.

yeah , sort of. But my main focus is on the mainstream Mid range Hardware. Direct X 12 and Vulkan are pretty awesome , it would be even better if they focus more on a set of hardware. For exaple , Physics and particle effects are neglected on mainstream hardware because they have to think about all the possible scenarios , so it ends up has not being a priority in gaming. For example on GOD of War for the PS4 , it has amazing particle effects rendered by the GPU , pretty sure those were done focusing on the radeon architecture in specific. (Not that Nvidia or Intel cant do the same effects)

Still more powerfull hardware and it will run the game on higher settings. At the moment there is a massive discrepancy between High and Ultra settings , thats because devs do focus on the former. Same thing with SLI , it should in theory give you double the performance , but lack of optimization or even integration sorta killed that tech. (on mainstream level)

The GPU choice was based on steam surveys where most people have gtx 1060 gpus. The CPU isnt exactly midrange , it has quad cores but less cache than the midrange zen 5. AMD seems to offer the best bang for the buck in terms of CPU. The Ram is again based on steam surveys...most people have 8GB.

Obviously there is operating systems running , this require resources , processor and ram. x86 is the base architecture true , but the CPUs still perform differently , e.g Amd performs better with faster ram and is better on multitread scenarios. (same physical cores comparison). Not to mention that by knowing the limitations of specific processor you could optimize the game on a different way. Yes iam asking for someone to step down , this would increase competition on the midrange even more. Every 3 years a new architecture would be chosen. You can still run the game on other hardware like you always been able to.

Im not suggesting for the studios to only make the game run on that set of hardware , but simply to allocate more budget/time to optimize for it.

No , its just means better focus on one set of hardware. It can get as close to console gaming as the studio wants to.

I never said it was just for gaming. Its a Pc running Windows , you can do whatever you want with it. Parts soldered into a board or bought into massive quantities cant reduce costs witch can be passed down to customers as cheaper gaming machines.

Furthermore , it could give rise to more compact machine behind made with this specs , which would further reduce the price. Making PC gaming more affordable.

Dude , we all know that.nothing will beat devs working on a set spec such as a console. The point of it is to dedicate more optimization budget/time for a specific hardware set that is standard for 3 years. Look at the difference between a standard gtx 1060 and a gtx 1060 6gb. For example Ultra Settings feel very badly optimized because its not something the majority of consoles can even do , but high settings feels pretty solid , because its closer to what consoles do. The point of it is to get more bang for our buck when we buy PC hardware and to make devs lifes a bit easier. T

16GB of ram is very expensive. I reckon 8GB is enough for a mid range scenario 1080p/1440p. It would be cool if ram prices returned to normal trough.

Wouldn't it be cool if PC games were as optimized as the consoles versions? Milking every once of performance out of the hardware... The Steam machines failed , because there was way too many specs for devs to focus on.. What if there was a standard of PC hardware specs that every dev would focus on? A standard that would be considered Mid Range and was renewed every 3 years or so? What if all you had to do was fire up the game and select the focused standard of which devs spent a long amount of time milking every once of performance? 2018 Ryzen 3 8GB of ram Geforce 1060.