Thoughts?

[Paul Rudd]

Be sure to watch the entire video.

[Bombastinator]

27 minutes long.. 

[Paul Rudd]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

27 minutes long..

28. It's less than watching a sitcom. It's weird hearing them saying things like, "if you're a hardcore gamer, you want the frame rate". Yet, in 2001, the frame rate was horrendous compared to now.

[Bombastinator]

Still nearly a half hour.

[Paul Rudd]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Still nearly a half hour.

Just think, you've spent a fifth of that telling me how long the video is. Could already be a fifth of the way through.

 

22:00 mark: 3DMark 2001 getting 20 fps.

 

23:40 mark: My god listen and look at what this "top-of-the-line" laptop is all about. $4000+ retail price. I just bought a brand new 2019 Windows 10 Pro 14" 1080p laptop for just $130 that is way better than that thing. Oh how times have changed. No wonder nobody gamed on PC back then like we do now. People didn't have $4000 to burn back then.

[KarathKasun]

38 minutes ago, Intransigent said:

Just think, you've spent a fifth of that telling me how long the video is. Could already be a fifth of the way through.

 

22:00 mark: 3DMark 2001 getting 20 fps.

 

23:40 mark: My god listen and look at what this "top-of-the-line" laptop is all about. $4000+ retail price. I just bought a brand new 2019 Windows 10 Pro 14" 1080p laptop for just $130 that is way better than that thing. Oh how times have changed. No wonder nobody gamed on PC back then like we do now. People didn't have $4000 to burn back then.

What of it?  People had the money, the dot com bubble was still kinda going.

 

Go back to the 80s or 90s.  There were $50k workstations that any modern computing device destroys.  Just think about that for a moment, there were workstations that cost ~3x a family car of the era.

 

As for performance, the increase over time is exponential.  We are at thousands of times the number of transistors now.

[jones177]

In 2001 my hardware was the equivalent to what I have now but MS Flight Simulator with added content ran at 20fps at best. If a new graphics card or CPU gave me 3fps it was a win.

 

A few yours before I switched my 3D business from workstations to gaming computers because of their power to price pointpoint. The price difference was staggering but the performance was not.  If I needed more rending power I would buy more gaming computers.

 

The price of laptops have gone down but the prices I have payed for gaming PCs have not changed since 1993.

 

20 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

What of it?  People had the money, the dot com bubble was still kinda going.

 

Go back to the 80s or 90s.  There were $50k workstations that any modern computing device destroys.  Just think about that for a moment, there were workstations that cost ~3x a family car of the era.

 

As for performance, the increase over time is exponential.  We are at thousands of times the number of transistors now.

The importance to me was with the $15,000 to $21,000 workstations I used in the early 90s were replaced by gaming PCs that ranged between $1,500 to $2,500. That was the difference of the computers paying for themselves(sometimes) to them also paying for me. 

 

The computers I used back then rendered to double the output of the NTSC standard. The computers I used in 2018 did the same. So 640 X 480(plus overscan) vs 8k.

Times per frame stayed about the same, only the resolution and complexity of the scenes had changed.   

 

[Paul Rudd]

10 hours ago, jones177 said:

If a new graphics card or CPU gave me 3fps it was a win. If I needed more rending power I would buy more gaming computers. The price of laptops have gone down but the prices I have payed for gaming PCs have not changed since 1993.

Crazy.

[Soag]

I think by "the price hasn't changed' he means he's still using it. Or that you still pay x amount of money for a gaming PC, though I think that one is an exagerration.

 

My thoughts on the video.

• A whole episode of advertisments. Just slightly more 'edible' format than real advertisments.
• GPU marketing hasn't changed one bit: still showing clients that new thing which can do plenty of stuff yet none of that is really available on the market (looking at you, RTX)]
• 5.1 for gaming can be considered a real miss for the audio industry. Grand majority uses headphones, used regular 2.0 or 2.1 at max in the past (and even now) and rarely any gamer buys anything over MOBO soundcard unless he's an audiophine or works with the sound as well..
• P4 was sold as new era, yet they showed a game which my Celeron 800 ran just fine on with twice less computing power and the fps percentage gain (at the time) was laughable.

It seems not much has changed in the way 'the market' is working. If not for high minimum requirements games tend to have right now - at least AAA titles - and the fact I built my PC to last for years, I wouldn't have bought as expensive machine as I own and the general rule is not to, although it has its pros for sure.