PC gaming change focus just to APUs and Laptops? We should stop thinking of GPU's as gaming hardware. Change my mind.

[Uttamattamakin]

Here are the facts: 

• Most PC users of any kind just have one laptop. 
• That laptop has a smallish screen which is used at arms length.  Where it is a mathematical fact that 4k resolution will make no discernible difference. 
• Those PC's all use either a Ryzen APU or intel graphics or have a discrete but mobile GPU which performs just a little better than an APU. 
• Most of the rest buy prebuilt from major names. 

The above are statements of fact.   Below here is an opinion. 

I have gamed under linux on a Ryzen 3200G.  At 720p the game was Total War Shogun 2.  It was ... acceptable.   The Low Spec gamer has done videos about this.  ETA Prime has done videos about this.   Even LTT has gamed on small form factor devices and found it acceptable.    Unless one is going to use a GPU for a revenue generating activity it is just not necessary to have one.    It is not even that much nicer to have one.  They also add a great deal of complexity and cost to building your own computer for little functional benefit.    Everything you can do on a PC with a good APU can be done on one with a GPU.  The GPU will make it more visually pleasing but at the cost of a whole computer.  (One can build a whole computer for less than 500 dollars.)   This is not even accounting for the inflated scalper price. 

 

Therefore: Gamers as a group should just forget about buying graphics cards.  Don't even pay them any mind until they are once again a reasonable price for a mere part of a computer.   Especially considering that one can get integrated graphics in a 250 or even 500 dollar APU... that will also be your CPU.   They aren't for you anymore and you do not need them. 

 

I'll still want one for using CUDA to do my scientific work, which pays me,  and may even go Quadro to get one with the VRAM needed to crunch a lot of data.  Just for gaming and for the average gamer it is not worth the money or the hassles.  

Change my mind. How am I wrong given what we have just witnessed today?  

[Kilrah]

.....no.

Playing at 720p on a laptop screen isn't an experience for many.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

.....no.

Playing at 720p on a laptop screen isn't an experience for many.

Your argument?  Your alternative?  The only ones I see are to focus on the APU OR game streaming from data centers that have the GPU's. 

 

On a 14 -15 inch screen held at arms length most human eyes cannot discern any difference between 1080p and 4k.  720p gives a good frame rate for FPS games 1080p gives all the detail most need on a laptop. 

Plus those resolutions are possible given the hardware that actually exist for ordinary people. 

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

Here are the facts: 

• Most PC users of any kind just have one laptop. 
• That laptop has a smallish screen which is used at arms length.  Where it is a mathematical fact that 4k resolution will make no discernible difference. 
• Those PC's all use either a Ryzen APU or intel graphics or have a discrete but mobile GPU which performs just a little better than an APU. 
• Most of the rest buy prebuilt from major names. 

 

• Probably
• There's still a lot of 17" laptops floating around, plus even on 13" if you have good enough eyesight to handle smaller scaling, higher resolutions mean more usable real estate (sure something as high as 4K isn't practical, but it is not a statement of fact that it is indiscernible)
• There are many mobile GPUs that perform far above the level of an APU, even a 2060 max-Q (common GPU in many gaming laptops I've seen) is far past what even Ryzen's good APUs can do
• Uh yeah... prebuilt desktops? With desktop GPUs in them?

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I have gamed under linux on a Ryzen 3200G.  At 720p the game was Total War Shogun 2.  It was ... acceptable.   The Low Spec gamer has done videos about this.  ETA Prime has done videos about this.   Even LTT has gamed on small form factor devices and found it acceptable.    Unless one is going to use a GPU for a revenue generating activity it is just not necessary to have one.    It is not even that much nicer to have one.  They also add a great deal of complexity and cost to building your own computer for little functional benefit.    Everything you can do on a PC with a good APU can be done on one with a GPU.  The GPU will make it more visually pleasing but at the cost of a whole computer.  (One can build a whole computer for less than 500 dollars.)   This is not even accounting for the inflated scalper price. 

As you yourself said, all opinion. Graphics matter to a lot of people, even if they don't to you. 

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Therefore: Gamers as a group should just forget about buying graphics cards.  Don't even pay them any mind until they are once again a reasonable price for a mere part of a computer.   Especially considering that one can get integrated graphics in a 250 or even 500 dollar APU... that will also be your CPU.   

If they agree without your opinion on what matters in a gaming experience (most don't). 

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

They aren't for you anymore and you do not need them. 

Opinion.

 

It's all opinion with no actual facts to back any of it up. Even your "facts" at the beginning were mostly not facts. Or only parts of facts without the consideration of any of the broader context. 

It's fine to have something that's completely a subjective opinion, but if it doesn't instantly appeal to someone else, and you have no actual facts to reinforce it with, you may as well preach to a brick wall. 

[Spotty]

Buy a console instead.

[Elisis]

11 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It was ... acceptable

And just "acceptable" is not enough for many people

12 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Unless one is going to use a GPU for a revenue generating activity it is just not necessary to have one

There is nothing wrong with having more performance than what you consider acceptable. Why is it not necessary?

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

• Probably
• There's still a lot of 17" laptops floating around, plus even on 13" if you have good enough eyesight to handle smaller scaling, higher resolutions mean more usable real estate (sure something as high as 4K isn't practical, but it is not a statement of fact that it is indiscernible)
• There are many mobile GPUs that perform far above the level of an APU, even a 2060 max-Q (common GPU in many gaming laptops I've seen) is far past what even Ryzen's good APUs can do
• Uh yeah... prebuilt desktops? With desktop GPUs in them?

As you yourself said, all opinion. Graphics matter to a lot of people, even if they don't to you. 

If they agree without your opinion on what matters in a gaming experience (most don't). 

Opinion.

 

It's all opinion with no actual facts to back any of it up. Even your "facts" at the beginning were mostly not facts. Or only parts of facts without the consideration of any of the broader context. 

It's fine to have something that's completely a subjective opinion, but if it doesn't instantly appeal to someone else, and you have no actual facts to reinforce it with, you may as well preach to a brick wall. 

It's not a matter of eyesight.  I wear glasses that correct my vision to better than 20/10.  The issue with resolution and having more dots on the screen is the ... smallest angle you can discern between two dots.  It is called the angular resolution.  Smaller is better. 

 

Our eyes do not have the angular resolution to discern the different pixels on a screen of 15 or or less held at normal desk/lap to face length.   That's just mathematics. 

 

Pre built desktops with desktop GPU's can and do exist ... but compare to the cost and availability of say a Ryzen 7 4700U.  

[Vishera]

My $750 PC has better performance per dollar than any laptop out there.

My overclocked GTX 1660 beats a laptop RTX 2070 no problems,

My CPU is more powerful than any laptop CPU out there.

I can upgrade the GPU and CPU,add RAM without any problems.

I can overclock the CPU,RAM,GPU and more!

 

Try to beat that with a laptop.

[Elisis]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Our eyes do not have the angular resolution to discern the different pixels on a screen of 15 or or less held at normal desk/lap to face length.

This statement is just wrong, depending on the resolution. At around 2ft viewing difference on a 15" screen, you still need 1080p at a minimum to avoid seeing individual pixels. 

[Uttamattamakin]

6 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Buy a console instead.

To be totally honest this is probably the real answer for gaming.  These consoles using custom AMD silicon which is practically a Ryzen APU with Navi graphics and tons of air cooling, are good enough.  They are what most games will be written to run on anyway.  

 

5 minutes ago, Elisis said:

And just "acceptable" is not enough for many people

There is nothing wrong with having more performance than what you consider acceptable. Why is it not necessary?

Acceptable as in once I was just playing the game instead of trying to admire it .... the difference made no difference. 

[manikyath]

you're completely right... but you forget one major aspect:

 

- high end graphics cards push the bounds for what developers can do, so the overpriced halo products of today drive the innovation we see tomorrow.

- high end products contribute FAR mote to the R&D budget than low end products. sure your ryzen 3200G is awesome, sure a GTX1050 in a laptop with nvidia optimus is awesome, but the only reason they were possible to make amazing budget offerings is because of the amount of R&D dollars nvidia can swim in because of what titan RTX and quadro users pay for what is essentially the same base resource: a piece of fiberglass with a piece of silicon on top.

 

it's not about the "what most people have", but about the possibilities. getting R&D dollars from those who can pay for it, to develop technologies for those who cant.

 

also, i'd like to argue there's a difference between "playable" or "okay" and the experience one can get from a high end card. isnt there an argument to be made for "just because you can"?

 

in a different comparison.. having a car with 20 horsepower is enough, it gets you from A to B, it'll just barely squeeze in highway speeds, and it'll be a dang bit cheaper and more economical than a bigger engine.

BUT... i'd dare say most car owners will agree with me that even just an 80 horsepower turbo diesel is a far better driving experience, even though you will NEVER floor the throttle.

 

fun sidenote.. koenigsegg developed a new way of operating engine valves to get better horsepower per tonne ratios in their hypercars.. that same technology is now a few years old and having a huge boon for fuel efficiency on the tiny cars many of the chinese population are buying. it is in essence the car world's equivalent of proving your statement wrong: because those who really like going overkill on cars bought a hypercar, average joe (or rather.. average Tao) can now buy a car with a lighter engine, which in turn saves on fuel.

[The_russian]

Since you repeatedly stated that the list at the beginning are facts, what are your sources for each claim? 

 

Just because you don't feel it is worth it to spend more money to get a better experience, doesn't mean other people feel the same. This isn't exclusive to the PC market either. Take cars for example, some people are just fine buying whatever the cheapest car is at the time, whether it be a Kia, Hyundai, whatever, while others will want to spend more and get a BMW, Mercedes, etc.

 

 

Edit: Since you seem to like the phrase, I'll use it too: Change my mind. The list you provided are opinions, not facts.

Edited February 25, 2021 by The_russian

[Roswell]

If you can’t tell the difference between 4K and 1080p on a laptop you have vision issues.

[Elisis]

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Acceptable as in once I was just playing the game instead of trying to admire it .... the difference made no difference.

So something entirely opinionated and therefore something that shouldn't be used as evidence for your point.

[Zando_]

8 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It's not a matter of eyesight.  I wear glasses that correct my vision to better than 20/10.  The issue with resolution and having more dots on the screen is the ... smallest angle you can discern between two dots.  It is called the angular resolution.  Smaller is better. 

 

Our eyes do not have the angular resolution to discern the different pixels on a screen of 15 or or less held at normal desk/lap to face length.   That's just mathematics. 

You may have glasses to see really well but you still missed the point. Real estate. Aka scaling. For example, my 13" MacBook Pro with a 2560x1080 screen gives me 4 scaling options (1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, and 1680x1050):

 

 

 

 

 

Important note: these do all look crystal clear on my end. But I very much notice the amout of information I can see on screen, and I can still read text fine at the highest setting, so I keep it on that as to have more usable screen real estate. 

[CT854]

Just beating a dead horse at this point but I do want to drive one point home:

 

29 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Unless one is going to use a GPU for a revenue generating activity it is just not necessary to have one.

 

You're right.  Nothing is necessary unless it directly helps you put food on the table and helps you meet your basic needs.  Unless you're streaming or making a living off eSports, PC gaming has never, ever been about that.  This is a complete moot point because you're not talking to people who think of these things as necessary.  They are enthusiasts simply because it's nice.  It's great that you're lower maintenance than these people -- it's cheaper for you to be able to experience the same level of enjoyment and that's just objectively a more efficient, more utilitarian way of enjoying your hobby.  In short, good for you. But as wasteful, indulgent, or unnecessary you view someone else's subjective desires to be, you can't ultimately change their desires, and ultimately the argument against them diminishes so long as there is a tangible reason why someone would want such a thing.  I'm against needless indulgence, don't get me wrong, but people have to make judgements on their own as to whether something is worth it.  You can't change someone's opinion brute force like this.

 

29 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

They aren't for you anymore and you do not need them. 

 

Again - this has never been about what one needs.  It's always been about what one wants, and it really seems like a fool's errand to try to convince someone they don't want something.  If someone decides it's not worth it, more power to them.  But let people come to that conclusion on their own, either through fatigue or realization.  Your subjective desires are not the same as my subjective desires.  That's ultimately the issue here.

[minibois]

Why stop at laptop gaming?

We all have phones, why not game on there!

 

Plus, those suckers are so tiny, you can game at 480p with no visual degradation. 

Why play games you like at settings you prefer, when there is a totally irrelevant equivalent!

 

^That is sort of how your thread sounded to me.

If people want to game at 4K high settings, let them be. if you don't? great, then you don't need to worry about getting a graphics card.

You have the power to decide how you want to game, let other people choice themselves too  

[Uttamattamakin]

2 minutes ago, Vishera said:

I can upgrade the GPU and CPU,add RAM without any problems.

 

Try to beat that with a laptop.

Really?  

You can find a better CPU or GPU than you have right now existing in stock?

 

1 minute ago, Elisis said:

This statement is just wrong, depending on the resolution. At around 2ft viewing difference on a 15" screen, you still need 1080p at a minimum to avoid seeing individual pixels. 

 

 

Angular resolution =  wavelength / aperture.     Now what MAY make a difference is the "dot pitch" of the screen.  The distance between the pixels.    That's more of an issue of having a quality screen though. 

[RAS_3885]

Desktop gaming (and high-end desktop gaming as a smaller sub-set) has always been the minority of users of the broader PC environment. That doesn't mean those who enjoy it should not spend more money on hardware that supports it. Especially when that more expensive hardware provides an experience that is more valuable to that person (screen size, resolution, refresh rate, graphical quality, etc.).

 

You're basing your whole "argument" around current-gen high-end being scarce and inflated pricing. Those are temporary and do not negate the entirety of the hobby.

[manikyath]

Just now, Zando Bob said:

You may have glasses to see really well but you still missed the point. Real estate. Aka scaling. For example, my 13" MacBook Pro with a 2560x1080 screen gives me 4 scaling options (1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, and 1680x1050):

 

Important note: these do all look crystal clear on my end. But I very much notice the amout of information I can see on screen, and I can still read text fine at the highest setting, so I keep it on that as to have more usable screen real estate. 

i'd like to add a little more gamer-y aspect to this argument. i've been grinding for pirate legend on sea of thieves, i run the game at 1440p because i can, and still i end up peering into a

 

screen door effect when i'm looking at the horizon for seagulls.

i couldnt imagine having anywhere near the same ability spotting them if i were to run the game at 720p.

 

2 minutes ago, minibois said:

Why stop at laptop gaming?

We all have phones, why not game on there!

 

Plus, those suckers are so tiny, you can game at 480p with no visual degradation. 

Why play games you like at settings you prefer, when there is a totally irrelevant equivalent!

 

^That is sort of how your thread sounded to me.

If people want to game at 4K high settings, let them be. if you don't? great, then you don't need to worry about getting a graphics card.

You have the power to decide how you want to game, let other people choice themselves too  

right. we all have a smartphone, why do we even bother with laptops? may as well stop the entire pc market. everything can be done from a smartphone anyways.

[Elisis]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Angular resolution =  wavelength / aperture.     Now what MAY make a difference is the "dot pitch" of the screen.  The distance between the pixels.    That's more of an issue of having a quality screen though. 

You're acting like running 720p on a native 1080p screen is analogous to running it on a native 720p screen

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Really?  

You can find a better CPU or GPU than you have right now existing in stock?

it's a problem of this exact moment in time, due to a combination of many factors. i'll give the supply issue a few more months.. given that i've been running this GPU since 2014 i think i can easily wait it out...

[Vishera]

Just now, Uttamattamakin said:

Really?  

You can find a better CPU or GPU than you have right now existing in stock?

Your question is completely invalid,since the dawn of personal computers you could always upgrade your desktop.

The shortage that exists right now doesn't mean that i can't upgrade if i have the parts,now or later.

And by the way,there are plenty of Zen 3 CPUs at MSRP on the local market where i live.

The shortage will end someday,on the other hand laptops don't even have that option.

[Uttamattamakin]

11 minutes ago, The_russian said:

Since you repeatedly stated that the list at the beginning are facts, what are your sources for each claim? 

 

• Most PC users of any kind just have one laptop.  (Just one source  There are others https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet) 
• That laptop has a smallish screen which is used at arms length.  Where it is a mathematical fact that 4k resolution will make no discernible difference.  (Fundamental physics of how optical systems work. Source education.  Citation https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/retina-display-3466732/  Computer screens exceeded our ability to discern the dots on them at distance a long time ago. ) 
• Those PC's all use either a Ryzen APU or intel graphics or have a discrete but mobile GPU which performs just a little better than an APU.  (Take a look at the specs of most computers avaiable in store at say a Wal Mart, Target, or Best Buy.  Most gamers are regular people who will just buy their do it all laptop there. )  
• Most of the rest buy prebuilt from major names.  (If you think most ordinary people, the market everything is really for, build a computer get real.  At best us LTT viewers are just a less famous tier of influencer at best.) 

[Moonzy]

there's a different market for everyone

it'd be foolish to try to shove your own standards into other people's throats

 

thats why a $1500 GPU and a $200 GPU exists

 

"reasonable price" is also subjective