Will we stop making newer gpus

[brullenbakken]

With the release of BF1 and the game engine it's using, I was wondering whether we'll have better graphics in newer games: Look how realistic 'The Witcher 3' is, with it's " "hairworks" etc. and game engines keep getting better, and we'll probably not yet have 8K for a while, and if we had, we'd still be able to run some AAA titles with the top of the line cards as @LinusTech showed in his "gaming at 8K" video, which btw I loved. But game devs can't make a game more realistic than the world already is, right? So the game engines will continue to evolve, the only thing that gpus can stress more than it already is viewrange and bigger maps.

[Paytend07]

Higher frame rates, Render Distance...and other stuff... it looks good but could be better i guess.

[AMD Radeon]

We will always be making better GPUs.

 

Promise.

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, Jorgen297 said:

Graphics will evolve until we hit the limits of Moore's law, which should be in 10-20 years. 

Which will spur the development of a more powerful technology, which will spur the development of "better graphics" Perhaps they're hyperrealistic. Perhaps they're 3d. Perhaps we'll be able to play games on an entire wall of our house (at a decent resolution.) Perhaps rendering "touch" controls and full body suits with inputs from games will take a lot of processing power. I mean think about it, games right now have invisible walls. They don't have actual "textures". Everything would "feel" smooth if you could somehow touch the game world.

 

There's tons more they can do.

 

Technological development never stops. 

[Daveeede]

Companies like getting paid so they will never stop making new GPUs. 

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, Jorgen297 said:

Graphics will evolve until we hit the limits of Moore's law, which should be in 10-20 years. 

You mean by shrinking manufacturing process?

When we get there with silicone we will transition to other material like graphene.  Or we start stacking chips.

[AresKrieger]

6 minutes ago, AMD Radeon said:

We will always keep making better GPUs.

 

Promise.

I can think of a scenario we don't, I'll give give you a hint

 

[corrado33]

2 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

Yes it does because there's limitations in physics. It's like the latency between USA and Europe can't get lower than 40ms because of the speed of light. 

Sure, I'll agree with that. But when I say a new "type of technology" that doesn't necessarily mean one that's base 2. There are other ways to make computations faster than just making smaller transistors. 

 

Sure, a single material can get outdated. We can reach the limits for silicon. But then we will develop things using a different material. Take that to it's limit, then develop a new material... ad infinitum. 

[WereCat]

2 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

Nah lol in the end things can't get smaller cuz of physical limitations. It's like the latency between USA and Europe can't get lower than 40ms because of the speed of light. 

You are assuming that size matters.  It is factor but not necessity.

[corrado33]

3 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

 

Ok guys so you think after we hit the minimum size and most efficient architecture, we will just make bigger and bigger chips? Maybe have a motherboard with 8 CPUs, and to keep up with Moore's law put 16 CPUs on it 2 years after? Technology will easily stop, trust me guys lol, this isn't pessimism, it's realism. 

Yes, and in the early 20th century scientists thought we knew all there was to know.

 

Keep thinking that. As a scientist, I will always prove you wrong. There is always more to learn, always a different way to do something. Perhaps computing with single electrons, photons perhaps? Eventually we may use smaller particles, quarks maybe? Perhaps we can store data in a crystal using the lattice vibrations and phonons associated with that crystal. There is always somewhere else to go, something new to learn. That's the great thing about the human race. 

[brullenbakken]

13 minutes ago, AMD Radeon said:

We will always be making better GPUs.

 

Promise.

We in the Netherlands have saying "promise makes dept" translated to English, if you stop making GPUs in 15 years I get to have your top of the line card, okay?

 

[AMD Radeon]

1 minute ago, steamkiller said:

We in the Netherlands have saying "promise makes dept" translated to English, if you stop making GPUs in 15 years I get to have your top of the line card, okay?

Sure thing.

[brullenbakken]

2 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Yes, and in the early 20th century scientists thought we knew all there was to know.

 

Keep thinking that. As a scientist, I will always prove you wrong. There is always more to learn, always a different way to do something. Perhaps computing with single electrons, photons perhaps? Eventually we may use smaller particles, quarks maybe? There is always somewhere else to go, something new to learn.

But for gaming on a screen, does this matter?

 

[corrado33]

Just now, steamkiller said:

But for gaming on a screen, does this matter?

 

Absolutely. You're being extremely short sighted. 

[brullenbakken]

1 minute ago, corrado33 said:

Absolutely. You're being extremely short sighted. 

But for what

[WereCat]

7 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

 

Ok guys so you think after we hit the minimum size and most efficient architecture, we will just make bigger and bigger chips? Maybe have a motherboard with 8 CPUs, and to keep up with Moore's law put 16 CPUs on it 2 years after? Technology will easily stop, trust me guys lol, this isn't pessimism, it's realism. 

I am sure that by then we will figure something out.

Bio-technology is possibility as well.

 

You will have to feed your graphics card every morning.

[corrado33]

Just now, steamkiller said:

But for what

Ok I'm done.

 

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. 

 

Throughout history people there have always been people who thought "we've learned it all" "there is nothing else to learn, no improvement to be made." Every single one of those people were wrong. 

 

You're being one of those people. 

[mmaatt747]

15 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

Technology will easily stop, trust me guys lol, this isn't pessimism, it's realism. 

I have never seen anywhere or any scientist state that "Technology will stop".  That statement does not even compute lol.  Anyway, I don't think you're being pessimistic OR real.  It's just wrong as there is no data to support that statement.

[corrado33]

2 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

There is a limit, you even admit it, and if quarks are the limit, then technology will stop getting smaller there and we'll have to make more of it. Internet latencies will never be faster than the speed of light for instance, that's the limit. And unless you're a SWJ scientist, using the term "species" to describe humans is more scientific than "race" lmao. So you know, there is a planck distance and shit can't get smaller than that. Or is it? Can you prove me le wrong Mr. Scientist? 

Okay show me a way to ping USA faster than the speed of light. That's the limit. Technology will stop when we reach that speed. And just aswell, there is a smallest building block, be it planck distance or whatever. How is this even hard to compute. 

 

 

 

 

Try again. The planck distance is the smallest THEORETICAL distance where classical ideas about physics cease to be true. That does NOT mean it's the smallest limit anything can be. Besides, it's all theoretical. We cannot MEASURE anything smaller than the planck length (theoretically) but that does not mean that something smaller does NOT exist. 

 

In the past the theoretical limit for "small things" was the size of an atom. An atom was the "unbreakable" limit from which all matter was made. That has been proved wrong.

 

Science always progresses. And good job, you found the one "certain" thing of the universe. No, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light (yet), so certain things, like pings will eventually hit a limit, but technology will not. We're discussing GPU architecture here, not internet latency. 

 

What you are showing is a lack of knowledge of the scientific method, as well as a lack of understand about how science works. You are far too trusting of the theoretical ideas that have been parroted to you by every website out there trying to convey science. 

 

Please leave the discussions of quantum mechanics to those who know better. 

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, Jorgen297 said:

Atoms were considered to be the smallest building block back in ancient Greece. Lol you even consider the speed of light the limit, then that's the limit of latency technology and we can't beat that, just like we can't beat the limit of size technology. I know I'm right, and I know in 100-200 years, people will look back on this forum and say "he was right, the regular guy was righter than the scientist because physical rules are everything, looking at history and predicting the future is nothing". 

Oh god I'm done.

 

"Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[mmaatt747]

1 hour ago, Jorgen297 said:

 

Okay show me a way to ping USA faster than the speed of light. That's the limit. Technology will stop when we reach that speed. And just aswell, there is a smallest building block, be it planck distance or whatever. How is this even hard to compute. 

 

 

I'm showing my age here a little ... BUT I remember a couple of years after I graduated highschool it was common knowledge that internet speads from your ISP could  go no faster than what they provided with 56k v.92 modems.  Copper would simply not allow anything faster (fiber was needed for faster speeds).   But as you know technology pushed way passed that with simple DSL modems over the very same copper.  

 

My point is don't assume that because we don't have the technology or even the knowledge now of how to do something, that we won't ever.  Imagine if all scientists/researchers/inventors thought that way.  No one would have bothered to look for the protons and neutrons in an atom.  Then, no one would have bothered to look for hadrons.  Then, no one would have bothered to look for quarks. You get the idea.

 

[Reflecting]

The way a GPU works the next likely step is for them become a more "all in one" card...meaning they will start to act more and more like a CPU...that is when our tech world will become interesting again.

[brullenbakken]

I might have raised my question wrong: I was wondering what new we could add to our current gaming experience and not whether we should continue exploring science

[kirashi]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:20 PM, Jorgen297 said:

Nah lol in the end things can't get smaller cuz of physical limitations.

Yeah, but see, corporations like money, and as @Daveeede states below...

On 11/2/2016 at 1:20 PM, Daveeede said:

Companies like getting paid so they will never stop making new GPUs. 

And now @Jorgen297 has just given corporations another great idea that us consumers won't see coming...

On 11/2/2016 at 1:26 PM, Jorgen297 said:

Ok guys so you think after we hit the minimum size and most efficient architecture, we will just make bigger and bigger chips? Maybe have a motherboard with 8 CPUs, and to keep up with Moore's law put 16 CPUs on it 2 years after? ... this isn't pessimism, it's realism. 

GPU manufacturer's are taking pointers left right and centre here:

Step 1) Make more GPUs - hell, make them out of lemons if we have to, even if they burn peoples houses down!

Step 2) Tell consumers these new GPUs are the best they can be, despite having a 2.5% performance increase due to size limitations

Step 3) Go back to making large GPUs, which thus will start the "thick device" cycle all over again - something Apple will LOVE

Step 4) Continue to shrink GPU technology again, after making huge GPUs - again, manufactures can sell super thin all over again

Steps 1-4) PROFIT, but only increase real-world performance about 35% over 5 years because software hasn't caught up yet

On 11/2/2016 at 1:33 PM, WereCat said:

You will have to feed your graphics card every morning.

Oh jeeze... I'll loath the day I have to feed my graphics card or else be threatened with my computer catching fire.

On 11/2/2016 at 2:25 PM, Jorgen297 said:

Atoms were considered to be the smallest building block back in ancient Greece. Lol you even consider the speed of light the limit....

On 11/2/2016 at 2:26 PM, corrado33 said:

Oh god I'm done.

On 11/2/2016 at 2:34 PM, Jorgen297 said:

I'm not an idiot ... A smallest building block is a fact (far smaller than humans will ever build), and a speed limit is a fact.

Both of you are correct; @corrado33 is right in that, technically speaking, there is no limit to the size of a measurable unit.

However, @Jorgen297 is right in that, realistically speaking, there is currently a limit to the size of a human measurable unit.

We only have the ability to actually use the units we can measure - so sure, maybe there are things smaller than a planck unit, atom, etc. but us mere humans currently have no ability to measure anything smaller, and as such, have no use for such measurements at this time in our lives.