New 3D Graphics Card Features in 2006

Ant writes "This Tom's Hardware article says that in the latest generation of graphics cards, PixelShader has become mainstream. Version 3 features 3D effects like HDR rendering for bright light sources, and parallax mapping for even more vivid features in walls and stones. The brand-new ATI Radeon X1000 series and the NVIDIA GeForce 6 and 7 master these improved graphics features. It looks at today's newest computer games (e.g., F.E.A.R.) and compare the 3D effects."

Comments

h.264 accelleration in geforce 6, 7 gpus

[enrico_suave]

To me the media features in the silicon is what's getting cooler and cooler.

The fact that they added h.264 accelleration support to both the 6xxx AND 7 series is pretty cool, imho. Not leaving the previous generation card owners behind.

e.

price

[ShaneThePain]

its unfortunate that top of the line cards are getting more expensive. I have an X850XT Platinum Edition myself and its great. but it cost me 470 dollars. These new cards are over 600 dollars. I would hope that top of the line cards would get LESS expensive. Also, my card has been chugging on lowest settings for BF2: special forces, but i can run regular Battlefield 2 max settings smooth as glass. whats up with that?

Re:price

[sqrt(2)]

The problem was EA's decision to not support older pixel shaders. In short, they artificially increased the games requirements to scratch nVidia's back.

I boycotted EA when they bought West Wood and killed the CnC franchise.

Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

And the best graphics card with good open source drivers are still R200 series, line the radeon 9200.
So HDR should work great under linux, in about 2010.

2006?

[pookemon]

Ah these "features" are already available and present in the current generation of cards. They've been around since at least 2004 - and viable on hardware from then (ie. 6800's etc.).

The first example I saw of Parallax mapping was actually something done in DOOM 3 (I can't find the post on the OpenGL forum). So why are these "new features" considered "New". Looks like an advert for current gen Hardware to me...

Re:Meh

[nacturation]

I can't really remember the last time I bought a game, because I don't need to for gameplay. And I haven't bought a new video card for 5 years. Because I don't need to for gameplay.

You're like the guy who goes around mentioning that he doesn't watch TV, only for you it's games.

You have a point, in that a game should stand or fall on its gameplay rather than how pretty it looks. No matter how much you dress up chess, if you don't enjoy the actual game you're not likely to find something like Battle Chess much more than a novelty. I guess there's a certain truth if one were to argue that any gameplay element that exists today can be replicated in text mode, but with richer visuals comes the ability to have all the tried & true gameplay presented in a way that is really engaging.

Direct3dlicious

[autopr0n]

Does anyone use OpenGL anymore? Is it still up to date with all of these features?

Re:Not really...

[aaronl]

I'd be willing to say that there isn't a very good reason to own 100 new games over the last three years, at all.

While you were able to own those three systems for ~$500, you did forget additional expense for network capability, multiple controllers, etc. You also still don't get all the real benefits of a computer (ie: internet, document processing, development, etc).

The next crop of consoles will set you back a lot more than a PC, though. 400$ for the XBox, 400$ for the PS3, 200$ for a Revolution... and then you get to buy controllers, AV adaptors, and games. And you still don't get to do any of the useful PC things.

Also, you seem to forget that genres like platformers and RPGs are better on a PC anyway. Using a gamepad for many of those things is constraining, especially if you've played PC games in those genres. The music games and other party games are only nicer on a console because you don't have to worry about anything. As the XBox shows, a PC plugged into a TV is all you really need, and if it's a real PC, you can do a lot more than just games.

What I don't understand...

[yobjob]

Is how all this expensive hardware can play games at ridiculously high resolutions, yet they still don't look anything near as real as a game of football on a low resolution television set.

grfx CAN enhance gameplay

[majid_aldo]

examples in fp shooters:

- shadows. eg players casting shadows add a strategic element to gameplay.
- water effects. eg players can hide in water. depending on lighting conditions, the water can be transparent or reflective.
- HDR effects. eg. if you just came out from darkness (hiding) it should be a disadvantage to you.
- motion blur. eg if you use a rapid fire weapon you should be disadvantaged b/c you should experience vibration.

having said this, however, i don't see any other gameplay altering graphics features. from now on, all i expect to see is a steady march towards more realistic rendering.