Moore’s Law outstrips software development

lorax · Post by **lorax** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:02 pm

Moore’s Law: "…the doubling of the number of transistors on integrated circuits (a rough measure of computer processing power) every 18 months."

It’s happened despite protests to the contrary. The current cache of PC games is failing to push the hardware envelope. There was a time, a long time ago, when GLQuake was released and gamers the world over scrambled for 3d video cards. How about now? The only scrambling now is for previews of consolified PC titles. Soon-to-be cancelled.

It’s time to ask yourself a few simple questions. Do you feel a need to upgrade your computer to play the latest games? If not, has Moore’s Law rendered luxury upgrades defunct? Will the creative process restore order to a world of gaming stagnation?

Will WalMart be the next stop for your gaming needs? It’s difficult to name a game that requires the latest and greatest computer processor. Very difficult, indeed.

Pithy comments please.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:54 pm

Doom 3 and Half Life are scalable, but that doesn't mean they don't push machines to their hardest.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:54 pm

defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct de_funk defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct

It really is a fun word. Thanks for doing your part to bring it back to everyone's vernacular.

~Neal

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:13 pm

The Meal wrote:defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct de_funk defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct defunct

It really is a fun word. Thanks for doing your part to bring it back to everyone's vernacular.

~Neal

I'm quite fond of pithy myself. Does it have something to do with gherkins?

edosan · Post by **edosan** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:40 pm

You can't spell "defunct" without F-U-N !

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:52 am

there's no pressing need for me to upgrade at this time, and my computer is almost 2 years old. this is a nice change!

moss_icon · Post by **moss_icon** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:24 am

maybe its because the majority of gamers can't afford / don't want to upgrade, so games companies are aware that if they release a high-falutin' game with mad-ass graphics then they are only going to be able to sell 10 copies to 25 dorks who blew £2000 on a 'ninja' pc. and that doesn't make economic sense.

THIS IS A GOOD THING.

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:45 am

I bet that, even without checking, I can guess the filename to the image I have for lorax here. Let's see if I am correct:

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:45 am

Yeah! I hit it!

JayG · Post by **JayG** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 am

Main reason most games run on a 2 year old PC is that they are developed for XBox as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the second one is released. Will the PC versions be far inferior?

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:21 am

Defunct is a prefectly cromulent word, Neal.

Also, I think moore's law outstripped software development a looooooong time ago.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:29 am

To save money, I put a middle-end vidgie card in my PC, figuring I'd upgrade to the latest and greatest when the game market forces me to. Two years later, I am just feeling the pinch. After I spend $200 on another middle-end vidgie card, I don't expect to upgrade again for at least 2-3 years. I don't like action games or anything that relies on fancy graphics.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:30 am

I love buying video cards a couple of waves behind the bleeding edge. My current machine has a Geforce 3 ti 200 in it, and it's been a great card. I think I paid about $170 for it.

D.A.Lewis · Post by **D.A.Lewis** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:35 am

lorax wrote:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law]
Will WalMart be the next stop for your gaming needs? It’s difficult to name a game that requires the latest and greatest computer processor. Very difficult, indeed.

As of two weeks ago, my local walmart doesn't carry computer games. Which is a good thing to me. They really took no care of the computer section at all. If I must go to a mass retailer, I found Target to be decent. Target has a New section, a current section, a child section, a bargin section and a cleareance section. Walmart just had everything on a wall.

Actually when I think about it, Target has more computer product than Gamestop and EB.

Regarding Moore's Law, I think console developement changed the dynamics of the upgrade cycle. With consoles having adequate graphics, computer games aren't the only thing driving development. Moore's theory have to be changed. Just like from Newton to Einstein.

Indeed, a pithy new development quote is needed.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:27 pm

lorax wrote:Moore’s Law: "…the doubling of the number of transistors on integrated circuits (a rough measure of computer processing power) every 18 months."

It’s happened despite protests to the contrary. The current cache of PC games is failing to push the hardware envelope. There was a time, a long time ago, when GLQuake was released and gamers the world over scrambled for 3d video cards. How about now? The only scrambling now is for previews of consolified PC titles. Soon-to-be cancelled.

It’s time to ask yourself a few simple questions. Do you feel a need to upgrade your computer to play the latest games? If not, has Moore’s Law rendered luxury upgrades defunct? Will the creative process restore order to a world of gaming stagnation?

Will WalMart be the next stop for your gaming needs? It’s difficult to name a game that requires the latest and greatest computer processor. Very difficult, indeed.

Pithy comments please.

Upgrading to play the latest game, I suppose, is as good a reason as any. It's a personal choice usually more of budget and priorities and as such what appears extravagant to me may be obligatory for you.

I've had numerous friends and acquaintances who are very computer technology oriented: they're engineers, scientists, IT people, accountants, whathaveyou. And I've seen them buy/build/upgrade frequently, and it's always seemed ....wasteful.

But it's their hobby. My brother golfs. He spends quite a few dollars on equipment and club fees, lessons and golfing vacations. It's his hobby. His choice.

Moore's law might give us stronger machines with less-than-stellar games but I think that designers/developers will find a way to harness the extra computing power to give us what many gamer's miss: more lifelike A.I.
Without getting bogged down in defining what that means in practical terms, that's what I want: a more lifelike AI.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:49 pm

So Moore, Murphy, and Newton walk into a bar...

shaggydoug · Post by **shaggydoug** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:00 pm

I think today's games are still being held back by hardware constraints, just slightly modified from the "must-have latest hardware to play" concept. Nowadays, it's reflected in the game developers trying to get the most bang for their buck and are specifically targeting mid-range PCs to get the money they need. They could implement better, but they are "constrained" by the cost of new hardware for the installed base. Most people don't want to spend the money to get the upgrades. They can be implemented though for those with the bleeding edge systems.

An example of this is the new HL2 level "Lost Coast" and the HDR rework on the rest of the game. Most people won't be able to play it including yours truly. I just don't have the money to spend on upgrading my CPU and video card to do it. That is a "hardware constraint". Make the hardware cheaper and I'll buy it.

- shaggy

Octopus Overlords

Moore’s Law outstrips software development

Moore’s Law outstrips software development

Re: Moore’s Law outstrips software development

Re: Moore’s Law outstrips software development