4 ms·
You're right. This is essentially meaningless: "Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS ...." That depends entirely on what you're rendering. You could reli
by westoncb 8y ago
You're right. This is essentially meaningless: "Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS ...."
That depends entirely on what you're rendering. You could reliably hit over 60 FPS for decades—for some content. And now you can still render at .000000001 FPS for other content.
Saying "GPUs can generate 60 FPS" is presenting the situation as if framerate were a function of hardware only, whereas the reality of the situation is that it depends at least as much on the software.
- DubiousPusher 8y agoYeah, this is total cart before the horse. Cards aren't built to target specifically 60fps. They're built to perform as many operations as possible. Then content creators push the card as hard as they can while attempting to maintain 60fps. The graphics engine authors out there are always clamouring for more ops with active plans of how to use them. So any extra memory of ops the GPU makers provide will almost immediately be used up. Further complicating things, display technology is always advancing, adding more pixels to render. I remember this moment when Crytek released a real-time raytraced demo of one of their games running on the best hardware avaipat at the time. It felt like, finally the hardware is capable and now it's a slow march to the end of raster graphics. Then 4K displays came along and totally exploded the number of pixels to render and that was pretty much the end of that talk, at least for a couple decades.
- hateful 8y agoI should have said something different and not even mentioned a specific framerate. What I meant to say is that GPUs now-a-days are able to most rendering with ease, but the product in this link will near a lot more.