Is the end in sight for graphics & Sound cards?

[Kandar]

Graphics cards and Sound card manurfacturers are going to run out of products.
The ultimate goal of your graphics card is to get as near to reality as possible, but it’s the end of the road for them when they finally get their cards to generate realistic true to life images? Where on earth will they go from there? It doesn’t get any better than real and Soundcards are already at the top rung of the ladder.

[MJCfromCT]

I am sure that after photorealism is achieved, the graphics card companies will work on making the technology smaller, consume less power, cheaper, etc. So I don't think that when that milestone is reached so is the end.

[bob05]

Originally posted by MJCfromCT
I am sure that after photorealism is achieved, the graphics card companies will work on making the technology smaller, consume less power, cheaper, etc. So I don't think that when that milestone is reached so is the end.

Exactly, there will always be innovations in technology. Not to mention some console makers (more specifically Nintendo) are looking into new ideas to bring to the market, not just rehashing old ideas of the faster, prettier situation we have currently been in for the past couple consoles.

[Kandar]

Yes but its not about innovations in technology.
If a graphics card can display in real time what the eye would see in real life then you have reached the limits of human vision.
You cannot improve on real. It doesn't matter how many million colours you show at once or if its 32 bit. the eye canot tell the diference between 16 and 32 bit anyway or distinguish anywhere near 16 million colours.

Making the card smaller and more efficient is great but in all honesty is anyone really going to fork out another wad of cash for a card that is smaller and consumes 10w less power but does exactly the same as their current card?
I don’t think so.

Soundcards have already hit the limit and are currently stuffing the cards with all manner of whistles and bells to try to entice you into upgrading.
Most of the features mentioned are pure blurb, as most users don’t know what it is and won’t ever need it anyway.

[fishybawb]

Originally posted by Kandar
Yes but you cannot improve on real. If a graphics card can display in real time what the eye would see in real life then you have reached the limits of human vision.

Who knows, by that point maybe someone will have come up with a way of upgrading our eyesight

[Kandar]

Great stuff, put me down for that, mine are knackered

[Cyan]

Originally posted by Kandar
Yes but its not about innovations in technology.
If a graphics card can display in real time what the eye would see in real life then you have reached the limits of human vision.
You cannot improve on real. It doesn't matter how many million colours you show at once or if its 32 bit. the eye canot tell the diference between 16 and 32 bit anyway or distinguish anywhere near 16 million colours.

Making the card smaller and more efficient is great but in all honesty is anyone really going to fork out another wad of cash for a card that is smaller and consumes 10w less power but does exactly the same as their current card?
I don’t think so.

Soundcards have already hit the limit and are currently stuffing the cards with all manner of whistles and bells to try to entice you into upgrading.
Most of the features mentioned are pure blurb, as most users don’t know what it is and won’t ever need it anyway.

Graphics Cards will never stop, there are always higher resolutions I think it's safe to say we're a ways off.

As for sound cards, there is PLENTY they can't do. For example, have you ever downloaded a filter/codec pack for your computer to play a video off the web or something? That's not only a limitation of what your graphics card can't inately do, but also what your sound card won't inately do. And that's decode certain types of audio streams, and even "re-encode" them into different formats, anyone who has tried DTS from their computer to an Amplifier will know the limitations the sound card (as well as a reciever) have.

[Vitalka]

Consume less power hm......
Now that's what they need to work on. Video cards want to much power already.

[ahurtt]

Hmm, after they acheive photorealistic graphics? hmmmm. . .can you say "holodeck?" Mmmmmm. . .Brittany Spears. . .

[apocalypse]

The best video card will be the one that you connect directly to your brain, bypassing your eyes altogether.

Once that is achieved, there will be no need for video cards. I believe that is still a number of decades off. Until that time comes, expect new video cards to be released every 6 months.

[tasty danish]

i think a number of you are failing to realize, or have just decided to forget, just how far we are from photorealism.
not even close. doom3 and hl2 are still MILES from where it needs to be.

as for soundcards, to say that we have hit our peak is flat stupidity.
ever heard a $1000 or up pro sound card play music? it's so much better than an audigy 2. now to make it so that everyone has that kind of $1000 pro card wrapped up in a cheap audigy like package, then we have gone somewhere. but even then, that card will have nothing on the $1000 pro cards of the time.
you only think it's the best because it's the best you've heard or seen.

[MadPistol]

As many channels as an Audigy 2 ZS (regular or platinum), it still is insufficient for a few games. I have noticed very high sound quality on any game that has come out within the last 2 years and support EAX, but games like Halo still have yet to have a sound card that can run all channels of audio simultaneously. Also, If you look at the sound card and look at the chip set, the processor isn't even powerful enough to have a heatsink on it for even the Audigy 2 ZS. We aren't even close to realism in audio because I can still hear the hiss in my games, and as long as that is there, I know the difference.

As for Video cards, they are unbelievably powerful today, but in terms of overall performance, we haven't even touched on the true power that is needed to achieve realism. Realism would be about like this.

On a 19" monitor:
3000 X 2250 pixels (roughly)
32X Anti-Aliasing
16-24X Anistropic filtering
No drops in frame rate below 60 FPS.

Then, you have to figure out a way to output a data source that is so incredible that you can see thousands of fully rendered, 600 triangle leaves on about 400 - 1000 trees at one time.

Do you realize what kind of technology this would take to work? If they took an AMD athlon 64 FX-53 processor and specially modified it to run on a dedicated graphics board, it would not even be able to cover 4 of those trees at that kind of a rate. Think about it. We think Far Cry is incredible looking. Compare that to how Finding Nemo looks and I think you are gravely mistaking. We have incredible technology, don't get me wrong, but it is nowhere near realism.

[tasty danish]

Originally posted by MadPistol
As many channels as an Audigy 2 ZS (regular or platinum), it still is insufficient for a few games. I have noticed very high sound quality on any game that has come out within the last 2 years and support EAX, but games like Halo still have yet to have a sound card that can run all channels of audio simultaneously. Also, If you look at the sound card and look at the chip set, the processor isn't even powerful enough to have a heatsink on it for even the Audigy 2 ZS. We aren't even close to realism in audio because I can still hear the hiss in my games, and as long as that is there, I know the difference.

As for Video cards, they are unbelievably powerful today, but in terms of overall performance, we haven't even touched on the true power that is needed to achieve realism. Realism would be about like this.

On a 19" monitor:
3000 X 2250 pixels (roughly)
32X Anti-Aliasing
16-24X Anistropic filtering
No drops in frame rate below 60 FPS.

Then, you have to figure out a way to output a data source that is so incredible that you can see thousands of fully rendered, 600 triangle leaves on about 400 - 1000 trees at one time.

Do you realize what kind of technology this would take to work? If they took an AMD athlon 64 FX-53 processor and specially modified it to run on a dedicated graphics board, it would not even be able to cover 4 of those trees at that kind of a rate. Think about it. We think Far Cry is incredible looking. Compare that to how Finding Nemo looks and I think you are gravely mistaking. We have incredible technology, don't get me wrong, but it is nowhere near realism.

*claps*

bravo on a more in depth continuation of my post
glad someone agrees with me

[Vampiel]

Sound Cards, I can see them hit a limit as far as sound quality goes. Of course there will always be new things like compression/quality ratio improvement, how much CPU it takes to run the sound card, etc...

Video, dont think so. That's a loooong way off. As mentioned ealier. Holodeck

Though rendering life-like scene's in real-time, on a monitor. That may not be to far off if, especially if the nvidia/ati race keep's going. Still a ways off, but I could see it happening within the next 7-10 years.

[Someone Stupid]

I think we are many many years away in video easily, not to mention the processing power on the CPU side. Audio is still years away as well, not to mention that sticking something you want isolated inside a box with a nice EM field isn't going to give you pristine results. That's why most high end cards don't do any processing really inside the box, they do it on a rack and send it back, just a PCI card is used for the interconnect. Even the best of Creative's Audigy line can't touch that yet even with some outside DSP.