Argh wrote:There's no compact way to show the real math without going into territory none of you guys are familiar with

Moderators: MR.D, Moderators
Argh wrote:There's no compact way to show the real math without going into territory none of you guys are familiar with
This statement is so general as to be misleading. While technically accurate it provides no terms of reference to determine what you mean by "moderate" and "severe".Argh wrote:2. Textures: moderate to severe impact. Smaller textures are always faster than larger ones. The number of textures that have to be submitted to the GPU are relevant- each transaction comes with a cost, regardless of size. But larger textures have an impact, due to the time it takes to cross the bus, mipmapping and the final evaluation stages, so you need to balance these things.
Not so. There are other factors involved. Do some experiments, and use at least 100 units so that you can really start to see the load increase, when you go from 128 to 1024 skins. It does make a difference. IDK whether it's bus issues or fillrate, it's probably fillrate, but there is definitely a difference.The truth is it's highly probable, given an arbitrary set of textures and units, that the impact of changing the texture size will be close to nil.
Shadows aren't a significant slowdown atm. They have borked projections, but they're fast. I wouldn't worry about them, unless you're planning to do soft shadows via GLSL or whatnot.Shaders, shadows, bumpmapping, particles and dynamic lighting/reflections
How is this not bullshit? You can't even find computers nowadays in stores with less than a gig of ram.AF wrote:There are people trying to play runescape in the US with 32mb of ram on machines they've just bought that are the best they can afford.
You can still find $400 laptops with two sticks of 256 MB as of July. Three ways screwed... overpriced, no memory, and both slots taken up by useless modules by default.Forboding Angel wrote:How is this not bullshit? You can't even find computers nowadays in stores with less than a gig of ram.AF wrote:There are people trying to play runescape in the US with 32mb of ram on machines they've just bought that are the best they can afford.
Believe me, if you get more than 20 units in that game with textures that large, you're asking for big trouble.SpliFF wrote:I'm going for 1024x1024 myself, I just don't see textures OR polygons as being a serious issue anymore.
Nice speculation. Even old 7800GT-s run for like 60-100$ right now, new 8800GT-s run for ~250-280$ and to say that they will be 30$ (even considering bargains) in a year is to say i do not want to do price research. At all. x800 are more or less always high end and very pricey and the average gamer usually ends up with a x600 if going for nvidia.I'm currently running a GF 8800GT and it handles all modern games including Assassins Greed, Crysis, Dirt and Medieval TW2 at high settings without noticeable stutter. By the time i'm ready to release Metalstorm (sometime next year i'm guessing) this card should be available in bargain bins for less than $30 US, about half what I'll typically spend on a night out drinking or dinner at a restaurant.
thought you were talking about ATI until I re-read that a couple of times...Gertkane wrote:usually ends up with a x600 if going for nvidia.
9800GT is at 90 to 150 USD, depends on make and modelice speculation. Even old 7800GT-s run for like 60-100$ right now, new 8800GT-s run for ~250-280$ and to say that they will be 30$ (even considering bargains) in a year is to say i do not want to do price research.