Maybe its just me, but i think with the whole coalition of united gaming companies, i think release way better hardware less often seems like a better idea. For example, the new 9600gt its really good, but still not as good as the 8800 GTX and still not as good as the 8800GT. Like seriously, what the crap??? why release new stuff if its isn't any better than whats already out there, they are doing the exact same thing they JUST DID. The six series cards were a lot better than the FX cards, and was the same with the 7 series cards over the 6 series cards. So instead of just releasing whatever they happen to come up with in like three months, why not develop for a a year or so, and then actually release something BETTER than whats already availible. Not only that, but its really, really confusing to people, oh, they have a new card out, sweet, so some one buys its, and then finds out its NOT any better than whats already availible.
Except that companies here are usually for-profit. Letting a product stagnate in the market too look can kill a business as well as letting product cycles go by (see 3dfx). A company needs a new product eventually, lest they loose out to the competition. You can't sit idly in business too long or risk being out of the game. A new product also generates buzz, which helps get people excited about a product. Secondly, many companies have investors. These people have given said company money with an expectation that they will get a return on that money. It's not a charity gift, so those putting money in aren't necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They believe that the company has potential and is worth the risk of putting some of their own money to help the company along while also looking at a higher profit down the road.
yeah, i get that everything is money driven, but its all ridiculous, and whats the point of being in a gaming coalition if their not actually going to do anything. In the same sense, if they had longer release cycle, it would give time fore more consumers to buy more products, and then be ready for the next generation of hardware. What i'm getting at here, is its really difficult for people to continually have to buy new hardware, while with a console you can have its for years before the next best thing comes out. A good analogy would be if every year there was a new console release, but its barely any better than the previous generation, but it three years time its way ahead of where it started. Same with hardware, why release something if its worse than what you already have??? Yeah, yeah, i know, money, but in the end, it will probably be PC gamings downfall.
To a point, your correct. The cycle probably doesn't need to be as snappy as it is, but the way it's set now, AMD nor nVidia, for example, want to slow down if they don't have to. Unless the companies have a mutual intrest and benefit from doing so, I can't see it happening without good reason and if there's enough time. If AMD fumbles a product launch like they have with the Phenom's, Intel's not going to say "Hey, let's slow down our R & D while they catch up." Of course not. They may linger a little bit because the pressure to stay ahead isn't as intense, but they're not going to sit on their hands indefinitely. If they don't offer something new, eventually people aren't going to be driven to buy their product. Not because it sucks, but because they don't have a compelling reason to upgrade. Do you think Hitatchi said "We're good." When they got their 1TB hard drive on the market? I doubt it. Samsung, Seagate, WD...they're not going to stop and sit because they weren't first to market. Additionally, things 10 years from now may need more power. If a projected development cycle is slowed down, they potential software may be delayed. I recall John Carmack saying something about being able to do the technical details for Doom 3 that they wanted to do with the original Doom. What if we were just now hitting the 1GHz mark with a GeForce 3-era graphics engine? Less people would be able to play it than those who are playing Crysis right now.
Yeah, again, i get what your saying, and i agree, but, what i am trying to say is not to halt production and wait, just aim higher. I use Nvidia because its a really good example. When they were going from the 8 series to 9 series, instead of just putting out whatever they had, why didn't they aim higher. So, they should have set higher goals, ie. our lowest end card should be so and so much better than the best card of our previous series. This kinda goes for AMD as well recently, i mean they are in a little bit different of a situation, but they could have just skipped the 65nm process all together and went straight to the 45nm cores. (not like the 65nm core were out that long before the 45nm core came out anyways)
I agree about Nvidia. There are so many numbers. From what I understand, the second number is the most important, in 90% of the cases. For example, a 8800 is better than a 9600 because 8 is higher than 6. But that is only for certain parts of the specs, so the 9600 might be better at pixel shading (I don't know for sure, just an example). It confuses the heck out of me. The way I see it, the more it costs, the better it is. Usually works,
Yeah, but its still dumb, the next generation of cards should be better than anything thats currently availible, but its not that way.....
That's why I say, take the easy way out: don't buy the hot, new hardware, just take the cheap, tried and true after everyone else has sorted out the crap from the good But I guess that only works if you don't really care about playing the hot new games haha
yeah, i know, i've pretty much given up on anything sweet and new. Electronics are a messed up arena, purchase something, and its useful life is like a year. I pretty much have a whole different philosophy on buying computer hardware now.... Especially in the area of video cards.
