580°

$149 Nvidia GTX 750 Ti Unveiled; Plays Titanfall Better Than Xbox One

GameSpot's own testing the card ran the likes of Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite at over 60fps on high settings. It also ran the beta of the new mech-based shooter Titanfall at 58fps at 1080p with 2XAA on, a feat not even accomplished by the Xbox One.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
GraveLord3723d ago

Says more about the Xbox One than anything else.

mewhy323723d ago

Wow. All i've got to say is 500.00.

frostypants3723d ago

Uh...you kind of need to buy the PC to plug the GPU into. You can't compare the price of a GPU to the price of a console.

That said, $150 is a damn good price for this GPU.

darthv723723d ago

Gamespot: "We tested the GTX 750 Ti on our trusty Ivy Bridge test rig, which features an Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM, an ASUS P8Z68-V Motherboard, Corsair HX850 PSU, Arctic Cooling Freezer 13 Pro, and a Corsair Force GT SSD"

Gamespot: "Core features of the GTX 750 Ti include 640 CUDA cores, a 1020 Mhz base clock, 2GB of 128-bit GDDR5 memory, 2048KB of L2 cache, and a 5.4Gbps memory speed."

the test bench speaks more than the comparison to an XB1 or even PS4 for that matter.

ProjectVulcan3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

You are better off with a Radeon 7850 2Gb though.

It's faster for not much more money if you find the right place to buy. The Radeon has so much more memory bandwidth because it has a 256bit bus.

This card is for people who are concerned more about getting the best performance for the lowest power consumption, not the best bang for their buck.

It is a good omen for the rest of the future Nvidia cards however.

As for the rest of the machine, it might have not been assembled on the cheap, but Digital Foundry pointed out even a lower end CPU like an FX6300 performs similarly in games like Titanfall or Battlefield 4.

They still got 60FPS on a cheap CPU coupled with their cheap GPU.

You don't need a mega expensive CPU or chipset platform anymore to do games justice.

CPU performance affects most modern games a LOT less than it used to. Largely thanks to DX11 and games designed to be much more GPU bound.

Look at this for example:
http://www.techspot.com/rev...

Or this:
http://www.techspot.com/rev...

There's not massive differences between very expensive gear and very cheap gear. Battlefield 4 runs virtually as well on a $100 FX 4100 as it does on a $300 4770k.

CPU performance DOES still matter. But not on as many games as it used to, and when it does matter a bit, not as dramatically as it used to. Overclocking does wonders...

Sykoticz3723d ago

@vulcanproject. Please Learn to computer before you write up a load of rubbish.

While one or two of the things you said are a little bit true the rest is not like this one...

"There's not massive differences between very expensive gear and very cheap gear. Battlefield 4 runs virtually as well on a $100 FX 4100 as it does on a $300 4770k." <-- Very wrong there is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

For example if you had a r9 290x with a fx4100 u would be soooooo bottle necked you would see a massive frame drop in everything compared to the 4770k. You need at least a 6 core AMD cpu to keep up with a intel 4670k performance and at least a 8 core AMD to even get a little bit close to a 4770k.

Anyway back to the story at hand i just hope that this game is good tbh i think that we need a new fps that is good,competitive and fun to play.

Who really cares if it runs on a 750ti that is kind of a good thing for people who don't want to upgrade there pc.

Ulf3723d ago

@Sykoticz

Actually, Vulcanproject is correct.

BF4 is utterly GPU bound -- the FX-4100 is a decent enough CPU to run BF4 at the same rate as the best i7. BF4 has also been shown to not use more than 2 cores in any significant way -- probably because they knew that two cores was the minimum spec, and their game just plain isn't bound by CPU work.

The FX-4100 is 2 modules, with 2 integer cores each. Each module has a FP pipe as well. In a sense, its a minor upgrade over a dual core SMT processor. Given that its clocked pretty high, it probably performs on par with just about any chip Intel offers... on BF4.

Windows 8.1 actually does a much better job as task scheduling on AMD chips that Win 7 did, so its not a surprised that even multicore-intensive apps now also perform nearly as good on AMD FX-series chips as the highest end i7s. You don't have highly-FP-intense threads competing for the floating pipe any more, because Windows 8.1 tries to split intense work amongst modules first, rather than misidentifying each integer core as a truly completely core, like it did on W7, for example.

I'm not surprised at the GTX 750 beating out the XB1, though. It's a GTX 660, which would destroy the PS4 (and does, according to the numbers), as well.

Dynasty20213723d ago

@Ulf

BF4 is CPU intensive, same as BF3...

kevnb3722d ago (Edited 3722d ago )

do you really need to include the entire cost of a pc vs console? the gaming part is the gpu and part of the psu really.

theshonen88993722d ago

As "CPU-intensive" as BF4 may be, CPU's still barely make a difference. Rather than spend $300 on an top of the line Intel CPU, you'd get far better performance spending the same amount on a $100 CPU and putting the extra $200 on a better GPU. That extra $200 spent on the GPU will provide a far greater amount of performance than the CPU. I don't know where you got the idea that modern CPUs bottleneck high performance GPUs (you can read any Tom's Hardware or Guru3D review to know this is bullshit). The only people who should be concerned about CPU performance are gamers who play strategy games like StarCraft or LoL where substantial amounts of calculations are being done on the CPU.

Long story short, if you're already getting the absolutely most expensive GPU and still have money to burn, then fine, get a better CPU. Otherwise, I've been rocking a cheap Phenom II X4 955 with a Radeon 7950 and I run EVERYTHING I've played on max 1080p settings with 60+ fps.

ProjectVulcan3722d ago (Edited 3722d ago )

I think my first link above put well to rest the idea Battlefield 4 needs a killer CPU, when it clearly does not. DirectX 11 helps a lot with this, but battlefield 3 was the same. CPU performance hardly mattered over and above a pretty low threshold even with high end cards.

Oh, and if you think that those benches were performance with a low end graphics card to hide lower CPU performance bottlenecking Sykoticz, since when was an R9 290X a low end card? Because that is clearly stated as the card they use written on top of the graph. The very card you claimed would be bottlenecked by an FX4100 on that game...isn't.

Facepalm. Did you even look at the link???

I was careful to claim that CPU performance matters much less than it used to on many high profiles titles, not that it never matters.

My point was these days with a modern OS and DirectX11 and a modern game engine, CPU limits performance vastly less than it did say 10 years ago, or even 5.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3722d ago
Fishy Fingers3723d ago

Perhaps, although if you look at all the benchmarks, its betting both consoles in BF4 for example. Quite impressive.

Still, while the title likes to suggest a simple $149 investment gets you a playable rig, you must include the:

"Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM, an ASUS P8Z68-V Motherboard, Corsair HX850 PSU, Arctic Cooling Freezer 13 Pro, and a Corsair Force GT SSD. (plus a copy of Windows)"

And anyone with that rig isnt in their right mind doing to buy whats essentually an entry level GPU. Coupled with hardware inline with the GPU, you wont see such good results.

OC_MurphysLaw3723d ago

Agreed...its a bit misleading. Last time I checked the CPU, Power supply, Case, Fans, RAM and Motherboard are not free and as @Fishy Fingers pointed out, Windows OS also not free.

starchild3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

True, but you definitely don't need those particular parts either.

8GB of RAM and a cheaper processor, motherboard and power supply would still give the same performance. A solid state drive isn't needed either. And the truth is, this isn't the best bang-for-your-buck graphics card anyway.

With this graphics card at $150 you could easily put together a balanced rig for around $600.

frostypants3723d ago

@starchild, true...but you'd have to cheap-out on the keyboard/mouse/gamepad, as well as components like the case.

Th4Freak3723d ago

You clearly don't know how to build a PC, you don't need 16GB of RAM or an i5 for gaming, the SSD isn't necessary, the CPU cooler isn't necessary either if you aren't going to OC the CPU in such way that the stock fan wouldn't dissipate the heat and finally the PSU is overkill, you're giving a 170W system a 800W PSU...

There's no need for such ridiculous setup just to make that GPU work and have a nice gaming system, you should stop watching Linus Tech Tips...

Mister_Dawg3723d ago

I don't think its trying to be a typical pc setup. It has the other decent kit, so as not to be a bottleneck so we can see what the 'little' card can actually do.

webeblazing3723d ago

pay no mind to frostypants hes the biggest troll that spread misinformation about pc gaming to make his self feel. if you not going to say ps4 is the greatest thing since slice bread hes going to keep spamming nonsense

kakashi813723d ago

Makes you think MS should have went with the 7850 rig.

frostypants3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

@webeblazing, I've forgotten more about gaming and technology on all platforms, including PC, than you'll ever know. I'm sorry if my knowledge doesn't align with your fanboyism, or if you are jealous of the fact that I can write a coherent sentence.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3723d ago
starchild3723d ago

No, it shows that both the XB1 and PS4 are far behind PC gaming performance. When you can get a card for $150 that runs entirely on PCIE power and keeps up with or surpasses consoles you realize just how far ahead the PC is.

Imagine when the enthusiast cards like the GTX 870 and GTX 880 release. Then imagine next year, and the year after that, and the year after that...

windblowsagain3723d ago

Best looking games on PC are Crysis3,BF4.

PS4 has only been out a short time.

Killzone sf is the best so far on it.

Ryse on the xboxone.

Best cloth physics looks like it's going to the order 1886.

As for Titanfall, It's so badly optimized it makes BF4 look like it has no bugs.

It should run 60fps+ easily on very outdated hardware. It's a POS graphically. Source engine being updated to DX11, but they never brought the performance along with the update. Should have just used a newer advanced engine. Cryengine 3 infact. Fuk Unreal 3 would have looked better and run better.

annus3723d ago

What game are you playing that is badly optimised? My computer isn't even that good and it played Titanfall perfectly at near max settings, I didn't notice any optimisation problems or bugs.

And it's a heavily modified version of source, not just source with minor additions, so comparing the performance is pretty stupid.

Beastforlifenoob3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

Remind me again what you will play these games on:

Infamous Second Son
Uncharted 4
Driveclub
Gran turismo 7
Infamous Second Son
Destiny
Killzone Shadowfall
GTA 6
Red dead 2
The Order 1886
The Last Of us 2
The enx God of war
Little big planet 3
Ratchet and clanl
Resistance 4
Metal Gear Solid V
LEts be honest guys it wont be on a pc.

I prefer more games rather than less games with slightly better graphical quiality (and this is coming from someone who runs BF4 on High settings at about 45fps on their PC)

And also this ONLY takes into consideration the GPU you still must buy the Motherboard, OS (for a good gaming experience), PSU, CPU, hardrive and optical drive and additional cooling aswell as a case.

You also need to realise that a PS4 only consumes 75W of power... This card ALONE uses 60w...

SilentNegotiator3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

Let's see a $400 PC rig (No stolen OS, no used/blowout sale parts, no "Ram laying around") that does what PS4 (Or Xbone, if not for Kinect) can do, though. That's the thing about console gaming, at least for the first half or so of the generation; there's really no direct comparison with PCs at that price.

Lamigol103722d ago

No one disputes that you can have superior performance from a PC at a comparable price to ps4 / xb1 .. the question is .. if that is the case, why do consoles sell multi millions of units ? If people are paying £400 - £500 for a console and more for the games then money is clearly not the reason. It is a personal choice .. for which there could be a number of reasons. There is nothing to stop me or anyone else buying a PC and joining the PC is best club so why pretend it's some elite club for the all knowing. It really isn't ! If you prefer PC gaming .. crack on. You don't have to bang on about it every post. ZZzzzz .....

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3722d ago
Irishguy953723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

The 750 is a better GPU than both PS4 and X1s GPU's. No surprise.... TH#he Ps4 and X1 Gpu are slightly above and below the 560ti respectively. Which the 750 beats.

Also, yeah it's not the only component required. But it goes to show that even a lower mid range card beats the X1. Which means that as of today, the X1 = a lower mid range gaming PC. Lower mid range gaming PC's go for 500-600 quid.

Edit - You wouldn't have a joke CPU in the PC @ Below, you don't need an I5 for gaming.

Mister_Dawg3723d ago

It would beat the xb1 in the pc setup they used (and PS4).

It wouldn't perform near its best with those joke cpu's in both new consoles.

thereapersson3722d ago

How many 8-core CPU's do you frequently see in cheap PC builds, or laptops for that matter? 8GB of GDDR5? Quit trolling, Mister_Dawg.

aquamala3723d ago

you can't even play Titanfall multiplayer on XB1 if you only spend $500. pay that $50-$60 for online mp for 7-8 years and you can see that PC gaming is not more expensive at all.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ3723d ago

Yeah did you even see the rest of the rig? lol plus the GPU in the X1 was much cheaper than that anyways... just sayin

MasterCornholio3723d ago

I'm building a 500$ PC that will outperform an Xbox One. Not a PS4 though.

Volkama3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

@MasterCornholio just buy an XBox One, or save up some more money so you can buy a better PC.

It's not a good time to build a $500 PC. Unless there are some particular PC games you are looking to play. It wont compare favorably to the consoles in performance, even if it trumps them in specs.

Magicite3723d ago

no reason to buy x1 version

AndrewLB3723d ago

It says a lot about the PS4 as well since this GTX 750ti does 2.45tflops, crushing BOTH the PS4 and Xbone.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeF...

Once again, blind fanboyism gets involved in the editorial process and makes people look foolish.

showtimefolks3722d ago

that's the thing play the biggest exclusive in MS's eyes without buying a xbox one or xbox 360.

assdan3722d ago

I've known for months that the gpu in the xbox one is $100.
But in defense of people saying that the mark up is ridiculous need to remember that the xbox one isn't JUST a graphics card lol.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3722d ago
megazero123723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

you know, you need more than a graphics card to play a game. What a troll bate title.

creatchee3723d ago

It's Maria. Would you expect any less?

SpideySpeakz3723d ago

Oh cool, I didn't know Maria wrote this article and created the title.

Ashby_JC3723d ago

Agreed.

I was close to building a PC before the XB1 and Ps4 released.

Even I know from just researching that the GFX card is a piece of the puzzle when building a PC and to compare the CARD alone to an entire system is very misleading.

Kayant3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

Misleading and unneeded title. Doesn't mean your fully built PC will cost the same if you can get it to cost the same as XB1 that is.

Pandamobile3723d ago

How is that a misleading title? It's telling you exactly what the core bit of information in the article/video is...

Can you not read between the lines or something?

BlackCarrot3723d ago

At what point does the title suggest that? It said $149 graphics card can beat Xbox One. And if you've been following the PC crowd, you'd know that games are graphics intensive. Slap any half decent CPU plus the customary 8gb ram and it will beat Xbox One comfortably.

XiSasukeUchiha3723d ago

Wow so just 149.99 Gtx Gpu can play Titanfall better than on 500.00 Machine called Xbone . Just go to show how underpowered it really is

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Dinkis3723d ago

The same card can out peform the ps4 also,so whats your point?

Ashby_JC3723d ago

Yeah sure can....but can I buy that GFX card and play titanfall or any other game for that matter??

Ill answer...no you cant....you need the case, cpu, motherboard, power supply, fan, soundcard, KB and mouse, Monitor.....did I leave anything out??

The GFX Card is one piece of the puzzle.

I_am_Batman3723d ago

You forgot RAM and an OS. But I wouldn't nessessarily count monitor. You aren't listing TV to the cost of a console right? Everyone has a TV and you can use the PC with a TV if you want to.

Hassassin3723d ago

You need a TV, and pay additional fee for online with an Xbone/PS4.
And you Don't need soundcard and extra fans for PC...

It is misleading if you read the title literally and know little of PC's, though it's clearly flaimbait.

Lesy3723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

Here: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2...
You are already outperforming Ps4 and Xbox.

Cheers!

EDIT: Oh and before i get dislikes,here is a video proving that you don't need high end cpu to play games: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
:D

webeblazing3723d ago

lesy thats not gonna stop the fanboys from using it as a excuse.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3723d ago
DoubleM703723d ago

You do have to plug the card into a PC. You do know that don't you. Come on man I thought you were better than that.

Show all comments (107)
330°

Nvidia DLSS 3.7 drives a further nail in the coffin of native performance

Nvidia DLSS 3.7 is the latest update to the long-running AI upscaling technology, and it further shows native performance doesn't matter.

DustMan17d ago

I think hardware development is at a point where they need to figure out how to draw less power, These beefy high end cards eat wattage, and I'm curious if using DLSS & AI in general will lower the power draw. It would seem like the days of just adding more VRAM & horsepower is over. Law of diminishing returns. Pretty soon DLSS/FSR will be incorporated into everything, and eventually the tech will be good enough to hardly notice a difference if at all. AI is the future and it would be foolish to turn around and not incorporate it at all. Reliance on AI is only going to pick up more & more.

Tapani17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

DLSS certainly lowers power consumption. Also, the numbers such as the 4090 at 450W does not tell you everything, most of the time the GPU stays between 200-350W in gameplay, which is not too different from the highest end GPU of 10 years ago. Plus, today you can undervolt + OC GPUs by a good margin to keep stock performance while utilizing 80% of the power limit.

You can make the 4090 extremely power efficient and keep 90% of its performance at 320W.

However, in today's world the chip manufacturing is limited by physics and we will have power increases in the next 5-10 years at the very least to keep the technology moving forward at a pace that satisfies both businesses and consumers.

Maybe in 10 years we have new tech coming to the markets which we are yet to invent or perhaps we can solve existing technologies problems with manufacturing or cost of production.

On the other hand, if we were to solve the energy problem on earth by utilizing fusion and solar etc. it would not matter how much these chips require. That being said, in the next 30-40 years that is a pipedream.

MrBaskerville17d ago

I don't think fusion is the way forward. It will mosy likely be too late when it's finally ready, meaning it will probably never be ready. Something else might arrive before though and then it becomes viable.

Firebird36016d ago

We need to stop the smear campaign on nuclear energy.
We could power everything forever if we wanted too.

Tacoboto17d ago

PS4 Pro had dedicated hardware in it for supporting checkerboard rendering that was used significantly in PS4 first party titles, so you don't need to look to PC or even modern PC gaming. The first RTX cards released nearly 6 years ago, so how many nails does this coffin need?

InUrFoxHole17d ago

Well... its a coffin man. So atleast 4?

Tacoboto17d ago

PSSR in the fall can assume that role.

anast17d ago

and those nails need to be replaced annually

Einhander197217d ago

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is, but PS4 Pro was before DLSS and FSR, and it still provides one of the highest performance uplifts while maintaining good image quality.

DLSS is it's own thing but checkerboarding om PS5 still is a rival to the likes of FSR2.

Tacoboto17d ago

Um. That is my point. That there have been so many nails in this "native performance" coffin and they've been getting hammered in for years, even on PS4 Pro before DLSS was even a thing.

RaidenBlack17d ago

Don't know what's OP's point is either but ... checkerboard rendering was good enough for its time but in terms of image quality its wayy behind what's DLSS 3 or FSR 3 is currently offering.
The main point of the article and what OP missed here is that DLSS 3.7 is soo good that its nearly undisguisable from native rendering and basically throws the "its still blurry and inferior to native rendering" debacle, (that's been going around in PC community since 2019), right out of the window.

Einhander197216d ago

RaidenBlack

DLSS is as i said a different thing from FSR and checkerboard.

But you're talking about FSR 3 which probably is better than checkerboard, but FSR 3 has only started to get games this year, so checkerboard which was the first hardware upscaling solution was and is still one of the best upscaling solutions.

Give credit where credit is due, PlayStation was first and they got it right from the get go, and PSSR will almost certainly be better than it will be given credit for, heck digital foundry is already spreading misinformation about the Pro.

Rhythmattic17d ago

Tacoboto
Yes... Its amazing how many talekd about KZ2 deferred rendering, pointing out the explosions were lower res than the frame itself..
And of course, Then the idea of checkerboard rendering, not being native....
For sure, maybe this tech makes it minimal while pixel counting, but alas, seems performance and close enough , and not native now matters.....
I want to see it run native without DLSS.. why not?

RonsonPL17d ago

Almost deaf person:
- lightweight portable 5$, speakers of 0,5cm diameter are the final nail in coffin of Hi-Fi audio!

Some people in 2010:
- smartphones are the final nain in the console gaming's coffin!

This is just the same.
AI upscalling is complete dogshit in terms of motion quality. The fact that someone is not aware of it (look at the deaf guy example) doesn't mean the flaws are not there. They are. And all it takes to see them, is to use a display that handles motion well, so either gets true 500fps at 500Hz LCD TN or OLED (or faster tech) or uses low persistence mode (check blurbusters.com if you don't know what it means) also known as Black Frame Insertion or backlight strobing.

Also, image ruined by any type of TAA is just as "native image" as chineese 0,5$ screwdriver is "high quality, heavy duty, for professional use". It's nowhere near it. But if you're an ignorant "journalist", you will publish crap like this article, just to flow with the current.

There's no coffin to native res quality and there never will be. Eventually, we'll have enough performance in rasterization to drive 500fps, which will be a game changer for motion quality while also adding other benefit - lower latency.
And at 500fps, the amount of time required for upscalling makes it completely useless.
This crap is only usable for cinematic stuff, like cutscenes and such. Not for gaming. Beware of ignorants on the internet. The TAA is not "native" and the shitty look of the modern games when you disable any TAA, is not "native" either as it's ruined by the developer's design choice - you can cheat by rendering every 4th pixel when you plan to put a smeary TAA pass on it later on. When you disable it, you will see a ruined image, horrible pixellation and other visual "glitches" but it is NOT what native would've looked like if you'd like to honestly compare the two.

Stay informed.

RaidenBlack17d ago

Main point of the article is how far DLSS has come with v3.7 since 2018. If this is what we're getting already, then imagine what we'll get within next ~3 years. Yes parity will obviously be there compared to the then native rendering tech but it'll slowly narrow down to the point it'll be indistinguishable.
Something similar is like the genAI Sora ... AI generative videos were turd back when they were introduced (the infamous Will Smith eating video) ... but now look at Sora, generating videos that just looks like real life.

16d ago
Yui_Suzumiya17d ago

How much VRAM is standard today? My laptop has a 1080p QLED display but only an Intel Iris Xe with 128MB of VRAM. I currently do all my gaming on it but certain titles do suffer because of it. I plan on getting a Steam Deck OLED soon to play the newer and more demanding titles.

purple10117d ago

Maybe better to get a budget gaming laptop and link a dualsense to it

= Portable console with far better graphics than a steam deck! + bigger screen and able to use it for work / etc

170°

Why I'm worried about the Nvidia RTX 50 series

Aleksha writes: "Nvidia has established itself as a dominant force in the world of AI, but I can't shake the worry of what this means for the RTX 50 series."

Tal16920d ago

Echo sentiment here - I think the way GPUs are going, gaming could be secondary to deep learning. Wonder if the 40 series was the last true generation of GPUs?

Number1TailzFan20d ago

No.. Jensen believes GPUs should stay expensive. Those wanting a top end GPU will have to splash out for it, or play at just 1080p and 60fps or something if you can only afford a low end option.

On the other hand if you don't care about RT or AI performance then there's always AMD that are doing ok at the mid range.

Christopher20d ago

***or play at just 1080p and 60fps or something***

My over 2-year-old laptop GPU still runs fine. I think this is more a reason why GPUs are going to other things in priority, because the market reach for new users is shrinking as more PC gamers focus less on replacing older and still working parts that run RT/AI fine enough as it is. Not to say there aren't people who still do it, but I think the market is shrinking for having the latest and greatest like it has been the past two decades. Problem is we aren't growing things at a rate as we were, we're reaching the the flattening of that exponential curve in regards to advancement. We need another major technological advancement to restart that curve.

D0nkeyBoi20d ago

The irremoval ad makes it impossible to read article

Tzuno20d ago (Edited 20d ago )

I hope Intel takes some lead and do a big dent to nvidia sales

Jingsing20d ago

You also need to consider that NVIDIA are heavily invested in cloud gaming. So they are likely going to make moves to push you into yet another life subscription service.

Kayser8119d ago

NVIDIA will never change their price point until AMD or intel makes a GPU that is comparable and cheaper than them .
it happend before in the days of gtx280 which they changed the price from 650$ to 450$ in a matter of 2 weeks because of rx4870 which is being sold at 380$.

Show all comments (8)
230°

Nvidia AI Demo Unwittingly Proves that Human Voice Actors, Artists, and Writers are Irreplaceable

Nvidia presented Covert Protocol, a tech demo aiming to showcase the "power" of the Nvidia Ace technology applied to video game characters.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
Eonjay40d ago (Edited 40d ago )

They look like they are in pain. Almost begging to be put down. It was uncomfortable to watch.

PRIMORDUS41d ago

The tech. is too early. Come back in 10+yrs and see what it can do then.

N3mzor41d ago

That presentation sounds like it was written by an AI using corporate buzzwords.

CS741d ago

I don’t know why people keep thinking of it as AI vs no AI.

A much more likely scenario is the use of AI alongside human work.

Eg. AI voices used during side quests or banter to boost the lines of dialog.

AI generating additional pre determined branches in dialog tree options for more freedom in conversations with NPCs

Smellsforfree40d ago

"AI generating additional pre determined branches in dialog tree options for more freedom in conversations with NPCs"

I'm wondering about that last one. Will that make a game more fun or more immersive? In the end, how can it possibly be more than filler content and then if it is filler content how much do I really want to engage with conversing with it if I know it will lead no where?

MrBaskerville40d ago

It's one of those things that sounds cool on paper. But will probably get old fast.

DivineHand12540d ago

The tech is now available, and it is up to creators to create something unique with it.

Profchaos41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

The biggest thing to talk about here is that every interaction requires communication to inworld servers so there's three big impacts here
1) games are always online no question about it
2) delays in processing on inworld servers, outages or unexpected load as a result of some astronomically popular game will cause real time game delays ever wait for a chat got response this will be similar as the context must be pulled via the llm.

Now as for the other impact the artistic one no I don't think writers can be replaced I've mentioned before often AI generated writing is word soup I still standby that it's also evident in the video to.
AI can not convery accurately human emotions and I don't think ever will.

I know publishers are looking to cut down on development costs but what happens when inworld decide to charge per interaction or update their pricing a year after your game goes live you have no choice but pay it or shutter it.

Ive felt for a while that we are heading towards this place of games being disposable entertainment and now it's feeling more and more accurate

Show all comments (23)