What do you think will happen when computers get [I]extremely[/I] powerfull?

[bob bobato]

What do you think will happen when computers get so powerfull that upgrading is pointless( so much RAM they never slow down, so much hard drive space you could install every program ever made with room to spare, and computer/video game graphics 100% realistic)? Will they still make new computers, or just sell the same one for decades(or more)?

 

[cthom]

it will never happen. i remember getting a 120 mb hard drive and thinking 'how i am i going to fill all this up?'. a year later i had powerpacked almost everything on it. programmers will find a way to make your computer look like an etch-a-sketch

 

[GenMarshall]

I used to thought that a gig drive was a challenge to fill .

 

[Chukchi Husky]

A new game will come out where that computer is the minimum requirements.

 

[Speedo]

It simply won't happen. As home PCs become more powerful, programs become more complex, requiring more CPU horsepower. Take Supreme Commander, for example - a recently released RTS. The game is capable of supporting literally thousands of units on unbelievably large maps (the largest map that ships with the game is 6561km^2, and I think the game can -in theory- support nearly 100,000 units). Even though it's one of the few games programmed to take advantage of dual and quad core CPUs, it can bring even the most powerful system to its knees. On top of that, graphics continue to improve - texture resolutions will increase, 3D models become more complex. That's the main reason why your average game today required about 5 GB of hard drive space, versus the 700 MB of previous years.

Trust me, as long as there is CPU power to spare, programmers will find a way to use it.

 

[Turner]

/me thinks longingly back to the Apple ][e days....

 

[MarineCorps]

It simply won't happen. As home PCs become more powerful, programs become more complex, requiring more CPU horsepower. Take Supreme Commander, for example - a recently released RTS. The game is capable of supporting literally thousands of units on unbelievably large maps (the largest map that ships with the game is 6561km^2, and I think the game can -in theory- support nearly 100,000 units). Even though it's one of the few games programmed to take advantage of dual and quad core CPUs, it can bring even the most powerful system to its knees. On top of that, graphics continue to improve - texture resolutions will increase, 3D models become more complex. That's the main reason why your average game today required about 5 GB of hard drive space, versus the 700 MB of previous years.

I hope to play that game someday.
No matter how good a computer is someone will always create a program to bring it to it's knees.

 

[Speedo]

I hope to play that game someday.
No matter how good a computer is someone will always create a program to bring it to it's knees.

Well perhaps I was a *bit* optimistic. By default the game limits each player to 1000 units (max 8 players in skirmish play) but there are user mods to raise that cap as high as 10,000. I was playing a skirmish earlier tonight vs 7 AI opponents, I was about make an attack on an enemy base with about 300 units when the game finally rolled over and locked up hard. That was with probably... 4-5000 units total in the game, if you count structures, but granted the game was having to handle 7 AI processes on top of everything else.

 

[bob bobato]

It simply won't happen. As home PCs become more powerful, programs become more complex, requiring more CPU horsepower. Take Supreme Commander, for example - a recently released RTS. The game is capable of supporting literally thousands of units on unbelievably large maps (the largest map that ships with the game is 6561km^2, and I think the game can -in theory- support nearly 100,000 units). Even though it's one of the few games programmed to take advantage of dual and quad core CPUs, it can bring even the most powerful system to its knees. On top of that, graphics continue to improve - texture resolutions will increase, 3D models become more complex. That's the main reason why your average game today required about 5 GB of hard drive space, versus the 700 MB of previous years.

Trust me, as long as there is CPU power to spare, programmers will find a way to use it.

But once graphics are already 100% percent realistic, you dont need to improve them anymore.

 

[Solver]

100% realistic graphics are still quite a bit away. Essentially, that means graphics that can not be recognized as being graphics and not real filmed imagery. While I think that the first post-DX10 generation of games (2010-2011) will achieve that with certain elements, that will only apply to separate elements - trees maybe, or water, whatever.

Even when you have graphics that are indistinguishable from reality, there will be other things to improve. Such as physics simulations. Accurately simulating physics and collisions will keep computers occupied for a while.

And then of course, you have intelligent algorithms (in games and elsewhere). There's literally no limit on how much power these can use. So don't worry, when you see a computer that is so powerful it can do everything, it will be obsolete some years later. 10 years ago people couldn't imagine how to fill a 1GB hard drive. 15 years ago the thought of a program that could use more than 8 MB RAM would make programmers shiver frantically. Etc...

 

[Speedo]

But once graphics are already 100% percent realistic, you dont need to improve them anymore.

It just won't happen, not anytime in the near future. Even on extremely powerful machines dedicated to 3D rendering, that ultra realistic CG you see in movies takes hours just to render a single frame, not to mention that it's mostly set up by hand (meaning that you're going to need additional CPU power to drive physics, lighting and so on besides just basic rendering). You'd need an increase in CPU power of several orders of magnitude before you could even dream of doing that kind of stuff in realtime.

Don't get me wrong, things like DX10 are going to bring *very* good graphics, but they still hardly qualify as "100% realistic".

 

[Maniacal]

Even if they get to that point, osemone will create something that REQUIRES the top of the line that'll be just a rather bloated thing.

 

[Abaddon]

...they will take over the world...

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Seeing as freakin game DEMOS are running over 1 gig nowadays, I think there will always be demand for more.

 

[sirtommygunn]

gb for supreme command demo : 1.03 gb

 

[Nylan]

it would only happen if that computer grew and adapted on it's own

and yeah...it would take over the world

 

[Speedo]

Seeing as freakin game DEMOS are running over 1 gig nowadays, I think there will always be demand for more.

Such is the price you pay for modern graphics.

 

[Maniacal]

Seeing as freakin game DEMOS are running over 1 gig nowadays, I think there will always be demand for more.

They are getting a pain in the butt to downlaod. Especialy sicne I am still unable to download things at night >_< >_< >_< >_< >_< >_< >_< Though maybe I should start it before I go to school in the morning and see if that works.

 

[Abaddon]

Why cant you download at night?

 

[Arcadian83]

As has already been stated, programmers will always find a use for that extra processing power and space.

However, look at sound cards (not speakers, mind): they reached a dead-end owing to the limit of human ability to percieve differences in sound. I forsee a similar dead-end for graphics, as we reach a maximum resolution that humans can percieve. More complex calculations going into how to fill those limited pixels will take longer to max out.

Color-depth has also hit a dead-end.

Input-devices near the limits of human sensation and the ability to use them without confusion.

These are all physical limits derived from limitations in the human body.
If technologies come about with the ability to enhance the human senses, more resolution, color, refined sound, etc, may be demanded.

Logical power demands have no limits. The AI can always plan a few more steps ahead. The calculator can always get a few more decimals of precision. The algorithm can always get a little sloppier, the data more redundant, the memory more leaky.

These could be improved with better software, but throwing more hardware at the problem is often cheaper.