Gimme some input on my computer choice

[gekko]

Hi,
Maybe, maybe not.  Much like audio a few years back, graphics may be approaching the point of diminishing returns.  On paper, the newest may sport superior specs, but when translated to the screen, there may be little if any additional visual impact above that of the previous generation.  Then it becomes a matter of specmanship and marketing.  And talent.  Crappy music reproduced perfectly is still crappy music.  Lousy graphics ditto.

The silver lining may be that when all the f/x have hit the limit, maybe someone will resurrect the concept of game play.

--Pete
[right][snapback]108917[/snapback][/right]

I wouldn't count on it. While diminishing returns may kick in, the market will continue to produce better and better "performance." Think of resolution and TV screens. Can anyone really tell the difference between ED TV and HD TV (approximately 200 lines of resolution, approximately $1000 price difference)? Most people cannot, and yet many people still buy HD TV's. Heck, plenty of people own HD TV's and don't have them hooked up to any HD source. You can see this with cameras and memory cards, too. No average consumer needs or has any real use for a 5+ megapixel camera. But if Fuji sells primarily 3 or 4 megapixel cameras, there's virtually no market for memory cards larger than 512 mb or so. Who needs more than 200 pictures at a time?

The video card manufacturers will continue to make "better" cards, even if all that better means in that case is more physical memory. Vista, if it ever actually ships, will help them in this regard, boosting the specs new computers need just to run the OS comfortably, let alone the OS as well as a top of the line game.

Personally I see supported resolutions climbing sharply in the near future, as more people integrate their computers and their TVs. My current computer system runs my monitor at 1280x1024, but if wanted to hook it up to a true high def plasma or LCD TV, I just wouldn't have the ooomph I would need.

gekko