So I need a new PC...

[Pupusa]

Currently my PC has been lagging really bad in most PC games, and with next year Burning Crusade and possibly Spore coming out, I think it's time I buy a new one.

Anyone got any opinions of what I should think of getting around the $1500-$2000 price range? I guess I'll go looking around Dell's site, but I think you all would have better suggestions. I'm computer literate enough to handle upgrading parts as time goes by, but building one from scratch feels like too much of hassle.

Anyway, just wondering what people think I could pull off with that price range sometime early January, mostly in the range of a fast CPU/video card. I already got monitor/keyboard/mouse, hard drive, DVD drive, cd burner, from my previous PC, so maybe that'll help the cost..

I recently saw this commercial, so I may be leaning towards purchasing this PC, seems pretty sweet for the price.

 

[Vandoura]

www.newegg.com is your friend, cheap stuff there

Get Nivida 7800 - 7900 series.

AMD Athlon X2 5000+ is fairly cheap atm, or intel EE Core 2 Duo etc
May need to replace a new MOBO for it, and if you planing to get those graphic card series, you may need to replace powersupply to 450W+

If you going for SLI, need 650W-1kW

well those are if you want to upgrade, or build your own pc

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2032280010+4085&Subcategory=10&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=
That is already build PC 1.5k - 2k price range

Cheaper PC
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2032280010+50008484&Subcategory=10&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=

 

[CmdrFly]

Isn't Ghal pretty good at building? He can spec you out a parts list if he's up for the build. Will definitely save you some money. Or I can spec the parts if you/he prefers.

Pre-built I have to recommend Dell. But custom built are really worth the time, and generally cheaper. The fact that you know exactly what's in your system is a nice peace of mind. I've been manhandling Dell systems for 2½ years and I still don't know some of the stuff they use for components...

 

[Rorschach]

...I call your Video card^^... and anything else you're planning on junking with your old PC.

/Vulture On!






SCREEEE!

 

[Anttaru]

Under the assumption you're a gamer. $1500 - $2000 Will get you something much better than a Laptop that is only 128megs. (128 megs of RAM is too weak, and if you're looking at the GPU being 128 megs, you're buying yesterdays GPU)

Check out some of the small computer shops and find out how much they would charge you to build you a tower with the top notch parts. These days the beefy PCs is said to last you a good 10+ years before they go obsolete.

 

[CmdrFly]

I can't see that. They'll last 10 years, physically, but they won't run anything at respectable framerates after 4 years. I upgrade the main gaming rig once a year and replace it every 2-3 years, and even with that schedule I have to reduce a lot of settings in games to make it playable at max res.

Particularly with the parallelism happening these days. In 2 years they'll have 8-16 core CPUs at least. The market just hit a new bottle of nitro, and it's gonna be blasting upwards for a long time comin'.

 

[exodusamphi]

8 core should be out in 2007 by Intel...

 

[Anttaru]

Most of the Games released on PC is designed to run off of lower end models. It's not about making games and software for the latest grestest PC hardware, there is no money in that.

Although there are games that require 256MB GPUs with a Gig of Ram on the PC, (Games like Fear) i can garuntee you it will remain like that for a very long time.

We have gone 6 years with 128MB GPUs and there is still life left if them. It is in Software Developers best interest to make programs people can actually use without having to upgrade. We even have Win98 PCs that still get software made for it.

Modern PC for sure. Get one of those new AMD processors, on a nice chipset with alot of RAM and a 256MB GPU. Sure there will be more advanced parts being released, but the advanced nature of the new hardware will not be tapped by develpers for years. It is the 256 era, which will go for 5 years, then after that it will go on for another 5 years before it gets put out.

 

[CmdrFly]

Most of the Games released on PC is designed to run off of lower end models. It's not about making games and software for the latest grestest PC hardware, there is no money in that.

Tell that to Id. Valve. Epic. They're all dumping shitloads of money into pushing the envelope, rather than waiting for the new hardware to arrive before adding it's features. Valve's SMP design is pretty freakin' awesome, hopefully they allow it to be sourced so others can take advantage of their time.

 

[Anttaru]

Alot of developers do make highend programs before hardware is availible that is true. They don't just make Metal Gear and Gran Turismo and other high end games overnight. It takes 4 or 5 years. Case in point alot of last generations 128MB games were in development before the hardware release.

Gears of War is the 1st of it's kind this time, but i garuntee you there are developers snikering under their breath now. The more highend games are aimed at consoles, which allow the sales of highend games to happen on a larger scale, than the few who upgrade their PC hardware.

 

[CmdrFly]

Absolutely, the smart developer will try to reach for the widest market possible. But no computer will be usable and framerate-worthy after 10 years.

8 years ago I had a P2 333, 128mb, with a Diamond i740 and a Diamond Voodoo2 (the uber 12mb version), 8.4gb drive. That system was pretty pimpin 8 years ago. There ain't no way in hell it would run anything made in the past 2 years, even at 640x480.

 

[Anttaru]

I never said all PCs lasted 10 years. Just the modern ones.

You're PII 333mhz processor was good for 6 years you say. P III 833's Are still kicking and compatable with modern day updates and are able to run most games.

You also gotta keep in mind as time goes by all this hardware is lasting longer. If develpers really wanted to make the most out of developing games in the 256MB range on the GPU, you'll be looking at projects that can take 10 years developing the game. I'm sure some of them are taking what they already had in the making, and doing it better. Because of that, stepping towards 512MB GPU (which is next) is overkill. Developers just won't make anything on a 512 in which they are already releasing now.

 

[CmdrFly]

I don't think a modern one will last that long either, again the market has just hit a new vat of technological treasure (parallel processing) and over the next decade things will start getting really crazy. I just bought a dual core system earlier this year, looks like I'll have to replace it by the end of 07 at this rate.

My P2 333 was also replaced in 2001. It lasted 3 years, not 6. If I was out of my skull I'd use it for 6, but the games of 2001 were above and beyond that P2's capabilities.

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying about the hardware lasting longer, if you could elaborate that for me please. Are you talking about game engines being updated and upgraded to match new hardware?

Hardware has been increasing it's output exponentially since the mid-90s. This will only continue in the future. It's not an unreal expectation for game developers to know what will be coming in the future, they're closely tied with information whispered throughout the hardware companies.

ATI, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, VIA, they all have roadmaps displaying their future plans. Game devs know this (and furthermore, understand it - something completely out of my grasp) and leave the proper windows open in their code. Then when they get the SDK for this future hardware, they can easily implement it thus keeping their game capable of taking advantage of "future" hardware.

 

[Anttaru]

Not a flame, just answering you're questions at you're request

I don't think a modern one will last that long either, again the market has just hit a new vat of technological treasure (parallel processing) and over the next decade things will start getting really crazy. I just bought a dual core system earlier this year, looks like I'll have to replace it by the end of 07 at this rate.

There is no reason to replace the duel core at that period of time other than you're desire for more power. Looking at the tasks at hand, You won't do much more than moving faster. In our own perspectives within seconds. It will be some time before they release software that runs solely on multi core processors.

My P2 333 was also replaced in 2001. It lasted 3 years, not 6. If I was out of my skull I'd use it for 6, but the games of 2001 were above and beyond that P2's capabilities.

You said youself..

years ago I had a P2 333, 128mb, with a Diamond i740 and a Diamond Voodoo2 (the uber 12mb version), 8.4gb drive. That system was pretty pimpin 8 years ago. There ain't no way in hell it would run anything made in the past 2 years

That is 6 years. But you on a personal note replaced you're within 3.

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying about the hardware lasting longer, if you could elaborate that for me please.

Hardware is designed to accommodate software. If the software is taking longer to prouduce, there is no need to release more advanced hardware. If they do release more advanced hardware in this case, It will do nothing. The 256 GPU era spells the end for more advanced GPU being released sooner. Using the PS3 and XboX360 for example. When you see the climax on those consoles, it will be comprised of games that took roughly 10 years to create as opposed to making games that took 4 or 5 years to complete.

Bring the 512Mb GPU that is fine. It will be a tool for develpers, and not a toy for gamers, because for a very long time, all releases will be that of the 256MB era. The 512MB will run the 256 games no problem. But why own a 512 if the potentials will not be used for "many years."

Are you talking about game engines being updated and upgraded to match new hardware?

No. Alot of Game engines are already made, and waiting for a system that can handel it. In newer versions of some games, like Gran Turismo for example. has alot of programing from the very first release of the serise.

Hardware has been increasing it's output exponentially since the mid-90s. This will only continue in the future. It's not an unreal expectation for game developers to know what will be coming in the future, they're closely tied with information whispered throughout the hardware companies.

Yes and the game companies are all saying the same thing. Games will take more time to make. Their talking years of development X2. Hardware developers is aware of this.

Other software companies are [retty much content with the speed at which modern day PCs are. Even a few years back we get satasfactory results from complex yet simple everyday software.

ATI, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, VIA, they all have roadmaps displaying their future plans. Game devs know this (and furthermore, understand it - something completely out of my grasp) and leave the proper windows open in their code. Then when they get the SDK for this future hardware, they can easily implement it thus keeping their game capable of taking advantage of "future" hardware.

Making a game that will evolve with the times ? It's not that easy It will need more work put into it. I see expansion packs that offer a face lift. But that is more time and money put into the game, which is not in the developers best interest when looking at the bigger picture. Finish a game and move onto the next. The sooner a hit can be made, the sooner a franchise can be born.

In 5 years games will still be in the 256 era. In 10 years games that were under development for 512MB GPUs will not be complete. 3D software, 3D games and anything else that uses resources beyond those 2 (which is the odd research software used by scientists) is the flag ship software that defines reason/influence to Hardware.

Who cares if software like Photoshop is faster. It's fast enough. unless ofcoarse you need to print out something the dimensions of a 40 foot add. It will happen faster. But still it's been done for years. I don't doubt the new processors, it's just it won't have anything too special for awhile. They will have the ability to Toggle various software and even OS's with amazing stability, and handle mass amounts of resources before it needs to dump what it's doing in the RAM.

For someone looking to buy a Tower $1200 - $1500 they can get a 256MB GPU and a single processor that will be a trooper for a good 10 years. It won't be the most advanced. All the new processors offer is speed.

 

[CmdrFly]

I don't mean to turn this into a flame either. Heated debate, at worst. E-peen battle more than anything. Forgive the lengthy reply... and I likely won't be back here until tomorrow morning... so take your time in replying.

There is no reason to replace the duel core at that period of time other than you're desire for more power. Looking at the tasks at hand, You won't do much more than moving faster. In our own perspectives within seconds. It will be some time before they release software that runs solely on multi core processors.

Single-core processors will be nearly useless in a couple of years if you have any intention of gaming. We're not in the age of text-based RPGs anymore. The demands of todays games, and future games, is going to cumulatively multiply... and the hardware will do it's best to keep up. Parallel processing on both the CPU and GPU is definitely going to help keep the hardware in the race, but software will be ahead for a long time to come.

Bottom of the line: software is cheaper to manufacture, meaning developers can throw as much money as they want at software dev and it should offer increasing returns. If hardware was as cheap to make as software, games today would probably be almost realistic. But since it isn't, game dev's get no benefit from researching and creating the godly things they could put into games today.

For clarity's sake, everything I will discuss will revolve around gaming and not business use. Business systems are a completely different category and operate under much looser rules, in most cases.

My P2 333 was also replaced in 2001. It lasted 3 years, not 6. If I was out of my skull I'd use it for 6, but the games of 2001 were above and beyond that P2's capabilities.

You said youself..

years ago I had a P2 333, 128mb, with a Diamond i740 and a Diamond Voodoo2 (the uber 12mb version), 8.4gb drive. That system was pretty pimpin 8 years ago. There ain't no way in hell it would run anything made in the past 2 years

That is 6 years. But you on a personal note replaced you're within 3.

Yes, that is 6 years. I never said I had the system for 6 years. I replaced it after 3, because if I had kept it any longer I would likely have physically destroyed it out of frustration borne from it's lack in speed.

Hardware is designed to accommodate software.

This is not correct by today's standards. Ever since Quake I was released, software demands have driven the explosion in hardware technologies. For a window of about a year and a half , game devs were forced to restrict their ideas because the hardware simply didn't exist for it. Nowadays, hardware developers and software developers have collaborative efforts to ensure one's demands can meet the other's needs. Hardware availability still restricts software advancement today, but to a much lesser degree than the times following Quake I.

In the business and professional world, yes - hardware is designed to accomodate software. We're not talking about that world. The enthusiast market is in a class of it's own.

If they do release more advanced hardware in this case, It will do nothing. The 256 GPU era spells the end for more advanced GPU being released sooner. Using the PS3 and XboX360 for example. When you see the climax on those consoles, it will be comprised of games that took roughly 10 years to create as opposed to making games that took 4 or 5 years to complete.

Aside from Duke Nukem Forever (...), please name one game that took 10 years to complete. Nothing of such calibre comes to my mind. Game series may take 10 years, or more, but those are mostly separated within themselves by different engines (designed around different hardware technologies). If you're talking about consoles alone, anyone taking 10 years to make a game for the X360 is not going to do well in sales for that game. 10 years from now we'll be unwrapping the 4th console from MS, X360 hardware will be defunct and void.

If some outstanding new hardware is released today, it will be used. Guaranteed. The only reason it wouldn't be used is if the game developers have no need for it. But look at Aegia - their PhysX card was working in GRAW before the hardware was released to the public.

Bring the 512Mb GPU that is fine. It will be a tool for develpers, and not a toy for gamers, because for a very long time, all releases will be that of the 256MB era. The 512MB will run the 256 games no problem. But why own a 512 if the potentials will not be used for "many years."

Doom 3. In order to properly use the "ultra high" graphics setting in this game, you needed a 512mb card. At the time Doom 3 was released, there were no 512mb cards available to consumers. They came a few weeks later.

Yes and the game companies are all saying the same thing. Games will take more time to make. Their talking years of development X2. Hardware developers is aware of this.

Maybe I'm reading all the wrong interviews, but I've never seen a game dev team say this. Valve took SMP by the horns, and within 3 months they have an amazing implementation of it. They took the newest, most difficult architecture today that demanded a completely different way of thinking when coding their games - and they turn it into jelly in only 3 months.

As hardware and software advance, so do the tools required to engineer them. If game devs today were using the same tools as 10 years ago, yes it would take twice as long to make a game today. But they don't. Current tools scale with current capabilities, and so far titles have been released on similar timelines as they used to be. I don't see this changing. But if you have quotes or links that can disprove that, I would very much like to read them.

Making a game that will evolve with the times ? It's not that easy It will need more work put into it. I see expansion packs that offer a face lift.

Any developer worth their weight will make a game that will evolve with the times. I'm not talking about expansion packs. I'm talking about games. Design and architecture planning.

Let's say Id starts work on Doom4 today. They know that it won't be released for 1½ - 2 years. In that amount of time, they know hardware will change dramatically. So they plan for the future. They talk to Microsoft, who checks their roadmap for Directx. Ok, DX11 will be out in 13 months. They talk to Nvidia. Ok, the NV73256983469834 will be out in 9 months. They talk to AMD. Ok, the Hexthlon9 will be out in 14 months. Id gathers the intel on these things and what they'll be capable of, and they leave certain segments of the Doom4 code open. Then, when DX11 and the hardware are nearly released, Id gets the SDKs. They take this, learn it, and program the blanks in Doom4. Thus, when Doom 4 is released, it takes advantage of current hardware. Hardware (and API) that was not available when they began development of Doom4.

But that is more time and money put into the game, which is not in the developers best interest when looking at the bigger picture. Finish a game and move onto the next. The sooner a hit can be made, the sooner a franchise can be born.

That's how they make "a hit". Start it, understand the time required to make it, and ensure it will still look pretty when the game is released. They have to spend the time and money doing this, otherwise people will be less interested.

In 5 years games will still be in the 256 era. In 10 years games that were under development for 512MB GPUs will not be complete.

In 5 years, 256mb will be the minimum required to install games. In 10 years, 1gb will be the minimum... and yes, I'm talking about GPU ram.

For someone looking to buy a Tower $1200 - $1500 they can get a 256MB GPU and a single processor that will be a trooper for a good 10 years. It won't be the most advanced. All the new processors offer is speed.

A 256mb card today will be a trooper for 2 years. It will last for 3. It will be the minimum in 5. It won't even be usable in 8, and it'll be a paperweight in 10.

 

[Vandoura]

Quoting and repling to those quotes contest? XD

 

[Anttaru]

Single-core processors will be nearly useless in a couple of years if you have any intention of gaming. We're not in the age of text-based RPGs anymore. The demands of todays games, and future games, is going to cumulatively multiply... and the hardware will do it's best to keep up. Parallel processing on both the CPU and GPU is definitely going to help keep the hardware in the race, but software will be ahead for a long time to come.

Depends on the game. Some games will have alot of software running in the background for various simulations. Gravity, particles for smoke and explosions and a list of other attributes will be well done in this new parallel manner. I'm sure some games will still be made simple though.

Bottom of the line: software is cheaper to manufacture, meaning developers can throw as much money as they want at software dev and it should offer increasing returns. If hardware was as cheap to make as software, games today would probably be almost realistic. But since it isn't, game dev's get no benefit from researching and creating the godly things they could put into games today.

Depending on the software and hardware. A simple custom program for a company would indeed be cheaper than the development of a highend CPU.

Software is definatly cheaper to mass prouduce. But you gotta remember, more advanced software is really comprised it's past successors. From what i know of Maya, it would take 1 man 700 years to write the software if he did it all on his own. Maya like otther software is a version of it's past releases. Upgraded and moded. Operating systems arn't really made from complete scratch anymore either. Because such software generates income before it is further advanced, It's difficult to compare it's cost to the development of hardware, which is made from scratch.

For clarity's sake, everything I will discuss will revolve around gaming and not business use. Business systems are a completely different category and operate under much looser rules, in most cases.

That's fair. Video games are truly a nicer trick, and require alot more magic from the machine, as opposed to a fourm of organized calculator/database.

Yes, that is 6 years. I never said I had the system for 6 years. I replaced it after 3, because if I had kept it any longer I would likely have physically destroyed it out of frustration borne from it's lack in speed.

I'd blame Win98. The Hardware did last longer than 3 years though.

Hardware is designed to accommodate software

This is not correct by today's standards. Ever since Quake I was released, software demands have driven the explosion in hardware technologies.

Which would mean Hardware is made to accommodate Software.

For a window of about a year and a half , game devs were forced to restrict their ideas because the hardware simply didn't exist for it.

Zone of the enders was made long before the PS2 was released. Konami stated how they had to wait for a system powerful enough to run it. This is the same game engine that was used for MGS2. boath games were under prouduction before the release of the PS2.

Nowadays, hardware developers and software developers have collaborative efforts to ensure one's demands can meet the other's needs. Hardware availability still restricts software advancement today, but to a much lesser degree than the times following Quake I.

On a 256MB GPU developers are having a time making next generation games. So far we've yet to see many outstanding titles. When looking at the PC, the market isn't large enough for game developers to maximize their projects. There are still the 128MB GPUs out there and it will run on those and the 256MB GPUs. Consoles is where the game developers can really go wild cause the game "will work" for whoever buys it.

In the business and professional world, yes - hardware is designed to accomodate software. We're not talking about that world. The enthusiast market is in a class of it's own.

Without advanced software, the advanced hardware can never show face. What is a GPU without the invention of 3D software ? 3D software is also ready to work with any GPU to be as fast as the GPU can work.

The current era is calling for real time rendering. Software cannot be seperated from Hardware especially in the gaming world.

Aside from Duke Nukem Forever (...), please name one game that took 10 years to complete. Nothing of such calibre comes to my mind.

Do keep in mind the 256 era is relatively young. Only now more developers are releasing titles on it. There are games that were started years ago working to make their appearance now. Some will appear at the end of this generation. At this point in time we can probably list 20 games, most of which barely express what we exspect from this generation.

Game series may take 10 years, or more, but those are mostly separated within themselves by different engines (designed around different hardware technologies). If you're talking about consoles alone, anyone taking 10 years to make a game for the X360 is not going to do well in sales for that game. 10 years from now we'll be unwrapping the 4th console from MS, X360 hardware will be defunct and void.

Just like last generation, developers already had their games in the making prior to release. There are many reasons why consoles themselves have deadlines to meet.

If some outstanding new hardware is released today, it will be used. Guaranteed. The only reason it wouldn't be used is if the game developers have no need for it. But look at Aegia - their PhysX card was working in GRAW before the hardware was released to the public.

That should tell you something.

Doom 3. In order to properly use the "ultra high" graphics setting in this game, you needed a 512mb card. At the time Doom 3 was released, there were no 512mb cards available to consumers. They came a few weeks later.

500 Megs of uncompressed textures won't mean the game will mash anything that can possibly be done on a 256. That game also runs well on 64MB GPUs. Just not in that high manner.

Maybe I'm reading all the wrong interviews, but I've never seen a game dev team say this. Valve took SMP by the horns, and within 3 months they have an amazing implementation of it. They took the newest, most difficult architecture today that demanded a completely different way of thinking when coding their games - and they turn it into jelly in only 3 months.

If they can finish alll the programing in 3 months, then all the power to them.

As hardware and software advance, so do the tools required to engineer them. If game devs today were using the same tools as 10 years ago, yes it would take twice as long to make a game today. But they don't. Current tools scale with current capabilities, and so far titles have been released on similar timelines as they used to be. I don't see this changing. But if you have quotes or links that can disprove that, I would very much like to read them.

You'd be surprised how long video game and animation comapnies go without upgrading their hardware. Using Konami as reference again, those guys did all their modeling using the SGI 02, Even then it was lightyears behind the PC. I think they still use them too. Upgrading the entire pipeline for labs like these do cost millions. As long the the company is meeting deadlines they will take the machine by the hand and travel through time. There is always that one guy that says "We can save money". How fast a project is done, in the video game business is based on the worker and not the computers speed. For FMVs that is different, but the 256 era eliminates the need for them.

Any developer worth their weight will make a game that will evolve with the times. I'm not talking about expansion packs. I'm talking about games. Design and architecture planning.

It's clear we are talking about the games with the most horsepower. Wii has tons of power, yet they lean towards a more traditional way of developing games for it. Part of the Wii's success is riding on how quick games will be released for it.

Let's say Id starts work on Doom4 today. They know that it won't be released for 1½ - 2 years. In that amount of time, they know hardware will change dramatically. So they plan for the future. They talk to Microsoft, who checks their roadmap for Directx. Ok, DX11 will be out in 13 months. They talk to Nvidia. Ok, the NV73256983469834 will be out in 9 months. They talk to AMD. Ok, the Hexthlon9 will be out in 14 months. Id gathers the intel on these things and what they'll be capable of, and they leave certain segments of the Doom4 code open. Then, when DX11 and the hardware are nearly released, Id gets the SDKs. They take this, learn it, and program the blanks in Doom4. Thus, when Doom 4 is released, it takes advantage of current hardware. Hardware (and API) that was not available when they began development of Doom4.

I'm aware of schedualing and planing.
Doom is a simple game. Nothing complexed or next generation about it. Not all games take long to complete either. Now if you're talking about Gran Turismo you'd mention how each car takes them 6 monthes average just to model and apply it to the game engine. I think most of it is getting the model to work with the engine cause i can straight up tell you it does not take 6 monthes for a professional modeler to model 1 car.

That's how they make "a hit". Start it, understand the time required to make it, and ensure it will still look pretty when the game is released. They have to spend the time and money doing this, otherwise people will be less interested.

Getting max results on a 256 GPU is very time consuming. Developers know that putting the most effort in making a highend game on a 256mb GPU is costly because of the extended period of time needed to create the game.

In 5 years, 256mb will be the minimum required to install games. In 10 years, 1gb will be the minimum... and yes, I'm talking about GPU ram.

A 256mb card today will be a trooper for 2 years. It will last for 3. It will be the minimum in 5. It won't even be usable in 8, and it'll be a paperweight in 10.

I had my Radeon 9550 for a little over a year now. Next year will be year 3 for me.

We'll see the best games on the consoles, as always. Todays consoles are comprised of 256MB GPUs. Game developers do not step out of bounds when developing games for the PC. Yes there are a few titles that support a minimum of 256MB, but those same games also have 2 other versions runnig on the consoles.

For most consumers it's not wise to purchase a PC game without checking the requirements. Along those same lines, there is reason as to why develpers will make PC games for yesterdays GPU moderatly for years to come.

I think in 2 more years 128MB will be the minimum requirement giving it a 9 year run on the PC and still going as minimal requirement for more to come.

64MB definetly had a shorter lifespan even by todays 128MB standards.

256Mb GPU will reach the 10 year mark in the PC. Already 1 year has passed, so make it 9 now.

 

[CmdrFly]

Depends on the game. Some games will have alot of software running in the background for various simulations. Gravity, particles for smoke and explosions and a list of other attributes will be well done in this new parallel manner. I'm sure some games will still be made simple though.

Indubitably. But game devs still expect their players to be somewhat current with their hardware, and in 2 years single-core will be obsolete. Hence, "nearly useless". While it may still work in many scenarios and applications, modernized programs (games) will not co-operate well with obsolete hardware.

Depending on the software and hardware. A simple custom program for a company would indeed be cheaper than the development of a highend CPU.

As above, I'm not talking about these programs. I've ignored all business scenarios for my points. Strictly games and gaming hardware.

Software is definatly cheaper to mass prouduce. But you gotta remember, more advanced software is really comprised it's past successors. From what i know of Maya, it would take 1 man 700 years to write the software if he did it all on his own. Maya like otther software is a version of it's past releases. Upgraded and moded. Operating systems arn't really made from complete scratch anymore either. Because such software generates income before it is further advanced, It's difficult to compare it's cost to the development of hardware, which is made from scratch.

Hardware is made from scratch? Never. Every single GPU made is just an upgrade from the previous version. Printed smaller, components added, duplicated and mated, etc. Look past the phsyical end and into the logical, and hardware is just the same graduated and updated version of it's predecessor as software (usually) is.

With this in mind, software is cheaper to manufacture than hardware. I'm talking about the process of releasing it to the public; with hardware, they have to pay for the materials and equipment required to mass produce this. With software, they only have to pay for a buttload of blank CDs.

I'd blame Win98. The Hardware did last longer than 3 years though.

No it didn't. Voodoo2? Glide became a memory in 1999, and 3dfx was bought out in 2000. By 2001, 64mb was my next upgrade and that was slightly less than ultimate (128mb were introduced late 2001 I believe). 12mb wouldn't hold a candle at that age.

Which would mean Hardware is made to accommodate Software.

Yes, my mistake. Misunderstood your original statement.

Without advanced software, the advanced hardware can never show face. What is a GPU without the invention of 3D software ? 3D software is also ready to work with any GPU to be as fast as the GPU can work.

Which is ultimately one of the points I was driving in my previous post.

The current era is calling for real time rendering. Software cannot be seperated from Hardware especially in the gaming world.

Eh? Games have been real-time rendered for almost a decade, have they not? I don't quite understand what the second sentence has to do with the quote you're replying to. Whether or not software is separated from hardware will depend on what you're specifically talking about - in many cases, they have to be separated.

Do keep in mind the 256 era is relatively young. Only now more developers are releasing titles on it. There are games that were started years ago working to make their appearance now. Some will appear at the end of this generation. At this point in time we can probably list 20 games, most of which barely express what we exspect from this generation.

These games appearing at the end of 'this generation' will, or should, include support for hardware available when the game is released. 20 games... what? That have taken 10+ years? Names please.

If these games TBR "barely express what we exspect from this generation", then that marks a failure on the dev's hands. They failed to prepare their product to be competitive at launch time.

Just like last generation, developers already had their games in the making prior to release. There are many reasons why consoles themselves have deadlines to meet.

Again, one of the points I was pushing. Game devs are hard at work before hardware is released.

That should tell you something.

It doesn't. Our voices are not translating well to text.

500 Megs of uncompressed textures won't mean the game will mash anything that can possibly be done on a 256. That game also runs well on 64MB GPUs. Just not in that high manner.

Never said 512mb was required to play the game. Just to properly administer UH.

You'd be surprised how long video game and animation comapnies go without upgrading their hardware. Using Konami as reference again, those guys did all their modeling using the SGI 02, Even then it was lightyears behind the PC. I think they still use them too.

I don't know what SGI 02 is... but unless it's some phenomenon capable of doing work faster than a PC while being light years behind, Konami needs to wake up. I don't expect everyone working on a game to be running the latest and greatest hardware, but the people that matter should be on some pretty ballsy systems.

The company can more than make back the cost required to upgrade an entire office (lets say 300 users, 200 need new systems, 300k total for upgrades) in time. Paying these people to make a game is a very high daily cost, and if they can make their people work faster and get the product out the door sooner, why not? 300 grand is a drop in the ocean if it will noticeably increase their productivity for 12-18 months.

There's no need to upgrade an entire lab at a time and reach the "millions" as far as cost goes, I'm talking about staying current with technologies that will make your people work faster and/or more efficiently. There's no need to regularly upgrade the systems used by receptionists, administrators, technicians, writers, PR reps, etc. Modelers, artists, level designers, programmers are the ones that need to be running on (or at least near) the leading edge of hardware.

It's clear we are talking about the games with the most horsepower. Wii has tons of power, yet they lean towards a more traditional way of developing games for it. Part of the Wii's success is riding on how quick games will be released for it.

Again I do not see how this relates to the quote you are replying to. In the Wii's case, game dev's were still preparing their games for the 'future' hardware - in this case, the controller.

Doom is a simple game. Nothing complexed or next generation about it.

Unified lighting? Unified shadowing? Real-time dynamic per-pixel lighting? I'm not sure about the last one, but the unified lights & shadows were huge advances. This is Doom3 obviously. If Doom4 existed, I'd bank any amount of money on Id pushing the envelope with that too.

Not all games take long to complete either. Now if you're talking about Gran Turismo you'd mention how each car takes them 6 monthes average just to model and apply it to the game engine. I think most of it is getting the model to work with the engine cause i can straight up tell you it does not take 6 monthes for a professional modeler to model 1 car.

Absolutely. But any game shooting for Game of the Year will not be built in less than a year, barring mutant employees capable of 20-hour days non-stop for 11 months. Any game shooting for top spot has to plan for the future hardware, which I think we've agreed on.

Getting max results on a 256 GPU is very time consuming. Developers know that putting the most effort in making a highend game on a 256mb GPU is costly because of the extended period of time needed to create the game.

Care to elaborate? Games do not need to be told how to handle video RAM, the GPU will do that if the game won't. For lack of a better example, Half-Life 1 would benefit from a 512mb card even though Valve never told it to. The GPU will just keep more textures in local RAM rather than passing to system RAM.

I had my Radeon 9550 for a little over a year now. Next year will be year 3 for me.

If you were an enthusiast with a decent job, you'd be replacing that fairly soon. I don't mean this as a personal attack by any means, I don't know if you're an enthusiast nor do I know if you're employed / in school / etc. But nerd instinct would be to upgrade from a 9550 in the near future, what with DX10 on the horizon and the obvious benefits of PCI-E (as far as I know, none of ATI's 9xxx series were available on PCI-E - correct me if I'm wrong).

We'll see the best games on the consoles, as always. Todays consoles are comprised of 256MB GPUs. Game developers do not step out of bounds when developing games for the PC. Yes there are a few titles that support a minimum of 256MB, but those same games also have 2 other versions runnig on the consoles.

I won't start dabbling in console speak, I'm not a big fan of them. Which platform has the best games is not in the scope of my discussion here. PCs will always have the most capability, and when we're talking about next-gen games made be reputable and knowledgeable developers, they will make sure that any of their PC-using customers will be able to put all their expensive hardware to full use regardless of how far away the release date for their game is. Good game developers will step out of bounds. Oblivion, Doom3, HL2, and for some reason NWN2 are all prime examples - you need unnatural power to run these games at max.

I think in 2 more years 128MB will be the minimum requirement giving it a 9 year run on the PC and still going as minimal requirement for more to come.

7 years ago, 128mb graphics cards did not exist. On top of that, who wants to use minimum hardware specs for 2-3 years?

256Mb GPU will reach the 10 year mark in the PC. Already 1 year has passed, so make it 9 now.

There's more to hardware than that. 256mb GPUs 10 years from now will include DX10, 11, and probably 12 support. He buys a 256mb card today, he'll still have to buy another one down the road.

 

[Vandoura]

Someone got a lot of time in their hand with all those quote respond lol

 

[CmdrFly]

We have to spend a lot of time being specific, it's a debate that hasn't turned into a flame. Don't get many chances like this on qcdn.