So I need a new PC...

[Vandoura]

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.

So true hehe, well you 2 enjoy yourself!

btw, Alienware FTW!

 

[exodusamphi]

Alienware is over priced custom PC...

Build the same thing for pennys compared to Alienwares $s

 

[exodusamphi]

and, doesnt the new Nvidia Flagship have 768 MB of RAM?

 

[CmdrFly]

For the consumer market? Not sure... though I'm almost positive I've seen 1gb cards intended for 3D apps, it was a FireGL if I remember correctly.

edit: you're absolutely right. Asus, along with many other manufacturers, have 768mb and 1gb available.

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=21403&vpn=EN8800GTX/HTDP/768M&manufacture=ASUS

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=18786&vpn=EN7950GX2/2PHT/1G/A&manufacture=ASUS

FireGL: http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=18147&vpn=100-505143&manufacture=ATI

 

[Draiman]

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16834224054 <------My New laptop, runs FFXI great, plus i can put Half-life 2 and quake 4 at full settings

 

[Anttaru]

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.

Game developers do not exspect PC gamers to have the hardware. Making a game that has no support for last generation GPUs on the PC will sell less games. Look at Doom 3. It has a minimal range of 64MB. The game is not the best it can be. It is low poly for the 64MB user, and the polygonal meshs used to make the enviroments and characters will not increase in tessellation.

64MB cards are still being served as minimal, and they are how old again ?

Surely Duel core will handle older games with ease. And i wouldn't exspect all newer games to utalize multiple cores within the chip set. Some games will not make use of multiple cores even as it's running on a multi core processor.

What will make the single processor obsolete, is the success of the sales on these new multicore processors. That can take alot more than 2 years considering their expense, and most people are content with their PCs as they are.

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.

Hardware is made from scratch work. They don't physically take older models and enhance them. Sure they base the making of the hardware on "past knowlege" and R&D.

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.

Agreed. The difference. Software is developed and duplicated. Hardware is made in an assembly procudure.
Software is further developed in many cases, they literally pick up on where they left off with what they actually made in order to make something better.
Hardware is built from the groud up.

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.

Voodoo ? We were talking about the CPU not the GPU. About how the PII lasted more than 3 years. For clearity i'll also mention just because one ungrades every time new hardware is released, dosn't mean the predisesor has instintly gone obsolete.

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.

I said the current era, as in what the GPU's are capable of. What the GPU is doing in real time now, you'd be surprised to know, has shocked the entire feild of game developers. It will take some time before all developers can weild such hardware rendering in real time. no comapny has people who magically does new things without study.

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.

Originally i have stated that game developers will see 10 year projects if they go for it working on a 256MB project. I never said the few games that express what we exspect took 10 years to develop.

And as for the hardware support. The Games made for PC only, will always be held back from being their best. They must cater to lower end GPU or suffer a major loss to income. Truth about the GPU in PCs... They are at their best when they are the minimal class of their own. Only then will they play games at the level you now desire.

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.

Barely any 1st generation games ever amuse us.

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

Don't exspect the 512 to have better looking games than 256 anytime soon. An "exclusive game" made for a 512 GPU today will cut a developer really badly.

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 O2 was the most commonly used computer for 3D graphics. They have been around for awhile. The one i use to work on was as powerful as a pentium III 600Mhz ? Something like that.

To entertain. I'll add the SGI's were damn expensive. The O2 was a $10,000 computer, and the other 2 SGI's i worked on (named The Octain, and the Fuel) had a price tags of $20,000 and $30,000.
The funny part. They were replaced with Compaq's with Duel Xeon motherboards and some other shit in it. When testing the Fuel in the lab we had the Compaq next to it, The Fuel was laggy and very slow to open binary files. SGI sent a sales rep to close the deal, and he smirked at me and nodded at the Compaq and asked me. "So How's the PC?". I told him with excitement, "It's like lightning". The sales rep stoped smiling and it seemed like his whole world came crashing down. It's not everyday 1 rep would sell 32 fuels in a day.

Loss from replacing $345,000+ (.15 tax included)
Loss from purchasing $220,800 (.15 tax again)

Total loss 565,800


PC can afford to be cheaper because they sell to us. SGI sold to NASA and Military. PC was also more advanced, simply because they can afford to be that way for cheap. It's all about sales. Video game developers are aware of this.

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.

I don't doubt there are developers that do upgrade. I just know there are alot of O2's still being used in this feild.

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.

When they do upgrade, which isn't often, years in saying so. I'm positive they reach for the platinum brands of Hardware when they do upgrade. I can tell you all the CG artists would cheer and have a celebration amoungst themselves and the 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.

There is an ATI inside the Wii that will break the last generation systems. The Wii is capable of some pretty sweet graphics, and there will be a few surprises coming out of the Wii i'm sure of it. The controller is a selling point. It's not responsible for how the games look and perform.

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.

Ok so it has a nice light-linking system It's definatly not light baking. Which has been done several times over awhile back. None of that is new. Per pixel lighting is sweet, usually it's supose to work with pre pixel bump mapping for a reactive bump map to lighting. The Lighting in Doom 3 is no new effect. Just damn well done. Every light source projects a shadow, why other games don't do this... lazy i guess. It would be better if it has soft shadows to say the least. the hard edges still get high grade due to the intensity of the light sources on the most part.

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.

For the graphics award and hardware achievement award. Agreed.

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 said Max results. Half-Life as most PC games is not an effort exclusive to the highest GPU. It is held by back the consumers who are running older GPUs.

Max results (In the sense of the word) would mean making smoother poly meshes, more geometry all together, and utalizing pixel shders and lighting, and radiosity and GL, diffuse specular lighting filters each source casting it's own shadows that adjust in softness, (maybe done with raytracing, todays GPUs are putting out very baked results) Real time motion blurr i have yet to see, will it happen this era ? probably. real time Depth of feild... because you know you never had real time depth focusing, only cheat sheets for instant background blurr. Atleast make one that can fade this time.

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).

My 256 is still doing it for me. It's never had a problem ever and it just dosn't lag. Upgrading now i would not notice any difference in performance, i would only wait and wait and wait until one day i can look at a 512 cap and say, yeah i can do that.

I do want a 512. Not too badly though. When i'm facing render times i cannot handle at home, i'll get one then.

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.

Ok but i though i'd mention this cause the Console gets what the PC kinda robs itself of.
Because the console does not cater to any lower ends whatsoever as it does for it's solo top end. Consoles are the ones that walk away with better graphics. On a PC you have you're hardware configuration that does nothing for the mesh work which results in lower polygonal meshes.. Lower than they should be if you desire the max. PC games alot have alot of technical issues, most if not all PC games recommend what brand of graphic card to use. Consoles get more games than PC and more effort into making games are put into the games going to the console.

7 years ago, 128mb graphics cards did not exist.

Geforce3 "Ti 200" Serise was released late 2001. Now it's December 13, 07. (Making such a long post on my birthday (._.)

On top of that, who wants to use minimum hardware specs for 2-3 years?

Most people choose not to upgrade everytime. This is why you're PC games are not taking full advantage of it's capabilities.

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.

He will have to, if he chooses to go the 9 or 10 years from now. It's not a bad deal, we only live once. ^^

 

[CmdrFly]

64MB cards are still being served as minimal, and they are how old again ?

...and again, 64mb cards 7 years ago were capable of what version of DirectX? 7? Fat chance running today's games on them.

Surely Duel core will handle older games with ease. And i wouldn't exspect all newer games to utalize multiple cores within the chip set.

Multiple cores within the chipset? Please elaborate. From everything I have read and understood thus far, current dual-core systems handle the load balancing internally. The chipset holds very little decision-making power in determining which core does what. If it's not handled by the software, it's done by the CPU.

What will make the single processor obsolete, is the success of the sales on these new multicore processors. That can take alot more than 2 years considering their expense, and most people are content with their PCs as they are.

The transition to SMP is going very smoothly and quickly. AMD and Intel have priced their multi-core solutions to be competitively priced compared to their single-core solutions. Single-core manufacturing will be discontinued within a year, if it hasn't been already.

This is just the way things work. When (hardware) developers are unleashed to new technologies, that are feasible and in demand, they'll do what is necessary to make it the de facto standard as quickly as possible. ATX (replaced: AT), PCI (replaced: ISA and EISA), AGP (replaced: PCI), PCI-E (replaced: AGP), socket upgrades (replaced: any previous socket), 3d cards (replaced: 2d cards), these are all prime examples. When the new solution - the replacement - hit the market, the previous standard was discontinued in less than 18 months.

Hardware is made from scratch work. They don't physically take older models and enhance them. Sure they base the making of the hardware on "past knowlege" and R&D.

Hardware is manufactured from scratch, i.e. pressed and printed. But an R580 is just an R560 with extra bells. They take a previous design and they enhance it. This is in direct reply to the bolded part below:

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.

By physical I mean manufacturing / printing. By logical I mean development, design, R&D.

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 not developed from scratch, end of story. It is manufactured from scratch. Development involves a much broader process than just manufacturing. However I think this whole segment is just nitpicking on incorrect usage of the word 'develop', I'm sure we agree on everything above.

Voodoo ? We were talking about the CPU not the GPU. About how the PII lasted more than 3 years.

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

I was talking about "the hardware". Replacing either of these components would have merited replacing the other just to alleviate the bottleneck. The P2 line ended shortly after 333; I believe it went next to 366, 400, 433, then finally ending at 450. By the time I upgraded (3 years after purchasing the P2), P3s were in the norm and the 2's would soon be discontinued.

For clearity i'll also mention just because one ungrades every time new hardware is released, dosn't mean the predisesor has instintly gone obsolete.

Never said that either. But the window of product discontinuation does vary, and if we're talking about SMP anywhere in here, the CPU manufacturers are going to make the transition from SSP (that right?) to SMP quick.

I said the current era, as in what the GPU's are capable of. What the GPU is doing in real time now, you'd be surprised to know, has shocked the entire feild of game developers. It will take some time before all developers can weild such hardware rendering in real time. no comapny has people who magically does new things without study.

I am more of a hardware man than a software man. Have GPUs not been doing real-time rendering all this time? I honestly thought they were, but if you can elaborate and clarify then please do.

Originally i have stated that game developers will see 10 year projects if they go for it working on a 256MB project. I never said the few games that express what we exspect took 10 years to develop.

By this you mean, games optimized to have 256mb as the minimum?

And as for the hardware support. The Games made for PC only, will always be held back from being their best. They must cater to lower end GPU or suffer a major loss to income.

They will also always have the capacity to look the best. Games on PC are flexible and can include support for hardware features that didn't exist when they were released (see: Half-Life2 & HDR). Console games lack this dynamic enhancement since the hardware is always the same ol', or upgraded in relatively minor ways.

Don't exspect the 512 to have better looking games than 256 anytime soon. An "exclusive game" made for a 512 GPU today will cut a developer really badly.

I only expect 512 cards to look better than 256, whether that be measured in visuals or framerate.

SGI

Interesting read on SGI. I'm familiar with that name, Silicon Graphics Inc? Is that right? I didn't know they developed entire systems in the past. All I've ever seen from them was a monitor come to think of it, a badass one but by the time I started using it LCDs were fairly common so it was replaced in time.

There is an ATI inside the Wii that will break the last generation systems. The Wii is capable of some pretty sweet graphics, and there will be a few surprises coming out of the Wii i'm sure of it. The controller is a selling point. It's not responsible for how the games look and perform.

But is that ATI capable of anything the current R5xx isn't? The controller still is an uncommon piece of hardware that the game dev's had to include in their releases as a primary controller.

Ok so it has a nice light-linking system It's definatly not light baking. Which has been done several times over awhile back. None of that is new. Per pixel lighting is sweet, usually it's supose to work with pre pixel bump mapping for a reactive bump map to lighting. The Lighting in Doom 3 is no new effect. Just damn well done. Every light source projects a shadow, why other games don't do this... lazy i guess. It would be better if it has soft shadows to say the least. the hard edges still get high grade due to the intensity of the light sources on the most part.

Then I digress. I thought Id had invented features moreso than perfect old ones.

Max results (In the sense of the word) would mean making smoother poly meshes, more geometry all together, and utalizing pixel shders and lighting, and radiosity and GL, diffuse specular lighting filters each source casting it's own shadows that adjust in softness, (maybe done with raytracing, todays GPUs are putting out very baked results) Real time motion blurr i have yet to see, will it happen this era ? probably. real time Depth of feild... because you know you never had real time depth focusing, only cheat sheets for instant background blurr. Atleast make one that can fade this time.

Thanks.

My 256 is still doing it for me. It's never had a problem ever and it just dosn't lag. Upgrading now i would not notice any difference in performance, i would only wait and wait and wait until one day i can look at a 512 cap and say, yeah i can do that.

This right here is a fork in the road for the discussion. I take it you don't play Oblivion, FEAR, Prey, or Q4. These are all titles I go back to regularly (Oblivion more than anything) and a 256mb 9550 would be a proverbial sliver in my computer's legs. I was running an X800GTO2 256mb beforehand, and upgrading to an X1900XTX 512mb was worth every penny to me. Hell even FFXI runs smoother, but it seems this game's always been an anomaly when it comes to framerate.

Because the console does not cater to any lower ends whatsoever as it does for it's solo top end. Consoles are the ones that walk away with better graphics. On a PC you have you're hardware configuration that does nothing for the mesh work which results in lower polygonal meshes.. Lower than they should be if you desire the max.

Better graphics overall... I can absolutely agree with you there. Devs have much less variance to worry about when making console games. But they also have the option to push the limits on a PC. Whether it's worth the time investment or not... that I'm not sure. But I'd say yes since recent titles have been so taxing on the average computer if you max out the graphic settings.

PC games alot have alot of technical issues, most if not all PC games recommend what brand of graphic card to use.

That's strictly marketing BS. Nvidia pays developer X a set amount of money to include the "plays best on Nvidia" cutscene at the beginning of the game. ATI does the same. But both companies still develop their cards to work on the same API, DirectX. If a game developer is recommending either ATI or Nvidia, it's gotta be advertising in some form.

Doom3 ran better on Nvidia since Nvidia does OpenGL instructions better. Had Doom3 been based solely on DirectX, the benchmarks released that fateful day would not have been so widely spread.

7 years ago, 128mb graphics cards did not exist

Geforce3 "Ti 200" Serise was released late 2001. Now it's December 13, 07. (Making such a long post on my birthday (._.)

Happy birthday! But please jump back in your time machine and return to 2006. 5 years ago that GF3 hit the shelves.

Most people choose not to upgrade everytime. This is why you're PC games are not taking full advantage of it's capabilities.

I'm not talking about upgrading every time new hardware is released. I'm stating that expecting your card purchased today to last for 10 years is an unworldly expectation. At minimum, a gamer's PC should be heavily upgraded every 5 years.

He will have to, if he chooses to go the 9 or 10 years from now. It's not a bad deal, we only live once. ^^

If the API enhancements keep coming as they have been, he'll be banging his head against the wall in 6 years because he won't be able to play any of the new games. He'll still be doing Half-Life2, CS:Source, CoD2. In 10 years.

 

[Rorschach]

...and the battle of the quotes is offically ON!

 

[Anttaru]

...and again, 64mb cards 7 years ago were capable of what version of DirectX? 7? Fat chance running today's games on them.

I was thinking of Doom 3 when i wrote that. I should have mentioned that and clearified it too. Todays games are 128MB GPU DirectX 9.0 minimal.

Multiple cores within the chipset? Please elaborate. From everything I have read and understood thus far, current dual-core systems handle the load balancing internally. The chipset holds very little decision-making power in determining which core does what. If it's not handled by the software, it's done by the CPU.

The Chipset is spcially designed for the processor. When i say Multiple cores within the chipset, i'm referring to the actual Dual core processor. Purchasing a new chip also requires purchasing a new motherboard on that most part.

Every motherboard is designed to handle a type of processor. The motherboard is the Chipset. Which is capable of carrying the dual core processor. In this case looking at AMD's Dual-Core Athlon 64 X2. It has 2 cores as opposed to traditionally 1. When making games on multi core processors. It has been said that game programers have to set how the processors seperate cores will work in parallel. If they wish to use 1 core for an entire game, they can. And because it would be less work, many game companies my look towards using single processor capabilities before they use multiple capabilities. Dual Cores have the option to work in parallel or work seperately on the signle chip.

(I'm not sure if..) You may have been thinking of Dual Motherboard capabilities. That method is different than a single dual processor. Dual Motherboard PCs do no work in parallel. They do what is called Hyperthreading which jugles a single task with multiple speed.

The transition to SMP is going very smoothly and quickly. AMD and Intel have priced their multi-core solutions to be competitively priced compared to their single-core solutions. Single-core manufacturing will be discontinued within a year, if it hasn't been already.

My research about you what you said there lead me to discover how Intel Duel core sales are disappointing due to low demands. AMD on the other hand has consumers buying more Duel core athalons than they can hope for. It sounds like Dual core is infact blowing up, and AMD is smoking it.

This is just the way things work. When (hardware) developers are unleashed to new technologies, that are feasible and in demand, they'll do what is necessary to make it the de facto standard as quickly as possible. ATX (replaced: AT), PCI (replaced: ISA and EISA), AGP (replaced: PCI), PCI-E (replaced: AGP), socket upgrades (replaced: any previous socket), 3d cards (replaced: 2d cards), these are all prime examples. When the new solution - the replacement - hit the market, the previous standard was discontinued in less than 18 months.

Some of those are larger breakthroughs than Dual core. Those changed the very face of the PC. While i do believe in the Dual core, it is a performance upgrade, allowing the PC to move a little faster and do more things at once. What that means for gaming on the PC is awsome, but so long as great games can still be made using less processing power they will do so.

Hardware is manufactured from scratch, i.e. pressed and printed. But an R580 is just an R560 with extra bells. They take a previous design and they enhance it. This is in direct reply to the bolded part below:

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.

By physical I mean manufacturing / printing. By logical I mean development, design, R&D.

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 not developed from scratch, end of story. It is manufactured from scratch. Development involves a much broader process than just manufacturing. However I think this whole segment is just nitpicking on incorrect usage of the word 'develop', I'm sure we agree on everything above.

I wanted to say "then is made from scratch" instead of saying "which".

None the less we do indeed agree on that segment. Who would assume they just go ahead and build GPU's without drafting it out first.

I was talking about "the hardware". Replacing either of these components would have merited replacing the other just to alleviate the bottleneck. The P2 line ended shortly after 333; I believe it went next to 366, 400, 433, then finally ending at 450. By the time I upgraded (3 years after purchasing the P2), P3s were in the norm and the 2's would soon be discontinued.

Even as it was discontiued there was new games and software that supported the minimal of a P2 for quite awhile. There is always the time it takes for people to move on from their old systems and software and game developers look into that cause they make more upon the release of their labour.

Never said that either. But the window of product discontinuation does vary, and if we're talking about SMP anywhere in here, the CPU manufacturers are going to make the transition from SSP (that right?) to SMP quick.

Unless Intel pulls a nintendo and sells their single cores for dirt cheap. Commercial PC companies will jump on that and make a killing that might disrupt the evolution of our dual core transition.

Serial Management Protocol, and Serial SCSI Protocol will boath be optional along side a few other configurations. I don't see why they would scrap one over the other.

I said the current era, as in what the GPU's are capable of. What the GPU is doing in real time now, you'd be surprised to know, has shocked the entire feild of game developers. It will take some time before all developers can weild such hardware rendering in real time. no comapny has people who magically does new things without study.

I am more of a hardware man than a software man. Have GPUs not been doing real-time rendering all this time? I honestly thought they were, but if you can elaborate and clarify then please do.

GPU have been rendering in real time for a long time. If you noticed i said "What the GPU is doing in real time now". Key word being "now"

What we see in games is called Hardware rendering. It relys on how advanced the GPU hardware is to prouduce the visual in real time. There is also Software Render which is what i'll tell you about.

Just to get it out of the way, i'll mention CG presentations, Movie FX, and video games are all made with the same software and hardware.

Software rendering is what is used to make movie FX or photorealistic images. Just not in real time. The computer will take still shots of the 3D visual frame by frame and render it out into what the artists made it out to be. In motion the output would be a serise of invidual frames that are then made self contained into a movie (manually). Back to the software rendering aspects. There is no limit to how well done the render can turn out. There is infinant room for the artist to improve the realism of the image.
Now talking about todays games. Hardware render artists are displaying clevar ways with new tools to close in on graphic magnitues that "was" only achievable in software rendering.

Hardware rendering is limited But it can so alot in Real time before it bogs down the system, and crash if more so.

Software rendering cannot play back in real time. But it is unlimited to the artists desires.

For the 1st time, Video games (which is hardware rendering) Is looking more like Software rendering, by pulling off a look that was always achieved using software rendering.

Originally i have stated that game developers will see 10 year projects if they go for it working on a 256MB project. I never said the few games that express what we exspect took 10 years to develop.

By this you mean, games optimized to have 256mb as the minimum?

Yes. But only if the project makes the most of what they can achieve on the 256. I know there are great looking games released now on the 256 that were done in relativaly short time. They look good, but it can be many times better on the 256.

They will also always have the capacity to look the best. Games on PC are flexible and can include support for hardware features that didn't exist when they were released (see: Half-Life2 & HDR). Console games lack this dynamic enhancement since the hardware is always the same ol', or upgraded in relatively minor ways.

It never takes long for the PC to become more advanced than the current power house console. Although this time around the Cell broadband chip in the PS3 makes the best selling AMD dual core Athalon look like a thing of the past. For a long time we can exspect the most inovative aspects in real time gaming to be done with the PS3. Already PC is capable of better graphics right off the hardware.

I only expect 512 cards to look better than 256, whether that be measured in visuals or framerate.

Depends on how dense the geometry is / How much resource there are. They went a little overboard when they made FEAR on the PC. I have it, but i have yet to install and play it. I was expecting it to run smooth. I have read that it does run good on a 256 and playing it on a 512 only improves 1600 + resolutions.

Interesting read on SGI. I'm familiar with that name, Silicon Graphics Inc? Is that right? I didn't know they developed entire systems in the past. All I've ever seen from them was a monitor come to think of it, a badass one but by the time I started using it LCDs were fairly common so it was replaced in time.

I don't even look at them anymore, i'm about to see if they still make computers for CG artists. From what i learned, the SGI computers are called SGI computers as they do not run Windows (I've heard unconfirmed myths that they can run windows) What makes a computer a PC is the Windows OS. They are that serious.

But is that ATI capable of anything the current R5xx isn't? The controller still is an uncommon piece of hardware that the game dev's had to include in their releases as a primary controller.

The ATI Hollywood in the Wii. Is ofcoarse at the bottom of the playing feild in this generation. The Wii mote does not interfear with the making of the artwork done on the Wii. The Wii mote is 1 thing that saved Nintendo, a controller that requires us to use more dexterity is all it is, that is the programers responsability. If i was watching my brother play a game on the Wii, i would be looking at the screen and not him.

Then I digress. I thought Id had invented features moreso than perfect old ones.

I don't see any headlines saying Doom3 pioneered a new way of lighting a hardware render. The game had a good lighter working in it's development team. When lighting a scene every lightsource must project a shadow, (even if we cannot see it it's always been a good practice in software rendering.) They wanted the lighting to be more realistic, and gave it all a source, and also had them cast shadows. Most games do not do this. Like when we go into crawlers nest in FFXI. We can see in the cave, but there is no indication of a light source.

My 256 is still doing it for me. It's never had a problem ever and it just dosn't lag. Upgrading now i would not notice any difference in performance, i would only wait and wait and wait until one day i can look at a 512 cap and say, yeah i can do that.

This right here is a fork in the road for the discussion. I take it you don't play Oblivion, FEAR, Prey, or Q4. These are all titles I go back to regularly (Oblivion more than anything) and a 256mb 9550 would be a proverbial sliver in my computer's legs. I was running an X800GTO2 256mb beforehand, and upgrading to an X1900XTX 512mb was worth every penny to me. Hell even FFXI runs smoother, but it seems this game's always been an anomaly when it comes to framerate.

No i don't play those. You have the most advanced GPU on the market, it better play everything flawlessly.

PC games alot have alot of technical issues, most if not all PC games recommend what brand of graphic card to use.

That's strictly marketing BS. Nvidia pays developer X a set amount of money to include the "plays best on Nvidia" cutscene at the beginning of the game. ATI does the same. But both companies still develop their cards to work on the same API, DirectX. If a game developer is recommending either ATI or Nvidia, it's gotta be advertising in some form.

I'm surprised you'd think that being a PC gamer. My 1st guess is that you converted from Nvidia to ATI. Nvidia had the best support for games always. My brother had his 128 Nvidia, i had my 128 ATI, and for me i had to always change graphic drivers and shit, and on the 128 i was never able to achieve a decient framerate. Time and time again even on friends PC's i have solved their ATI problems by installing the (how you say) catalysts drivers for the Radeon. Also read up on people who play City of Villans on 256 ATI cards. Problem after problem after problem. The develpers actually have a never ending tec thread regarding the issues with Radeon.

Geforce3 "Ti 200" Serise was released late 2001. Now it's December 13, 07. (Making such a long post on my birthday (._.)

Happy birthday! But please jump back in your time machine and return to 2006. 5 years ago that GF3 hit the shelves.

Gah .... 2006. I was thinking how 2007 is near when i was writing that.

If the API enhancements keep coming as they have been, he'll be banging his head against the wall in 6 years because he won't be able to play any of the new games. He'll still be doing Half-Life2, CS:Source, CoD2. In 10 years.

Right now you're seeing smoother performance on PC games through higher resolutions. FEAR obviously was made from the love of developing games, and not with the wide market in mind. The 512 will not be taken fully advantage of in gaming for quite some time.

Hardware these days dosn't go obsolete as fast as they use to. The more advanced, the longer life expentancy it will have in the hands of the consumer. I believe 256 will last longer than the 128. The 128 is still kicking as minimal requirement, i feel it will be like that for another year or so.

Brand new PC tower, between the price ranges of $1200-$1500. Will include a single core CPU and a 256MB along side some other nice hardware. Dispite my personal believe of how long the 256 GPU will kick for.

 

[Laubibent]

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16834224054 <------My New laptop, runs FFXI great, plus i can put Half-life 2 and quake 4 at full settings

that laptop looks really nice and its 500 dollars off atm!! I need a new laptop.. took it apart one day and lost the screws.. D:

 

[CmdrFly]

The Chipset is spcially designed for the processor. When i say Multiple cores within the chipset, i'm referring to the actual Dual core processor. Purchasing a new chip also requires purchasing a new motherboard on that most part.

Dual-core processors do not require anything fantastic from the chipset. You can take an Athlon X2 built for socket 939 and throw it in an old 939 mobo that has no knowledge whatsoever of dual-core systems.

I believe you're thinking of SLI and CrossFire. In those cases, yes you must have a chipset capable of supporting dual video cards. But dual-core processors do not require an aware chipset.

(I'm not sure if..) You may have been thinking of Dual Motherboard capabilities. That method is different than a single dual processor. Dual Motherboard PCs do no work in parallel. They do what is called Hyperthreading which jugles a single task with multiple speed.

Dual motherboard? Never heard of it, not in a gaming system. Dual-socket motherboard maybe, but I wasn't referring to those either at any point.

My research about you what you said there lead me to discover how Intel Duel core sales are disappointing due to low demands. AMD on the other hand has consumers buying more Duel core athalons than they can hope for. It sounds like Dual core is infact blowing up, and AMD is smoking it.

I'm an AMD fanboy, so I have to admit I don't know how Intels sales are doing. Their processors have been winning the benchmarks lately (particularly since they released quad), but market shares I can't elaborate on. AMD is unfortunately behind the pack right now but they're still making the push to eliminate single-core manufacturing in their plants.

Some of those are larger breakthroughs than Dual core. Those changed the very face of the PC.

Personally I would say parallel processing is the biggest thing to hit computers since CD burners. It will generate more change in our daily lives than I can currently imagine. I can see massive opportunities for multiple cores to be used in both business and gaming systems, moreso the latter.

Even as it was discontiued there was new games and software that supported the minimal of a P2 for quite awhile. There is always the time it takes for people to move on from their old systems and software and game developers look into that cause they make more upon the release of their labour.

We keep revisiting this topic in various ways. I will stick by my guns and say that anyone running on minimal or near-minimal specs is only causing themselves unnecessary frustration. 3-5 years should be the maximum life expectancy for a computer in my eyes.

Serial Management Protocol, and Serial SCSI Protocol will boath be optional along side a few other configurations. I don't see why they would scrap one over the other.

Miscommunication:

SMP = symmetric multiprocessing
SSP (I dont think this term exists) = symmetric single processing. That doesnt even make sense...

When I say SMP I'm talking about multi-core CPUs. When I said SSP I was referring to single-core, though I chose a horrible made-up abbreviation for it.

It never takes long for the PC to become more advanced than the current power house console. Although this time around the Cell broadband chip in the PS3 makes the best selling AMD dual core Athalon look like a thing of the past. For a long time we can exspect the most inovative aspects in real time gaming to be done with the PS3. Already PC is capable of better graphics right off the hardware.

Granted, the cell has more capability than any PC processor. I'm not sure if this is currently possible, but a dual-socket quad-core Intel can't be too far off. One way or another, we will have access to 8 cores on the PC soon, probably within a year.

Depends on how dense the geometry is / How much resource there are. They went a little overboard when they made FEAR on the PC. I have it, but i have yet to install and play it. I was expecting it to run smooth. I have read that it does run good on a 256 and playing it on a 512 only improves 1600 + resolutions.

This may be another reason I notice the difference so much. My monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1200, and every game I have is run at that. AA & AF when possible as well, so in my scenario the larger memory bank on the video card goes to good use.

I'm surprised you'd think that being a PC gamer. My 1st guess is that you converted from Nvidia to ATI. Nvidia had the best support for games always.

Correct. I previously was an Nvidia fanboy, back in the days of the GeForce2 GTS. When I started seeing ATI - a predominantly Canadian company - winning the benchmarks upon release of the Radeon 7500 and 8500, then I converted. However I'm still not sure who I prefer more between Dawn and Ruby. I can make that judgement when there's a level playing field (nude patch for Ruby).

My brother had his 128 Nvidia, i had my 128 ATI, and for me i had to always change graphic drivers and shit, and on the 128 i was never able to achieve a decient framerate. Time and time again even on friends PC's i have solved their ATI problems by installing the (how you say) catalysts drivers for the Radeon. Also read up on people who play City of Villans on 256 ATI cards. Problem after problem after problem. The develpers actually have a never ending tec thread regarding the issues with Radeon.

I never experienced above average problems with any ATI card, until this X1900XTX. Having some odd page flips in any app which seems to be a known issue with no current resolution. But aside from that, keeping my drivers up to date has diverted all issues with ATI away from me. I've had lackluster performance at times when I set the game settings too high for my system, but I've never been able to not run a game or have any noticeable problems within a game. However for fairness' sake, my first ATI card was a Radeon 9700 Pro which was... 2001. So cards previous to then, I am not familiar with issues that existed.

Brand new PC tower, between the price ranges of $1200-$1500. Will include a single core CPU and a 256MB along side some other nice hardware. Dispite my personal believe of how long the 256 GPU will kick for.

With the price difference of single- to dual-core, he can easily afford a dual-core CPU in that price range. I'll agree with 256mb but it won't last 10 years, solely based on API additions required in the hardware.

 

[Anttaru]

Dual-core processors do not require anything fantastic from the chipset. You can take an Athlon X2 built for socket 939 and throw it in an old 939 mobo that has no knowledge whatsoever of dual-core systems.

As i said, on the most part.
They do require a cirtian chipset. A chipset designed for AMD processors will not work with Intel processors and vice versa.

There is an increase in the sales of Motherboards today, and that is part of the shockwave AMD is sending thoughout the PC world. Most people have Intel chipsets or some other commercial brand.

I believe you're thinking of SLI and CrossFire. In those cases, yes you must have a chipset capable of supporting dual video cards. But dual-core processors do not require an aware chipset.

No i'm talking about commercial brand Motherboards. It's easy to see the reason why ATI will cease to make chipsets for Intel processors in 2007. AMD is just reaching out and grabbing what they want, Intel never expected this shit lol.

Dual motherboard? Never heard of it, not in a gaming system. Dual-socket motherboard maybe, but I wasn't referring to those either at any point.

The more correct way of saying it is, Dual Xeon Motherboard, or Dual Athalon Motherboard. I've yet to look up a Dual Athalon Chipset supporting 2 Dual core processors, i'm sure it's been done though. AMD is already talking about releasing Quad Core processors in 2007. 2 of that on a chipset will be the 1st PC to match the PS3's horsepower, and even domonate it. The price of that PC would be utterly disgusting. Maybe even force AlienWare to lower their prices, then adopt the Dual chipset with the twin Quads as their own, like they always do with the most advanced hardware available.

I'm an AMD fanboy, so I have to admit I don't know how Intels sales are doing. Their processors have been winning the benchmarks lately (particularly since they released quad), but market shares I can't elaborate on. AMD is unfortunately behind the pack right now but they're still making the push to eliminate single-core manufacturing in their plants.

Intel is not doing so well. Too soon for Quad, and everyone wants to see a big difference in performance. My guess is this demand plus price concerns is what is making the consumers go to AMD. AMD has never been as big as Intel. But rigth now AMD is on the road to surpassing Intel. It could take years to catch up to Intels stature, But right now Intel is crippled by the present success of AMD.

ATI is with Nintendo and Microsoft, who no doubt would introuduce AMD with Nintendo and Microsoft. I bet the next Nintendo and XboX console will indeed have some bad ass processing power. This is not really console talk, it's the making of AMD's new juggernaught status.

Personally I would say parallel processing is the biggest thing to hit computers since CD burners. It will generate more change in our daily lives than I can currently imagine. I can see massive opportunities for multiple cores to be used in both business and gaming systems, moreso the latter.

It will make things happen faster. Not much change for some. CG digital media might look better due to being able to render out projects faster. No increase to an artists ability or anything, They'll have more time to add last minute details which is always good for projects that are never truly perfect. As for gaming. I'd like to see something really heavy happen, like a room full of characters with their own AI in a panic. All reacting with one another correctly. A little music on the side, and there we can have a thrill as we try to survive or save the day.

We keep revisiting this topic in various ways. I will stick by my guns and say that anyone running on minimal or near-minimal specs is only causing themselves unnecessary frustration. 3-5 years should be the maximum life expectancy for a computer in my eyes.

Only if you're a PC gamer that wants the new stuff.

Miscommunication:

SMP = symmetric multiprocessing
SSP (I dont think this term exists) = symmetric single processing. That doesnt even make sense...

When I say SMP I'm talking about multi-core CPUs. When I said SSP I was referring to single-core, though I chose a horrible made-up abbreviation for it.

*Skooled* ( ._.

Granted, the cell has more capability than any PC processor. I'm not sure if this is currently possible, but a dual-socket quad-core Intel can't be too far off. One way or another, we will have access to 8 cores on the PC soon, probably within a year.

Definatly within a year. And it will cost you probably $10,000. It will be faster than the single Cell Broadband processor in the PS3.

The single Intel in this case is quad, where as the Cell broadband is Octavious. What if Toshiba, Sony and IBM start putting the cell in PCs ? And start applying it to Dual socket chipsets ? That would be so wrong ; ;
I don't think ATI will be making cards for the VIAO anymore. Maybe they frown at Toshiba too.

This may be another reason I notice the difference so much. My monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1200, and every game I have is run at that. AA & AF when possible as well, so in my scenario the larger memory bank on the video card goes to good use.

Yeah you're playing at a pretty large HD setting. If you want to crank up things like FEAR on the card and have it run smoothly, 512 is the peace to resistance, from what i have read.

Correct. I previously was an Nvidia fanboy, back in the days of the GeForce2 GTS. When I started seeing ATI - a predominantly Canadian company - winning the benchmarks upon release of the Radeon 7500 and 8500, then I converted. However I'm still not sure who I prefer more between Dawn and Ruby. I can make that judgement when there's a level playing field (nude patch for Ruby).

You go for the specs over what company you favour, and seemed to appreaciate ATI alot.
ATI,AMD,WindowVista is promising you the best PC experiences. The old days of ATI cards having compatability issues with PC games is truly going to be a thing of that past.

I never experienced above average problems with any ATI card, until this X1900XTX. Having some odd page flips in any app which seems to be a known issue with no current resolution. But aside from that, keeping my drivers up to date has diverted all issues with ATI away from me. I've had lackluster performance at times when I set the game settings too high for my system, but I've never been able to not run a game or have any noticeable problems within a game. However for fairness' sake, my first ATI card was a Radeon 9700 Pro which was... 2001. So cards previous to then, I am not familiar with issues that existed.

That is the card i had. I used it only for FFXI and Maya. FFXI owned my soul and no other game mattered to me. It got better with FFXI but not as good as my PS2 and my brothers GeForce4

With the price difference of single- to dual-core, he can easily afford a dual-core CPU in that price range. I'll agree with 256mb but it won't last 10 years, solely based on API additions required in the hardware.

Not every chipset is like the aftermarket motherboard. (Hobbiest choice/Whoop ass), if his chipset isn't aftermarket, and if he's crossing brands, he may have to get a new motherboard for that processor.

If not then all he'll need is the Processor and the GPU. "Maybe" enough to get that 512 instead too. Powersource might need to be replaced which is cheap. Getting a new HDD and making it the master drive will add that refreshing feel.

I have a feeling i'm going to upgrade soon.

 

[CmdrFly]

A chipset designed for AMD processors will not work with Intel processors and vice versa.

That's... blatantly obvious.

Intel never expected this shit lol.

What shit? Not really sure what you're referring to.

The more correct way of saying it is, Dual Xeon Motherboard, or Dual Athalon Motherboard. I've yet to look up a Dual Athalon Chipset supporting 2 Dual core processors, i'm sure it's been done though. AMD is already talking about releasing Quad Core processors in 2007.

AMD released QuadFX this month, which involves a dual-socket mobo and two dual-core CPUs. The mobo's are not on the market yet, I think. But yes they are planning to release a quad-core single-socket CPU in Q1-07. QuadFX is their interim measure.

Only if you're a PC gamer that wants the new stuff.

What that should say:

Only if you're a PC gamer that wants to maintain his sanity in 5 years.

Running at minimum specs = fatally painful for any gamer.

Definatly within a year. And it will cost you probably $10,000. It will be faster than the single Cell Broadband processor in the PS3.

10k my butt. It'll cost 5k CDN at max, and that's including all the other pieces. Each quad-core CPU currently costs <$1500. Two of those with a $500 mobo (exaggerated guess on this price), done. The only thing stopping this is the non-availability of such a motherboard, which I'm sure is under development by Tyan or Asus or some other big name.

What if Toshiba, Sony and IBM start putting the cell in PCs ?

Hopefully they won't have to. 8-core CPUs will exist soon, and it'll be cheaper than cell given the more familiar architecture and thusly the more perfected manufacturing process.

Not every chipset is like the aftermarket motherboard. (Hobbiest choice/Whoop ass), if his chipset isn't aftermarket, and if he's crossing brands, he may have to get a new motherboard for that processor.

¿que? Aftermarket mobo? Aftermarket chipset? I'm sorry, I don't understand the above quote at all. There is no 'aftermarket' for motherboards; the only piece you can possibly remove on any mobo made in the past few years is the battery. Maybe the bios. Definitely not the chipset.