1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Ultra high-end graphics are "a terrible mistake"

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 11 Mar 2008.

  1. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    wether it is a waste of money or not has absolutely no bearing on the fact that games do not need to be written for a specific # of cores or not.

    circular logic and fuddled arguments will get you nowhere with me.
     
  2. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
  3. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wouldn't expect that great a difference dealing with those kinds of margins anyway.
     
  4. Lepermessiah

    Lepermessiah New Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    566
    Likes Received:
    1
    They had to re-write the source engine code to get it to be multi-threaded. Thanks for proving my point. And the performance benefit is not worth it, when any dual core processor today can max anything with ease.

    Thats the whole point.

    FOD saying it was the OS was the funniest thing I heard all day.
     
  5. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    to be multi-threaded yes, but they did not say for a specific # of cores.

    only dual core existed then, yet source takes advantage of more than 2 cores without another re-write.


    thus your argument that software has to be built for a specific # of cores (2,4,8, etc) goes up in smoke


    and as for the OS, heres the stream

    application -> API -> Threads -> OS -> OS selects execution paths -> CPU -> Output
     
  6. Amon

    Amon inch-perfect

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    2
    And there's the flaw in your logic. Nobody is going to build a 'gaming machine' to play games from 'today'. Has it occurred to you that games of tomorrow would scale to the number of cores available?
     
  7. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
    The only game that really benefits from a quad-core at the moment is Supreme Commander and unless you're playing massive battles, you won't notice it. That said, I don't think that dual-core is still the way to go (it depends on your usage model ultimately), but that's because I see a usage model for quad-core outside of gaming.

    EDIT: whoops, I forgot about UT3
     
  8. Fod

    Fod what is the cheesecake?

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    5,802
    Likes Received:
    133
    leper, go read a book called 'modern operating systems' by Andrew s. Tanenbaum. Chapter 2.2:Threads.
     
  9. Lepermessiah

    Lepermessiah New Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    566
    Likes Received:
    1
    The FULLY utilize it does need to be written for 4 cores, the way valve did it, only spreads it out over the 4 cores, thus barely any increase in performance from Dual Core, Crytek, made crysis (Alan Wake as well) to use each core for a specific function, that is the proper way to get more out of quad core. It is also the same reason Supp Comm sees much bigger gains then Valve, they designed it with all 4 cires in mind. Valve makes compromises as their engine is older and not demanding anyway.
     
  10. Delphium

    Delphium Eyefinity enabled

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    35
    Seconded!!! (reminds me of a histrorical CK)
    May I also suggest that you have some more respect for other forum members, all are entitled to there opinions for sure, however I dont see the need to become aggressive or enforceful of your opinion onto others, with remarks of idiots or morons.
    Respect, please!


    That being said..
    I agree that there is no need to update hardware every month, my GTX still pwns all games I desire to play, however the inital outlay for the entire pc build excells that of a console by far.
    Console being for much more casual gaming.
    I know that my current build will most likely be my last as ill move to getting a nice console.

    Quad core id not say is a waste at all, being fortunate enough to own one, I can say that there are many a games that support at least dual core and many more that support multi cores, any game based on the source engine, unreal 3 engine, quake4 (as stated already), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Stranglehold, Suprmeme commander, GRAW2, Flight Sim X, Bioshock (unreal 3 engine), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, to name a few, with many more on there way.

    Even with not all games being able to run multi core, it makes the whole multi tasking experience a LOT more smoother being able to run applications on different cores, better management by ones self can have its improvements.
    Im not sure about others, but I know I still tend to run many an application in the background while playing games, for which the multi core is a huge aid.

    That being said, it is now getting to the fact that if I desire to play a lot of the latest games with all the prittyness, I will require an uber load of kit, which brings me to my first comment, that the price excels that of consoles now.
    Its not completely out of hand at the momment, but it is certainly heading that way.
     
    Last edited: 11 Mar 2008
  11. Lepermessiah

    Lepermessiah New Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    566
    Likes Received:
    1
    By the time Quad Core is manistream for gaming, that PC u have now will be obsolete, it took 2 years for dual core to take off, get real. A dual core processor is fine for now.
     
  12. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    technically it doesn't matter how the threads are allocated to cores, except in the recombination cycle. all it does is enable it to recombine in 1 clock cycle instead of 2. (recombination cycle here meaning the time it takes to send the output of the calculation to the correct path)

    however, your first argument clearly stated that a game would not use the cores at all unless specifically designed to, yet this has been proven false.
     
  13. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
    This is the point that Sweeney is almost trying to make. He's saying that the ULTRA high-end solutions (like 3-way SLI/CrossFireX, etc) are a waste... not the 8800 GTXs of the world. :)

    Like I said with 3-way SLI when I looked at it - it's a tech demo and I don't see it as anything else. The tech demo worked pretty well and gave us a glimpse of the future, but I don't recommend anyone rushes out to buy it. There's frankly no need for it for most scenarios.
     
  14. Hugo

    Hugo Ex-TrustedReviews Staff

    Joined:
    25 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    19
    Although by the time you are starting to use all your cores you've run out of RAM and your game has crashed.

    UT3 has pretty good multi-core load balancing, my Q6600 was using about 70% of each core in bot matches when I reviewed the game. (linked to point out I'm not "just some guy")
     
  15. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    Okay then, the other figure from that test.. Q6600.. 106.7fps. Slower than the Dual Core. The test was done using an 8800Ultra, so to eliminate as much gfx bottleneck as possible. As far as I'm aware, EP2 was one of the last source games released by valve (alongside TF2 and Portal). Even at 1024x768, the E6750 beats the Q6600.
     
  16. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    I never said that multithreading will always be more efficient, on the contrary, badly designed multithreading can be worse by factors of 100 or more.
     
  17. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
    The cpu has little to no influence on gaming performance in most titles. Source-based games are a classic example where you will not be able to tell the difference in a game. You're talking about over 100 fps at 1920x1200 - you're simply not going to notice the difference. Once you enable AA/AF, you're going to notice even less of a difference.

    Quite simply, the benefits of quad-core are outside of gaming. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the benefits of a fast CPU are outside of gaming... Or at least, that's the case at the moment.
     
  18. legoman666

    legoman666 Beat to fit, paint to match.

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    927
    Likes Received:
    19
    sorry, Im a bit slow today. :p
     
  19. Lepermessiah

    Lepermessiah New Member

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    566
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you, funny how hard that was for some here to understand.
     
  20. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,572
    Likes Received:
    227
    wow, this thread has exploded!

    totally disagree, it my seem so for the developers, but i think with just a little help from the manufactures, PC gaming can take off big time.

    i totally hate those "Home Premium PC" in PCworld, which with super CPU, lots RAM, and a super large hard disk drive, but the graphics card is integrated or 8400GS?? those manufactures need to think about possibilities of gaming market!

    so i say we force those manufactures to put out better PC's, eg. at LEAST a 9600GT in every machine so called "Home Entertainment". (only HTPC can have crappy graphics cards)
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page