Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 11 Mar 2008.
Fixed the typo!
Back again. Some well written posts there. Going back to the threaded argument, I have compiled codes on *nix machines that only needed to be told that there was more than one processor available, not how many cores there were.
According to an interview that I read (could have been the ones Leper was referring to) they were looking at aplitting up the threads into discrete physics, AI, sound etc threads, so the code could be more efficient. There wasn't (if I remember correctly) any mention of writing for a specific number of cores tho...
what the hell? i come on bit tech for the first time today and find thread with more than 200 posts. Slow down guys, i'll be reading these till next week
I've been a PC gamer since the mid 90s. I still have every PC game that I've ever purchased. The advantage of a PC over a console for gaming, imho, is that I have been able to play nearly all of my older games on newer computers. Occassionally, it has taken some creative setup to get them running, but by in large most of my really old games can still run on an XP PC. Caveat: Haven't tried anything older than 4 years on my new Vista rig yet.
Gaming aside, I sometimes watch and record HD TV through my pc, listen to MP3s, create/edit documents, manipulate digital photos from my camera, burn CDs/DVDs, surf the web, and much more. Give me a console that can replace all of the things that I do on my PC now and I would consider the possibility.
ok you think you have to spend a fortune on a pc just to game huh. I built my pc last year with a c2d e6300 120GB hd, 1 gig of ram 6600GT and 500 watt psu for 500 dollars. I got 4 gigs of ram and a 8800GT this year and sold the 6600gt and ram. i have a total of around 670 usd in this pc and i can run everything on high. I say BS to all your crap about pc gaming being to expensive.
well putting all the crap asside, if i was going to build a pc now that was only for games and nothing else i would go for a e8400 £140 if i was going to use it for everything else as well i would still grab a q6600 go £135 due to the fact multitasking is a breeze compared to my old dualcore. tbh you can overclock a quad to 3ghz + and that eats up everything i throw at it. so i cant see myself changing bk to a dual core anytime soon.
Wow this is totally the reason I don't play much PC games lately. I still play WC3, SC, Savage because it focuses on gameplay and not graphics.
I'd go and get a better videocard, but i'd have to have a 250-350$ budget to get anything worthwhile.
WHO IS TO BLAME?!?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
I started to reply to this, but it got totally out of hand and I'll give you the summary and the linky to the new thread I put the rest of it in...
The short version is I think the OP is correct, games manufacturers are levering themselves out of the market by continuing to raise the specs required to run their games. We're seeing an evolutionary split between gaming machines, which are required for modern games, and general purpose machines whice are entirely adequate for everything else. When you look at just the chunk of the marker able to play modern games, then as a developer it makes more sense to write for consoles and port to PC.
Stand back people, i will resolve this nasty mess in just 8 words:
Consoles for Casual games, PC's for Proper games
I think you've got that 180 degrees out of phase
Half agree with this. we need to get a balance between pushing new gfx and not making entry requirements too high
Yep, but the problem with keeping the requirements very low (i.e. Intel Integrated Graphics) is that if you implement any new graphical gameplay features, the lowest-end can't render the graphical gameplay features and that breaks the game.
By that, I think the best way to think about it is to think about having a building on fire and you've got to rescue someone trapped in the fire on the top floor of said building. The entry-level graphics (that aren't Intel Integrated) can render the fire, albeit with less detail, and that forms a part of the gameplay when you're trying to get through it to get to the person you've got to rescue. With Intel Integrated, you won't be able to see that fire because the GPU isn't powerful enough (or designed) for gaming and won't render it. Therefore the puzzle/task in the game is broken.
I know this is over-simplified, but it's nothing more than an example to show where "gameplay graphics" can't be used at the moment because they break the game for anyone using a GPU that isn't good enough.
Intel knows this and doesn't really push its IGPs for gaming at all any more. What needs to happen is that retailers (brick and mortars) need to educate the consumer in a way to say that if you want to play games, you need a respectable graphics card/GPU designed with gaming in mind. The problem is, I can't see Intel forcing retailers to push that, because it'd probably eat into some of its IGP marketshare.
What's good though is that more and more people are using the Internet now and as a result, they're becoming more educated.
agree, computer retailers, we should ban those "super quad core computer for 400 pounds" computer, and start a campaign of trying to get PC gamers to buy graphics cards
Super quad core computer for 400 quid??? Where?
this expensive piece of junk has 8600GS graphics card, and yet it's in the Gaming section.
and ebay's attemp
wtf? is that even a graphics card?
Yup - good old integrated graphics. Okay, not a card as such but still dedicated right?
256-bit graphics from a 2-bit seller.
Ah. I don't know what they're talking about. I do all my gaming in the office and at home on an integrated graphics card. It's the best thing to run Crysis on!
Intel is billing its new X3100 IG chipset as DiectX 10 capable. Yes, it is, and could run crysis considering it can render 1080p video in real time, but it would still be at the lowest possible settings and be highly dependant on the amount of RAM in the system.
It HAS to be DirectX 10 capable in order to meet the requirements for Windows Vista Premium certification (from June 1st 2008). That doesn't mean it can play games (or has to, for that matter).
Separate names with a comma.