Hmm, what are Razer up to? Wall Street Journal ad.

Retr0gamer

NotorietyH wrote: »

I think that may be the one and only time I'll ever see the Bombcast guys be described as jocks. I don't always agree with them individually or collectively, but they produce a roughly 2 and a half hour podcast every week that covers pretty much everything that's happened in the previous week. They go pretty in depth into a fair few subjects too, moreso than some other podcasts, except for I suppose the podcasts that are about specific games or genres or something. I like them anyway, light-hearted but a bit more in depth than the other podcasts I've listened to.

My big problem is that they only cover the big games and any news and they seem to be afraid to criticise anyone in the industry in case they hurt peoples feelings. The news and games they do cover are all well known by the time the podcast comes out or just regurgiated press releases so I'd only be interested in good discussion on these but they really don't do this satisfactorily. There's also way too much off topic banter that goes on too long and becomes uninteresting quickly.

The only podcast that covers broad gaming topics I've ever liked was 1up yours were the guys on it really criticised the industry and ripped into it when it deserved it and there was great discussion. Nothing has really come close other than WAHP which is unfortunately very intermittent with podcast releases and only covers the japanese industry. Giantbomb is probably the closest to 1up yours but it's still tame by comparison and they really get it badly wrong sometimes. I just stick to Retronauts, Roleplayers Realm and WAHP whenever it does come out now.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

My big problem is that they only cover the big games and any news and they seem to be afraid to criticise anyone in the industry in case they hurt peoples feelings. The news and games they do cover are all well known by the time the podcast comes out or just regurgiated press releases so I'd only be interested in good discussion on these but they really don't do this satisfactorily. There's also way too much off topic banter that goes on too long and becomes uninteresting quickly.

I don't think that describe the bombcast at all in my opinion anyway. If anything at times I find them overly critical at times and usually go pretty in depth with any news topics, especially since Patrik Klepek joined. Used to listen to the 1up podcasts but I find them more and more sanctimonious as time goes on. Anyway, we're not going to change each other's minds! At least there are enough podcasts around to suit different tastes!

the_syco

gizmo wrote: »

If there are so many PC gamers out there then why do 90% of multiplatform titles sell considerably more copies on consoles?

We've moved from PC's that mainly do other things and games, to PC's that are built for games that can do other things, but the PC's built for other things can no longer play games.

By this, I mean before I could play Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, and a few other games on a PC that had a pretty standard spec in the 1990's, as the games were designed around limited specs. Now, there is no limit to the specs, and you'll need a good GFX card, lots of RAM, etc, to play a game, and thus a PC that was built for MS Office won't be able to play the "new" games.

TomCo

My favourite podcast at the moment is joypod (http://spong.com/podcasts/joypod/), followed by the Bombcast.

I don't really listen to gaming podcasts for the news, if I learn something new its a bonus.

Genghiz Cohen

the_syco wrote: »

We've moved from PC's that mainly do other things and games, to PC's that are built for games that can do other things, but the PC's built for other things can no longer play games.

By this, I mean before I could play Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, and a few other games on a PC that had a pretty standard spec in the 1990's, as the games were designed around limited specs. Now, there is no limit to the specs, and you'll need a good GFX card, lots of RAM, etc, to play a game, and thus a PC that was built for MS Office won't be able to play the "new" games.

Minecraft.

the_syco

NotorietyH wrote: »

how HP and other companies seem to be trying to step away from the desktop PC market because there's no money to be made

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.

NotorietyH wrote: »

The interesting thing I took from it is that apparently HP are thinking of dropping Desktop PCs altogether

Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Minecraft.

Like World of Warcraft, it's based on an engine that you don't need to update your machine to play. This sort of game whose gameplay is the selling point not the graphics may be what drives PC gaming in the future. Hopefully, as graphics can only go so far.

People that want quick mindless crap can get a console. That's one of the reasons why I like the console: you plug it in, you play a game. No install needed. Well, not when I last played a game on the console. Also, the console you get, can play all games for it. No upgrade needed. I just can't play FPS games on them as I need the K&M to play such games.

NotorietyH

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.


Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?

Well yes I guess, it was interesting to me at least. As I said I'm not really a PC gamer and not up to speed on PCs in general, but it was an interesting discussion to me at least.

marco_polo

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.


Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?


Like World of Warcraft, it's based on an engine that you don't need to update your machine to play. This sort of game whose gameplay is the selling point not the graphics may be what drives PC gaming in the future. Hopefully, as graphics can only go so far.

People that want quick mindless crap can get a console. That's one of the reasons why I like the console: you plug it in, you play a game. No install needed. Well, not when I last played a game on the console. Also, the console you get, can play all games for it. No upgrade needed. I just can't play FPS games on them as I need the K&M to play such games.

Large OEMs like HP, dell et al, are part of the problem for PC gaming if you ask me, I often wonder how many people have been put off PC gaming because the 'gaming PC' they bought was not worthy of the name, and ended up with an expensive coaster when they couldn't run that new game they just bought.

Interestingly with integrated CPU/GPUs starting to emerge it will should come back around to the point where fairly demanding games will be playable on a bog standard off the shelf PC in the next couple of years. Already the on die GPUs of the first generation AMD Fusion APUs are not that far off the consoles in graphical power.

Magill

The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized. Yes your £500 PC may be technically 10 times more powerful than a £150 console... but you simply don't get 10 times the performance from them when playing multiplat games. My laptop is much more powerful technically than my PS3... but it can barely run css at a decent frame rate (on low settings) nevermind something like crysis2/deus Ex.

Dcully

Magill wrote: »

The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized. Yes your £500 PC may be technically 10 times more powerful than a £150 console... but you simply don't get 10 times the performance from them when playing multiplat games. My laptop is much more powerful technically than my PS3... but it can barely run css at a decent frame rate (on low settings) nevermind something like crysis2/deus Ex.

What spec is your laptop?
My 4 year old PC now passed on to my son can play cod,bc2 etc at much higher resolution,much better graphical quality and much better framerate than he could dream of getting on his 360.
I also ran CSS at well over 80fps @ max settings @ 1920X1080.
Crysis 2 runs at about 40-60fps @ max settings.
A €500 PC will run pretty much anyhing on the market no problem at all.
Its a myth that you have to spend a lot on a gaming pc.

mcgovern

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.

Why would they not be able to compete with them? It's not like IBM for example, didn't manufacture PC's in China before the sold it.
They sold it because the margin is crap, same reason HP are selling.

Magill

Dcully wrote: »

What spec is your laptop?
My 4 year old PC now passed on to my son can play cod,bc2 etc at much higher resolution,much better graphical quality and much better framerate than he could dream of getting on his 360.
I also ran CSS at well over 80fps @ max settings @ 1920X1080.
Crysis 2 runs at about 40-60fps @ max settings.
A €500 PC will run pretty much anyhing on the market no problem at all.
Its a myth that you have to spend a lot on a gaming pc.

Err i3 2.2ghz / 3gb ram / ATI HD4250 (cost about 400 last year)

I know a 500e (Tower only, you've still to spend another 200+ for everything else tho if you don't already have it ! Monitor/keyboard+mouse+headset or speakers and possibly a desk + chair. so yeah... it CAN be expensive if your starting from scratch, as it would if you didnt have a TV for your console ) will run most things these days. Just from experience tho... while people say stuff like a PC is 10 times more powerful than a console (And usually 10 times the price) you simply don't get 10 times the graphical power or frame rates because of how PC's are built and how they aren't dedicated gaming machines. Another way of looking at it... if someone handed you 200e and told you to build them a pc capable of matching the performance of a console it would be simply impossible.

IMO its a myth that building your own gaming PC from scratch is cheap... otherwise i would have done it months ago !

ShadowHearth

Magill wrote: »

Err i3 2.2ghz / 3gb ram / ATI HD4250 (cost about 400 last year)

I know a 500e (Tower only, you've still to spend another 200+ for everything else tho if you don't already have it ! Monitor/keyboard+mouse+headset or speakers and possibly a desk + chair.. so yeah... it CAN be expensive if your starting from scratch, as it would if you didnt have a TV for your console ) will run most things these days.. Just from experience... while people say stuff like a PC is 10 times more powerful than a console (And usually 10 times the price) you simply don't get 10 times the graphical power or frame rates because of how PC's are built and how they aren't dedicated gaming machines. Another way of looking at it... if someone handed you 200e and told you to build them a pc capable of matching the performance of a console it would be simply impossible.

IMO its a myth that building your own gaming PC from scratch is cheap... otherwise i would have done it months ago !

PC needs monitor, same as console needs a TV. When me and misses moved in to apartment ( from house with 3 couples living to our own little apartment ) we had nothing, our first purchase was a desktop pc, which was set on coffee table...worked fine.

Console (250-300eu)
PC (500eu)

PC needs Monitor ( 100eu )
Console needs TV ( 500eu )

PC needs a table + chair ( 100eu )
TV needs a Stand ( 100 eu )

keyboard+mouse can be bought for 20 eu...

bouth can be expensive if you start from zero.

If you got only TV+CONSOLE, you will need LAPTOP for your computer needs.
TV + PC = profit.

i am not bashing consoles, i got myself xbox, ps3, psp, 3ds. I am just trying to explain that PC gaming is not that expensive as people ( who dont have a ****ing clue ) make it look.

marco_polo

No idea where you are getting 10X from Magill, but if you were using a 500 quid PC to play on low/medium settings @720p, you would certainly be seeing large triple figure fps numbers on most games.

As for PC hardware not being optimised, I am not sure what you mean, the Xbox is essentially a PC there is nothing especially different from an architectural point of view. Sure the PS3 Cell is quite different but if anything that is the most difficult platform to optimise for by all accounts and it is only recently that multiplatform are pretty much the same on both consoles, despite the theoretical advantage the PS3 should have.

Genghiz Cohen

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Console (250-300eu)
PC (500eu)

PC needs Monitor ( 100eu )
Console needs TV ( 500eu )

That is an amazing point, why did I not think of this?!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

Genghiz Cohen

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

I didn't

ShadowHearth

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

people ofc buying ****y laptops + TV too. heres a strong point.

Buy PC + Telly, skip on console = profit


loads of people buying TV, just for theyr console, because main TV is used by other family members?

gizmo

marco_polo wrote: »

As for PC hardware not being optimised, I am not sure what you mean, the Xbox is essentially a PC there is nothing especially different from an architectural point of view. Sure the PS3 Cell is quite different but if anything that is the most difficult platform to optimise for by all accounts and it is only recently that multiplatform are pretty much the same on both consoles, despite the theoretical advantage the PS3 should have.

Not really correct unfortunately.The 360 GPU is quite different from its PC counterparts, especially when it comes to the optimisation aspect. The PS3 has a more common GPU but as you rightly pointed out, the Cell is the kicker there, especially since it needs to make up for the underpowered GPU at graphical work.

Either way, ShadowHearth is correct in this respect. PC "optimisation" from the point of view of getting the most out of the hardware available, is a nightmare compared to what can be done on the console.

With regards the budget PC debate, the figures people are using are quite odd. Surely the only ones that matter are either a PC priced at the same as the console was at launch or a PC priced at what the console is now. Then compare the performance found in games now. Comparing a £500 PC with today's specs against a console now is ludicrous and completely misses the point.

Shiminay

I've got a telly that I bought some years ago to use as a PC monitor. I have since switched to a dedicated (and higher res) monitor and my TV is only ever used by my XBox (and occasionally my PC if I wanna watch a film on the couch, but that's rare). I'm looking at buying another telly atm cause it's on it's way out - took a knock going to a LAN years ago and hasn't been right since.

My point is, the two things are interchangeable and I don't personally think they should be considered a part of the pricing of your gaming platform of choice.

Why do PC's with considerably higher technical specifications not have similarly higher performance? APIs. Games use the OS and it's various APIs to interface with the hardware (DirectX being the most common example on Windows machines) and they have to be coded to allow as much flexibility to allow for past, present and future hardware and a practically limitless combination of parts that work to make up a PC.

Consoles have 1 set of hardware which never changes which means the operating system is considerably thinner and the code needed to write for them is also thinner. This is why you get considerably more bang for buck performance out of them.

It's also worth noting, that for all it's flexibility of parts and components and configurations, the PC is a relatively limited platform in it's own right. Look at the high end graphics market? There has been monsterous power and performance being pumped into it, but it all bottlenecks at a PCIeX16 slot. Your standard motherboard bus is quite limited in comparison to a console's because in order to keep the business going as it stands, you need to have standards that everyone agrees to stick to.

A friend of mine who's far more familiar with hardware than I once theorised that we should be moving to a platform where your machine has X system ram and y system processors and much wider data busses to allow communications between them and the various I/O devices. The software should be able to proportionally control what it wants to do with it all (e.g. assign 10% of cores/threading to physics, 20% to rendering, 25% to running the code, etc). Need an upgrade? Just buy another 16 core and 64 GB RAM card and plug it in and let the system realise it's got more cores and ram available, that should give more performance, but the running ratios remain the same. Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

I thought it an interesting idea and a very fresh approach to the issue.

Magill

marco_polo wrote: »

No idea where you are getting 10X from Magill, but if you were using a 500 quid PC to play on low/medium settings @720p, you would certainly be seeing large triple figure fps numbers on most games.

As for PC hardware not being optimised, I am not sure what you mean, the Xbox is essentially a PC there is nothing especially different from an architectural point of view. Sure the PS3 Cell is quite different but if anything that is the most difficult platform to optimise for by all accounts and it is only recently that multiplatform are pretty much the same on both consoles, despite the theoretical advantage the PS3 should have.

I think gizmo and shiminay gave a better explanation than i did about how consoles and PC's are optimized differently.

@Shadow - As for the price of a buying from scratch for console, i did say in my post that it too is expensive if you haven't got a tv... but 500e for a tv and 100e for a monitor :P comon now, you can get good 32inch tv's from argos for 200 quid now adays !

But yeah, most people tend to have a TV (you know... for watching tv ) before buying a console whereas you'd tend to see a lot more people buying the full package if they decided to get into PC gaming.

besides... you dont even need a stand for a TV :P

Overheal

ShadowHearth wrote:

PC needs monitor, same as console needs a TV. When me and misses moved in to apartment ( from house with 3 couples living to our own little apartment ) we had nothing, our first purchase was a desktop pc, which was set on coffee table...worked fine.

Console (250-300eu)
PC (500eu)

PC needs Monitor ( 100eu )
Console needs TV ( 500eu )

PC needs a table + chair ( 100eu )
TV needs a Stand ( 100 eu )

keyboard+mouse can be bought for 20 eu...

bouth can be expensive if you start from zero.

If you got only TV+CONSOLE, you will need LAPTOP for your computer needs.
TV + PC = profit.

i am not bashing consoles, i got myself xbox, ps3, psp, 3ds. I am just trying to explain that PC gaming is not that expensive as people ( who dont have a ****ing clue ) make it look.

Shiminay wrote:

I've got a telly that I bought some years ago to use as a PC monitor. I have since switched to a dedicated (and higher res) monitor and my TV is only ever used by my XBox (and occasionally my PC if I wanna watch a film on the couch, but that's rare). I'm looking at buying another telly atm cause it's on it's way out - took a knock going to a LAN years ago and hasn't been right since.

My point is, the two things are interchangeable and I don't personally think they should be considered a part of the pricing of your gaming platform of choice.

So now we're assuming you already own a Television. Hmm.

Well if you want to take it there, I'd argue that in order to game on a PC you'd only have to buy the Gaming Components. That is to say you already have a simplistic PC, with atypical set of RAM and CPU. It's already running at Least Windows XP,Vista, or 7. Now Lets go ahead and Assume you have to spend €50 on a new Power Supply - a very common requirement; and just about anything on a GPU but let's call it €150. Let's also assume you're not from the Dark Ages and at least have a PCI-Express lane on your motherboard.

That stacks up rather equivalently with a Console, doesn't it?

At worst, if you hadn't upgraded in >4-5 years, you'd want a new CPU (>€100) and more RAM (€50) which would still leave you on par with an "Elite" Console Package.

Magill

Overheal wrote: »

So now we're assuming you already own a Television. Hmm.

Well if you want to take it there, I'd argue that in order to game on a PC you'd only have to buy the Gaming Components. That is to say you already have a simplistic PC, with atypical set of RAM and CPU. It's already running at Least Windows XP,Vista, or 7. Now Lets go ahead and Assume you have to spend €50 on a new Power Supply - a very common requirement; and just about anything on a GPU but let's call it €150. Let's also assume you're not from the Dark Ages and at least have a PCI-Express lane on your motherboard.

That stacks up rather equivalently with a Console, doesn't it?

At worst, if you hadn't upgraded in >4-5 years, you'd want a new CPU (>€100) and more RAM (€50) which would still leave you on par with an "Elite" Console Package.

That time of the month ? Or do you just completely fail at reading ? Either way... here... have a double facepalm.

Overheal

While I am usually a fan of Picardian humour perhaps you could explain your counter-argument a little more substantially?

Bearing in mind: I wasn't addressing you. I wasn't addressing you at all. Here, allow me to insert a quote in my above post to clarify just how much I wasn't addressing you. There.

A friend of mine who's far more familiar with hardware than I once theorised that we should be moving to a platform where your machine has X system ram and y system processors and much wider data busses to allow communications between them and the various I/O devices. The software should be able to proportionally control what it wants to do with it all (e.g. assign 10% of cores/threading to physics, 20% to rendering, 25% to running the code, etc). Need an upgrade? Just buy another 16 core and 64 GB RAM card and plug it in and let the system realise it's got more cores and ram available, that should give more performance, but the running ratios remain the same. Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

I thought it an interesting idea and a very fresh approach to the issue.

In fairness the more scalable you make the hardware the more expense you add to the base cost. Simply take a look at a 4-way SLi Motherboard ("Scalable Link Interface"), vs. the cost of a Standard board. Anything and everything you do to add scalability ultimately will end up in increasing costs. Even crowdsourced computing in a way because you keep having to expand the server that process all of that data. However thats the kind of scale where it really becomes effective at: where you can send one chunk/project to one Client and have it send back the output.

On the more local side of things I can't fathom if it would even be possible to build motherboards that had 'future-proof' bus speeds that could be afforded reasonably. At least not to where at some point you are better off to buy the cheaper components and simply upgrade to the faster stuff later when it's cost comes down. The exact same process that has been in places for tens of years. But sure if some MIT whiz makes a working, economical LEGO-style computer model, let me know Slap a CPU brick with a few little RAM bricks, add a propeller and some wheels and you'll have yourself a LAN-box.

Magill

Overheal wrote: »

While I am usually a fan of Picardian humour perhaps you could explain your counter-argument a little more substantially?

Bearing in mind: I wasn't addressing you. I wasn't addressing you at all. Here, allow me to insert a quote in my above post to clarify just how much I wasn't addressing you

In fairness... it usually helps if you quote unless your replying to the post directly above yours

Overheal

Magill wrote: »

In fairness... it usually helps if you quote unless your replying to the post directly above yours

Im sure if you had read what I was talking about instead of complaining that I wasn't reading what I was talking about then Picard and Riker would be off dealing with important matters right about now :pac:

marco_polo

gizmo wrote: »

Not really correct unfortunately.The 360 GPU is quite different from its PC counterparts, especially when it comes to the optimisation aspect. The PS3 has a more common GPU but as you rightly pointed out, the Cell is the kicker there, especially since it needs to make up for the underpowered GPU at graphical work.

Either way, ShadowHearth is correct in this respect. PC "optimisation" from the point of view of getting the most out of the hardware available, is a nightmare compared to what can be done on the console.

But it is still recognisably an (extended) ATI GPU, albeit split over two dies (This was mainly for economic rather than technical reason apparently), beefed up for the very reason that it had to last for years. On the evidence thus far it seems a much wiser decison that that of Sony (Lets face it the cell processor really just has the exclusive Uncharted and Killzone series to as it showcase after 5-6 odd years), and ironically the PS3 has probably had even more shoddy ports to it name over its lifetime than the PC.

In any case I wasn't really arguing that console games weren't better optimized, but i was simply taking issue with the statement "The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized". The fact that consoles games are better optimised due to the closed nature of the platform and the need to compensate for hardware aging, is hardly grounds for sweeping claims that the PC gaming in general is badly optimised. I couldn't possibly put a figure on the gains from such console optimizations over a general purpose API like DirectX, but given the short term early in their lifespan that consoles have any sort of performance edge, I imagine it could be measured in relatively moderate percentage terms rather than orders of magnitude.

With regards the budget PC debate, the figures people are using are quite odd. Surely the only ones that matter are either a PC priced at the same as the console was at launch or a PC priced at what the console is now. Then compare the performance found in games now. Comparing a £500 PC with today's specs against a console now is ludicrous and completely misses the point.

Agree 100%.

Shiminay wrote: »

I've got a telly that I bought some years ago to use as a PC monitor. I have since switched to a dedicated (and higher res) monitor and my TV is only ever used by my XBox (and occasionally my PC if I wanna watch a film on the couch, but that's rare). I'm looking at buying another telly atm cause it's on it's way out - took a knock going to a LAN years ago and hasn't been right since.

My point is, the two things are interchangeable and I don't personally think they should be considered a part of the pricing of your gaming platform of choice.

Well I have shared controllers, headphones and a monitor split between my PC and XBox so I wouldnn't even know where to begin :pac:

Why do PC's with considerably higher technical specifications not have similarly higher performance? APIs. Games use the OS and it's various APIs to interface with the hardware (DirectX being the most common example on Windows machines) and they have to be coded to allow as much flexibility to allow for past, present and future hardware and a practically limitless combination of parts that work to make up a PC.

Consoles have 1 set of hardware which never changes which means the operating system is considerably thinner and the code needed to write for them is also thinner. This is why you get considerably more bang for buck performance out of them.

Isn't there is a contradiction here?, APIs are there precisely so you don't have to account for past present and future variations in hardware. The fact that I can pick up my copy of Half Life from 1998 and put it in my 2010 Windows 7 PC is a testament to this. For DirectX you just have to code to the version you want and it will run on hardware that supports that version of the API.

For sure the bad reputation of PC gaming in this regard has much do with bugs that result from subtle variations in the way ATI and Nvidia implement those API features, which can cause glitches developers will not have forseen, however nobody can seriously claim that is a bigger undertaking to code a game for a number of different graphics cards that support the same version of DirectX than it is to code a game for both the Xbox360 and PS3.

It's also worth noting, that for all it's flexibility of parts and components and configurations, the PC is a relatively limited platform in it's own right. Look at the high end graphics market? There has been monsterous power and performance being pumped into it, but it all bottlenecks at a PCIeX16 slot. Your standard motherboard bus is quite limited in comparison to a console's because in order to keep the business going as it stands, you need to have standards that everyone agrees to stick to.

PCIe 2.0 X16 is certainly not bottlenecking the current generation of graphics cards, even in obsence crossfire/SLI setups. A very simple confirmation of this is to look at the benchmarks for the most expensive single gaming cards on the market, the HD6990 and the second most expensive card the GT580, at no point do the frames per second numbers coem even remotely close to converging which you would expect if a limit had the PCIe 2.0 reached its saturation point. And if in case there was any danger of it happening in the next generation of cards PCie 3.0 has already started appearing on the scene.

A friend of mine who's far more familiar with hardware than I once theorised that we should be moving to a platform where your machine has X system ram and y system processors and much wider data busses to allow communications between them and the various I/O devices. The software should be able to proportionally control what it wants to do with it all (e.g. assign 10% of cores/threading to physics, 20% to rendering, 25% to running the code, etc). Need an upgrade? Just buy another 16 core and 64 GB RAM card and plug it in and let the system realise it's got more cores and ram available, that should give more performance, but the running ratios remain the same. Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

I thought it an interesting idea and a very fresh approach to the issue.

Interesting idea but expensive and surely such a setup would need to consist of clusters of specialised processing units (General puropse CPU cores are not suitable for alot of tasks) making it just as confusing if not moreso.

Shiminay

Sorry, I haven't explained myself very well at all, but my brain's sorta on shut down mode, so if you'll allow me, I'll be back tomorrow to expand on what I was getting at

Overheal

Shiminay wrote: »

Sorry, I haven't explained myself very well at all, but my brain's sorta on shut down mode, so if you'll allow me, I'll be back tomorrow to expand on what I was getting at

gizmo

Shiminay wrote: »

Why do PC's with considerably higher technical specifications not have similarly higher performance? APIs. Games use the OS and it's various APIs to interface with the hardware (DirectX being the most common example on Windows machines) and they have to be coded to allow as much flexibility to allow for past, present and future hardware and a practically limitless combination of parts that work to make up a PC.
Consoles have 1 set of hardware which never changes which means the operating system is considerably thinner and the code needed to write for them is also thinner. This is why you get considerably more bang for buck performance out of them.

I think what you mean here is that the reliance on APIs for PC development is both its greatest strength and weakness. It, as marco_polo said, allowed you to play your copy of Half Life on your brand new Win7 machine 13 years after release (holy **** has it been that long? :eek: ) but due to the need to support so many hardware iterations, it means it's extremely hard to optimise. Consoles, on the other hand, have similar APIs for many things but also allow developers to code closer to the metal insuring more efficient optimization.

Shiminay wrote: »

A friend of mine who's far more familiar with hardware than I once theorised that we should be moving to a platform where your machine has X system ram and y system processors and much wider data busses to allow communications between them and the various I/O devices. The software should be able to proportionally control what it wants to do with it all (e.g. assign 10% of cores/threading to physics, 20% to rendering, 25% to running the code, etc). Need an upgrade? Just buy another 16 core and 64 GB RAM card and plug it in and let the system realise it's got more cores and ram available, that should give more performance, but the running ratios remain the same. Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

I thought it an interesting idea and a very fresh approach to the issue.

What your friend is suggesting is what Intel tried with Larabee. It didn't end well. A compromise is what Carmack suggested here with both CPU and GPU specific cores and a unified address space.

marco_polo wrote: »

But it is still recognisably an (extended) ATI GPU, albeit split over two dies (This was mainly for economic rather than technical reason apparently), beefed up for the very reason that it had to last for years. On the evidence thus far it seems a much wiser decison that that of Sony (Lets face it the cell processor really just has the exclusive Uncharted and Killzone series to as it showcase after 5-6 odd years), and ironically the PS3 has probably had even more shoddy ports to it name over its lifetime than the PC.

While it may look like a relatively small change, the inclusion of that eDRAM is quite significant. It has certainly allowed the 360 to claw back some of the technical ground lost with the Cell but then again, as we've seen with some of the PS3 exclusives, that hardware in the right hands with the right budget and time can produce some stunning results.

marco_polo wrote: »

In any case I wasn't really arguing that console games weren't better optimized, but i was simply taking issue with the statement "The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized". The fact that consoles games are better optimised due to the closed nature of the platform and the need to compensate for hardware aging, is hardly grounds for sweeping claims that the PC gaming in general is badly optimised. I couldn't possibly put a figure on the gains from such console optimizations over a general purpose API like DirectX, but given the short term early in their lifespan that consoles have any sort of performance edge, I imagine it could be measured in relatively moderate percentage terms rather than orders of magnitude.

Indeed. I think a more accurate statement would be "One of the biggest problems with PC development is that it's incredibly hard to optimise games for the platform". Consoles being better for this is simply a given due to their fixed design. This is also the kind of stuff I was referring in an early post when I mentioned the inherent strengths and weakness of both the PC and console platforms.

the_syco

Magill wrote: »

The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized.

Are you comparing a game that is optimized to take full advantage of certain hardware that will not change, to a game that has to run on several different configurations, varying from the CPU, to the graphics card?

Magill wrote: »

Yes your £500 PC may be technically 10 times more powerful than a £150 console... but you simply don't get 10 times the performance from them when playing multiplat games. My laptop is much more powerful technically than my PS3... but it can barely run css at a decent frame rate (on low settings) nevermind something like crysis2/deus Ex.

Are you running a streamlined version of Windows that runs nothing you do not use for your game, and which has no anti-virus or firewall?

Shiminay wrote: »

Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

Sounds like a Macintosh :pac:

But seriously, after a year, the motherboard itself will become outdated, and if you updated the motherboard, the connection to the RAM will need to be "backward compatible" and will create another bottleneck.

Overheal wrote: »

Let's also assume you're not from the Dark Ages and at least have a PCI-Express lane on your motherboard don't have a Dell.

FYP. Always fun when people with old Dells find out why it's not worth putting a PCI graphics card into their system... but not as much fun when they learn that the €300 PCI-E card they bought to supercharge their machine wont fit into the PCI slot, and as they opened the box they can't just get their money back because they changed their mind.

Overheal

Depends on the retailer. Best Buy doesn't give a ****. You can return anything for pretty much any damn reason you please. 30 days on most stuff, 14 days on the big ticket stuff like PCs and whatnot. Worked great when I swapped a 6770 out.

ShadowHearth

Gizmo:

If person buys a gpu, without even looking inside of pc, then he does not even deserve to own a pc.

It's same as: measure 10 times them cut. Check your pc if it will support te upgrade you want to make.

You can't just buy turbocharger for 2k eu and expect to fit on your 1.2 fiesta... You check.