What PC build do you think would run games similar to a console like the XBOX 360 and hopefully last for a while?
PC similar to a console?
- Thread starter narreth
- Start date
I mean one that would be able to play cod4/bioshock/orangebox at the same graphics level as consoles
You mean... lower graphics level...?
Just lower your resolution to about 1024 x 768 and you'll get the feel of a "console".
Just lower your resolution to about 1024 x 768 and you'll get the feel of a "console".
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yea consoles basically run at 1280x720
aka 720p
even the ps3 which supposedly does 1080p but devs seem to drop to 720p to get decent fps in games with nicer graphics. ps3 is basically a 7900 type gpu. last gen stuff.
when they first came out only the best video cards could beat the console. now the consoles slipping behind fast. the texture sizes and effects on pc have surpassed them by quite a bit already and will only continue to march ahead. something like the reasonably priced 8800gt already slams the ps3. the consoles only have 256mb vid memory. 8800gt already has 512mb. now with ram so cheap 2gb + is standard on pc as well
only limiited by stalled jump to 64bit os on pc at the moment for ram. consoles got that nice 256mb it might not be noticable in small screenshots, but the graphic detail is higher on pc version of multiplatform games already.
aka 720p
even the ps3 which supposedly does 1080p but devs seem to drop to 720p to get decent fps in games with nicer graphics. ps3 is basically a 7900 type gpu. last gen stuff.
when they first came out only the best video cards could beat the console. now the consoles slipping behind fast. the texture sizes and effects on pc have surpassed them by quite a bit already and will only continue to march ahead. something like the reasonably priced 8800gt already slams the ps3. the consoles only have 256mb vid memory. 8800gt already has 512mb. now with ram so cheap 2gb + is standard on pc as well
only limiited by stalled jump to 64bit os on pc at the moment for ram. consoles got that nice 256mb it might not be noticable in small screenshots, but the graphic detail is higher on pc version of multiplatform games already.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yea consoles basically run at 1280x720
aka 720p
even the ps3 which supposedly does 1080p but devs seem to drop to 720p to get decent fps in games with nicer graphics. ps3 is basically a 7900 type gpu. last gen stuff.
when they first came out only the best video cards could beat the console. now the consoles slipping behind fast. the texture sizes and effects on pc have surpassed them by quite a bit already and will only continue to march ahead. something like the reasonably priced 8800gt already slams the ps3. the consoles only have 256mb vid memory. 8800gt already has 512mb. now with ram so cheap 2gb + is standard on pc as well
I agree
Yea, most PCs can run games like a their console counter part. Just need to lower the res and details like they do on console games.
So pretty much any dual core cpu and at least I rekon a 7900 type card will suffice. I had a 7900gs which could run bioshock at 1280*1024 fine but I'm sure u'd want to crank up the res and details so an 8800gt or the 38x0 should be a better choice.
So pretty much any dual core cpu and at least I rekon a 7900 type card will suffice. I had a 7900gs which could run bioshock at 1280*1024 fine but I'm sure u'd want to crank up the res and details so an 8800gt or the 38x0 should be a better choice.
phexac
Senior member
- Jul 19, 2007
- 315
- 4
- 81
Yeah console graphics are really underwhelming. I got PS3 to play blu-ray disks, and since I had I wanted to try at least one game with it, so I got Drake's Fortune, which was lauded as one of the best games for available for PS3. Graphics were pretty weak. Water was downright ugly. It has got nothing on games with good outdoor scenes such as Oblivion. With Crysis, there isn't even comparison.
That's omitting the fact that the game itself is pretty boring...
I am just hoping for a decent fighting game to come out for it, that is about the only genre that is better on a console than PC.
That's omitting the fact that the game itself is pretty boring...
I am just hoping for a decent fighting game to come out for it, that is about the only genre that is better on a console than PC.
Do realize that games are often programmed more efficiently for consoles, so consoles can achieve better graphics then a PC, if both were to have the same kind of hardware. Also, a lot, if not all games ??? are capped at 30fps on consoles.
^ Agreed. Consoles also have a much lower risk of getting random low/unplayable FPS, especially after 3-5 years. You don't run into random slowdowns because other programs might be running on your console. A PC built now running games 3-5 years later will probably have a hard time keeping up without any upgrades, which is at least the lifetime of a typical console. And that's well before you factor in the price.
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
A lot of that comes from knowing exactly what hardware you're programming for though. (It's totally true, I'm just saying there are reasons for it.)
As far as fighting games being better on the console, I would add sports and racing games to that list. And any game where you want to put several players in front of the same screen, the Mario Party games.
Heh, I only like FPS and Strategy games on the PC, where 8 buttons, 2 analog sticks, and a d-pad just aren't enough. Maybe a few action/adventure games...
But remember a PC is not just a gaming machine; that's the whole difference. It's possible to equip a PC to run games much better than consoles but the point is that you can also watch DVDs, photo and video edit, browse the internet, download all your porn, do office work etc etc. If you're looking for a reasonably pretty gaming experience, and you want to play games with your friends sitting around a TV, a console is for you. If you want to do all of the above, plus game with millions of other people around the world from behind a monitor, then get a PC.
Consoles and PCs both have their advantages but they are hardly the same.
I'd also have to disagree about the PS3 graphics which are quite good in many games, including Drake's Fortune(I thought the game was quite fun but it did get repetitive).
Resolution is almost a non-point.
Using a 24" monitor sitting 6 inches from it then yes resolution matters. Sitting 8 foot away that resolution would be useless and 1080p would be about the highlest level the human eye could decipher. For most people 720p would be nearly identical to 1080p at about 10 feet.
I play the ps3 on a 110" screen and the resolution looks quite good over an HD projector.
The ps3 has wireless internet, can act as a server itself and the online play is substantial.
I wouldn't do without either platform at this point. My gaming is split nearly down the middle.
I play the console with the kids and the pc with online buddies. I can not play sports games like FIFA 08 on the pc. I tried and it was brutal.
I'd also have to disagree about the PS3 graphics which are quite good in many games, including Drake's Fortune(I thought the game was quite fun but it did get repetitive).
Resolution is almost a non-point.
Using a 24" monitor sitting 6 inches from it then yes resolution matters. Sitting 8 foot away that resolution would be useless and 1080p would be about the highlest level the human eye could decipher. For most people 720p would be nearly identical to 1080p at about 10 feet.
I play the ps3 on a 110" screen and the resolution looks quite good over an HD projector.
The ps3 has wireless internet, can act as a server itself and the online play is substantial.
I wouldn't do without either platform at this point. My gaming is split nearly down the middle.
I play the console with the kids and the pc with online buddies. I can not play sports games like FIFA 08 on the pc. I tried and it was brutal.
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 7
- 81
LOL
I actually got my first console since the 80s last month. My "old" consoles were a Magnavox Odysee2 (which I still have) and an Atari 2600 (which I gave away when I moved in 2005 - retrospectively a bad idea). Got an Amazon GC for Christmas so last month picked up a PS2. Yup, a nice, white SingStar edition PS2. Picked up a bunch of new and used games (mostly used) but so far have only liked various Singstar, DDR and driving games. Everything else I'm still doing on a PC.
I think it really comes down to personal preference. Some people may just have a difficult time with a keyboard and a much easier time with a game controller, and vice versa. Heck, BITD a buddy of mine totally sucked playing FPS games with a keyboard, but one day decided to try a joystick and totally rocked at it (this was with Duke Nukem 3D).
i used to be a hard core console gamer up until i played my first pc game roller coaster tycoon. once I started playing that it was all pc gaming for me.
That is pretty easy for us to test individually.
Simply set your pc to its highest resolution and step back 8 feet. Lower the resolution to something sad then step back 8 feet again.
Raise it to the middle resolution and step back again... find your own sweet spot if you will.
I am telling you from personal experience with a 1080p 55" Sony expensive TV. A 720p but high quality Projector and a monitor capable of very high resolution.
My pc is connected to both the projector and the monitor. The monitor is inches away from my LOS but the projector screen is about 19' away from the pc. The image is amazingly similar. 480 to 720 I can see quite easily but 720 to 1080 is really nearly indistinguishable beyond 10 feet.
Our eyes process info in order to resolve it and the further we are away the less it can process accurately and with detail. Its also why really good monitors/tvs focus on a lot more than raw resolution. When you look at something like the Pioneer Kuros they are unbelievably good to look at based on contrast, sharpness, brightness and resolution is almost a minimal consideration.
I fully expect most gamers would have a better graphical experience at 1440x900(or whatever that is at 16:10) and high contrast, all detail turned on then at 1650:1000 with less contrast and detail.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
HDTV resolution explained
David Katzmaier
By David Katzmaier
(September 12, 2006)
How important is resolution to you?
Resolution is the main reason why HDTV looks so much better than standard television. On a high-def TV displaying a high-def source, a million or more pixels combine to create images that appear sharper and more realistic than TV ever has before. Resolution isn't the be-all and end-all of picture quality, however, and its numerous, well, numbers, can be incredibly intimidating at first. In this article we'll try to demystify HDTV resolution and help you cut through the hype that surrounds all of those numbers.
How important is resolution?
Not as important as you might think. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in a distant fourth, despite being easily the most-talked-about HDTV spec today.
In other words, once you get to high-definition, most people are perfectly satisfied with the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-def television regardless of its size or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-def to higher-def, let's say--are tiny by comparison.
Nonetheless the HDTV landscape is littered with resolution discussions, in regard to both sources and displays, so a little knowledge of how they interact is a good thing.
Native resolution: The fix is in
For the rest of this article, we'll be talking about fixed-pixel displays. A fixed-pixel display is any HDTV or monitor that uses pixels to produce an image, including flat-panel LCD and plasma screens as well as rear-projection microdisplays and front projectors that use DLP, LCD, or LCoS technology. We'll ignore non-fixed-pixel displays; namely, direct-view and rear-projection CRTs, because they treat incoming resolutions differently than their fixed-pixel cousins do--since they don't use discrete pixels, their specs are much more difficult to pin down.
All fixed-pixel displays have a native resolution spec that tells you how many pixels the display actually has. Native resolution is the absolute limit on the amount of detail you'll see.
Fixed-pixel displays follow a few basic rules:
* No matter the resolution of the source material, whether VHS, DVD, or HDTV, a fixed-pixel display will always convert, or scale, it to fit its native resolution.
* If the incoming source has more pixels than the display's native resolution, you will lose some visible detail and sharpness, though often what you're left with still looks great.
* If the incoming source has fewer pixels than the native resolution, you're not getting any extra sharpness from the television's pixels.
HDTV source resolutions
If you read those three axioms closely, you'll see that source is everything with HDTV. Or, as some unknown wag once said, "Garbage in, garbage out." There are two main HD resolutions in use today by HD broadcasters and other sources: 1080i and 720p. One is not necessarily better than the other; 1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion. Another format is also becoming better known: 1080p, which combines the superior resolution of 1080i with the progressive-scan smoothness of 720p. True 1080p content is extremely scarce, however, and none of the major networks have announced 1080p broadcasts. The term 1080p today appears mostly in reference to the displays' native resolution, not the source.
Source resolution name Resolution in pixels HDTV? Progressive-scan? Wide-screen? Networks/sources
1080p 1,920x1,080 Yes Yes Yes Blu-ray and future HD-DVD players; PlayStation 3
1080i 1,920x1,080 Yes No Yes Includes CBS, NBC, PBS, DiscoveryHD/
Xbox 360
720p 1,280x720 Yes Yes Yes ABC, Fox, ESPNHD
480p 852x480 No Yes Yes Fox wide-screen; progressive-scan DVD players
Regular TV Up to 480 lines No No No All
Despite the obvious difference in pixel count, 720p and 1080i both look great. In fact, unless you have a very large television and excellent source material, you'll have a hard time telling the difference between any of the HDTV resolutions. It's especially difficult to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources. The difference between DVD and HDTV should be visible on most HDTVs, but especially on smaller sets, it's not nearly as drastic as the difference between standard TV and HDTV.
HDTV display resolution
Now that we've considered the source, let's look at the televisions. As we mentioned above, all fixed-pixel HDTVs scale the incoming resolutions to fit the available pixels, throwing away information if they have fewer pixels and interpolating information if they have more pixels than the source.
Native resolution ¹ Commonly called ² Meets definition of high-def? ³ Frequency Typical TV types
1,920x1,080 1080p Yes Rare but getting more common especially in larger TVs Flat-panel LCD; DLP, LCD, and LCoS projection; very high-end plasma
1,366x768 768p Yes Very common in all screen sizes Flat-panel LCD; 50-inch plasma
1,280x720 720p Yes Common in rear-projection but not flat-panels DLP, LCD, and LCoS projection
1,024x768 HDTV plasma Yes The most common plasma resolution 37- and 42-inch plasma
852x480 EDTV plasma No Increasingly rare 37- and 42-inch plasma
640x480 VGA No Increasingly rare Small LCD TVs
Technically speaking, all of these numbers are accurate and useful, but don't put too much stock in them. In the real world, it's difficult to tell the difference between native resolutions once you get into high-def. For example, despite the fact that a 37-inch LCD with "only" 1,366x768 pixels has to throw away a good deal of information to display a 1080i football game on CBS, you'd be hard-pressed to see more detail on a similar 37-inch LCD with 1,920x1,080 resolution.
The truth about 1080p
In the last couple of years, there has been a big influx of HDTVs with 1080p native resolution, which typically cost a good deal more than their lower-resolution counterparts. But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-def, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate. We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. We've reviewed a 37-inch 1080p LCD, for example, where it was impossible to see the separation between horizontal lines at farther than 45 inches away.
We're not telling you to ignore 1080p HDTVs. They technically do deliver more detail, which can enhance the viewing experience for more eagle-eyed viewers. Also, many manufacturers build other picture-quality benefits, such as better contrast and/or color, into their 1080p HDTVs simply because those sets are the high-end models. And given the continuing march of technology, we expect more and more 1080p models to become available at lower and lower prices. Today, however, the premium for 1080p is still pretty steep, and unless you're getting a very large set, say 50 inches or more, we don't recommend basing a buying decision on whether or not the television has 1080p native resolution.
¹ This is the number of physical pixels the television uses to produce a picture. You may notice that few of the resolutions in the table match the HDTV source resolutions exactly. That's mainly because TV makers find it more cost efficient to make panels with the pixel resolutions in the table and then scale the incoming sources to fit the screen. It's true that ideally you'd like to exactly match the incoming source with the display's native resolution, but it's much less important in HDTV than in, say, computer monitors. That's because scalers in HDTVs generally do a good job of converting the signals, and because most HDTV is in motion and seen from a distance, as opposed to static text seen up close.
² All fixed-pixel displays are natively progressive-scan, meaning that even if the source is interlaced, they'll convert it to progressive-scan for display. That's why, for example, you'll hear about a "1080p LCD" but never a "1080i LCD."
³ According to the CEA's DTV definitions, which, for obscure marketing reasons, actually include televisions that have fewer pixels than HDTV source resolutions in the section above.
Simply set your pc to its highest resolution and step back 8 feet. Lower the resolution to something sad then step back 8 feet again.
Raise it to the middle resolution and step back again... find your own sweet spot if you will.
I am telling you from personal experience with a 1080p 55" Sony expensive TV. A 720p but high quality Projector and a monitor capable of very high resolution.
My pc is connected to both the projector and the monitor. The monitor is inches away from my LOS but the projector screen is about 19' away from the pc. The image is amazingly similar. 480 to 720 I can see quite easily but 720 to 1080 is really nearly indistinguishable beyond 10 feet.
Our eyes process info in order to resolve it and the further we are away the less it can process accurately and with detail. Its also why really good monitors/tvs focus on a lot more than raw resolution. When you look at something like the Pioneer Kuros they are unbelievably good to look at based on contrast, sharpness, brightness and resolution is almost a minimal consideration.
I fully expect most gamers would have a better graphical experience at 1440x900(or whatever that is at 16:10) and high contrast, all detail turned on then at 1650:1000 with less contrast and detail.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html
HDTV resolution explained
David Katzmaier
By David Katzmaier
(September 12, 2006)
How important is resolution to you?
Resolution is the main reason why HDTV looks so much better than standard television. On a high-def TV displaying a high-def source, a million or more pixels combine to create images that appear sharper and more realistic than TV ever has before. Resolution isn't the be-all and end-all of picture quality, however, and its numerous, well, numbers, can be incredibly intimidating at first. In this article we'll try to demystify HDTV resolution and help you cut through the hype that surrounds all of those numbers.
How important is resolution?
Not as important as you might think. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in a distant fourth, despite being easily the most-talked-about HDTV spec today.
In other words, once you get to high-definition, most people are perfectly satisfied with the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-def television regardless of its size or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-def to higher-def, let's say--are tiny by comparison.
Nonetheless the HDTV landscape is littered with resolution discussions, in regard to both sources and displays, so a little knowledge of how they interact is a good thing.
Native resolution: The fix is in
For the rest of this article, we'll be talking about fixed-pixel displays. A fixed-pixel display is any HDTV or monitor that uses pixels to produce an image, including flat-panel LCD and plasma screens as well as rear-projection microdisplays and front projectors that use DLP, LCD, or LCoS technology. We'll ignore non-fixed-pixel displays; namely, direct-view and rear-projection CRTs, because they treat incoming resolutions differently than their fixed-pixel cousins do--since they don't use discrete pixels, their specs are much more difficult to pin down.
All fixed-pixel displays have a native resolution spec that tells you how many pixels the display actually has. Native resolution is the absolute limit on the amount of detail you'll see.
Fixed-pixel displays follow a few basic rules:
* No matter the resolution of the source material, whether VHS, DVD, or HDTV, a fixed-pixel display will always convert, or scale, it to fit its native resolution.
* If the incoming source has more pixels than the display's native resolution, you will lose some visible detail and sharpness, though often what you're left with still looks great.
* If the incoming source has fewer pixels than the native resolution, you're not getting any extra sharpness from the television's pixels.
HDTV source resolutions
If you read those three axioms closely, you'll see that source is everything with HDTV. Or, as some unknown wag once said, "Garbage in, garbage out." There are two main HD resolutions in use today by HD broadcasters and other sources: 1080i and 720p. One is not necessarily better than the other; 1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion. Another format is also becoming better known: 1080p, which combines the superior resolution of 1080i with the progressive-scan smoothness of 720p. True 1080p content is extremely scarce, however, and none of the major networks have announced 1080p broadcasts. The term 1080p today appears mostly in reference to the displays' native resolution, not the source.
Source resolution name Resolution in pixels HDTV? Progressive-scan? Wide-screen? Networks/sources
1080p 1,920x1,080 Yes Yes Yes Blu-ray and future HD-DVD players; PlayStation 3
1080i 1,920x1,080 Yes No Yes Includes CBS, NBC, PBS, DiscoveryHD/
Xbox 360
720p 1,280x720 Yes Yes Yes ABC, Fox, ESPNHD
480p 852x480 No Yes Yes Fox wide-screen; progressive-scan DVD players
Regular TV Up to 480 lines No No No All
Despite the obvious difference in pixel count, 720p and 1080i both look great. In fact, unless you have a very large television and excellent source material, you'll have a hard time telling the difference between any of the HDTV resolutions. It's especially difficult to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources. The difference between DVD and HDTV should be visible on most HDTVs, but especially on smaller sets, it's not nearly as drastic as the difference between standard TV and HDTV.
HDTV display resolution
Now that we've considered the source, let's look at the televisions. As we mentioned above, all fixed-pixel HDTVs scale the incoming resolutions to fit the available pixels, throwing away information if they have fewer pixels and interpolating information if they have more pixels than the source.
Native resolution ¹ Commonly called ² Meets definition of high-def? ³ Frequency Typical TV types
1,920x1,080 1080p Yes Rare but getting more common especially in larger TVs Flat-panel LCD; DLP, LCD, and LCoS projection; very high-end plasma
1,366x768 768p Yes Very common in all screen sizes Flat-panel LCD; 50-inch plasma
1,280x720 720p Yes Common in rear-projection but not flat-panels DLP, LCD, and LCoS projection
1,024x768 HDTV plasma Yes The most common plasma resolution 37- and 42-inch plasma
852x480 EDTV plasma No Increasingly rare 37- and 42-inch plasma
640x480 VGA No Increasingly rare Small LCD TVs
Technically speaking, all of these numbers are accurate and useful, but don't put too much stock in them. In the real world, it's difficult to tell the difference between native resolutions once you get into high-def. For example, despite the fact that a 37-inch LCD with "only" 1,366x768 pixels has to throw away a good deal of information to display a 1080i football game on CBS, you'd be hard-pressed to see more detail on a similar 37-inch LCD with 1,920x1,080 resolution.
The truth about 1080p
In the last couple of years, there has been a big influx of HDTVs with 1080p native resolution, which typically cost a good deal more than their lower-resolution counterparts. But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-def, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate. We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. We've reviewed a 37-inch 1080p LCD, for example, where it was impossible to see the separation between horizontal lines at farther than 45 inches away.
We're not telling you to ignore 1080p HDTVs. They technically do deliver more detail, which can enhance the viewing experience for more eagle-eyed viewers. Also, many manufacturers build other picture-quality benefits, such as better contrast and/or color, into their 1080p HDTVs simply because those sets are the high-end models. And given the continuing march of technology, we expect more and more 1080p models to become available at lower and lower prices. Today, however, the premium for 1080p is still pretty steep, and unless you're getting a very large set, say 50 inches or more, we don't recommend basing a buying decision on whether or not the television has 1080p native resolution.
¹ This is the number of physical pixels the television uses to produce a picture. You may notice that few of the resolutions in the table match the HDTV source resolutions exactly. That's mainly because TV makers find it more cost efficient to make panels with the pixel resolutions in the table and then scale the incoming sources to fit the screen. It's true that ideally you'd like to exactly match the incoming source with the display's native resolution, but it's much less important in HDTV than in, say, computer monitors. That's because scalers in HDTVs generally do a good job of converting the signals, and because most HDTV is in motion and seen from a distance, as opposed to static text seen up close.
² All fixed-pixel displays are natively progressive-scan, meaning that even if the source is interlaced, they'll convert it to progressive-scan for display. That's why, for example, you'll hear about a "1080p LCD" but never a "1080i LCD."
³ According to the CEA's DTV definitions, which, for obscure marketing reasons, actually include televisions that have fewer pixels than HDTV source resolutions in the section above.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter