The Xbox 360 has impressive shaders but the 7800 GTX could do a lot better, given the right game. Battlefield 2's shaders and lighting are both VERY impressive (and underrated).
BFG-
Using that logic you could say that GPUs should have replaced CPUs by now. They are specialized designs for a particular task.
Why not switch to ATi and use the R520 for a CPU? What you are saying is akin to that. Apple wasn't important enough for IBM to devote the kind of R&D resources it would take to remain remotely competitive with Intel in the desktop space. If Apple was really concerend with the best technology they certainly wouldn't have gone with Intel.
Spoken like a not terribly ambitious programmer. Multi-threading is going to add considerable complexity and will be a major additional hurdle to clear for developers also- why not lament that?
Of course, that is how the console industry works.
blckgrffn
Are you capable of reading? Where did I say they were going to unlock gobs of power? I stated that there was no way they could make judgement with what they had right now- the same thing Ars did(go ahead and reread my posts).
'Cheaply made'- that is you trying to think of something.
Good god man, how many different ways do I need to say precisely that before it sinks in to your head?
Did they not teach computing at your elementary school? It is a tri-core dual issue design- where are you getting this foolish '3 dual core' crap from?
You think it's that simple- try running a dual 2GHZ G5 system under emulation and do some spread sheet mining and run the same task on a P3 500MHZ natively.
It isn't a R420 derivative- it is actually what ATi is planning for the R600. Unified shader model part- this comes straight from ATi. The R420 is not capable of doing everything the GF3 can do however, fire up the original SplinterCell for the PC and crank all settings to their highest- the R420 is incapable of handling the highest quality shadows the way that they are implemented. This isn't to say that it can't do something comparable- just can't do what the GF3 is doing.
Facts.
If they are fed lazy @ss OoO style code- but I don't see that disclaimer written anywhere in you attempt at rebuttal. You don't know the most basic level features of the XBox360- didn't seem to be aware of the fact that it was going to be emulating the current generation- don't know what the graphics core is based off of nor can you identify the type of processor it has accurately. And you are an authority.
You were delusional then. These have always been highly specialized designs.
Ran Macs for years, I'm quite familiar with how much overhead there is trying to emulate x86 processors on a OoO PPC based chip that is significantly better suited for the task(anything post 601).
Using that logic you could say that GPUs should have replaced CPUs by now. They are specialized designs for a particular task.
Why not switch to ATi and use the R520 for a CPU? What you are saying is akin to that. Apple wasn't important enough for IBM to devote the kind of R&D resources it would take to remain remotely competitive with Intel in the desktop space. If Apple was really concerend with the best technology they certainly wouldn't have gone with Intel.
Spoken like a not terribly ambitious programmer. Multi-threading is going to add considerable complexity and will be a major additional hurdle to clear for developers also- why not lament that?
Of course, that is how the console industry works.
blckgrffn
Are you capable of reading? Where did I say they were going to unlock gobs of power? I stated that there was no way they could make judgement with what they had right now- the same thing Ars did(go ahead and reread my posts).
'Cheaply made'- that is you trying to think of something.
Good god man, how many different ways do I need to say precisely that before it sinks in to your head?
Did they not teach computing at your elementary school? It is a tri-core dual issue design- where are you getting this foolish '3 dual core' crap from?
You think it's that simple- try running a dual 2GHZ G5 system under emulation and do some spread sheet mining and run the same task on a P3 500MHZ natively.
It isn't a R420 derivative- it is actually what ATi is planning for the R600. Unified shader model part- this comes straight from ATi. The R420 is not capable of doing everything the GF3 can do however, fire up the original SplinterCell for the PC and crank all settings to their highest- the R420 is incapable of handling the highest quality shadows the way that they are implemented. This isn't to say that it can't do something comparable- just can't do what the GF3 is doing.
Facts.
If they are fed lazy @ss OoO style code- but I don't see that disclaimer written anywhere in you attempt at rebuttal. You don't know the most basic level features of the XBox360- didn't seem to be aware of the fact that it was going to be emulating the current generation- don't know what the graphics core is based off of nor can you identify the type of processor it has accurately. And you are an authority.
You were delusional then. These have always been highly specialized designs.
Ran Macs for years, I'm quite familiar with how much overhead there is trying to emulate x86 processors on a OoO PPC based chip that is significantly better suited for the task(anything post 601).
The Console Gaming industry is a billion dollar industry, Sony/MS/Nintendo don't need PC fanboys telling them their hardware sucks. Consoles as a business is much more profitable than the PC gaming industry where lots of dying studios and poor business models are hurting.
If you want to do something about the PC gaming industry, stop pirating and start buying games and start buying the latest and greatest video cards. Gotta pour money into investing the PC gaming industry.
If you want to do something about the PC gaming industry, stop pirating and start buying games and start buying the latest and greatest video cards. Gotta pour money into investing the PC gaming industry.
They questioned that but remember the last time Microsoft did that they got caught adding lens flare and doing AA to the image.
I agree buy the games these companies put years of development into games and the list of credits on a game is huge.
I might not buy the game when its first released (Only about 2-3 per year I do) but I do pick up about 5-6 games a year when the price drops under $30.00 which is reasonable.
I would buy BF2 but I need a hardware upgrade before I do so. Sadly for game developers the game will be half price by the time I pick it up because of the hardware companies high priced graphics cards.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
Deep pipelines + branches + sh!tty branch predictor = bad performance.
These processors are cheap. The cost comes from die size. These are half the die size of a .90nm presscott. In other words small. Cheap. A tri-core dual issue... I can see that I took that wrong. Even so, if this can fit in half the size of a typical presscott (a large part of which is cache, yes) then they must be simple. As they are. This is weak hardware. Which everyone seems to agree on, as it will take heavily optimized code to run any where near desired and will probably never hit the hyped levels. That is what the ArsTechnica article said. Follow?
As far as emulation goes, I played Q3 on a single processor G4 emulating win98. Didn't run great, but hey, with current Xbox title this thing only needs to chug out 30 fps at 480i to be acceptable, which imho, shouldn't be THAT hard seeing as this emulation layer should be very heavily optimized as only consoles can be.
What are we disagreeing about here? That Anandtech's article was accurate... well... from the hardware performance side I think it is. Is it too early to pass judgement...hmmm... well, since we are talking single threaded games mainly for the next three years according to his inside source, I think that we can make a pretty educated decision that CPU performance will be the main performance bottlekneck for this gen of consoles. 3 years is over half their life cycle. By that time they will be the cheap and outdated, a lot of people will be waiting for the next gen of consoles, and cheap people like me will be picking one of them up
I think that MS and Sony made a mistake by going this route, pure and simple. I thought that all three made mistakes last time around too, though, so this is not a change. X-box's 64 meg memory, the GC's inablility to play DVD's, and, well, I always thought that the PS2 was junk and I am glad that I am not a huge RPG fan that had to buy one. Maybe you and I will never agree on this, and I am guessing this is true.
Saying software dev's are lazy - I think that this much more true on the console side than PC. Hopefully, a couple good engines get made for these consoles and that helps them last longer as a high-end gaming appliance. The catch is this - multithreaded code is difficult to make. Really difficult. And finding places where threads were beneficial is pretty straight forward on several general purpose processors. But when you take code that would be very effecient in a single threaded environment, and the processor that this would run on is too slow to provide desired performance, trying to spawn threads will be hard, from a coding and intuitive standpoint. Calling software devs lazy because they didn't want to do this before isn't really accurate imho, time is everything in the SDLC, and these multi-threaded engines will be exponentially more expensive to create. From this standpoint, both MS and Sony put devs in between a rock and a hard place. They have weak performance on currently single threaded apps, this is given. However, the development houses still want to make money. This means that heavy optimization is undesirable from their stand point, because that takes time. And heaven forbid they discover something that could benefit performance a lot late in development and go back and try to change it - if you have take a software engineering class you will know why they will probably just say "screw it" and ship the product in a less than optimal state. <--- This is why it will take a long time for optimized code to catch on, adding more much expense & time to game development so that MS and Sony could save a few bucks on hardware IS something that will hurt us gamers because it is likely that a bunch of crap (from the aspect of how it will take advantage of the available CPU capabilities) will get pushed out in the form of games. I hope that makes sense for you, really...
I recognize that the R500 is an evolution (Finally!) from the days of the 9700 and x800 series, but that is what they have grown from. So I need to crank up SC on the PC versus the console to see the differences? I would say if the shadows look different, it is because they are deliberately different because of the increased ability of desktop video cards over what the gf3 variant the xbox had. I cannot fathow how the GPU would have any issues taking what the GF3 did and applying it to the screen - since the gpu didn't have programable shaders, they had so many to choose from in a way. Worst case scenario is that ATI will use shader to replacement to take out the ones that it can't do well and replace them with ones that it can. Much like D3 on the desktops, currently.
Nat
These processors are cheap. The cost comes from die size. These are half the die size of a .90nm presscott. In other words small. Cheap. A tri-core dual issue... I can see that I took that wrong. Even so, if this can fit in half the size of a typical presscott (a large part of which is cache, yes) then they must be simple. As they are. This is weak hardware. Which everyone seems to agree on, as it will take heavily optimized code to run any where near desired and will probably never hit the hyped levels. That is what the ArsTechnica article said. Follow?
As far as emulation goes, I played Q3 on a single processor G4 emulating win98. Didn't run great, but hey, with current Xbox title this thing only needs to chug out 30 fps at 480i to be acceptable, which imho, shouldn't be THAT hard seeing as this emulation layer should be very heavily optimized as only consoles can be.
What are we disagreeing about here? That Anandtech's article was accurate... well... from the hardware performance side I think it is. Is it too early to pass judgement...hmmm... well, since we are talking single threaded games mainly for the next three years according to his inside source, I think that we can make a pretty educated decision that CPU performance will be the main performance bottlekneck for this gen of consoles. 3 years is over half their life cycle. By that time they will be the cheap and outdated, a lot of people will be waiting for the next gen of consoles, and cheap people like me will be picking one of them up
I think that MS and Sony made a mistake by going this route, pure and simple. I thought that all three made mistakes last time around too, though, so this is not a change. X-box's 64 meg memory, the GC's inablility to play DVD's, and, well, I always thought that the PS2 was junk and I am glad that I am not a huge RPG fan that had to buy one. Maybe you and I will never agree on this, and I am guessing this is true.
Saying software dev's are lazy - I think that this much more true on the console side than PC. Hopefully, a couple good engines get made for these consoles and that helps them last longer as a high-end gaming appliance. The catch is this - multithreaded code is difficult to make. Really difficult. And finding places where threads were beneficial is pretty straight forward on several general purpose processors. But when you take code that would be very effecient in a single threaded environment, and the processor that this would run on is too slow to provide desired performance, trying to spawn threads will be hard, from a coding and intuitive standpoint. Calling software devs lazy because they didn't want to do this before isn't really accurate imho, time is everything in the SDLC, and these multi-threaded engines will be exponentially more expensive to create. From this standpoint, both MS and Sony put devs in between a rock and a hard place. They have weak performance on currently single threaded apps, this is given. However, the development houses still want to make money. This means that heavy optimization is undesirable from their stand point, because that takes time. And heaven forbid they discover something that could benefit performance a lot late in development and go back and try to change it - if you have take a software engineering class you will know why they will probably just say "screw it" and ship the product in a less than optimal state. <--- This is why it will take a long time for optimized code to catch on, adding more much expense & time to game development so that MS and Sony could save a few bucks on hardware IS something that will hurt us gamers because it is likely that a bunch of crap (from the aspect of how it will take advantage of the available CPU capabilities) will get pushed out in the form of games. I hope that makes sense for you, really...
I recognize that the R500 is an evolution (Finally!) from the days of the 9700 and x800 series, but that is what they have grown from. So I need to crank up SC on the PC versus the console to see the differences? I would say if the shadows look different, it is because they are deliberately different because of the increased ability of desktop video cards over what the gf3 variant the xbox had. I cannot fathow how the GPU would have any issues taking what the GF3 did and applying it to the screen - since the gpu didn't have programable shaders, they had so many to choose from in a way. Worst case scenario is that ATI will use shader to replacement to take out the ones that it can't do well and replace them with ones that it can. Much like D3 on the desktops, currently.
Nat
I agree lets quit over analyzing it and lets see what the final product delivers before passing judgement.
Remember lauch titles usually dont harness full potential because the developers dont have full running hardware to test at this stage and so the first gen games usually set for lower performance so that the hardware has some overhead when released should it actually spec out a little less.
Developers want to write titles for these they will work the code so they can get as many games released as possible on consoles. I hate to be a broken record but Doom 3 runs on Xbox 1 and it looks darn good for a 733mhz, 64meg, geforce 3 machine.
Remember lauch titles usually dont harness full potential because the developers dont have full running hardware to test at this stage and so the first gen games usually set for lower performance so that the hardware has some overhead when released should it actually spec out a little less.
Developers want to write titles for these they will work the code so they can get as many games released as possible on consoles. I hate to be a broken record but Doom 3 runs on Xbox 1 and it looks darn good for a 733mhz, 64meg, geforce 3 machine.
NO- Compare the PC version of Splinter Cell running on a GeForce3 to the PC version of Splinter Cell running on a X850XT PE at the highest settings. The GeForce3 is going to show you significantly better visuals(albeit significantly slower). The X80XT-PE is INCAPABLE of running the shadowing technique used by the GF3 THE WAY IT IS IMPLEMENTED.
Yes, the GeForce3 has both programmable pixel shaders AND programmable vertex shaders- and this was enormously hyped when the card launched. That said, the shadowing technique used in SplinterCell falls outside of the shader feature set exposed under the PC version of DirectX. It works on the PC, but it was written 'to the metal' on the XBox and left in when the game was ported to the PC as it still ran just fine on nVidia hardware.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
Ok, more points for you. I should have remembered that the GF had Pixel Shader 1.1 and that this was programmable, however DX9 made the code easier to make and more effecient, allowing for more complexity...
What about the development cycle? Is there even any debate on that?
Nat
What about the development cycle? Is there even any debate on that?
Nat
Yes, because poor branch prediction is something you look for in a console CPU. In an ideal console with unlimited budget, powerful desktop CPUs would be used. They can't afford that luxury so they make cheap specialized CPUs (read: cell) and make the best of things.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Most of the games you mentioned are FPS games. What about racing games? Except for NFS series, PC has nothing worthy. What about fighting games? Oh wait PC has none. All mario, zelda and rare platform games are better than adventure games on PC imo. Goldeneye was more fun than any FPS I've ever played - and it came out in 1998. To this day I consider it one of the best multiplayer games. With PCs you simply cant experience the fun of laughing at your friends or seeing their faces when you smoke them in game, while playing in the same room. That is why sports games for PC will never compare to consoles. I like PC for FPS and strategy games. Some like it for Massively multiplayer RPGs. But besides those 3 genres, PC cannot touch consoles in any other genre (and dont mention puzzle games). Think about it, you cant claim PCs are better than consoles just because your favourite genre is FPS. What if you dont like those? Then like 75% of all great games on the PC disappear.
Now look here - Recent Top 100 Games
PC:
#95 - Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - available on xbox
#79 - star wars; republic commando - available on xbox
#69 - madden nfl 2005 - available on all consoles
etc.....
So if we added all the PC games (even the ones available on consoles)
Thats 23 out of 100. But only 2 in the top 10. So you are saying in any given year PC has better games than all 3 consoles combined (which still cost cheaper than 6800Ultra videocard!). I realize that games are a matter of opinion. Still, I'd rather play doom 3 on the xbox at worse graphics than a PC, when my P4 3.2ghz and radeon 8500 make it unplayable altogether.
I agree that PC games look better than consoles, but even if i can afford it, I dont think the graphics on a PC justify the cost of 4-5x for a 7800GTX alone.
I still feel like the PC is for anti-social gaming and consoles for just lampin with friends. Don't even mention LAN parties. Those are just nerd gatherings.
Until PCs support multiple monitors, keyboards and mice for multiple users, consoles will rule this area. Wouldn't it be cool to play a mutliplayer FPS with two people on ONE computer? That's the kind of thing will need. SLI and dual core CPUs are perfect for this.
Until PCs support multiple monitors, keyboards and mice for multiple users, consoles will rule this area. Wouldn't it be cool to play a mutliplayer FPS with two people on ONE computer? That's the kind of thing will need. SLI and dual core CPUs are perfect for this.
Racing games?
Grand Prix Series 1 through to 4
Grand Prix Legends
GTR
NFS
Toca Race Driver 1 and 2
Adventure games?
Still Life
Broken Sword
Monkey island 1, 2, 3
Blade Runner
Full Throttle
Grim Fandango
Omikron
Oni
Outcast
Sam and Max
With multiplayer, you cant experience playing online on one server with 150 other players on a 128km map on a console can you?
You have us on beat em up games. But then again there arent that many out there, i can only think of 3 or 4 off the top of my head.
Sports games are equally as good on both PC and Console.
Ever played Half Life. Singularly by most of the gaming population thought this was one of the all time best games in the world. Counter Strike. A free multiplayer game from Half Life, also singularly one of the best and most played multiplayer games out there. Both came out in 1999.
Ever thought of adding in all that money that you spend on buying your TV?
And also account for HDTV as if you buy a non HDTV then your not using your console to its potential. So a good quality HDTV would cost around $3000 to 5000. So my computer with everthing nearly up to date cost me around $3000. So yea they cost about the same dont they...
And yes the TV can be used for various tasks. So can the monitor for my computer, and also when watching DVDs and TV. My graphics card actually sharpens the image and uses its GPU to enhance the quality.
mooncancook
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,874
- 50
- 91
I'm more of a PC gamer, i just have to say something...
[/quote]What about fighting games? Oh wait PC has none. [/quote]
There is reason why fighting games are rarelly ported to PC - most PC gamers has grown out of arcade fighting games.
I am a PC gamer and I don't bash on consoles. What irritates me and what i want to bash is the fact that those crazy console marketing ppl gave out ridiculous claims about how much more powerful their console is than the PC or their competitors, and that so many console players actually buy into their claims, even though history has proven it's all hype over and over. Amazing.
I doubt you even tried. I'm playing FIA-GTR, Rallisport Challenge, Colin Mcrae 04, TOCA Race Drive 2, not to mention other F1, Nascar, superbike games that i don't have time for. In general PC racing games are more hardcore (ie realism) which probably turns off lots console gamers. Driving wheels alos works better on a desk than on a couch.
[/quote]What about fighting games? Oh wait PC has none. [/quote]
There is reason why fighting games are rarelly ported to PC - most PC gamers has grown out of arcade fighting games.
You don't compare console platform games to PC adventure games. It doesn't make sense. Granted, PC doesn't have much platform games for similar reason as PC fighting games.
That's just your opinion. I played GoldenEye on my firends' console, the control sucks @$$, and the split screen graphics looks horrible.
Not true. I have two PCs networked in a room and playing Ghost Recon coop or against my friend were a blast. One time when I shot a sniper round at my friend I saw him actually try to dodge in his chair...LOL. Playing World Cup, NBA Live!, and Colin McRae in split screen against a friend is as fun as in a console. Most ppl don't do it on a PC doesn't mean the PC can't do it as well.
What about single player RPG games? Not everyone likes anime-style console RPGs you know? And Racing games as i mentioned before. GT4 looks amazing from a distance, but it's not really that great of a game. Strategy games alone will win me over, countless RTS like WarCraft, turn-base games like X-Com, Jagged Allicance, HOMM, Civ, and then the amazingly fun and addictive games like Transport Tycoon, SimCity, Sims, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Pirates... Only recently that everyone has been talking about MMORPG and FPS. To me, it's the party games such as Mario Cart and Mario Party that make me want to own a console.
I am a PC gamer and I don't bash on consoles. What irritates me and what i want to bash is the fact that those crazy console marketing ppl gave out ridiculous claims about how much more powerful their console is than the PC or their competitors, and that so many console players actually buy into their claims, even though history has proven it's all hype over and over. Amazing.
Which of these is supposed to be remotely close to being in the same league as say Forza? I've played most of them(haven't tried GTR) and they are mediocre at best.
Given the age of most of these(once every five years an OK adventure game used to come out), or the fact that you have Oni on the list(disgustingly poor by any measure- Bungie should be humiliated by how that one turned out) I am assuming you are simply confirming that PCs are decimated by consoles in the adventure genre. Let's compare them to say the new Zelda title or God of War.
According to who? Nigh no titles, horrible control schemes and lack of decent multiplayer support tends to make PC sports games in to what they are- junk.
Yes, PCs do have an edge in shooters. Of course, HL wasn't even the best game released within six months of itself according to most reviewers(OoT).
Those 'more hardcore' PC racing titles are largely ports that started on the consoles- and they aren't considered hardcore sims on the consoles either.
But not the childish need to blow stuff up..... right.
Zelda and God of War for a couple quick titles better then anything in the adventure genre the PC has seen in many years.
Morrowind and KoTOR too anime style for your? KoTOR were both console first, then ported to the PC.
I'm a gamer, not a platform bigot like you. I realize my systems limitations as I play them all all of the time. I don't try and delude myself then any one of my systems can do it all as well as any of the others, I'm not an ignorant @ss like that.
Have you actually played GPL?
GTR is also amazing in terms of physics, AI, detail and realism. It even uses TrackIR which tracks your head, meaning if your in the cockpit, where ever your head moves so does your view. GTR also gives you detailed reams and reams of information on your testing on the car. You can adjust pretty much anything.
You did actually check what year those Adventure games did come out right?
About 1 a year, thats pretty good.
Played any football games? Sports Management sims? All play fantastic on the PC.
So which game surpassed HL?
GTR is also amazing in terms of physics, AI, detail and realism. It even uses TrackIR which tracks your head, meaning if your in the cockpit, where ever your head moves so does your view. GTR also gives you detailed reams and reams of information on your testing on the car. You can adjust pretty much anything.
You did actually check what year those Adventure games did come out right?
About 1 a year, thats pretty good.
Played any football games? Sports Management sims? All play fantastic on the PC.
So which game surpassed HL?
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
They are specialized to be cheap and look good on paper but are actually very poor performers in practice.
Because an R520 can't run general purpose code.
In-order execution with poor branch prediction and long pipelines is going to be a problem regardless of how ambitous one is.
I think other developers far more experienced than I have already covered that point quite well. Multi-threading isn't as simple as spinning off threads and letting the hardware take care of it; there are some tremendous complexities that arise from it.
Except Cell is is not cheap, whereas Xenon is...relatively at least. Sony's investment in Cell seems like the bigger of the two blunders if that article was correct, because at least M$ should be able to sell the 360 for less than the PS3 because of the Xenon not in spite of. From that view poitn it seems as if Sony could have spent more on a current desktop architecture (say the Pentium M) and while the console would still cost more, it'd definately perform well and would most likely be available at the same time as the XBox 360 negating Microsoft's advantage by hitting the market first with several months of cushion.
Yes, a very poorly coded title with an extremely limited selection of cars and so "real" they forgot to have LeMans in there...
Grim Fandango came out in 1998, Monkey Island- the newest one, came out in 2002 with the original hitting back in 1997, Still Life sucks and is a multi platform title(although it is new), Broken Sword hit in 1997, BladeRunning hit in 1999, Omikron was also in 1999, Full Throttle was 1996, Outcast was released in 1999, Oni was 2001(wasn't really an adventure game and flat out sucked) Sam and Max was the oldest- dating to 1993.
What are you talking about with the one year thing? They were released over the course of fifteen years and only two of them were released this millenium(both of which sucked).
Are you European? Trying to figure out what you mean by football.
Ocarania of Time.
BFG10K-
In the hands of inept or lazy developers you are absolutely right.
No, that is very far removed from the truth.
So desktop CPUs suck too. Thanks for making it clear you don't like anything that requires developers to do more work. The days of being a lazy coder are over- anyone who doesn't like it needs to get away from it now.
WhoBeDaPlaya
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2000
- 7,414
- 402
- 126
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
In the hands of inept or lazy developers you are absolutely right.
No, that is very far removed from the truth.
So desktop CPUs suck too. Thanks for making it clear you don't like anything that requires developers to do more work. The days of being a lazy coder are over- anyone who doesn't like it needs to get away from it now.[/quote]
Then it is pretty obvious you don't code or know much about hardware other than what you have read online. End of story.
How exactly are you thinking we are going to keep accelerating performance on computing applications heading in to the future? Increasing performance on single core processors with their current methodology is not going to work- that is obvious and every chip manufacturer knows this. The reality is that everyone is moving to a multicore chip and eventually one not unlike Cell within a given amount of time(MIPS, Intel and AMD have it on their roadmaps. I started writing code back in 1980, and in those days all we were dealing with was in order processors- that is what I cut my teeth on. Spent several years in school with it, and outside as a hobby, and eventually got sick of it because it was so tedious.
Did I cry like a little b!tch about it? No, I decided that it wasn't worth the amount of time invested and I knew there was no way I wanted to do it for a living- that was a personal choice. Playing around with dev kits now is incredibly easy, amazing how little effort it takes for anyone to write any kind of app they want(being able to pull up a fully functioning 3D set in under a dozen lines of code....heh). Pretty much any half wit with a little bit of education can hammer out code with ease. Those days, if developers want to stay current- are almost over. They should really take a step back and look at what is coming- the current consoles are only an indicator of where the entire industry is going to be within a half dozen years. Newer x86 chips will likely still have OoO support, but the amonut of cores is going to increase along with them adding vector style functioning units.
The days of being a lazy coder are coming to an end. Check with Intel, check with AMD, check with whomever you wish. If you are a developer and can't stand the thought of it- it's time to look for another line of work.
ok heres the thing.
Devolpers for consols dont ahve to worry about varing processors or video cards so they dont have to be widespread in what can run the program.
The consols are 100% identicle (except for small things that dont do anything that whould change the preformance) so they can optimize the HELL out of there program. As stated before why do you think you can run doom3 on the xboxs insanly outdated equipment when even my pc has problems.
the cpus in the new consoles are WAY WAY WAY MORE than enough
trust me!
and yes i read the article. i read the article with in 5 minutes of its being put on the web site
Devolpers for consols dont ahve to worry about varing processors or video cards so they dont have to be widespread in what can run the program.
The consols are 100% identicle (except for small things that dont do anything that whould change the preformance) so they can optimize the HELL out of there program. As stated before why do you think you can run doom3 on the xboxs insanly outdated equipment when even my pc has problems.
the cpus in the new consoles are WAY WAY WAY MORE than enough
trust me!
and yes i read the article. i read the article with in 5 minutes of its being put on the web site
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter