Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Yeah, it's true. The current crop of PCs is more powerful than the current crop of "next-gen" consoles. Even many PCs that are a couple of years old overpower the XBox 360 and PS3, so long as they were relatively high-end when they came out (i.e. having multiple cores and a graphics card designed with games firmly in mind.)

That said, I'm really rather glad that the consoles have held back on releasing a new generation for much this reason. It's tiresome and ridiculous to have to buy a new PC every three years, not to mention wasteful. Every generation, we clearly see that the most technically sophisticated games come out near the end of a console's life. Programmers complain endlessly about the limitations placed upon them by having to program for particular platforms, but then they find ways to stretch and cheat those limitations. That's wonderful. That's how things ought to be, and we never achieve this kind of spartan genius when we allow them to program for "what next year's machine will be capable of."

With all due respect to Crytek- who are in their own way very innovative- I'm perfectly content to see people continuing to design with DirectX 9 and 10 in mind. A lot of the results are awesome, and the last few years haven't done much to convince me that the next generation of awesome is going to be worth the price tag. Assuming, at least as far as consoles go, that the manufacturers can even create significantly more powerful consoles at a price point that the consumer will accept, which I have to confess I'm no longer certain is a given.

Mornelithe:

And if you factor in the cost of the HDTV to run your console games, you just eclipsed the entire cost of the PC, with one purchase.

Depends on what you want. You can get a 32" HDTV for about 300$ at this point.

I think that is fine, but I know fuck-all about HDTVs.

So, about 800$ for a console, total (console + TV)
Or about 1000$ for a PC, total (PC + Monitor + Other)

ZippyDSMlee:
Meh you can build a 500-600$ PC that can keep up with the 360 or PS3 for at least 4 more years.

The trouble is at the core of the amtter is PC gamers are 10 generations ahead of console gamers as its hard to sell cheap uninspired wank to PC gamers easily(and yes I am calling out you Fallout "I'mashooter" 3 and Bio"retarted"shock) So why even bother making stuff for the PC its not configured for customizing the keyboard or mouse and worse yet its a port me down with no work done to optimize it for PC.

Sucks to be a Gamer that likes PC controls and qaulity these days its all shiny bright bloom and explosions to keep the drooling other half happy with crap....

ALso most PC devs have stopped making new gaming rig centered games as its cheaper to make it for the console.. not to mention dumbing it down so much saves alot on the budget and bug testing....

You may be the biggest elitist I've ever seen. Thank you for the unintentional comedy, at least.

Mornelithe:

Krantos:
"a decent gaming PC"

Yeah, I'll get right on that. And then, a year from now I'll invest another couple hundred. ANd the year after that, and the year after that...

Honestly, I prefer PC gaming (gotta love mods, and having a mouse and ~100 buttons), but you can't deny that not having to upgrade is a mark in console's favor. Considering the types of things you can do with the current gen, I doubt that PC's are being held back that much.

Uh, so what, you think the console hardware magically upgrades itself every night while you're asleep? That's how newer games manage to work on them? 'Fraid not. It's called engine scaling, and it works on PC too. Meaning, you don't _have_ to have the settings at maximum on the PC version. The games still run fine, if they didn't, they wouldn't run on console anyway.

NSS

My point was that a game written for a console is specifically programmed to run well on that exact setup. It's not going to require a better Graphics card, or an increase in ram. Or another processor. You don't even need to increase your clock speed or FSB. No tweaks required, no formatting. You don't even have to worry about patches, because if you're connected to XBL or PSN, they get applied automatically.

Yes, you can tweak the settings to improve frame rate et al., but the fact remains that it only goes so far. Games released 3 years ago will work fine on a computer, but one released now might not. You don't have that problem with consoles.

As I said, I prefer PC gaming, for a lot of reasons. The fact that it eats up a lot of $ to stay current obviously isn't one of them.

The Aryan PC Gaming Master Race marches forward once again into prosperity while the plebeian filth called console gamers scrounge through the shit we left behind! HUZZAH FOR GAMER SUPREMACY! GAMER SEGREGATION FOREVER!

Rocket Dog:

Mornelithe:

And if you factor in the cost of the HDTV to run your console games, you just eclipsed the entire cost of the PC, with one purchase.

Depends on what you want. You can get a 32" HDTV for about 300$ at this point.

I think that is fine, but I know fuck-all about HDTVs.

So, about 800$ for a console, total (console + TV)
Or about 1000$ for a PC, total (PC + Monitor + Other)

It's actually between $390-800 for a 1080p 32" TV.

And you could put a computer together for less than $1000 that performs better than a console w/ monitor.

Krantos:

NSS

My point was that a game written for a console is specifically programmed to run well on that exact setup. It's not going to require a better Graphics card, or an increase in ram. Or another processor. You don't even need to increase your clock speed or FSB. No tweaks required, no formatting. You don't even have to worry about patches, because if you're connected to XBL or PSN, they get applied automatically.

No, sorry, you're wrong, the only way you would be correct is for console exclusives. The rest start their lives on PC, and as such have scaling embedded into the engines design. Very very few, if any games currently made, are designed/built across all 3 platforms at the same time with different engines.

Yes, you can tweak the settings to improve frame rate et al., but the fact remains that it only goes so far. Games released 3 years ago will work fine on a computer, but one released now might not. You don't have that problem with consoles.

As I said, I prefer PC gaming, for a lot of reasons. The fact that it eats up a lot of $ to stay current obviously isn't one of them.

By tweak settings, you mean select 'default' or 'auto-configure according to your hardware'? You mean those kind of tweaks? Otherwise, you're getting into overclocking your machine, which is hardly something people should just jump into.

It only eats up your money if you're unwilling to research what it is you want to do. There are a great many people who simply want things delivered to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger.

Again, you're simply whitewashing the fact that all multi-platform game engines scale. They all do, they have to. The amount of hardware out there demands it. And no matter what you say, my point still remains. PC's games do not require the best of hardware to play. Yes, you will miss out on some of the bells and whistles, but no more than you do on console. My brother conquered Crysis on a Pre-DX10 machine, without _any_ problems.

Now, as for ease of use...well, that's really up to each person individually, what they prefer is all that really matters. But, please, don't try to sell me a song and dance about consoles being relevant for longer than a PC. That's just silly.

Mornelithe:

It's actually between $390-800 for a 1080p 32" TV.

It kinda depends on the brand for pricing. I was looking at the low-end brands (LG) which had a 32" at $312.

Also most console games don't even support 1080p, so you just get ugly upscaling.

And you could put a computer together for less than $1000 that performs better than a console w/ monitor.

No duh. It isn't hard to create a PC stronger than a console. I was pricing $1000 at: $600 Pc, $300 monitor, $100 other.

But that is when you get an ( expensive monitor.

Super Toast:

ZippyDSMlee:
Meh you can build a 500-600$ PC that can keep up with the 360 or PS3 for at least 4 more years.

The trouble is at the core of the amtter is PC gamers are 10 generations ahead of console gamers as its hard to sell cheap uninspired wank to PC gamers easily(and yes I am calling out you Fallout "I'mashooter" 3 and Bio"retarted"shock) So why even bother making stuff for the PC its not configured for customizing the keyboard or mouse and worse yet its a port me down with no work done to optimize it for PC.

Sucks to be a Gamer that likes PC controls and qaulity these days its all shiny bright bloom and explosions to keep the drooling other half happy with crap....

ALso most PC devs have stopped making new gaming rig centered games as its cheaper to make it for the console.. not to mention dumbing it down so much saves alot on the budget and bug testing....

You may be the biggest elitist I've ever seen. Thank you for the unintentional comedy, at least.

I dunno most PC gamers care more about qaulity than graphics,brands,trends and fads if it dose not have solid and polished game play.(Bioshock and FO3 are a joke both bugy, both unfinished,unbalanced and horribly paced, BSs story is the worest one yet of modern gameing to be put on a stool, FO3 has great stories but other than that its a frakking mess).
Then again the game industry is doing what the film industry is doing sell to the lowest common denominator there are more of them than fans or consumers that give a damn about qaulity, well paced ,polished content and them releasing games with more bugs by the day show the trend will not end as the suits will push crap out faster so the public can buy more of it.

I know I am right(least on this one... I think...lulz) and a bastard for it but so what? we are all sheep either a mindless throngs or introverted net rats with a minor superiority complex that can not stand the system and the men in suits in the corner office that screw things up for all of us.

PS: And I more cat than rat BTW I haz a flavor ^_~ .....

Mornelithe:

Krantos:

NSS

My point was that a game written for a console is specifically programmed to run well on that exact setup. It's not going to require a better Graphics card, or an increase in ram. Or another processor. You don't even need to increase your clock speed or FSB. No tweaks required, no formatting. You don't even have to worry about patches, because if you're connected to XBL or PSN, they get applied automatically.

No, sorry, you're wrong, the only way you would be correct is for console exclusives. The rest start their lives on PC, and as such have scaling embedded into the engines design. Very very few, if any games currently made, are designed/built across all 3 platforms at the same time with different engines.

Yes, you can tweak the settings to improve frame rate et al., but the fact remains that it only goes so far. Games released 3 years ago will work fine on a computer, but one released now might not. You don't have that problem with consoles.

As I said, I prefer PC gaming, for a lot of reasons. The fact that it eats up a lot of $ to stay current obviously isn't one of them.

By tweak settings, you mean select 'default' or 'auto-configure according to your hardware'? You mean those kind of tweaks? Otherwise, you're getting into overclocking your machine, which is hardly something people should just jump into.

It only eats up your money if you're unwilling to research what it is you want to do. There are a great many people who simply want things delivered to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger.

Again, you're simply whitewashing the fact that all multi-platform game engines scale. They all do, they have to. The amount of hardware out there demands it. And no matter what you say, my point still remains. PC's games do not require the best of hardware to play. Yes, you will miss out on some of the bells and whistles, but no more than you do on console. My brother conquered Crysis on a Pre-DX10 machine, without _any_ problems.

Now, as for ease of use...well, that's really up to each person individually, what they prefer is all that really matters. But, please, don't try to sell me a song and dance about consoles being relevant for longer than a PC. That's just silly.

Any AM2+ thats over 1.9Ghz and a 100 video card(70$ ram,60$CPU or 120 for really good CPU, 60 for good PSU,50$ case, 100 for KB,mouse,speakers and a power strip) so 500-600 for a PC that will run good for 4-5 years, most HDTVs have HDMI, VGA or DVI and DVI to HDMI cable or adpater will plug right into a HD TV with little effort.

PCs are half the cost of getting all the system, but at the end of the day you want good games and the PC just dose not have them it has media and a ton free sht but it con not realistically compete with the consoles on a game to game basis for a normal gamer.

ZippyDSMlee:
snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Rocket Dog:

Gorfias:

I just can't imagine that 6 or 7 years from now, people are going to buy a PS3 or 360 at any price when a PC is going to be about 32 times as powerful. And if such a PC can be bought for $600, what would a console have to offer to be attractive?

Probably coming in really late to this discussion, but, because I am alpha as fuck, I will say this anyways.

Keep in mind a good gaming PC can only be bought if it is custom built.
And, too the general populous, this is too much to understand.

So they pay 1500$ for something that should be 1000$.

Also, if you do build preset, don't forget that you still need a monitor (any decent monitor isn't less than 300$, keep in mind) And Windows unless you pirate it.

So, you are really looking at 900$ total.

Just throwing that out there. I kinda agree with your point, still

The PC I'm building now I'm attaching to my 55" LED/LCD. You buy a console, you still have to attach it to something as well.

You are correct that, to get the best bang for your buck, sans bloatware, you gotta build it yourself.

ZippyDSMlee:
PCs are half the cost of getting all the system, but at the end of the day you want good games and the PC just dose not have them it has media and a ton free sht but it con not realistically compete with the consoles on a game to game basis for a normal gamer.

Say what? PC's have 95% of all games that are released multi-platform, and 95% or more of so-called 360 'exclusives', additionally, PC's also boast the IP that simply can't be done on console at this time (Arma, Stalker, Crysis, World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, the list goes on and on). Hell, the only time a game isn't released on PC is when console developers want to give people even the remotest of reasons to buy their hardware. And even then, the games typically hit PC anyway, with very very few exceptions. Only Sony and Nintendo really have any strong argument to a solid exclusive line that never hits PC.

I realize you're not exactly for or against either, but seriously, what you're saying is pretty inaccurate. A PC will last every bit as long as a console, even with as much use as it gets (which is much more than a console, because PC's are multi-purpose). And the dropoff in performance of hardware isn't nearly as drastic as you're inferring. Think about it, both the 360 and PS3 run off of not last gen, but LAST last gen technology, we're talking a hybrid 7950 for the PS3 at most, and that's still way pre-DX10 technology. Exactly how many games out there utilize DX10 lately?

Super Toast:

ZippyDSMlee:
snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Console gamers care about innovation? HAHA

Balobo:

Super Toast:

ZippyDSMlee:
snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Console gamers care about innovation? HAHA

PC elitists aren't retarded neckbeards? HAHAHA!

Face it kid; you're fighting a losing battle.

Super Toast:

ZippyDSMlee:
snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Mornelithe:

ZippyDSMlee:
PCs are half the cost of getting all the system, but at the end of the day you want good games and the PC just dose not have them it has media and a ton free sht but it con not realistically compete with the consoles on a game to game basis for a normal gamer.

Say what? PC's have 95% of all games that are released multi-platform, and 95% or more of so-called 360 'exclusives', additionally, PC's also boast the IP that simply can't be done on console at this time (Arma, Stalker, Crysis, World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, the list goes on and on). Hell, the only time a game isn't released on PC is when console developers want to give people even the remotest of reasons to buy their hardware. And even then, the games typically hit PC anyway, with very very few exceptions. Only Sony and Nintendo really have any strong argument to a solid exclusive line that never hits PC.

I realize you're not exactly for or against either, but seriously, what you're saying is pretty inaccurate. A PC will last every bit as long as a console, even with as much use as it gets (which is much more than a console, because PC's are multi-purpose). And the dropoff in performance of hardware isn't nearly as drastic as you're inferring. Think about it, both the 360 and PS3 run off of not last gen, but LAST last gen technology, we're talking a hybrid 7950 for the PS3 at most, and that's still way pre-DX10 technology. Exactly how many games out there utilize DX10 lately?

er quality>innovation, better vrs solid new re arranged gimmicks. A port me down from the console(Bioshock,MOH:AA,Prototype) is not "better" the WII is not reall solid it still is gimmick and as much as I love me WII they built it for kids non gamers, precision is 2nd to mechanics and the WII as a whole system is lagging behind, hell even Metroid was toned down in mechanics,ect which is down right scary....

Not that the PS3 and 360 are better they just have more games, more games more options, the PC can not compete on the mainstream stage because they have chosen to serve consoles, its nice flash games have become so popular its nice some independents have found a strong footing, but that's not bringing us alot of solid content, and neither really is the mainstream industry as they are focused on brands, and a select few themes the "understand" not to mention getting the least amount of content out as fast as possible.

BTW Transformers was critically acclaimed and it sucked so meh no matter what it is if I can't find quality in it or fun(like Infernal or Bullet witch) I will rip it to shreds...well...even the ones I like I will tear to shreds becuse those 2 were a bloodly mess! AS a primarily FPS/ RPG/action adventure gamer the last FP game that tried to be something more than the rotten corpse in its branded box was Dark messhia(call of cuthulu was awesome as was Clive Bakers undying, working on amnesia the decent . Unreal 2, DOOM 3,Q3, UT 2003 all were pathetic games as content and quality shrunk and its still shrinking , most FP games between 00 and now suck but for halo 1 and only then on the PC :P. Don't even get me started on the trends in RPGs with the less content and quality or more repetitive or lack of filler ala Dragon Age or worse yet FF13, WTF happened square 12 only needed better paced equipment and skills and a skill system that did not suck and better characters. . . *sigh* )

Mornelithe, you can't play Halo,Resistance,Demon Souls, Castelvina, and a slu of other mainstream games you can play flash and indie but the void of content is still a void and thats why the PC is not the best gaming option anymore mainstream dose not really support it and when it dose its half assed, if you can deal with that then PC is great. Hardware price will always be over rated, it helps not to buy everything day one boys and girls so you know can eat well and buy things other than games..... LOL(I don't buy a console over 300 or a game over 30$...well maybe but for that rare PSX/Saturn title... *clings to his 80$ guardian heroes*)

ZippyDSMlee:
snip

I disagree with some of your points, and agree with others. Nonetheless, we should probably stop before this turns into a flame war. Agreed?

ph0b0s123:

Oh and before being accused of being a die-hard, fanatic, PC fan-boy. I say this, if console makers allow a mouse controller for certain games on a console - I will drop the PC tomorrow. In fact if console makers did this the PC games market would be dead over night....

You can already connect a keyboard and mouse to the PS3. The hardware is there, it just needs the software to follow suit.

As for this whole debate, I've never been a graphics whore ... ever ... so I fail to see how a slight increase in screen resolution and rendered polygons makes for a better gaming experience. Part of that might be that I've never owned a high-end gaming PC, or even touched one. The hardware was always too expensive for me, and I'd rather spend that money on a one-time console purchase and some games. I'm happy with my current PC, even though I can't run anything newer than Half-Life 2 without it sputtering out.

Really, we're at around the apex of what can be done graphically with the medium, so can we cut this shit out and focus on the games already?!!!

TheRightToArmBears:
The thing is, not that many people have super-powered latest tech PCs. You could make a game for such crazy-ass PCs but it wouldn't sell too well.

it would sell, you would just have a lot of disgruntled consumers afterwards, which is no good either.

They're definitely a bit better, but I don't know about a whole generation. I've got a good custom gaming build and I don't really see that much of a difference. Ok, a bit shorter load times and slightly better graphics, but microanalyses aside there isn't as much difference as say, this
image
to this
image

Super Toast:

Balobo:

Super Toast:

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Console gamers care about innovation? HAHA

PC elitists aren't retarded neckbeards? HAHAHA!

Face it kid; you're fighting a losing battle.

You know COD? that game that now symbolizes the 'popular modern-day generic FPS that sucks compared to my beloved team hats 2'?

It wasn't popular until COD4 sold like hotcakes...on the consoles. that has had profound influence on the subsequent game's developments. Genres such as the space sim/fight combat/sim have practically died out, or become tiny niches mainly on the PC because console gamers, by and large, don't want different gameplay beyond the platform-er, racer, and the shooter. And 2 of those are getting awful stale now.

Even the RPG, shooter are weaker on console, games like fallout or even half-life/L4D on console are simply inferior for any serious gamer, compared to their PC versions, with their community adding unique, innovative content to the game, the developer just can't take risks on crazy idea, but the community can. And the indie games scene is much bigger on PC than XBLA/PSN, by nature of the PC platform.

But closer to the topic of the thread, hardware potential and what you can do with it:
Sure, visuals may not be getting much better, but that doesn't mean better hardware won't make for better games, because the mind know no limit, but a computer does. Yeah, we have pretty environments today, but there is only so much you can do with it. Tomorrow, on better hardware, let's have pretty environments even our subtle actions manipulate, both in fine detail and in large-scale and doesn't disappear when we leave, can come back, but stays when we come back. let's have more characters doing more complicated things at the same time, without needing to load what was behind that little wall. let's have more ways to get to the goal, let's have games constantly challenge what we think is possible to imagine seeing AND doing, give us a visual feast many come to expect from modern games.

Only one generation?
...

Logan Westbrook:

Yerli thought that games like Crysis 2 represented the ceiling of what could be achieved with the Xbox 360 or the PS3, and said that Crytek would struggle to "squeeze more juice from these rocks." He also thought that future CryEngine projects would be hampered creatively by these technological limitations.

The Wykydtron:
I find this article quite lolworthy

1. Complain about Consoles in general
2. Release Crysis 2 on PC and Consoles
3.????
4.PROFIT!

Reading stuff before posting usually helps. Crysis 2 (which is severly toned down already going from PC to console) is at, what they call, the "ceiling".

I, not having the money to shell out on a top of the line computer or new game consoles, am fine with this technological limitation as long as it means I can keep using my few years old computer and Xbox 360 for new games.

Consoles getting called out officially bro. It's gonna be a bad fight, though.

Guitarmasterx7:
They're definitely a bit better, but I don't know about a whole generation. I've got a good custom gaming build and I don't really see that much of a difference. Ok, a bit shorter load times and slightly better graphics, but microanalyses aside there isn't as much difference as say, this
image
to this
image

It was one of Cevat's points that you don't see much of a difference because developers are constrained by the consoles, ask yourself this, say you were IW making MW2 would you for an extra 10% of sales that the PC version roughly accounted then spend time using a more powerfull engine then redoing every texture and 3d model and level in the game with say 7 times more complexity, Or would you just release it with an unlocked framerate and resolution with a few extra textures so it does not look silly at a higher resolution


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cez6vkBc1l0&hd=1

Not just visual but physics as well

MR T3D:
fanboy rage/

Once again, plenty of people like CoD4. And just because you can do more with a PC doesn't mean that consoles are crap. Consoles are easier to use, less expensive and get more games. If you deny any of these facts, then you're a helpless fanboy. I'm a PC and console gamer, while you've probably never even seen a console. Try both first.

Of course PCs are better in the hardware department, but frankly, graphics aren't what's important in games, and if I were a PC gamer I would rejoice that I don't have to replace my graphics card soon. I know I'm glad I don't have to shovel out 300 dollars on a new console.

According to Moore's Law PCs get twice as good every eighteen months; Twice as fast, cheap or small. Consoles release every five years or so and, thus, take much larger jumps so that the technology can try and stay ahead of what the game developers come up with. Unfortunately for the technology whore in me (but fortunately for my poor, abused wallet) the rising of the Casual Gamer has caused the gaming industry to slow the technology race in order to make games more accessible to everybody; hence the arrival of Kinect rather than the next xbox five years after the 360's release. So it'll be a while before we start seeing graphics rendered on the fly that has the same quality as Starcraft II's on the consoles.

Except.. well.. the reason why this "generation" has lasted for about ten years, is that the single thread performance paradigm is ending. We can't get processors to go past 4Ghz without a small power-plant to drive the cooling. So the next step is parallelism.

This isn't exactly something new - the problem has always been that it requires two things before parallel computers become economically viable.
1. transistor size becomes small enough.
2. integrated buses are constructed.

Strange thing is that both of those are already fulfilled. Has been for several years. So why don't we have smaller tabletops, netbooks and mobile phones with integrated buses available in mass right now? After all, it is actually cheaper to produce generic chips with programmable instruction sets rather than separate peripherals.

It is also a very known and real bandwidth problem with having the industry standard architecture (ISA) bus - since it limits very much the speed with which the different devices can communicate. Attempts have been made to circumvent this - creating gpgpu methods that don't store data in system ram, but on the graphics card's ram; for specialized operations this is demonstrably the fastest method, precisely because it circumvents the bottleneck with the ISA (or a separate interconnector bus).

Meanwhile, Intel threatens to sue Nvidia for making an integrated system that does combine gpu/cpu on a single chip. And it slows the adoption of that alternative for a number of years. Another factor limiting adoption of this scheme is the fact that it means rewriting software solutions, and - for example - creating abstraction layers that are compatible with the previous paradigm. Allowing an integrated system to run the same code as an ISA construction. Something that is time-consuming on it's own, as well as limiting performance that could have been leveraged otherwise.

The truth is that it's not consoles that hold the development back this time. It's the industry's lack of interest in fully moving on to a parallel paradigm. Even though it is necessary to increase the processing power of general applications (rather than specialised code that can, obviously, run very fast in gpgpu accelerated contexts).

Of course - we see attempts, such as ARM branching out to Netbooks, and Nvidia successfully releasing their ION chipsets - though of course specifically tailored for the slimmer markets, safely staying away from desktops and workstations, just like ARM. Even though that isn't actually necessary. In fact, we have several examples of integrated systems that perform as well, and many times better, than ISA based implementations.

But as long as the big players refuse to move on to the parallel paradigm - while developers of software acknowledge the fact that processor speed and peripheral cards is nearing their limit - this is a problem we will have.

I'll be specific - the applications of an integrated system that has fast ram and multiple cpus that can run tailored instruction sets controlled programmatically is interesting for:
1. animation technology. We wish to see more interactive animation, meaning that there is a need to update graphics-contexts more frequently. This is severely limited when either all calculations has to be performed via gpgpu acceleration, or else has to involve cpu-time and context-switches.
2. physics calculations. Node-generation and traversal can be performed tremendously fast nowadays thanks to more common multiple core cpu-arrays in desktops. But again we have the problem that while it can be performed quickly, it cannot be as readily updated in the graphical context. This means limited real-time application of calculations like these. Typically, a thread would be opened, and the context updated with new static arrays when time allows. This isn't very effective, and insists on a particular type of design that won't allow the dynamic contexts artists and designers might imagine. Workarounds also take tremendous time to create, and the end result becomes more static than it could have been.
3. Size of graphical contexts. As we do hit a wall on producing graphical contexts with high resolution and many objects, we see graphics card manufacturers start to temp with intermediate scene-construction more explicitly than before. Essentially, this is about creating the scene references, then reducing it, and only drawing the updated areas (which of course speeds up the scene-generation a lot). Similar methods are used for acceleration when drawing primitives - common methods are collapsed to simpler instructions that require fewer clock-cycles to complete. And this is silently adopted by developers on the code-level.

But in reality, what we really want to do is generating larger graphical contexts, and then simply letting the graphics processing unit find out what is supposed to be rendered, and then never worry about scene or object complexity. But to do so, we require high amounts of processing power that can run on:
1. multiple processor units that have
2. programmable instruction sets and "advanced" logic.

Since reducing scene complexity is most efficiently done when using the collapsed and simpler functions, rather than linear iterations of the same algorithm (which is what we're really doing on graphics cards).

This is an area that we will probably not see any progress in on PCs within the foreseeable future. Because it means that the industry will have to move away from producing separate entities with different licensing on the hardware itself. And over to licensing instruction sets for use in different programmable systems.

So for the first time since computers really took off - where we will see progress now is not in peripheral cards and cpu speed (as mentioned, we do know that we're hitting a wall. While generating generic parallel code for multiple processor elements has limitations as well. There is no such thing as code that can be mechanically parallelized endlessly while also getting performance improvements). ..not in peripheral cards and cpu speed - but in embedded systems with specifically created platforms (i.e., software and hardware).

This is what the industry will allow for, and this is what will force itself ahead. In other words - PCs are actually dead. The next PC - thanks to the way the industry works - will be a console, as a matter of definition.

Where software and hardware will be specifically built to launch optimised and specifically written software. We would wish for that the next PCs that turn up actually are generic systems with integrated buses over programmable multiple cpus. But in practice, there are no software giants who are willing to simply bear the cost of the initial research and software production. And there are no hardware giant that can defend creating a new platform at the moment that is free/open.

So any "PC elitism" can please go and have a break. If you buy a PC, and continue to upgrade your cards and components in infinitesimal increments performance wise, you are part of the problem. :/

my PC has about 8X the power of my PS3
duh
this is why PC gamers are the elite

and also theres a dude thats claims his Chinese sponsored lab will be producing functional quantum processors in a decade so screw chipsets all together

Rocket Dog:

Mornelithe:

And if you factor in the cost of the HDTV to run your console games, you just eclipsed the entire cost of the PC, with one purchase.

Depends on what you want. You can get a 32" HDTV for about 300$ at this point.

I think that is fine, but I know fuck-all about HDTVs.

So, about 800$ for a console, total (console + TV)
Or about 1000$ for a PC, total (PC + Monitor + Other)

yeah mine was about 3200$ full custom build

I think the irony of this is that the PC's aren't capable of handling many of the pretty console games.
This statement is void.

Zeithri:
I think the irony of this is that the PC's aren't capable of handling many of the pretty console games.
This statement is void.

..uh, oh. You've done it now..

But still - what about mentioning the Dreamcast, and how it lost out to the xbox - which had less processing and graphics performance. And was about equal to a reasonably fast PC at the time..

Or the ps2 - which actually did compete with PCs graphically for a silly length of time. Way before consoles apparently started to hold PCs back.. Still envious of a buddy who never had the kind of dips in the framerate, and skips on the controls that I did on my massively superior (and ridiculously more expensive) PC.. :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here