Xbox360, PS3 : announcements of the death of PC gaming see..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

See:-

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461

and the extensive introductory article

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

John Lewis

- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
35 answers Last reply
More about xbox360 announcements death gaming
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:39:53 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    <snip>

    Would these be the announcements of the death of PC games that first
    appeared when the Megadrive appeared ? Or the ones when the PS1
    appeared ? Or when the Gamecube appeared ? Or...

    --

    Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
    They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
    And what's with all the carrots ?
    What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
    Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:
    > See:-
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >
    > and the extensive introductory article
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >

    "Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer."

    In our last article we had a fairly open-ended discussion about many of
    the challenges facing both of the recently announced next-generation
    game consoles. We discussed misconceptions about the Cell processor
    and its ability to accelerate physics calculations, as well as touched
    on the GPUs of both platforms. In the end, both the Xbox 360 and the
    PlayStation 3 are much closer competitors than you would think based on
    first impressions.

    The Xbox 360's Xenon CPU features more general purpose cores than the
    PlayStation 3 (3 vs. 1), however game developers will most likely only
    be using one of those cores for the majority of their calculations,
    leveling the playing field considerably.

    The Cell processor derives much of its power from its array of 7 SPEs
    (Synergistic Processing Elements), however as we discovered in our last
    article, their purpose is far more specialized than we had thought.
    Speaking with Epic Games' head developer, Tim Sweeney, he provided a
    much more balanced view of what sorts of tasks could take advantage of
    the Cell's SPE array.

    The GPUs of the next-generation platforms also proved to be quite
    interesting. In Part I we speculated as to the true nature of
    NVIDIA's RSX in the PS3, concluding that it's quite likely little
    more than a higher clocked G70 GPU. We will expand on that discussion
    a bit more in this article. We also looked at Xenos, the Xbox 360's
    GPU and characterized it as equivalent to a very flexible 24-pipe R420.
    Despite the inclusion of the 10MB of embedded DRAM, Xenos and RSX
    ended up being quite similar in our expectations for performance; and
    that pretty much summarized all of our findings - the two consoles,
    although implementing very different architectures, ended up being so
    very similar.

    So we've concluded that the two platforms will probably end up
    performing very similarly, but there was one very important element
    excluded from the first article: a comparison to present-day PC
    architectures. The reason a comparison to PC architectures is
    important is because it provides an evaluation point to gauge the
    expected performance of these next-generation consoles. We've heard
    countless times that these new consoles would offer better gaming
    performance than anything we've had on the PC, or anything we would
    have for a matter of years. Now it's time to actually put those
    claims to the test, and that's exactly what we did.

    Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers
    who have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360
    and PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked
    them for nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think
    of these new consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing
    performance we've been lead to believe they have? The answer is
    actually quite frequently found in history; as with anything, you get
    what you pay for.


    Page 2
    Learning from Generation X

    The original Xbox console marked a very important step in the evolution
    of gaming consoles - it was the first console that was little more than
    a Windows PC.


    The original Xbox was basically a PC

    It featured a 733MHz Pentium III processor with a 128KB L2 cache,
    paired up with a modified version of NVIDIA's nForce chipset (modified
    to support Intel's Pentium III bus instead of the Athlon XP it was
    designed for). The nForce chipset featured an integrated GPU,
    codenamed the NV2A, offering performance very similar to that of a
    GeForce3. The system had a 5X PC DVD drive and an 8GB IDE hard drive,
    and all of the controllers interfaced to the console using USB cables
    with a proprietary connector.

    For the most part, game developers were quite pleased with the original
    Xbox. It offered them a much more powerful CPU, GPU and overall
    platform than anything had before. But as time went on, there were
    definitely limitations that developers ran into with the first Xbox.

    One of the biggest limitations ended up being the meager 64MB of memory
    that the system shipped with. Developers had asked for 128MB and the
    motherboard even had positions silk screened for an additional 64MB,
    but in an attempt to control costs the final console only shipped with
    64MB of memory.


    Developers wanted more memory, but the first Xbox only shipped with
    64MB

    The next problem is that the NV2A GPU ended up not having the fill rate
    and memory bandwidth necessary to drive high resolutions, which kept
    the Xbox from being used as a HD console.

    Although Intel outfitted the original Xbox with a Pentium III/Celeron
    hybrid in order to improve performance yet maintain its low cost, at
    733MHz that quickly became a performance bottleneck for more complex
    games after the console's introduction.

    The combination of GPU and CPU limitations made 30 fps a frame rate
    target for many games, while simpler titles were able to run at 60 fps.
    Split screen play on Halo would even stutter below 30 fps depending on
    what was happening on screen, and that was just a first-generation
    title. More experience with the Xbox brought creative solutions to the
    limitations of the console, but clearly most game developers had a wish
    list of things they would have liked to have seen in the Xbox
    successor. Similar complaints were levied against the PlayStation 2,
    but in some cases they were more extreme (e.g. its 4MB frame buffer).

    Given that consoles are generally evolutionary, taking lessons learned
    in previous generations and delivering what the game developers want in
    order to create the next-generation of titles, it isn't a surprise to
    see that a number of these problems are fixed in the Xbox 360 and
    PlayStation 3.

    One of the most important changes with the new consoles is that system
    memory has been bumped from 64MB on the original Xbox to a whopping
    512MB on both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. For the Xbox, that's
    a factor of 8 increase, and over 12x the total memory present on the
    PlayStation 2.

    The other important improvement with the next-generation of consoles is
    that the GPUs have been improved tremendously. With 6 - 12 month
    product cycles, it's no surprise that in the past 4 years GPUs have
    become much more powerful. By far the biggest upgrade these new
    consoles will offer, from a graphics standpoint, is the ability to
    support HD resolutions.

    There are obviously other, less-performance oriented improvements such
    as wireless controllers and more ubiquitous multi-channel sound
    support. And with Sony's PlayStation 3, disc capacity goes up thanks
    to their embracing the Blu-ray standard.


    The Xbox 360: two parts evolution, one part mistake?

    But then we come to the issue of the CPUs in these next-generation
    consoles, and the level of improvement they offer. Both the Xbox 360
    and the PlayStation 3 offer multi-core CPUs to supposedly usher in a
    new era of improved game physics and reality. Unfortunately, as we
    have found out, the desire to bring multi-core CPUs to these consoles
    was made a reality at the expense of performance in a very big way.


    Page 3
    Problems with the Architecture

    At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom
    PowerPC based core. We've discussed this core in our previous
    articles, but it is best characterized as being quite simple. The core
    itself is a very narrow 2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a
    64KB L1 cache (32K instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2
    cache (for Xenon or Cell, respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can
    execute two threads simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled
    Pentium 4. The Xenon CPU is made up of three of these cores, while
    Cell features just one.

    Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in
    the Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we
    don't have exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around
    1/2 the size of the 90nm Prescott die.


    Cell's PPE is identical to a single core in Xenon. The die area of the
    Cell processor is 221 mm^2, note how little space is occupied by the
    PPE - it is a very simple core.

    IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating
    point performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given
    Microsoft's focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the
    bait.

    While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
    comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2
    TFLOPs processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has
    already been lost.

    Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the
    Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first
    Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for
    the next 4 - 5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it
    in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on
    Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

    The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order
    core also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch
    predictor that's not the best in the business. In the end, you get
    what you pay for, and with such a small core, it's no surprise that
    performance isn't anywhere near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.

    The Cell processor doesn't get off the hook just because it only uses
    a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being
    fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more
    than a waste of die space.

    We mentioned before that collision detection is able to be accelerated
    on the SPEs of Cell, despite being fairly branch heavy. The lack of a
    branch predictor in the SPEs apparently isn't that big of a deal,
    since most collision detection branches are basically random and
    can't be predicted even with the best branch predictor. So not
    having a branch predictor doesn't hurt, what does hurt however is the
    very small amount of local memory available to each SPE. In order to
    access main memory, the SPE places a DMA request on the bus (or the PPE
    can initiate the DMA request) and waits for it to be fulfilled. From
    those that have had experience with the PS3 development kits, this
    access takes far too long to be used in many real world scenarios. It
    is the small amount of local memory that each SPE has access to that
    limits the SPEs from being able to work on more than a handful of
    tasks. While physics acceleration is an important one, there are many
    more tasks that can't be accelerated by the SPEs because of the
    memory limitation.

    The other point that has been made is that even if you can offload some
    of the physics calculations to the SPE array, the Cell's PPE ends up
    being a pretty big bottleneck thanks to its overall lackluster
    performance. It's akin to having an extremely fast GPU but without a
    fast CPU to pair it up with.


    Page 4
    What About Multithreading?

    We of course asked the obvious question: would game developers rather
    have 3 slow general purpose cores, or one of those cores paired with an
    array of specialized SPEs? The response was unanimous, everyone we
    have spoken to would rather take the general purpose core approach.

    Citing everything from ease of programming to the limitations of the
    SPEs we mentioned previously, the Xbox 360 appears to be the more
    developer-friendly of the two platforms according to the cross-platform
    developers we've spoken to. Despite being more developer-friendly, the
    Xenon CPU is still not what developers wanted.

    The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if
    either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in
    their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the
    competition in terms of CPU performance.

    While the developers we've spoken to agree that heavily multithreaded
    game engines are the future, that future won't really take form for
    another 3 - 5 years. Even Microsoft admitted to us that all developers
    are focusing on having, at most, one or two threads of execution for
    the game engine itself - not the four or six threads that the Xbox 360
    was designed for.

    Even when games become more aggressive with their multithreading,
    targeting 2 - 4 threads, most of the work will still be done in a
    single thread. It won't be until the next step in multithreaded
    architectures where that single thread gets broken down even further,
    and by that time we'll be talking about Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4. In
    the end, the more multithreaded nature of these new console CPUs
    doesn't help paint much of a brighter performance picture -
    multithreaded or not, game developers are not pleased with the
    performance of these CPUs.
    What about all those Flops?

    The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft
    was sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever
    since the announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have
    been set on comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point
    operations per second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point
    operations per second (TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a
    fact that these numbers are meaningless, but just in case you need some
    reasoning for why, let's look at the facts.

    First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can
    be adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing
    a dot product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just
    calculating the complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed
    on a FPU is fair game to be called a floating point operation.

    Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system,
    CPU and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't
    mean anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and
    vice versa. As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU
    performance in terms of generic floating point operations per second is
    far from the full performance story.

    Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point
    performance there are a few things that they aren't taking into
    account. Being able to process billions of operations per second
    depends on actually being able to have that many floating point
    operations to work on. That means that you have to have enough
    bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted branches, no cache
    misses and the right structure of code to make sure that all of the
    FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak rates.
    We already know that's not the case as game developers have already
    told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance
    as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements
    for hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches
    are only so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main
    memory is needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a
    few hundred clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be
    happening at all.

    So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit
    its peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.

    The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to
    one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point
    performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue
    with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from
    what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the
    SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak
    theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't
    being used all the time.


    Don't stare directly at the flops, you may start believing that they
    matter.

    Another way to look at this comparison of flops is to look at integer
    add latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has
    two double pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations
    per clock, that's a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could
    say that a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per
    second. The Athlon 64 has three ALUs each capable of executing an add
    every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64 can perform 8.4 billion operations
    per second. By this silly console marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would
    be almost twice as fast as the Athlon 64, and a multi-core Pentium 4
    would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64. Any AnandTech reader
    should know that's hardly the case. No code is composed entirely of
    add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the Pentium 4 and
    Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and when they
    do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than the
    P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead
    you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The
    exact same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation
    consoles; don't fall for it.


    Page 5
    Why did Sony/MS do it?

    For Sony, it doesn't take much to see that the Cell processor is eerily
    similar to the Emotion Engine in the PlayStation 2, at least
    conceptually. Sony clearly has an idea of what direction they would
    like to go in, and it doesn't happen to be one that's aligned with much
    of the rest of the industry. Sony's past successes have really come,
    not because of the hardware, but because of the developers and their
    PSX/PS2 exclusive titles. A single hot title can ship millions of
    consoles, and by our count, Sony has had many more of those than
    Microsoft had with the first Xbox.

    Sony shipped around 4 times as many PlayStation 2 consoles as Microsoft
    did Xboxes, regardless of the hardware platform, a game developer won't
    turn down working with the PS2 - the install base is just that
    attractive. So for Sony, the Cell processor may be strange and even
    undesirable for game developers, but the developers will come
    regardless.

    The real surprise was Microsoft; with the first Xbox, Microsoft
    listened very closely to the wants and desires of game developers.
    This time around, despite what has been said publicly, the Xbox 360's
    CPU architecture wasn't what game developers had asked for.

    They wanted a multi-core CPU, but not such a significant step back in
    single threaded performance. When AMD and Intel moved to multi-core
    designs, they did so at the expense of a few hundred MHz in clock
    speed, not by taking a step back in architecture.

    We suspect that a big part of Microsoft's decision to go with the Xenon
    core was because of its extremely small size. A smaller die means
    lower system costs, and if Microsoft indeed launches the Xbox 360 at
    $299 the Xenon CPU will be a big reason why that was made possible.

    Another contributing factor may be the fact that Microsoft wanted to
    own the IP of the silicon that went into the Xbox 360. We seriously
    doubt that either AMD or Intel would be willing to grant them the right
    to make Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 CPUs, so it may have been that IBM was
    the only partner willing to work with Microsoft's terms and only with
    this one specific core.

    Regardless of the reasoning, not a single developer we've spoken to
    thinks that it was the right decision.


    Page 6
    The Saving Grace: The GPUs

    Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all
    developers have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power
    of the next-generation consoles.

    First, let's talk about NVIDIA's RSX in the PlayStation 3. We
    discussed the possibility of RSX offloading vertex processing onto the
    Cell processor, but more and more it seems that isn't the case. It
    looks like the RSX will basically be a 90nm G70 with Turbo Cache
    running at 550MHz, and the performance will be quite good.

    One option we didn't discuss in the last article, was that the G70 GPU
    may feature a number of disabled shader pipes already to improve yield.
    The move to 90nm may allow for those pipes to be enabled and thus
    allowing for another scenario where the RSX offers higher performance
    at the same transistor count as the present-day G70. Sony may be
    hesitant to reveal the actual number of pixel and vertex pipes in the
    RSX because honestly they won't know until a few months before mass
    production what their final yields will be.

    Despite strong performance and support for 1080p, a large number of
    developers are targeting 720p for their PS3 titles and won't support
    1080p. Those that are simply porting current-generation games over
    will have no problems running at 1080p, but anyone working on a truly
    next-generation title won't have the fill rate necessary to render at
    1080p.

    Another interesting point is that despite its lack of "free 4X AA" like
    the Xbox 360, in some cases it won't matter. Titles that use longer
    pixel shader programs end up being bound by pixel shader performance
    rather than memory bandwidth, so the performance difference between no
    AA and 2X/4X AA may end up being quite small. Not all titles will push
    the RSX to the limits however, and those titles will definitely see a
    performance drop with AA enabled. In the end, whether the RSX's lack
    of embedded DRAM matters will be entirely dependent on the game engine
    being developed for the platform. Games that make more extensive use
    of long pixel shaders will see less of an impact with AA enabled than
    those that are more texture bound. Game developers are all over the
    map on this one, so it wouldn't be fair to characterize all of the
    games as falling into one category or another.

    ATI's Xenos GPU is also looking pretty good and most are expecting
    performance to be very similar to the RSX, but real world support for
    this won't be ready for another couple of months. Developers have just
    recently received more final Xbox 360 hardware, and gauging performance
    of the actual Xenos GPU compared to the R420 based solutions in the G5
    development kits will take some time. Since the original dev kits
    offered significantly lower performance, developers will need a bit of
    time to figure out what realistic limits the Xenos GPU will have.


    Page 7
    Final Words

    Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we
    should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance
    doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never
    achieved. Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the
    consumer.

    And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation
    3. Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they
    actually are, and from talking to numerous game developers it seems
    that the real world performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near
    what it was supposed to be.

    It looks like significant advancements in game physics won't happen on
    consoles for another 4 or 5 years, although it may happen with PC games
    much before that.

    It's not all bad news however; the good news is that both GPUs are
    quite possibly the most promising part of the new consoles. With the
    performance that we have seen from NVIDIA's G70, we have very high
    expectations for the 360 and PS3. The ability to finally run at HD
    resolutions in all games will bring a much needed element to console
    gaming.

    And let's not forget all of the other improvements to these
    next-generation game consoles. The CPUs, despite being relatively
    lackluster, will still be faster than their predecessors and increased
    system memory will give developers more breathing room. Then there
    are other improvements such as wireless controllers, better online play
    and updated game engines that will contribute to an overall better
    gaming experience.

    In the end, performance could be better, the consoles aren't what they
    could have been had the powers at be made some different decisions.
    While they will bring better quality games to market and will be better
    than their predecessors, it doesn't look like they will be the end of
    PC gaming any more than the Xbox and PS2 were when they were launched.
    The two markets will continue to coexist, with consoles being much
    easier to deal with, and PCs offering some performance-derived
    advantages.

    With much more powerful CPUs and, in the near future, more powerful
    GPUs, the PC paired with the right developers should be able to bring
    about that revolution in game physics and graphics we've been hoping
    for. Consoles will help accelerate the transition to multithreaded
    gaming, but it looks like it will take PC developers to bring about
    real change in things like game physics, AI and other non-visual
    elements of gaming.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:00:01 +0800, "Choykw"
    <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> wrote:

    >
    >"mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    >news:1120091003.351654.264830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> John Lewis wrote:
    >>> See:-
    >>>
    >>> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >>>
    >>> and the extensive introductory article
    >>>
    >>> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >>>
    >
    >Geesh, who's the goon that wrote that article? ANANDTech is never very
    >professional in handling these article anyway.
    >

    Anand himself and Derek Wilson. And both these guys are technically
    very sharp indeed... not like the idiots on sites like Tom's Hardware.

    How very interesting........... article #2461 has just been withdrawn.
    And I did not make a local copy...what a great pity indeed......

    Hmmm..... I wonder why...exposing the Emperors' clothes ( M$$ and
    Sony) ? Maybe Anand got a call from $$ Bill $$ ?

    John Lewis
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:57:57 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    >How very interesting........... article #2461 has just been withdrawn.
    >And I did not make a local copy...what a great pity indeed......

    Both articles have been withdrawn. And while I'm not a fanboy of
    either console, I suspect the reason is that they were bullshit.
    Sure, the hype will exceed reality but the originally quoted claims
    are completely ludicrous. Those developers the authors talked to must
    have been a bunch of morons...
    --
    http://www.kynosarges.de
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly "Choykw" <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> Spake Unto All:

    >Geesh, who's the goon that wrote that article? ANANDTech is never very
    >professional in handling these article anyway.

    Hahaha, seems I was wrong when I said that noone believed the
    marketing hype from Microsoft & Sony.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <42c3122b.1068609@news.verizon.net>, John Lewis says...
    > See:-
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >
    > and the extensive introductory article
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >
    > John Lewis
    >
    > - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
    >
    I'm more interested in the PS3 shipping with Linux on the HDD version.
    Gonna find it very hard to justify keeping a PC as I can bang WineX on
    to play PC games.

    --
    Conor

    -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
    K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Actually they are "postmature".
    To me, PC gaming has been long dead. Let's see, what good PC-only
    games have I played lately...
    Half life 2... Half life 1 with better graphics which is just Quake
    with better graphics which is just Wolfenstein 3d with better graphics.
    Pirates! oh, wait... it's in console too

    Sadly (or not?) the only thing PCs are good for playing now are
    MMORPGs, just because you do a lot of talking and need a keyboard for
    that (although that will probably change soon with the growing
    acceptance of voice chat)

    Let's face it, in equal conditions I'd rather play laying on my bed
    watching my 50" HDTV and sound through my home-theater than sitting at
    my computer with my face 5 inches from the screen.

    The only real difference between PC and console games is just to whom
    game companies have marketed both platforms. PC to more 'adult' gamers
    and console to more 'young' gamers, but this is only a marketing
    decision. I don't see why a game like Heroes of Might and Magic 5 or
    Civilization 4 shouldn't be playable in Xbox
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In article <1120091003.351654.264830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    mace <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote:
    #
    #John Lewis wrote:
    #> See:-
    #>
    #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    #>
    #> and the extensive introductory article
    #>
    #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453


    These articles seem to have been taken down... or never
    existed... ????

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

    >I'm more interested in the PS3 shipping with Linux on the HDD version.

    Pipedream.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Ken Marsh" <kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net> wrote in message
    news:bsRwe.3$ku.392@news.abs.net...
    > In article <1120091003.351654.264830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > mace <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote:
    > #
    > #John Lewis wrote:
    > #> See:-
    > #>
    > #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    > #>
    > #> and the extensive introductory article
    > #>
    > #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >
    >
    > These articles seem to have been taken down... or never
    > existed... ????
    >

    They've been taken down. I just read them last night!
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Interesting Ian wrote:

    >
    > "Ken Marsh" <kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net> wrote in message
    > news:bsRwe.3$ku.392@news.abs.net...
    >> In article <1120091003.351654.264830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    >> mace <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote:
    >> #
    >> #John Lewis wrote:
    >> #> See:-
    >> #>
    >> #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >> #>
    >> #> and the extensive introductory article
    >> #>
    >> #> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >>
    >>
    >> These articles seem to have been taken down... or never
    >> existed... ????
    >>
    >
    > They've been taken down. I just read them last night!

    Seem to be there for me. Tried accessing from a machine that I haven't had
    online for a week and it worked fine so I'm sure it's not cached pages.
    Perhaps they were slashdotted?

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > Interesting Ian wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Ken Marsh" <kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net> wrote in message
    >>news:bsRwe.3$ku.392@news.abs.net...
    >>
    >>>In article <1120091003.351654.264830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    >>>mace <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote:
    >>>#
    >>>#John Lewis wrote:
    >>>#> See:-
    >>>#>
    >>>#> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >>>#>
    >>>#> and the extensive introductory article
    >>>#>
    >>>#> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>These articles seem to have been taken down... or never
    >>>existed... ????
    >>>
    >>
    >>They've been taken down. I just read them last night!
    >
    >
    > Seem to be there for me. Tried accessing from a machine that I haven't had
    > online for a week and it worked fine so I'm sure it's not cached pages.
    > Perhaps they were slashdotted?

    The first linke takes me to:
    http://www.anandtech.com/articles.aspx

    The second link works.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:39:53 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    wrote:

    >See:-
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >
    >and the extensive introductory article
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >
    >John Lewis
    >
    >- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

    Both articles were pulled yesterday ( June 29). Article #2453
    is back up, but article #2461 is still missing. This article was not
    too complimentary about the potential real-world performance of
    the CPU-core of either console and explained in quite some
    technical detail why the practical performace is likely to be far
    removed from the theoretical performance, at least for a very long
    time. Maybe Bill Gates or Howard Stringer got very upset ??

    Regardless of the individual limitations of each of the rather simple
    ( and cheap ) core elements in either CPU, writing an efficient
    compiler for a brand-new CPU architecture just takes time and a lot of
    effort. The DSP world is littered with architectures for which it has
    proved impossible to write efficient compilers; for example the PS3
    Cell processor architecture is uncannily similar to that of a TI DSP
    from several years ago, for which it was indeed impossible to write an
    efficient complier. Hand-coding a few key algorithms to force a DSP
    to run efficiently is a far cry from coding a complete application to
    run efficiently on the CPU-core of either console.

    John Lewis
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Christoph Nahr" <christoph.nahr@kynosarges.de> wrote in message
    news:p587c1dhv5nfbfffpt7brg6bcntrld8fdk@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:57:57 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>How very interesting........... article #2461 has just been withdrawn.
    >>And I did not make a local copy...what a great pity indeed......
    >
    > Both articles have been withdrawn. And while I'm not a fanboy of
    > either console, I suspect the reason is that they were bullshit.
    > Sure, the hype will exceed reality but the originally quoted claims
    > are completely ludicrous. Those developers the authors talked to must
    > have been a bunch of morons...

    The second article John linked to is still there.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Not that 'richie rich', bought my 50" HDTV for $999 (like 2 years ago,
    probably is much less now) and my home theater for like $140 (which
    includes DVD player). Add $150 for the Xbox, that's about $1300 which
    is about the price of a PC anyway.
    I just think consoles are inevitably better than PCs at running games,
    it's just the type of games they have 'targetted' and that's just a
    marketing decision. I'm pretty sure you could connect a wireless
    keyboard/mouse and play Age of Empires just as you would in a PC, but
    the game companies just 'think' console gamers don't like those games.
    Why do I think it's inherently better? Well, simple, you have a fixed
    configuration which game developers *know* in advance, and they can
    focus all their tests on this configuration. They don't have to worry
    about Pentium vs. AMD or Nvidia vs. ATI or if it supports DirectX 9.0k
    or Sound Blaster vs. integrated sound vs. some other obscure card, or
    running Windows ME or XP or 2000 or 98, or if there's Antivirus running
    or spyware or a software firewall.

    To me, PC gaming is already dead (except, for now, for MMORPGs)
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thus spake "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com>, 30 Jun 2005 11:30:40 -0700, Anno
    Domini:

    >Actually they are "postmature".
    >To me, PC gaming has been long dead. Let's see, what good PC-only
    >games have I played lately...
    >Half life 2... Half life 1 with better graphics which is just Quake
    >with better graphics which is just Wolfenstein 3d with better graphics.
    >Pirates! oh, wait... it's in console too
    >
    >Sadly (or not?) the only thing PCs are good for playing now are
    >MMORPGs, just because you do a lot of talking and need a keyboard for
    >that (although that will probably change soon with the growing
    >acceptance of voice chat)
    >
    >Let's face it, in equal conditions I'd rather play laying on my bed
    >watching my 50" HDTV and sound through my home-theater than sitting at
    >my computer with my face 5 inches from the screen.
    >
    >The only real difference between PC and console games is just to whom
    >game companies have marketed both platforms. PC to more 'adult' gamers
    >and console to more 'young' gamers, but this is only a marketing
    >decision. I don't see why a game like Heroes of Might and Magic 5 or
    >Civilization 4 shouldn't be playable in Xbox

    You would if you had a normal tv, richie rich ;-p. And there is no
    substitute for a keyboard mouse combo for a *lot* of games - anyone says
    otherwise is delusional. As far as comfort factor, lounging/lying down is
    for passive viewing imo - if you want to *concentrate* properly you need to
    be sitting upright. Then again, given the current gen's attention spans, I
    guess concentration isn't a prereq in schools growing up roflmao! Oh brave
    new world, which has such things in it...

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    wolfing wrote:
    > Actually they are "postmature".
    > To me, PC gaming has been long dead. Let's see, what good PC-only
    > games have I played lately...
    > Half life 2... Half life 1 with better graphics which is just Quake
    > with better graphics which is just Wolfenstein 3d with better graphics.
    > Pirates! oh, wait... it's in console too

    Uh, you have missed playing some great RPGs then. I'll point you to
    Gothic 1 and 2 to start with.

    > Sadly (or not?) the only thing PCs are good for playing now are
    > MMORPGs, just because you do a lot of talking and need a keyboard for
    > that (although that will probably change soon with the growing
    > acceptance of voice chat)

    Huh? As games get more complex, so will controllers. We are reaching a
    point where we are going to have a 102 button controller...oh
    wait...that's a keyboard.

    > Let's face it, in equal conditions I'd rather play laying on my bed
    > watching my 50" HDTV and sound through my home-theater than sitting at
    > my computer with my face 5 inches from the screen.

    Must be nice to have a 50" in your bedroom. Personally, I can't afford
    to buy 2 50" TVs (one for the living room and one for the bedroom) and I
    can't afford 2 decent home theater setups and I SURE can't afford a
    house where I can fit a 50" TV into my bedroom and sit far enough away
    from it so it doesn't look grainy.

    > The only real difference between PC and console games is just to whom
    > game companies have marketed both platforms. PC to more 'adult' gamers
    > and console to more 'young' gamers, but this is only a marketing
    > decision. I don't see why a game like Heroes of Might and Magic 5 or
    > Civilization 4 shouldn't be playable in Xbox

    You need a keyboard the more complex the game is.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    wolfing wrote:

    > Not that 'richie rich', bought my 50" HDTV for $999 (like 2 years ago,
    > probably is much less now) and my home theater for like $140 (which
    > includes DVD player). Add $150 for the Xbox, that's about $1300 which
    > is about the price of a PC anyway.
    > I just think consoles are inevitably better than PCs at running games,
    > it's just the type of games they have 'targetted' and that's just a
    > marketing decision. I'm pretty sure you could connect a wireless
    > keyboard/mouse and play Age of Empires just as you would in a PC, but
    > the game companies just 'think' console gamers don't like those games.
    > Why do I think it's inherently better? Well, simple, you have a fixed
    > configuration which game developers *know* in advance, and they can
    > focus all their tests on this configuration. They don't have to worry
    > about Pentium vs. AMD or Nvidia vs. ATI or if it supports DirectX 9.0k
    > or Sound Blaster vs. integrated sound vs. some other obscure card, or
    > running Windows ME or XP or 2000 or 98, or if there's Antivirus running
    > or spyware or a software firewall.

    Have you seen some of the buggy shovelware that is coming out for
    consoles now? Consoles aren't any safer (anymore) from bugs than PCs.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 1 Jul 2005 06:32:51 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Not that 'richie rich', bought my 50" HDTV for $999 (like 2 years ago,
    >probably is much less now) and my home theater for like $140 (which
    >includes DVD player). Add $150 for the Xbox, that's about $1300 which
    >is about the price of a PC anyway.
    >I just think consoles are inevitably better than PCs at running games,
    >it's just the type of games they have 'targetted' and that's just a
    >marketing decision. I'm pretty sure you could connect a wireless
    >keyboard/mouse and play Age of Empires just as you would in a PC, but
    >the game companies just 'think' console gamers don't like those games.
    >Why do I think it's inherently better? Well, simple, you have a fixed
    >configuration which game developers *know* in advance, and they can
    >focus all their tests on this configuration. They don't have to worry
    >about Pentium vs. AMD or Nvidia vs. ATI or if it supports DirectX 9.0k
    >or Sound Blaster vs. integrated sound vs. some other obscure card, or
    >running Windows ME or XP or 2000 or 98, or if there's Antivirus running
    >or spyware or a software firewall.
    >
    >To me, PC gaming is already dead (except, for now, for MMORPGs)
    >

    Been here before ( you were born ? ) :-

    The Commodore Amiga was a console with a keyboard, mouse, joysticks,
    joypad.

    No that's not right... it ran bunches of productivity software, word
    processors, paint programs, music programs, pagesetting programs.
    And many of today's game developers in Europe cut their
    programming teeth on the Amiga, since it incorporated advanced
    video and audio hardware, had a completely open architecture,
    and the full programming documentation was available.............

    So it must have been a computer.... no, that's not right .....
    it was the finest home video gaming-machine of its time -- 1986-1992.

    So it must have been a console..... since a full range of
    console-style peripherals was available and supported as
    necessary by the games. Just load the floppy and you auto-
    booted straight into the game, no sign of the OS booting
    -- just like loading the DVD-rom into the Xbox or PS2
    Or, alternatively fire the game up from the hard-disk by
    double-clicking on the icon in the graphical-UI, if the game
    supported HD installation.

    The Amiga was a console or a computer -- depending on how
    the user decided to use it............. It was the most popular home
    computer in the UK and Germany from 1988 thru 1992, but
    most of the home-users were kids thru teenagers using it
    for >95% of the time in its console-mode. Just reset it with the
    Ctrl-Amiga-Amiga keys, load the floppy and bingo straight into
    the game.

    ( Ever see an Amiga 1200 ? Like an oversize keyboard, but with
    in internal hard-disk, floppy-disk and full peripheral support. )

    A console is merely a very narrowly-specialized personal computer.

    Sony seems to be seriously thinking of adding computer-style
    peripherals to the PS3 and maybe even alternately
    running it under Linux. Since the PS3 hard-disk will be an
    optional peripheral ( unlike the Xbox360), the user can
    choose any size he/she likes - so should have no space
    problems running an alternate OS and really-useful-software.

    So, please don't buy a PS3... it might eventually offend your
    console-only sensibilities. Buy an Xbox360 instead. Bill_G
    will never open that one up --- it will always stay closed.
    Otherwise a threat to the $$Winslows$$ business...........

    John Lewis
    - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:
    > See:-
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461
    >
    > and the extensive introductory article
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
    >
    > John Lewis
    >
    > - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

    "the transition to multi-threaded development alone will increase
    development time 2 or 3 fold. "

    Pah.

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

    >"the transition to multi-threaded development alone will increase
    >development time 2 or 3 fold. "
    >
    >Pah.

    Hahaha, that's absolutely ridiculous - who said that? I read the
    articles but I must've missed that gem.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:42c9c303.4915541@news.verizon.net...
    > Into which spare socket are you going to plug this wonderful card in
    > your nice shiny PCIe system -- that it is not going to obstuct even
    > more useful peripherals current or future. ?

    I've got about 4 PCI slots. I've only got an Audigy 2 and a wireless
    network card. One slot is taken up by an Artic Cooling VGA cooler.

    PCI-e is an expensive option that doesn't improve performance at all in
    games. Especially because no mainstream or high-end graphics cards
    actually use Turbocache, the PCI-e interface doesn't have any befenits over
    an AGP (eg, the graphics card still requires alot of onboard memory, making
    it just as expensive to manufacture).

    There will be AGP cards in the future, for sure, even if most of the Dells
    of the world move on to PCI-e. Just like there were still PCI graphics
    cards until recently.

    >
    > Since dual(or more) -core will be UNIVERSAL in all future PCs,

    Maybe in the future, but not the near future. Even with two cores, that
    physics accelerator card will run circles around the CPU.

    >just
    > as DVD-roms superseded cd-roms, it seems rather logical for
    > developers to use this extra parallel-processing power for AI,
    > physics etc.

    Multi-threaded, parallel processing takes about 2-3 times the
    developement time.

    > PhysX is going nowhere in the consumer world, just like
    > Circuit City's misbegotten DIVX DVD pay-per-view scheme.

    Not the same at all. A better comparison is Creative Labs soundcards.

    > And the 7800GTX
    > has 128-bit floating-point paths. So imagine a dual 7800GTX
    > PCIe system where one is dedicated to physics calculations
    > and the other just executes the graphics for a gaming app.

    But I thought they wanted SLI?

    When NVidia starts writting a physics API for their video cards, then
    maybe you'll have a point.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Um the latency across any bus is much greater than that of a dual core CPU.
    No matter how fast your dedicated physics processor is it'll still end up
    waiting for access to the magnitudes slower peripheral bus, whatever the
    type. A dual core CPU, in comparison, will have zero latency between
    completing its calculations and actually doing something useful WITH those
    calculations.

    --
    there is no .sig
    "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:s7uye.43380$du.10487@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    >
    >> Since dual(or more) -core will be UNIVERSAL in all future PCs,
    >
    > Maybe in the future, but not the near future. Even with two cores,
    > that
    > physics accelerator card will run circles around the CPU.
    >
    >>just
    >> as DVD-roms superseded cd-roms, it seems rather logical for
    >> developers to use this extra parallel-processing power for AI,
    >> physics etc.
    >
    > Multi-threaded, parallel processing takes about 2-3 times the
    > developement time.
    >
    >> PhysX is going nowhere in the consumer world, just like
    >> Circuit City's misbegotten DIVX DVD pay-per-view scheme.
    >
    > Not the same at all. A better comparison is Creative Labs soundcards.
    >
    >> And the 7800GTX
    >> has 128-bit floating-point paths. So imagine a dual 7800GTX
    >> PCIe system where one is dedicated to physics calculations
    >> and the other just executes the graphics for a gaming app.
    >
    > But I thought they wanted SLI?
    >
    > When NVidia starts writting a physics API for their video cards, then
    > maybe you'll have a point.
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 07:27:25 -0400, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    >news:42c9c303.4915541@news.verizon.net...
    >> Into which spare socket are you going to plug this wonderful card in
    >> your nice shiny PCIe system -- that it is not going to obstuct even
    >> more useful peripherals current or future. ?
    >
    > I've got about 4 PCI slots. I've only got an Audigy 2 and a wireless
    >network card. One slot is taken up by an Artic Cooling VGA cooler.
    >
    > PCI-e is an expensive option that doesn't improve performance at all in
    >games. Especially because no mainstream or high-end graphics cards
    >actually use Turbocache, the PCI-e interface doesn't have any befenits over
    >an AGP (eg, the graphics card still requires alot of onboard memory, making
    >it just as expensive to manufacture).
    >
    > There will be AGP cards in the future, for sure, even if most of the Dells
    >of the world move on to PCI-e. Just like there were still PCI graphics
    >cards until recently.
    >

    There are no plans to port the 7800GTX to AGP. I suspect
    that there will either be no plans to port any of its upcoming
    little brothers to AGP or nVidia might cherry-pick an equivalent
    to the 6600GT (7600GT ? ) for AGP, since the chip-cost
    of such a part will be far lower than the current 6600GT GPU.
    Expect to see such an AGP board retail for less than $100,
    to hit the volume market of last-gasp AGP updates.

    The R520 ( and little brothers ) will probably follow suit.

    The PCIe train has left the station and has finally built up a
    good head of steam with all the OEMs and board-vendors.
    Plus the video-card and MB prices are now equal to or
    lower than their AGP brethern. Anybody contemplating
    building or buying a new PC system would be very unwise
    to go the AGP route.

    John Lewis

    - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:

    >The PCIe train has left the station and has finally built up a
    >good head of steam with all the OEMs and board-vendors.
    >Plus the video-card and MB prices are now equal to or
    >lower than their AGP brethern. Anybody contemplating
    >building or buying a new PC system would be very unwise
    >to go the AGP route.
    >
    >John Lewis
    >
    >- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
    >
    >

    My flying pig was shipped last evening. This time next week it will be
    in operation. I'll come and gloat about how great it is. :)


    --
    Philosophy: That attempt to explain why so much about life makes us cuss.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:58:13 -0700, Quaestor <no.spam@my.place> wrote:

    >John Lewis wrote:
    >
    >>The PCIe train has left the station and has finally built up a
    >>good head of steam with all the OEMs and board-vendors.
    >>Plus the video-card and MB prices are now equal to or
    >>lower than their AGP brethern. Anybody contemplating
    >>building or buying a new PC system would be very unwise
    >>to go the AGP route.
    >>
    >>John Lewis
    >>
    >>- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >My flying pig was shipped last evening. This time next week it will be
    >in operation. I'll come and gloat about how great it is. :)
    >

    Tell us all about what you are getting. I am intrigued,

    John Lewis

    >
    >--
    >Philosophy: That attempt to explain why so much about life makes us cuss.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:

    >On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:58:13 -0700, Quaestor <no.spam@my.place> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My flying pig was shipped last evening. This time next week it will be
    >>in operation. I'll come and gloat about how great it is. :)
    >>
    >
    >Tell us all about what you are getting. I am intrigued,
    >
    >

    ASUS A8N SLI PCIe, one ASUS 6600GT, 1 GB pc3200 DDR400 ram, AMD 3000
    64FX cpu, 420w ps with case. Total a little over $600 with shipping
    (spend some time researching pricewatch for good deal and good dealer).
    HD & all the rest I already have. Will be running w2kpro sp4 32 bit for
    a while, but by the time there's anything worth buying in 64 bit I'll
    have the OS to go with it, and another 6600GT and a RAID striped set.

    I have a buddy in town with a nice new 6800 AGP on a good new system,
    running many of the same games, so it will be interesting to compare
    system performance.

    --
    Philosophy: That attempt to explain why so much about life makes us cuss.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:JCFye.1342$Tc6.214@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > Um the latency across any bus is much greater than that of a dual core
    CPU.
    > No matter how fast your dedicated physics processor is it'll still end up
    > waiting for access to the magnitudes slower peripheral bus, whatever the
    > type. A dual core CPU, in comparison, will have zero latency between
    > completing its calculations and actually doing something useful WITH those
    > calculations.
    >

    That's not a problem. Ageia has said their chip will work even over a PCI
    bus. The amount of information that has to be exchanged with the card is
    small, in this respect it's not much different than a soundcard such as the
    Audigy; the CPU sends data to the card (room size, occlusions, etc.), but
    using alot less space. It's interesting that the card will have 128MB of
    memory, though.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:42cb5fcd.29402712@news.verizon.net...
    > The PCIe train has left the station and has finally built up a
    > good head of steam with all the OEMs and board-vendors.
    > Plus the video-card and MB prices are now equal to or
    > lower than their AGP brethern. Anybody contemplating
    > building or buying a new PC system would be very unwise
    > to go the AGP route.

    What I don't understand is why I'm suppossed to buy a new graphics card
    just because PCI-e came out. Why not include a PCI-e motherboard with an
    AGP slot?

    I spent about 300 dollars about 6 months ago on a GeForce 6800, AGP. I
    really don't feel like buying yet another graphics card, although I am
    thinking of upgrading my motherboard soon (I currently have an Athlon 2400).
    I am thinking of getting a Sempron 3100 or higher with a 333MHz FSB.
    Semprons are really cheap, and apparrently a good value for the performance.
    Most of the socket 754 motherboards I've seen do not support PCI-e. I'm not
    interested in 64 bit processing power or dual cores because few games
    current use them, however I could always use more CPU to run more bots in
    Battlefield 1942, and currently my memory is 333Mhz, but my CPU is only a
    266Mhz FSB.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Quaestor wrote:

    > John Lewis wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:58:13 -0700, Quaestor <no.spam@my.place> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> My flying pig was shipped last evening. This time next week it will
    >>> be in operation. I'll come and gloat about how great it is. :)
    >>>
    >>
    >> Tell us all about what you are getting. I am intrigued,
    >>
    >>
    >
    > ASUS A8N SLI PCIe, one ASUS 6600GT, 1 GB pc3200 DDR400 ram, AMD 3000
    > 64FX cpu, 420w ps with case. Total a little over $600 with shipping
    > (spend some time researching pricewatch for good deal and good dealer).
    > HD & all the rest I already have. Will be running w2kpro sp4 32 bit for
    > a while, but by the time there's anything worth buying in 64 bit I'll
    > have the OS to go with it, and another 6600GT and a RAID striped set.
    >
    > I have a buddy in town with a nice new 6800 AGP on a good new system,
    > running many of the same games, so it will be interesting to compare
    > system performance.

    Might I suggest dual booting with a 64 bit Linux distro? NWN runs very
    nicely in Linux and I've even gotten WoW to run!
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    James Garvin wrote:

    > Quaestor wrote:
    >
    >> ASUS A8N SLI PCIe, one ASUS 6600GT, 1 GB pc3200 DDR400 ram, AMD 3000
    >> 64FX cpu, 420w ps with case. Total a little over $600 with shipping
    >> (spend some time researching pricewatch for good deal and good
    >> dealer). HD & all the rest I already have. Will be running w2kpro
    >> sp4 32 bit for a while, but by the time there's anything worth buying
    >> in 64 bit I'll have the OS to go with it, and another 6600GT and a
    >> RAID striped set.
    >>
    >> I have a buddy in town with a nice new 6800 AGP on a good new system,
    >> running many of the same games, so it will be interesting to compare
    >> system performance.
    >
    >
    > Might I suggest dual booting with a 64 bit Linux distro? NWN runs
    > very nicely in Linux and I've even gotten WoW to run!


    Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe. Fact is, games is the only thing I need
    windows for, and any that will run in linux changes all that.

    --
    Philosophy: That attempt to explain why so much about life makes us cuss.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Quaestor wrote:
    > James Garvin wrote:
    >
    >> Quaestor wrote:
    >>
    >>> ASUS A8N SLI PCIe, one ASUS 6600GT, 1 GB pc3200 DDR400 ram, AMD 3000
    >>> 64FX cpu, 420w ps with case. Total a little over $600 with shipping
    >>> (spend some time researching pricewatch for good deal and good
    >>> dealer). HD & all the rest I already have. Will be running w2kpro
    >>> sp4 32 bit for a while, but by the time there's anything worth buying
    >>> in 64 bit I'll have the OS to go with it, and another 6600GT and a
    >>> RAID striped set.
    >>>
    >>> I have a buddy in town with a nice new 6800 AGP on a good new system,
    >>> running many of the same games, so it will be interesting to compare
    >>> system performance.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Might I suggest dual booting with a 64 bit Linux distro? NWN runs
    >> very nicely in Linux and I've even gotten WoW to run!
    >
    >
    >
    > Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe. Fact is, games is the only thing I need
    > windows for, and any that will run in linux changes all that.

    Let me point you to
    http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/linux/
    http://www.linuxgames.com/
    http://www.happypenguin.org/
    http://www.tuxgames.com/
    http://www.lokigames.com/
    http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php

    Some games run native, some you need to emulate. For the most part the
    emulated games run pretty well, although a few have issues with various
    hardware...Let me HIGHLY suggest you stay with NVidia...

    Good luck!
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    They do have motherboards with PCIe and AGP. I don't have the link but they
    are out there. Whether or not they have good performance is another
    question. I agree with the other John, that PCIe is nothing but a marketing
    gimmick to get people to buy new motherboards and video cards because the
    performance difference between AGP and PCIe parts (of the same GPU and
    memory type) is nil.

    --
    there is no .sig
    "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:xWOye.23280$ho.16608@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:42cb5fcd.29402712@news.verizon.net...
    >> The PCIe train has left the station and has finally built up a
    >> good head of steam with all the OEMs and board-vendors.
    >> Plus the video-card and MB prices are now equal to or
    >> lower than their AGP brethern. Anybody contemplating
    >> building or buying a new PC system would be very unwise
    >> to go the AGP route.
    >
    > What I don't understand is why I'm suppossed to buy a new graphics card
    > just because PCI-e came out. Why not include a PCI-e motherboard with an
    > AGP slot?
    >
    > I spent about 300 dollars about 6 months ago on a GeForce 6800, AGP. I
    > really don't feel like buying yet another graphics card, although I am
    > thinking of upgrading my motherboard soon (I currently have an Athlon
    > 2400).
    > I am thinking of getting a Sempron 3100 or higher with a 333MHz FSB.
    > Semprons are really cheap, and apparrently a good value for the
    > performance.
    > Most of the socket 754 motherboards I've seen do not support PCI-e. I'm
    > not
    > interested in 64 bit processing power or dual cores because few games
    > current use them, however I could always use more CPU to run more bots in
    > Battlefield 1942, and currently my memory is 333Mhz, but my CPU is only a
    > 266Mhz FSB.
    >
    >
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    If they gave me a good reason to get PCI-e, like a video card that could
    use onboard memory, cost only 100 dollars, and give good performance, I
    think I'd be more willing to make the switch. But as it is, PCI-e cards are
    still memory hogs like their AGP counterparts.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt,comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Magnulus wrote:
    > PCI-e is an expensive option that doesn't improve performance at all in
    > games. Especially because no mainstream or high-end graphics cards
    > actually use Turbocache, the PCI-e interface doesn't have any befenits over
    > an AGP (eg, the graphics card still requires alot of onboard memory, making
    > it just as expensive to manufacture).

    The speed of the bus is irrelevant to this question - system memory
    isn't fast enough for the needs of current GPUs no matter how fast the
    bus to it is. TurboCache is only an option for budget cards where price
    is more important than performance.

    --
    Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
    Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games