Do Multi-Core CPUs And Extra RAM Make A Difference?
Tom's Hardware: At Mobile World Congress 2012, both Intel and Qualcomm stressed that multi-core architecture should not be the focus for end-users, saying more cores are not always better. That discussion revolved around the minimum hardware specs necessary to deliver a smooth smartphone and tablet experience, largely ignoring what it takes to enable compelling mobile gaming.
What is your take on the different hardware platforms for mobile gaming? Is it better to go with a quad-core CPU over a dual-core processor running faster, or is the GPU more important?
Fishlabs: For us, multi-core CPUs aren’t that important at the moment because our games are currently all GPU-bound and not CPU-bound. However, this might change in the future when more physics-driven gameplay makes its way into mobile. But right now, we’re not racking our brains about CPU-related matters, such as thread management or more elaborate in-game physics.
Madfinger: We support multi-core SoCs. For example, with Tegra 3 we are able to take advantage of each available core to deliver smoother performance. On the other hand, problems do occur when a device has only a few cores but a faster GPU. Of course, we would be ecstatic if all devices had the same number of cores, running at the same speed and resolution. It would make programming a whole lot easier. Unfortunately, this is simply not going to happen.
Mediocre: We designed Sprinkle to use multiple cores from the beginning. The fluid simulation runs in parallel with game logic and rendering. On Tegra 3, we also added smoke simulation on a separate thread, so it actually uses all four cores. For most purposes, I think a fast dual-core processor is better than a lower clocked quad-core chip—but that depends only on the mindset of programmers. If we want to move forward it is inevitable to go more parallel, so I would like to advocate quad-core and beyond. It is just something those of us on the software side will have to master.
Vector Unit: I do not really see more cores—at least more than four—as the direction the industry needs to go. For games, it is all about improving graphics performance and keeping the power profile as small as possible. We do use multi-threading extensively throughout our games. For example, in Riptide GP, we might have water physics calculations running on one core, rigid body physics and AI on another core, and so on.
Tom's Hardware: Many of the mobile games available today on iOS, Android, and WP7 still look like something out of the Super Nintendo era, with cartoonish characters, chunky 3D textures, and minimal anti-aliasing. However, we have also seen a few mobile games that deliver impressive quality almost matching PC games like World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. Do local memory constraints of today's mobile devices hamper your ability to provide a top-quality gaming experience? What can you do to mitigate the performance impact of insufficient RAM? Is it simply a matter of reducing image detail?
Fishlabs: State-of-the-art 3D graphics and console-quality visuals are absolutely crucial to Fishlabs and hence we’ll always try our very best to take full advantage of the latest generation of mobile devices’ ever-growing hardware capabilities and make our games look as stunning as possible. Thanks to elaborate 3D models, hi-res textures and sophisticated OpenGL 2.0 shaders, the graphics of the A5-optimized Galaxy on Fire 2 HD for iPhone 4S and iPad 2 do already come pretty close to those of today’s leading PC or console titles. And we still haven’t reached our peak yet. Due to its extremely short innovation cycles, mobile is developing and progressing way faster than any other gaming platform in the world. And the more complex and ambitious mobile games become, the more important it will be for the respective devices to be well-equipped in terms of RAM. At the moment, Galaxy on Fire 2 HD does still run pretty smoothly with as little as 256 MB of RAM. But once we’ve launch Galaxy of Fire 3, this will surely change and greater RAM availability will be all the more necessary.
Madfinger: We are trying hard to provide the best gaming experience possible—regardless of device—whether it is iPhone 3G, iPad, or Tegra 3. In our experience, it is definitely not about scaling down details. That is the wrong approach. A good game developer must always find a way to provide excellent quality and performance—even if there are RAM and other hardware limitations. Developers must discover new pipelines or techniques to deal with limits, yet achieve good results. We hope that, with Shadowgun and Samurai, we proved it is possible.
Mediocre: When it comes to memory, most modern phones already have more than the current-generation gaming consoles, so I do not see that as a problem at all. GPUs are still one or two generations apart, but there is not much stopping us from doing console-quality games on mobile platforms today. I think the casual gaming genre has developed its own aesthetics of sorts, and casual gamers are seeking mobile games that have a particular look. I am hoping for that to change, since there is no reason that casual mobile games could not benefit from the cool graphics and top-notch visual effects of console games.
Vector Unit: RAM is not the limiting issue, at least not for us. For the kinds of effects that people associate with next-gen console hardware (stuff like real-time shadows, normal mapping, and anti-aliasing) you need fill rate. Lots and lots of fill rate. I am confident mobile hardware will deliver the kinds of 3D graphics experiences that you see on consoles today before very long. But it may still be a couple of years out.
True that HD version is the way, but developers should not charge additional fees for it. Imagine if PC game developers implement this...you pay for the 1024x768 pix version, then when you upgrade your resolution to 1680x1050 pix, do you have to buy the game again?
Therefore, whichever platform you like I hope you can 'get' what you like. I do hope that all platforms can make it easier for the developers.
these mobile games are a joke...they are clearly made for the lowest common denominator of people (the stupid)
You two are exaggerating by way too much. Mobile gaming isn't for the stupid, not in the least. It's for people who want to game when they are mobile. Desktops are for a completely different market with different goals. Mobile gaming is not about matching PC gaming in quality, it's about cheap, affordable games that can be played when you are mobile. Of course they won't come close to desktop quality. Mobile games are not for the stupid, they are for the mobile. You two are just elitest pricks who don't recognize that your ways of life can't be sustained by everyone else and even if they could, not everyone wants to be like you. If I'm on a train for two hours a day to go between work in a city and my home in a cheaper suburb outside of the city, then wth am I supposed to do? PCs obviously aren't a viable choice here. However, I have my phone on me, so I can use it. Mobile gaming markets are pretty similar to the Game Boys and such, except the smart phones are both for gaming and many other uses.
Sure, mobile gaming can also be done at the house and such for people who want to do it. It is FAR more affordable than PC or console gaming is, so many more people can do it who would have otherwise been left without any good games at all. Furthermore, games obviously don't need tons of memory if they are written well. For example, the PS3 only has 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM and only 256MB of XDR system RAM and most modern smart phones have at least that much memory, if not even more. Smart phones have more than enough memory for mobile gaming.
Furthermore, smart phones are approaching the processing power of the PS3 and Xbox 360. Tablets have already matched them with the newest iPad (although I'd wait until a non-Apple tablet/smart phone had such power before buying something like this). Most people simply can't afford or can't justify spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to get high performance gaming systems and games for those systems, especially when they can get a far cheaper phone that is also needed for other things and get the games for less than $10 each (many are free). Sure, they aren't as high quality as some PC games, but it's not like most PC games we see today are nearly as good for the time as we have seen in the past. So many potentially good games have been dumbed down or were just made poorly.
Sure, we still have some good games, but most of them simply aren't anymore. Sometimes, I'd rather just play an older game nowadays just because they were simply better games, despite not having as much eye candy. Seriously now... Most people need a phone for a variety of reasons (be they convenience or through necessities such as jobs requiring phones and other important reasons). Most people don't really need a computer for anything except internet access. Sure, some people, such as developers, IT, and others need them for their jobs, but most people don't really need them and can do a lot of what needed a PC on a cheap laptop or even on a good smart phone. So, phones are obviously pretty much universally needed by the majority. You can just get a free or a cheap game, or a bunch of them, for the prices of a single PC/console game. They don't even need to be as good... At least smart phone games don't have DRM problems and such that PC games (and possibly console games soon enough) have.
Games are there to entertain, and to have fun. If I can have fun playing World of Goo on my android phone while running errands with my wife, or play Machinarium on my Playbook while flying to my destination, then at is gaming at it's essence. Honestly the Wii was probably the best and worst thing to happen to gaming. Obviously it brought out alot of shovelware (that otherwise would have targeted another console) but it also showed the world that people don't need serious games, we need fun games. Not everyone wants to compete all the time, they just want something to pass the time, to tell a story.
There's room in the market for all game types. Hell, I even backed Takedown since I do enjoy a "serious" game occasionally. But claiming that people will stop playing tablet games "once they see what a PC can do" is ignorant. I'm well aware of what a PC can do, and will continue to play games on all my devices, when convenient. I don't need great graphics to have fun, just remember that video games started out with a dot and 2 lines.
You can always tell when someone is out of logical, focused arguements. They start calling names. "Elitist prick"? What do I care how you spend your 2 hour commute? Next you'll be telling me it's OK to game and drive. Something tells me you're an itard.
What was more interesting is the way they completely avoided talking about anything related to x86. Can't be sure why but i think they've not got much experience at all with the arch.