What is Digg?36 Comments
- dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Out of curiosity, how are we going to set the system requirements for future games? We can't go by clock speed anymore.
Flops? Cores? Cache? Price? Number of big words in the specifications? - VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"...perhaps we are reaching a plateau?"
Yep, maybe someday we'll start to worry about gameplay rather than which recycled FPS looks prettiest. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I think we're approaching an era of cores.
"My new PC has 2 kilocores!"
"Wow, can you even run excel on something that slow?" - dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I meant in terms of CPU's; you can't run a game solely on a video card.
...Or can you? - sonofagunn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The "stupid advancements" will get you every time you buy a new PC. Just wait a few months :)
The specter of stupid advancements has kept me from upgrading for 7 years. I'm holding out for 4-8 core PCs to fall in price. Then I'll upgrade, I promise ;) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well, maybe YOU aren't....
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Stupid advancements, I just built my computer with 2 cores. If they have 16 cores in 2 years I'm going to be so pissed...
- Viral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think he was referring to extremely realistic games such as Crysis and not an HD resolution.
After all, 1920x1080 isn't going to kill your video card, but with insane particle effects, intricate real world physics, and enough foliage to break out your machete you just might come close.... - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is it me, or does this article contain several obvious technical inaccuracies? Or at least, as i read it the author sounds confused about wth he's talking about.
"the bulk of the company's processor road map revolves around the Core microprocessor architecture, formerly code-named "Merom." "
Ya wanna run that by me again their cheif!?! What's the name of that code name for core, oh right, isn't it CORE? Merom and Conroe and Woodcrest were all Core, and all the same essentially.
or
"Core 2 processors are based on the Core architecture; so-called Core processors were based on the company's previous Pentium 4/M architecture.) "
How about Pentium M and PIII architectures, yet only a distant relative?
I can't digg this article, it goes against my principles. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"We can't go by clock speed anymore. Flops? Cores? Cache? Price?"
Bogomips, of course. I have a Pentium D 830 showing this:
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep bogomips
bogomips : 6022.34
bogomips : 6014.21 - lustre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...fresh from the white noise department.
- OmEgA286, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2intel has a huge advantage... i have been a long time amd fan but they are going to get their asses kicked for a while now. they better pull one big ass rabbit out of their hat.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"As for clock speeds .. expect them to stick around at least another year."
As a universal indicator of performance, they're already long gone. A 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 is much slower than a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64. Likewise, a Core 2 Duo will significantly outperform an Athlon 64 X2 of identical clock speed. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have yet to take on a task where 1gb of RAM wasn't enough, and that's including gaming, video editing, and 3D rendering. The bottleneck for me has always been the CPU and GPU. Granted, the RAM might become the bottleneck if I upgraded the other components, but 2gb would be plenty, and I expect 4 would be overkill.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They've only been getting their asses kicked since Intel came out with dual cores. Before that AMD still had a large lead. Hyper threading didn't give Intel much of a boost.
The roadmap looks like Intel will win for a while longer, but by the second half of 2007 AMD should gain a lot of ground. It's really hard to judge right now because CPU technology is going in a completely different direction than it had been for so long. As cores rise to 4x we can expect Intel to run into a major RAM bandwidth bottleneck while AMD won't because of their fatter pipeline. This should mean the 4x and 8x core systems from AMD will see bigger boosts over 2x cores. Even if Intel technically has a better CPU technology, the bandwidth limit will hurt them, especially in games. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree that intel needs a better memory scheme, but that is supposed to come, rumors are that intel is going to embrace an integrated memory controller when it releases its future socket B lineup. This of course is not confirmed and is obviously hearsay, but that's intel's main problem, the northbridge memory controller. Onboard will decrease the latency gap they have with AMD, and since they are embracing DDR3 here so quickly. It may prove to be a very feasible solution.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am disapointed that Intel is choosing to tackle memory by simply throwing more cache at the problem. I like AMD's hypertransport, if Intel could do that then I'd be even happier with them. The article didn't mention Intel's xeon line, which is a shame, currently their fastest setup is the 53xx series for a total of 8 cores. I have had a lot of fun with these processors, they're very fast. But Intel is approaching the point where they need a hyperstransport to more efficiently use all those cores. On the server I want 8 cores, NUMA architecture, and I'll make everything scream.
- steveoondyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wellll sticking with the main question, i feel that games will eventually start taking advantage of the multi-core procs and we will eventually be able to get very very life-like games. FPS's will most likely require a lot of physics for explosions and having multiple cores will ultimately allow them to be very pretty (woot for productive advancements in technology...). So, games are going to get exponentially better from here on out. We just broke the surface of what is to come. ~Steve.
- EarthWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"GPU and CPU on one chip?! Its coming .... sooner than later. "
A good base for thermal power plants. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@milambyr
Not all applications benifit from 64 bit. But yea i want something more then firefox, HL2, and farcry to be 64 bit compatible. - cquilliam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@OmEgA286
I'm in the same boat as you. I've been an AMD fan for many years, but you just can't deny how awesome the Core 2 architecture is. I got an E6300 on the way now, it's the lower end of the core 2 spectrum, but it should be a decent upgrade from my 1800+ - klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Arramol
World of Warcraft , Fear, Half-Life 2 (and episode one), and many other games all use over 1gb of ram at moderate settings so assuming your GPU and/or your CPU aren't complete junk it IS the ram that is bottlenecking you or more precisely your hard drive (because of necessary paging). You keep your 1gb of ram and I'll take my 2, soon to be 4 for my server/gaming rig. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I' holding off for 8 cores and then for 16 and then for 32...... naaah I think 2000 cores would be right (until 4000 cores would be out and then 8000 cores ....).
Or just buy what you need it when you need it and stop worrying what's new coming out the following months, it will never stop. - XTheEliminator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A Hypertransport derivative and the integrated FBDIMM memory controller has been promised in 2009 with the next socket and architecture revision. Until then they'll just keep hacking extra cores and cache, and ramping the FSB on their Core 2 architecture.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]"...perhaps we are reaching a plateau?"[/quote]
Things are just starting to get interesting. - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Seems like Vista got this taken care of with the system performance rating.
- cquilliam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+221:57 judith:~ > cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep bogomips
bogomips : 1607.10
*sigh* - xycose, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"HD" games have been out for a long long time. When speaking of "High Definition" the only real difference from standard and high is the resolution of the screen. Computer monitors have had high resolutions for a long time, and in fact have only fallen, since LCD monitors which are newer and more popular, have a lower resolution for the size of the screen. My 8 year old 21inch CRT school can go to 1940x1780 it think it is. My other CRT scree that is 18 inches goes to 1600x1200, which are both in "high def" standard. This has been one of the main advantage for PC gaming rather then console gaming.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"...perhaps we are reaching a plateau?"
Can't have a plateau without raytracing. I'd give it another decade or two. - Copyrighted, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4GPU and CPU on one chip?! Its coming .... sooner than later.
As for clock speeds .. expect them to stick around at least another year. Right now there aren't any games out "currently" that can take advantage of dual cores but when they start to we'll see minimum requirements in the multi core range. - extratired, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2what's the use of such processors if the ram can't keep up? why aren't we using 10Gigs of ram already?
- lustre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Well, there is the notion of high temporal definition...
- Copyrighted, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4My guess would be by what video card you're running.
- dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Yeah no kidding; my friend has a ridiculously fast computer (2xdual core cpu's, 2x256Meg GPUs, 4Gigs of RAM, etc etc) and he gets framerates upwards of 150fps even on the newest graphics heavy-computer games... (he has to assign games to one processor because they run too fast/well/awesome/etc.)
And now we're seeing shots of HD games that are quite comparable to real life.
...perhaps we are reaching a plateau? - SirZRX, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2I usually spent 150 bucks on my processor everytime i upgrade my PC, and i dun really care about ur octocore crap, im not and AMD or INTEL fan if someone of them give me something fast, quiet and cool for 150 bucks ill bite!, but a dualcore semprom or a intel core2duro for 70bucks tha will be a pretty nice deal!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is