[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]We ALL hate it!!![/citation]
[citation][nom]deadcat[/nom]That joke it's old and I think I hate it![/citation]
[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]Can it play Crysis though?[/citation]
its not as bad as the [insert word here] is a lie joke
Can it play Crysis though? I still get kicks from the joke. Also enjoy hearing the following:
"You are so money."
Lighten up folks. Besides most people think we are all dorks writing at THG. But I'm fine with it. I know where I stand.
As for the article... It would be nice for some details on what the plans are for the Jaguar. In someways "Can it play crysis" is relevant since the author doesn't mention the use. Genetics, Weather, Earth stuff, space, what? For now who ever asked "Can it play crysis" is the brightest guy here. Who ever you are... you owe me one. Cheers.
[citation][nom]tf2addict[/nom]i'd like to add. Crysis, if you haven't played it, which you probably haven't, is the best looking and most realistic game made to date. therefore, crytek made a choice to make it "scalable": to make it look perfect at max when future technology and machines can run it down the road. Crytek knew this because they did the exact same thing with Far Cry.so you, my friend, are ignorant.[/citation]
Agreed, I had someone boosting how Modern Warfare 2 was so amazing looking, I argued it doesn't look that good after a while I talking him in to playing some crysis (5870 DX10 max settings). He said it looks a little better. Then he played COD MW2 again , His words "wtf this looks like crap now". Showed him Crysis again, He said he wishes I would have never showed him the difference, MW2 looks like ass in comparison.
Just because Crysis is older and doesn't run max on your hardware doesn't mean it's poorly optimized. It simply means your hardware is under powered, Claims that its poorly optimized are akin to claiming someone is a cheater because they kill you repetitively. Its a poor argument.
[citation][nom]Bruceification73[/nom]I'm confused... It says this is the 'fastest supercomputer," but I have heard of business comps with 50 PB, and this only has 10. Somehow I think the one with 50 PB is faster.[/citation]
You're thinking of petabytes or maybe perhaps petabites, which a larger number would not indicate faster, but rather higher capacity. Like in a harddrive. Unless it is referring to network bandwidth ( which it is not because of the size of the number, no one has a 50 petabyte or bit network. I mean, I've never heard anything in that realm.)
Petaflops or flops is a very generic way to calculate theretical speed.
Thanks for someone mentioning F@H. Any use of this supercomputer would make use of software like Folding at Home, which millions op peoples run on their CPU's and GPU's at home everyday. That is used for scientific purposes and can run on more that 2048 or however many cpu's some other guy said scientific software runs on. And FYI Folding@Home is the single most powerful Computing network, with over 5 Petaflops average computing power... but a high lag time cos its running on peoples compuers and is linked by the internet. But people dont build a supercomputer like that to run tasks in 5 seconds anyway, thay create bigger projects and run them for hours/days anyway.