What ever happened to faster CPU's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
boost so I went with 3 ghz.

Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?

Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
for CPU's already?



Remove nospam_ to reply by email

Jeff H........


Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO/steamKiller says.
He fears the truth!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Jeff Holinski" <nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6reb11spld7ggkcphshhirnbhivtr8p9f@4ax.com...
>
> About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
> fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
> could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
> boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>
> Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
> I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
> Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
> the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?

Intel has 3.8ghz. I think AMD is topping out with a 4000+.
We also have hyperthreading, duel cores, 64 bit (not that 64 bit means much
for *us* yet) and so on.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

If memory serves me right I read that the CPU companies are hitting a brick
on speed on current designs. It seems dual core has been the solution for
speed junkies.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Jeff Holinski" <nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6reb11spld7ggkcphshhirnbhivtr8p9f@4ax.com...
>
> About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
> fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
> could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
> boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>
> Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
> I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
> Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
> the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?
>
> Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
> for CPU's already?
>

Leakage power seems to be a major issue as processors have gotten faster and
faster. Check out the graph on the 3rd page of the link below.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2343

"...It is no mystery that the three main reasons why CPU progress is
slowing down are:
a.. Total dissipated power
b.. Wire Delay
c.. "The memory wall"
However, simply stating that these three problems are the reason why it is
getting very hard to design CPUs that perform better is an
oversimplification. There are decent solutions for each of these problems,
and the real reason why they have slowed down CPU progress is more
subtle...."
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:32:22 GMT, Jeff Holinski
<nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote:

>
>About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
>fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
>could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
>boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>
>Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
>I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
>Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
>the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?
>
>Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
>for CPU's already?
>
>

Nope. Multiple core. Parallel-processing. Multiple threads.
Signal processors (DSPs) have been parallel-processing for years.
If you are a gamer, you will see games in the near future that will
take advantage of dual or more cores. Both the Xbox360 and
the PS3 are multiple-core machines, so expect ports from them
to be preferentially aligned with multiple-core ( or
multiple-processor) PCs. Single core, I am sorry to say
will be old-hat...

BTW, if you have an A64 socket-939 MB, with a BIOS change
it may support the direct replacement with a AMD X2 processor.
However, you must check with the board vendor !! If the
BIOS is upgraded to support the X2, all should be fine. Some
boards are not hardware-compatible, like any with the Via K8T890
chip-set and some K8T800, while others have inadequate on-board
power--regulators. Power requirements of X2 are equivalent
to A64 4000+ (130nm version) or FX-55.

For dual-core on Intel you need a brand-new motherboard and
a power supply capable of between 60 and 100 watts
more peak power on the +12V rail than for a P4-3.8, depending
on the chosen version of Intel dual-core (Pentium-D, or Extreme 840).
Exceptionally sweaty and inefficient devices -- need more cooling as
well, of course.


--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Jeff Holinski" <nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6reb11spld7ggkcphshhirnbhivtr8p9f@4ax.com...
>
> About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
> fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
> could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
> boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>
> Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
> I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
> Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
> the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?
>
> Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
> for CPU's already?
>
>
>
> Remove nospam_ to reply by email
>
> Jeff H........
>
>
> Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO/steamKiller says.
> He fears the truth!


http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Jeff Holinski" <nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d6reb11spld7ggkcphshhirnbhivtr8p9f@4ax.com...
>
> About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
> fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
> could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
> boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>
> Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
> I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
> Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
> the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?
>
> Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
> for CPU's already?
>
>
>
> Remove nospam_ to reply by email
>
> Jeff H........
>
>
> Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO/steamKiller says.
> He fears the truth!

AMD and Intel have kinda hit a speed wall. They are now playing around with
larger L2,faster FSB and other features.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:54:17 GMT, "dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>
>"Jeff Holinski" <nospam_Holinski@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:d6reb11spld7ggkcphshhirnbhivtr8p9f@4ax.com...
>>
>> About a year and a half ago I replaced my 1.33 ghz machine with a nice
>> fast 3ghz system. At the time I think 3.2 ghz was the fastest CPU you
>> could get, but it was a big price jump and a fairly small performance
>> boost so I went with 3 ghz.
>>
>> Now a friend of mine is looking for a new system. The fastest systems
>> I can find are 3.6 ghz and you pay a HUGE premium over a 3.2.
>> Sure it's faster than my system, but is that all that's happened in
>> the last 18 months? An extra 600mhz?
>>
>> Video cards are a lot faster these days. Have we reached the limits
>> for CPU's already?
>>
>>
>>
>> Remove nospam_ to reply by email
>>
>> Jeff H........
>>
>>
>> Lies, All lies. Don't believe a word Difool/sayNO/steamKiller says.
>> He fears the truth!
>
>AMD and Intel have kinda hit a speed wall. They are now playing around with
>larger L2,faster FSB and other features.
>

Dual core.........

Anybody contemplating building a new performance PC
for gaming must consider dual-core, and would be wise to
use a dual-core-compatible motherboard, even if they
initially install a very fast single-core processor.
Buyer-beware... check BOTH the motherboard specs
AND the BIOS information for dual-core compatibility
before purchase. If the BIOS has not been updated
for dual-core-compatibility... wait...that is the final proof
that the board is indeed upward-compatible.

Also advise going with AMD for lots of good technical
reasons-- see my new posting on Intel Extreme 840 vs
AMD X2 4800+. Also lots of technical articles on Anandtech
and elsewhere on P4-3.6/3.8 vs A64 4000+ ( Rev E.)

( Up to this point, I have only built or used Intel systems..
the sound technical reasons for a switch to AMD if
building a new system are now overwhelming. I will be
taking the plunge in a big way around September )

Any games ported over from the Xbox360 or PS3 to
the PC are likely to take advantage of multiple-core
PC features if available. Both of the consoles are
multicore design.
--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42b86435.5135184@news.verizon.net...
>
> Dual core.........
>
> Anybody contemplating building a new performance PC
> for gaming must consider dual-core, and would be wise to
> use a dual-core-compatible motherboard, even if they
> initially install a very fast single-core processor.
> Buyer-beware... check BOTH the motherboard specs
> AND the BIOS information for dual-core compatibility
> before purchase. If the BIOS has not been updated
> for dual-core-compatibility... wait...that is the final proof
> that the board is indeed upward-compatible.
>
> Also advise going with AMD for lots of good technical
> reasons-- see my new posting on Intel Extreme 840 vs
> AMD X2 4800+. Also lots of technical articles on Anandtech
> and elsewhere on P4-3.6/3.8 vs A64 4000+ ( Rev E.)
>
> ( Up to this point, I have only built or used Intel systems..
> the sound technical reasons for a switch to AMD if
> building a new system are now overwhelming. I will be
> taking the plunge in a big way around September )
>
> Any games ported over from the Xbox360 or PS3 to
> the PC are likely to take advantage of multiple-core
> PC features if available. Both of the consoles are
> multicore design.
> --
>
> John Lewis
>
> "Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"

I have to take issue with this whole Dual Core means faster gaming talk.
I've done a far amount of reading about the upcoming Dual Core CPU's coming
from both Intel and AMD. The main advantage for dual core right now is for
people that run a lot of demanding programs at once. Like a virus scan at
the same time as encoding a movie, stuff like that. But for gaming it's not
going to improve anything unless you plan to run a program in the background
while your playing. The fact is that dual core CPU's are clocked slower to
try and keep heat and power consumption down. Sure down the line a year or
so we might start seeing dual core's with higher clock speeds but that's not
the point. They are not made with gamers in mind. And this whole theory that
just because the 360 has muti core processors in it, that it some how means
we are going to need that for our PC's doesn't make much sense. I'd like to
see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic John, because I think
your making this all up in your head. JLC
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:27:53 -0700, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:42b86435.5135184@news.verizon.net...
>>
>> Dual core.........
>>
>> Anybody contemplating building a new performance PC
>> for gaming must consider dual-core, and would be wise to
>> use a dual-core-compatible motherboard, even if they
>> initially install a very fast single-core processor.
>> Buyer-beware... check BOTH the motherboard specs
>> AND the BIOS information for dual-core compatibility
>> before purchase. If the BIOS has not been updated
>> for dual-core-compatibility... wait...that is the final proof
>> that the board is indeed upward-compatible.
>>
>> Also advise going with AMD for lots of good technical
>> reasons-- see my new posting on Intel Extreme 840 vs
>> AMD X2 4800+. Also lots of technical articles on Anandtech
>> and elsewhere on P4-3.6/3.8 vs A64 4000+ ( Rev E.)
>>
>> ( Up to this point, I have only built or used Intel systems..
>> the sound technical reasons for a switch to AMD if
>> building a new system are now overwhelming. I will be
>> taking the plunge in a big way around September )
>>
>> Any games ported over from the Xbox360 or PS3 to
>> the PC are likely to take advantage of multiple-core
>> PC features if available. Both of the consoles are
>> multicore design.
>> --
>>
>> John Lewis
>>
>> "Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
>
>I have to take issue with this whole Dual Core means faster gaming talk.
>I've done a far amount of reading about the upcoming Dual Core CPU's coming
>from both Intel and AMD. The main advantage for dual core right now is for
>people that run a lot of demanding programs at once. Like a virus scan at
>the same time as encoding a movie, stuff like that. But for gaming it's not
>going to improve anything unless you plan to run a program in the background
>while your playing. The fact is that dual core CPU's are clocked slower to
>try and keep heat and power consumption down.

The 4800+ X2 clocks at exactly the same speed as an A64 4000+ and
consumes exactly the same power as the 130nm 4000+

>. Sure down the line a year or
>so we might start seeing dual core's with higher clock speeds but that's not
>the point. They are not made with gamers in mind. And this whole theory that
>just because the 360 has muti core processors in it, that it some how means
>we are going to need that for our PC's doesn't make much sense.

You won't NEED it, just like you don't need SLI, but future games WILL
be programmed to run faster with the second (or more) core. If the
capability is there.... developers WILL use it -- particularly those
writing high-performance FPS-style games. You did note from my
posting that you can buy a dual-core compatible MB,( or in the case of
AMD, you may already have one ) install a single-core processor and
upgrade to dual-core completely at your convenience/price-point ?

> I'd like to
>see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic John, because I think
>your making this all up in your head. JLC
>

Suppose that I told you that there was a physics accelerator for games
called PhysX that could be used as a co-processor for games that
supported it. Would you be interested (assuming price was no object)?

Well, the same functions can be emulated with somewhat less efficiency
on the second core of the dual-core without any need of an add-on
board. In the case of AMD just plug an X2 in. Games developers WILL
take advantage of the 2nd-core in a similar ( not necessarily as
simplistic as I have outlined ) way once they are commonly available.
Please note that between AMD and Intel, probably at least 1 million
dual-core desk-top systems and upgrade CPUs will be shipped before
the end of 2005.

As for technical papers on dual-core - Google it...

Clock rates have hit the wall... CPU power consumption now
exponentially increases with clock-speed. So, the CPUs have
to grow wider, and the most advanced games will grow wider
( i.e: support multicore/parallel-processing) along with them.
--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:27:53 -0700, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:

> The main advantage for dual core right now is for
>people that run a lot of demanding programs at once. Like a virus scan at
>the same time as encoding a movie, stuff like that. But for gaming it's not
>going to improve anything unless you plan to run a program in the background
>while your playing.

You mean like my firewall and the dozen or so apps that MS forces me
to run under XP? (And, every new OS forces me to run ever more stuff.)

>They are not made with gamers in mind. And this whole theory that
>just because the 360 has muti core processors in it, that it some how means
>we are going to need that for our PC's doesn't make much sense. I'd like to
>see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic

Look up multithreading. I'm sure it's not really implemented in gaming
but if most machines start selling with multiple CPUs...


--
Alex
atheist #2007
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Suppose that I told you that there was a physics
> accelerator for games

The problem with this, and with dual core, is that we already know games
developers struggle to meet both our expectations and development
budgets/timescales. Having to add extra code so that games will make
worthwhile use of physics cards and/or a second processor is just adding
more hassle, bug-testing, etc. to already long & expensive development
cycles.

Sure, I'd love to see people programming for both dual processor cores
and physics cards (my first love is flight sims where both would be very
useful indeed). But realistically it's hard to see many studios being
able to do that, especially when competing for budget with increasingly
attractive console development.

IMO what the PC games industry needs is more imagination, not more
processor power. My hope for the future is that the MHz ceiling will
produce a new generation of games which actually make optimal use of the
incredible speeds we already have*. There aren't many games
(particularly in the action genre) which seem to seriously stress CPU
power anyway. GPU power has usually made *far* more difference.

Andrew McP

*Ponders: am I having a hundred times more fun on my 2.5GHz Athlon than
I had on my 0.025GHz Intel 486?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

While I agree with both of you on most of your points one thing to consider
is that developers already had the specs for the new xbox long ago and have
been programming around it for a long time. That gives the consoles a lead
into the next generation gaming titles. That and the fact that most will be
in 16:9 format and people have HDTV sets no computer mointors.

It's interesting to ponder when they'll take advantage of multi core CPUS
for PC gaming. Either way, the cost of entry will be MUCH cheaper with the
consoles. The next generation titles are said to be much more expensive
also.

Games haven't taken advantage of my p4 hypertheaded CPU so that kinda sux.
One quick question. On the duel core cpus does task mgr show 4 cpus if they
have hyperthreading. Are the new duel (or dual) core cpus hypertheaded?

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:42b9174f$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > Suppose that I told you that there was a physics
> > accelerator for games
>
> The problem with this, and with dual core, is that we already know games
> developers struggle to meet both our expectations and development
> budgets/timescales. Having to add extra code so that games will make
> worthwhile use of physics cards and/or a second processor is just adding
> more hassle, bug-testing, etc. to already long & expensive development
> cycles.
>
> Sure, I'd love to see people programming for both dual processor cores and
> physics cards (my first love is flight sims where both would be very
> useful indeed). But realistically it's hard to see many studios being able
> to do that, especially when competing for budget with increasingly
> attractive console development.
>
> IMO what the PC games industry needs is more imagination, not more
> processor power. My hope for the future is that the MHz ceiling will
> produce a new generation of games which actually make optimal use of the
> incredible speeds we already have*. There aren't many games (particularly
> in the action genre) which seem to seriously stress CPU power anyway. GPU
> power has usually made *far* more difference.
>
> Andrew McP
>
> *Ponders: am I having a hundred times more fun on my 2.5GHz Athlon than I
> had on my 0.025GHz Intel 486?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> The problem with this, and with dual core, is that we already know games
> developers struggle to meet both our expectations and development
> budgets/timescales.

I agree. From a business/economic standpoint, developers have to design for
mainstream systems. These days, I would assume said systems to be around a
1.5 to 2 GHz CPU, a mid-range 9XXX Radeon or 5XXX GeForce GPU,
onboard/motherboard sound and 512 MB of RAM. This seems to be the median
range of system requirements for recently released games.

Then again, I'm not a game designer. Anyone out there know the average
setup -- and not necessarily the low-end -- that developers design games
for?

> Sure, I'd love to see people programming for both dual processor cores and
> physics cards...But realistically it's hard to see many studios being able
> to do that, especially when competing for budget with increasingly
> attractive console development.

Yep. For me, "next gen" console introductions just equate to more ports to
the PC. Whether that is good or bad is obviously subjective, but hopefully
upcoming Xbox360 and PS3 ports will look, perform, control and play better
than the current crop of offerings (Area 51 and Project: Snowblind come to
mind). Which brings us to the issue of design...

> IMO what the PC games industry needs is more imagination, not more
> processor power.

Precisely: engaging storylines, fluid gameplay and compelling reasons to
actually finish the game. There's too much "been there, done that" cloning
going on these days.

My 2¢,

- f_f
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:42b9174f$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > Suppose that I told you that there was a physics
> > accelerator for games
>
> The problem with this, and with dual core, is that we already know games
> developers struggle to meet both our expectations and development
> budgets/timescales. Having to add extra code so that games will make
> worthwhile use of physics cards and/or a second processor is just adding
> more hassle, bug-testing, etc. to already long & expensive development
> cycles.
>
> Sure, I'd love to see people programming for both dual processor cores and
> physics cards (my first love is flight sims where both would be very
> useful indeed). But realistically it's hard to see many studios being able
> to do that, especially when competing for budget with increasingly
> attractive console development.
>
> IMO what the PC games industry needs is more imagination, not more
> processor power. My hope for the future is that the MHz ceiling will
> produce a new generation of games which actually make optimal use of the
> incredible speeds we already have*. There aren't many games (particularly
> in the action genre) which seem to seriously stress CPU power anyway. GPU
> power has usually made *far* more difference.
>
> Andrew McP
>

WOW I couldn't have said that better myself! All one has to do is look at
what can be done on the Xbox and you realize, that with what most of us have
now in our PC's is plenty. It's all about good coding, not pure power. It
will be the same with the new consoles. With all that raw power, I bet it
will take awhile before anyone even comes close to tapping into what the
next gen consoles can do. I used to think that it was very important to try
and stay ahead of the curve when it came to PC hardware,but then I realized
that it was getting just to expensive for what little gains I was seeing in
my games. And then when Painkiller came out and looked amazing and ran great
on my old rig I realized that if a game is coded right it can look fantastic
and still not need a $500 vid card and a 3.2Ghz CPU to run it.
JLC
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Physics cards are going to be a lot easier for HW than going multi-core.
One advantage of a the physics card is that it will work over a regular PCI
bus, which means it won't require substantial upgrades It will also be far
more powerful than any multi-core solution, at least in terms of physical
calculations. My only concern with the physics card is the proprietary
API/instructions they are using for the card. While its true the Novodex
engine will also run in software, I'd much rather see some kind of open
physics API emerge much as DirectX and OpenGL have done for graphics.
Otherwise the physics is going to be stuck like Creativelabs EAX...
supported by alot of games for sure, but the support is not universal, nor
do all developers really optimize for it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:46:23 +0100, Andrew MacPherson
<andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> > Suppose that I told you that there was a physics
> > accelerator for games
>
>The problem with this, and with dual core, is that we already know games
>developers struggle to meet both our expectations and development
>budgets/timescales. Having to add extra code so that games will make
>worthwhile use of physics cards and/or a second processor is just adding
>more hassle, bug-testing, etc. to already long & expensive development
>cycles.
>
>Sure, I'd love to see people programming for both dual processor cores
>and physics cards (my first love is flight sims where both would be very
>useful indeed). But realistically it's hard to see many studios being
>able to do that, especially when competing for budget with increasingly
>attractive console development.
>
>IMO what the PC games industry needs is more imagination, not more
>processor power. My hope for the future is that the MHz ceiling will
>produce a new generation of games which actually make optimal use of the
>incredible speeds we already have*. There aren't many games
>(particularly in the action genre) which seem to seriously stress CPU
>power anyway. GPU power has usually made *far* more difference.
>

See the 7800GTX review on www.anandtech.com.

You will need far more CPU power to keep this baby happy at anything
less than 1600x1200. Hence the push to dual-core. Anyway, what's the
deal? Just multithread the software to share the two cores. Have the
AI computations run in parallel with other operations, for instance.
The lack of decent AI in many modern games results from a trade-off
between AI and the computations feeding the graphics card. Hence,
computationally-minimal scripted-AI with its usual deficiencies in
wide-open spaces.

John Lewis
--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:28:23 -0600, "TURBOROCCO" <youwish@comcast.net>
wrote:

>While I agree with both of you on most of your points one thing to consider
>is that developers already had the specs for the new xbox long ago and have
>been programming around it for a long time. That gives the consoles a lead
>into the next generation gaming titles. That and the fact that most will be
>in 16:9 format and people have HDTV sets no computer mointors.
>
>It's interesting to ponder when they'll take advantage of multi core CPUS
>for PC gaming. Either way, the cost of entry will be MUCH cheaper with the
>consoles. The next generation titles are said to be much more expensive
>also.
>
>Games haven't taken advantage of my p4 hypertheaded CPU so that kinda sux.

HT is not true dual-core-- many resources shared. For example, about
20% performance increase in Adobe Premiere Pro.

>One quick question. On the duel core cpus does task mgr show 4 cpus if they
>have hyperthreading

Yes

>. Are the new duel (or dual) core cpus hypertheaded?

Only the Extreme 840.

Howver see the Intel debacle in the AMD vs Intel dual-core stress test
on Tom's Hardware.........
--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:_Gpue.1200$lf1.638@fe33.usenetserver.com...
> JLC <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:42b86435.5135184@news.verizon.net...
>>>
>>> Dual core.........
>>
>> I'd like to see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic John,
>> because I think your making this all up in your head. JLC
>
> he's got to do something with all that free space.
>
LOL!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:00:56 -0400, Alex <a@b.c> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:27:53 -0700, "JLC" <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > The main advantage for dual core right now is for
> >people that run a lot of demanding programs at once. Like a virus scan at
> >the same time as encoding a movie, stuff like that. But for gaming it's not
> >going to improve anything unless you plan to run a program in the background
> >while your playing.
>
> You mean like my firewall and the dozen or so apps that MS forces me
> to run under XP? (And, every new OS forces me to run ever more stuff.)
>
> >They are not made with gamers in mind. And this whole theory that
> >just because the 360 has muti core processors in it, that it some how means
> >we are going to need that for our PC's doesn't make much sense. I'd like to
> >see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic
>
> Look up multithreading. I'm sure it's not really implemented in gaming
> but if most machines start selling with multiple CPUs...

The overall comments in this thread are correct. The only current
economical use of multithreading (multiple processors or multi-core)
is in mainframe machines. The mainframes we make at Unisys can have
4, 8, 16 Pentium XEON processors, depending on the power the customer
needs and how the Domains (divisions of mainframe resources)
configured. Definitely not gaming machines.


==== Tecknomage ====
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:06:34 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>JLC <j.jc@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:42b86435.5135184@news.verizon.net...
>>>
>>> Dual core.........
>>
>> I'd like to see a link to a tech paper that talks about this topic John,
>> because I think your making this all up in your head. JLC
>
>he's got to do something with all that free space.
>

Maybe you could demonstrate your superior intelligence by making
a technically-useful contribution to this thread. Go on....
--

John Lewis

"Technology early-birds always turn out to be flying guinea-pigs"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom