The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Taken from PCZone:
"Moore's Law dictates that the transistor density of silicon doubles roughly once every 18-24 months, and this is also a fair indicator of performance increases over the same period of time. Currently, Intel's Pantium 4 chips use 42 million transistors while Athlons use 37 million. This is in stark contrast to the days of 10-micron, when transistors numbered 2,300 and chips operated at a lowly 108KHz.
With such an astounding rate of technological advance, the industry can expect to hit a wall in the next 10-20 years, when transistor size begins to approach the atomic level. In Intel's prediction chart, the last figure (0.032 micron) is already dangerously close. This is, of course, when the transistors themselves cannot possibly be made any smaller.
Intel's roadmap shows that chip manufacturing will hit 0.13 micron this year and 0.09micron by 2003. At this point, calculations suggest 3.6GHz processors will be possible - while 2007 will allow for scorchingly fast 20GHz units."
There's a bit more, but it goes on about needing 3D layouts for chips to get them faster than 20Ghz.
The thing is, do we need them faster than 20GHz? If we look at what they're capable of now, with a 1GHz chip, imagine what will be possible with a 20GHz chip, especially as graphics acceleration will also increase, although possibly not at the same rate. But will we notice any difference between what a 15GHz chip can do, and what a 20GHz chip can do? I personally think that we won't.
Look at graphics in games like B&W, Max Payne, games which are available now. They look stunning on a 1GHz chip. Games which are out towards the end of next year, Doom 3, Thief 3, Deus Ex 2 etc, the screenshots are unbelievable, and I can't see them needing anything more than a 2GHz processor.
Could it be, that for once CPU capabilities are growing faster than the software it runs? So every time a new game comes out it won't need the newest processor? Could it be that if you upgrade your PC it will last longer than 1 year before you need to upgrade again? I hope so.
A number of people on here have said that they don't really use their PC for gaming as they don't want to have to upgrade every 18 months or so, and it's a fair point. But would you be prepared to buy a PC for games if you were 100% sure that you could still play games in 4 years time? Thats almost the lifespan of a console. If people can be sure that when they buy or upgrade a PC, they will still be able to play the games in 4 years time, then maybe more people will buy PC's for games?
The extra numbers of people buying PC games could be an incentive for some developers to be a bit more imaginative, a bit more experimental, as there is more chance that the game will sell well enough. Perhaps we would see the end of sequels to games thnat are just a re-hash of the original, and stale genres? (Well, to an extent). Perhaps this would allow the PC to go back to its rightful place as the best platform for gaming.
Of course, there is a down side. The extra power could encourage developers to be sloppy in their programming. They may think "Oh, it's ok, we don't need to tidy the code up, machines are fast enough to handle it with it's problems." Which of course would handicap those people with slower machines.
What do you think?
"Moore's Law dictates that the transistor density of silicon doubles roughly once every 18-24 months, and this is also a fair indicator of performance increases over the same period of time. Currently, Intel's Pantium 4 chips use 42 million transistors while Athlons use 37 million. This is in stark contrast to the days of 10-micron, when transistors numbered 2,300 and chips operated at a lowly 108KHz.
With such an astounding rate of technological advance, the industry can expect to hit a wall in the next 10-20 years, when transistor size begins to approach the atomic level. In Intel's prediction chart, the last figure (0.032 micron) is already dangerously close. This is, of course, when the transistors themselves cannot possibly be made any smaller.
Intel's roadmap shows that chip manufacturing will hit 0.13 micron this year and 0.09micron by 2003. At this point, calculations suggest 3.6GHz processors will be possible - while 2007 will allow for scorchingly fast 20GHz units."
There's a bit more, but it goes on about needing 3D layouts for chips to get them faster than 20Ghz.
The thing is, do we need them faster than 20GHz? If we look at what they're capable of now, with a 1GHz chip, imagine what will be possible with a 20GHz chip, especially as graphics acceleration will also increase, although possibly not at the same rate. But will we notice any difference between what a 15GHz chip can do, and what a 20GHz chip can do? I personally think that we won't.
Look at graphics in games like B&W, Max Payne, games which are available now. They look stunning on a 1GHz chip. Games which are out towards the end of next year, Doom 3, Thief 3, Deus Ex 2 etc, the screenshots are unbelievable, and I can't see them needing anything more than a 2GHz processor.
Could it be, that for once CPU capabilities are growing faster than the software it runs? So every time a new game comes out it won't need the newest processor? Could it be that if you upgrade your PC it will last longer than 1 year before you need to upgrade again? I hope so.
A number of people on here have said that they don't really use their PC for gaming as they don't want to have to upgrade every 18 months or so, and it's a fair point. But would you be prepared to buy a PC for games if you were 100% sure that you could still play games in 4 years time? Thats almost the lifespan of a console. If people can be sure that when they buy or upgrade a PC, they will still be able to play the games in 4 years time, then maybe more people will buy PC's for games?
The extra numbers of people buying PC games could be an incentive for some developers to be a bit more imaginative, a bit more experimental, as there is more chance that the game will sell well enough. Perhaps we would see the end of sequels to games thnat are just a re-hash of the original, and stale genres? (Well, to an extent). Perhaps this would allow the PC to go back to its rightful place as the best platform for gaming.
Of course, there is a down side. The extra power could encourage developers to be sloppy in their programming. They may think "Oh, it's ok, we don't need to tidy the code up, machines are fast enough to handle it with it's problems." Which of course would handicap those people with slower machines.
What do you think?
Page:
I am not being stupid you are the one being stupid!!!!! I said if you worked for them then you could make some money from the job, and because it is your own work in the magazine you could use it on SR and win a game!!!!!!!!!!!
READ IT TWICE TO MAKE SURE THIS TIME..
READ IT TWICE TO MAKE SURE THIS TIME..
What are you talking about? I haven't copied anything.
Read Zeldapro's post further down.
Are you being this stupid of purpose?
Read Zeldapro's post further down.
Are you being this stupid of purpose?
LOL, Make some quick case copy em onto SR cos they are your own work and win a free game sounds like a good plan!!
You read it as well Zeldapro?
Hmmm, they didn't go into as much detail as me!
Maybe I should work for them!
:-)
Hmmm, they didn't go into as much detail as me!
Maybe I should work for them!
:-)
Yep that is what it said in my magazine too!
I bought a budget system in spring of '99 for £450.
It was capapble of B&W, and I've only just uprgraded it.
PC's don't get out of date when a new chip comes out, you're quite correct, but the image is that it does. People on here have said you need to upgrade every six months or so. Bollards!
I have had my PC for 2 years, and I didn't HAVE to upgrade now, I just wanted to because I could get some of the bits cheap through work, and also I'm back to uni next year and I knew I wouldn't be able to afford it then.
PC's are seen as the jack of all trades machines, yet some of the most original games (not all, admittedly) came out on the PC first.
I'm hoping that with faster chips meaning more people buy PCs as they'll last longer, that developers make sure the PC goes back to being the number one gaming platform.
It was capapble of B&W, and I've only just uprgraded it.
PC's don't get out of date when a new chip comes out, you're quite correct, but the image is that it does. People on here have said you need to upgrade every six months or so. Bollards!
I have had my PC for 2 years, and I didn't HAVE to upgrade now, I just wanted to because I could get some of the bits cheap through work, and also I'm back to uni next year and I knew I wouldn't be able to afford it then.
PC's are seen as the jack of all trades machines, yet some of the most original games (not all, admittedly) came out on the PC first.
I'm hoping that with faster chips meaning more people buy PCs as they'll last longer, that developers make sure the PC goes back to being the number one gaming platform.
Your Honour wrote:
> What you say is true, but look at how much better the compatibility
> is now than it was even a few years ago.
I remember having a
> nightmare of a time trying to get a modem to work in my dads
> computer a few years ago.
Got a new one for mine a couple of
> months ago and it was easy, put the modem in, install the software,
> restart and it's done.
Thats how much easier it is :) ...
Ans with Plug and Play components now the norm... and increased compatibility being developed all the time (throug both hardware and software) it can only get better.
I know what you're saying about people
> want consoles for games, but a number of people on here have PC's to
> use the 'net, do hoemwork, web design, graphics etc, but they don't
> use them to play games as they get out of date.
Although.. the PC has gone from being a system that people activly didnt want to play games on... to one which premiers Black and White, MAx Payner, Deus Ex, etc...
Like I say, Ten years ago Nintendo and Sega were already BIG gmes companies... PC were seen as business computers and nothing more... to expensive to be purly games systems, and with no standard graphics or sound cards, it was seen as a system almost designed not to play games... however, now, its an active player...
If they didn't
> get out of dat (as quickly) then would more people use their PC for
> gaming, especially if they already have one?
How quicky out of date?
Ive had my PC since 1998, Ive had no problems with it, Ive only had to games that eveer need patching (Ultima9 and Black and White) and I only knew B&W needed patching because everyone kept telling me it did (I wasnt having any play issues).. Even now, its got the reccomended spec for most games... even high requrement titles like Max Payne run well on it... Although it is getting on a bit now, and I'm intending to buy a new system when 2 Gig chips come out, I've got a system from 98 which runs PS2 quality games? ... (just becuae new chips are released doenst mean your system is out of date, just means they have rteleased a faster chip...)
Also bear in mind extra costs with consoles, with a PC you pay an extensive inital outlay, then your usually set for a couple of years...
With consoles, you may need extra controllerws for multi play, an extra hundred quid or so for the HDD, more for the modem, more for a DVD remote, etc... the costs may seem less but you'll end up paying 500+ for the system (you can buy a 1Gig PC for the same price)
Also, with PC's you've got to bear in mind that a direct comparison is foolinsh...
Partley due to the use of PC's in non-gaming environments (99% of all PC's never see a game more complex than solitare)
Partley because of upgradability
But mainly because its position in the gaming world is different...
10 years ago, the SNES was the trendy console to have, then the PS, now its the PS2, wether the X-Box or GC change this has yet to be seen...
However, all through this the PC has been producing new and exciting titles... its never been the main attraction at E3, and probably never will be, but whilst PS2's onmd other consoles come and go the PC will remain...
It's too expensive to be a games machine...
(although some people use it purly as a games machine, its mass market appeal is lost due to the size of the original outlay)
and it will never be trendy like the SNES, PSX, PS2, etc...
And shoulnd be seen as a contendor in the wars...
Its more of a classic system... never fashionable, but then, never really out of fasion either...
> What you say is true, but look at how much better the compatibility
> is now than it was even a few years ago.
I remember having a
> nightmare of a time trying to get a modem to work in my dads
> computer a few years ago.
Got a new one for mine a couple of
> months ago and it was easy, put the modem in, install the software,
> restart and it's done.
Thats how much easier it is :) ...
Ans with Plug and Play components now the norm... and increased compatibility being developed all the time (throug both hardware and software) it can only get better.
I know what you're saying about people
> want consoles for games, but a number of people on here have PC's to
> use the 'net, do hoemwork, web design, graphics etc, but they don't
> use them to play games as they get out of date.
Although.. the PC has gone from being a system that people activly didnt want to play games on... to one which premiers Black and White, MAx Payner, Deus Ex, etc...
Like I say, Ten years ago Nintendo and Sega were already BIG gmes companies... PC were seen as business computers and nothing more... to expensive to be purly games systems, and with no standard graphics or sound cards, it was seen as a system almost designed not to play games... however, now, its an active player...
If they didn't
> get out of dat (as quickly) then would more people use their PC for
> gaming, especially if they already have one?
How quicky out of date?
Ive had my PC since 1998, Ive had no problems with it, Ive only had to games that eveer need patching (Ultima9 and Black and White) and I only knew B&W needed patching because everyone kept telling me it did (I wasnt having any play issues).. Even now, its got the reccomended spec for most games... even high requrement titles like Max Payne run well on it... Although it is getting on a bit now, and I'm intending to buy a new system when 2 Gig chips come out, I've got a system from 98 which runs PS2 quality games? ... (just becuae new chips are released doenst mean your system is out of date, just means they have rteleased a faster chip...)
Also bear in mind extra costs with consoles, with a PC you pay an extensive inital outlay, then your usually set for a couple of years...
With consoles, you may need extra controllerws for multi play, an extra hundred quid or so for the HDD, more for the modem, more for a DVD remote, etc... the costs may seem less but you'll end up paying 500+ for the system (you can buy a 1Gig PC for the same price)
Also, with PC's you've got to bear in mind that a direct comparison is foolinsh...
Partley due to the use of PC's in non-gaming environments (99% of all PC's never see a game more complex than solitare)
Partley because of upgradability
But mainly because its position in the gaming world is different...
10 years ago, the SNES was the trendy console to have, then the PS, now its the PS2, wether the X-Box or GC change this has yet to be seen...
However, all through this the PC has been producing new and exciting titles... its never been the main attraction at E3, and probably never will be, but whilst PS2's onmd other consoles come and go the PC will remain...
It's too expensive to be a games machine...
(although some people use it purly as a games machine, its mass market appeal is lost due to the size of the original outlay)
and it will never be trendy like the SNES, PSX, PS2, etc...
And shoulnd be seen as a contendor in the wars...
Its more of a classic system... never fashionable, but then, never really out of fasion either...
What you say is true, but look at how much better the compatibility is now than it was even a few years ago.
I remember having a nightmare of a time trying to get a modem to work in my dads computer a few years ago.
Got a new one for mine a couple of months ago and it was easy, put the modem in, install the software, restart and it's done.
I know what you're saying about people want consoles for games, but a number of people on here have PC's to use the 'net, do hoemwork, web design, graphics etc, but they don't use them to play games as they get out of date.
If they didn't get out of dat (as quickly) then would more people use their PC for gaming, especially if they already have one?
I remember having a nightmare of a time trying to get a modem to work in my dads computer a few years ago.
Got a new one for mine a couple of months ago and it was easy, put the modem in, install the software, restart and it's done.
I know what you're saying about people want consoles for games, but a number of people on here have PC's to use the 'net, do hoemwork, web design, graphics etc, but they don't use them to play games as they get out of date.
If they didn't get out of dat (as quickly) then would more people use their PC for gaming, especially if they already have one?
FantasyMeister wrote:
I disagree, because all the HDDs in consoles are going
> to be the same make, so for example all the Sony consoles may have a
> 100Gb Seagate drive, and Nintedo may opt for Mitsubishi and so on,
> but the point is, all the harddrives are the same in each brand, so
> hardware conflicts shouldn't be a problem, therefore patches
> shouldn't be required.
The Dreamcast, which you can already use
> to download addons to existing games, has bourne this out.
> Downloading extra characters/weapons/levels isn't a problem.
Who have you ever met who has had an problem with HDD compatibility on their PC?
There will ALWAYS be extra
> expenditure with PC's, people are always going to be adding bits on
> to try to push their PC's to the limit, and developers are always
> going to be trying to play catchup.
But there are very few PC games that require you to buy a non-standard componenet... how long before the PS2 games require ownershiop of a HDD to perform proberly?
I don't think that even 10
> years down the line we're going to be seeing PC's being produced
> that are 'upgrade proof', because the next thing you know, the
> 'bio-chip' will be produced, and the whole industry will be
> overhauled,
Not really... the whole industry was never over hauled when the pentium was released to replace the 486
Alternatively, consoles require a completly new system to be purchased... there are not upgrade options... your stuck with a machine which is ageing before you even take it out of the box...
What do you mean by 'upgrade proof' if you mean you can always have a current machine by upgrading individual parts as and when... thenthe PC has been this way for the last 15+ years, since components and non-IBM specific systems were released
I disagree, because all the HDDs in consoles are going
> to be the same make, so for example all the Sony consoles may have a
> 100Gb Seagate drive, and Nintedo may opt for Mitsubishi and so on,
> but the point is, all the harddrives are the same in each brand, so
> hardware conflicts shouldn't be a problem, therefore patches
> shouldn't be required.
The Dreamcast, which you can already use
> to download addons to existing games, has bourne this out.
> Downloading extra characters/weapons/levels isn't a problem.
Who have you ever met who has had an problem with HDD compatibility on their PC?
There will ALWAYS be extra
> expenditure with PC's, people are always going to be adding bits on
> to try to push their PC's to the limit, and developers are always
> going to be trying to play catchup.
But there are very few PC games that require you to buy a non-standard componenet... how long before the PS2 games require ownershiop of a HDD to perform proberly?
I don't think that even 10
> years down the line we're going to be seeing PC's being produced
> that are 'upgrade proof', because the next thing you know, the
> 'bio-chip' will be produced, and the whole industry will be
> overhauled,
Not really... the whole industry was never over hauled when the pentium was released to replace the 486
Alternatively, consoles require a completly new system to be purchased... there are not upgrade options... your stuck with a machine which is ageing before you even take it out of the box...
What do you mean by 'upgrade proof' if you mean you can always have a current machine by upgrading individual parts as and when... thenthe PC has been this way for the last 15+ years, since components and non-IBM specific systems were released
Page: