The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Your Honour wrote:
If people who previously bought consoles can see that a
> PC now has (nearly) the same life as a console, then this, I'd
> imagine, would encourage more people to get PC's?
I dunno, nothing seems to beat playing games on a console, PC's are too fiddly with all the other bits they include, like the 40 software packages, the configuration options, the language settings, the choices of internet access available and the myriad of other bits you have to fiddle with from time to time.
Consoles are just so much easier, no poking about inside them, no fiddly keys to press, no mice to clean, no screens to maintain, no software to configure; they're just the ultimate in gaming convenience.
Plus, PC's are on average twice the price if you want to play equivalent games to the consoles we have now, is the price margin between PC's and consoles ever likely to narrow?
It seems to me that if you want to play games you get a console, even dedicated games PC's are way up there in the high prices, and even dedicated games PC's have fiddly bits.
If people who previously bought consoles can see that a
> PC now has (nearly) the same life as a console, then this, I'd
> imagine, would encourage more people to get PC's?
I dunno, nothing seems to beat playing games on a console, PC's are too fiddly with all the other bits they include, like the 40 software packages, the configuration options, the language settings, the choices of internet access available and the myriad of other bits you have to fiddle with from time to time.
Consoles are just so much easier, no poking about inside them, no fiddly keys to press, no mice to clean, no screens to maintain, no software to configure; they're just the ultimate in gaming convenience.
Plus, PC's are on average twice the price if you want to play equivalent games to the consoles we have now, is the price margin between PC's and consoles ever likely to narrow?
It seems to me that if you want to play games you get a console, even dedicated games PC's are way up there in the high prices, and even dedicated games PC's have fiddly bits.
Yeah, thats a posiibility, but as I said in my initial post, will there be a huge difference in a 15GHz and a 20GHz chip?
I ssupect we'll see specs for games like this:
Minimum: 12GHz, 512RAM 128MB Graphics.
Recommended: 14GHz, 768MB RAM, 192MB Graphics.
So people who buy a 12GHz machine in 2005, will still be able to play games on it in 2009. So although it won't be "upgrade proof", you won't have to upgrade as often because the software won't be pushing the had rware to it's limits like it has done in the past.
If people who previously bought consoles can see that a PC now has (nearly) the same life as a console, then this, I'd imagine, would encourage more people to get PC's?
I ssupect we'll see specs for games like this:
Minimum: 12GHz, 512RAM 128MB Graphics.
Recommended: 14GHz, 768MB RAM, 192MB Graphics.
So people who buy a 12GHz machine in 2005, will still be able to play games on it in 2009. So although it won't be "upgrade proof", you won't have to upgrade as often because the software won't be pushing the had rware to it's limits like it has done in the past.
If people who previously bought consoles can see that a PC now has (nearly) the same life as a console, then this, I'd imagine, would encourage more people to get PC's?
Your Honour wrote:
> I suspect that with consoles having HDD we'll
> see patches come out for console games as
> well. It's being said that the HDD can hold
> new levels and stuff, so it must be programmed
> into the game to look for newer stuff on the
> HDD, so sooner or later, there'll be a patch 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.
> if the number of people buying PC's goes up
> because they know they can play games in 4
> years time with no extra
> expenditure, unlike at the moment....
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. 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, then 20 years later the 'telepathic-chip' will be the latest thing, and people who have the latest version of Deus Ex 4 on the bio-chip are going to be sitting there wondering what to do with it.
> I suspect that with consoles having HDD we'll
> see patches come out for console games as
> well. It's being said that the HDD can hold
> new levels and stuff, so it must be programmed
> into the game to look for newer stuff on the
> HDD, so sooner or later, there'll be a patch 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.
> if the number of people buying PC's goes up
> because they know they can play games in 4
> years time with no extra
> expenditure, unlike at the moment....
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. 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, then 20 years later the 'telepathic-chip' will be the latest thing, and people who have the latest version of Deus Ex 4 on the bio-chip are going to be sitting there wondering what to do with it.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> 20GHz is, I think, a realistic objective for processor speeds 5
> years down the line, BUT, what will it be used for? Fine, your
> graphics will move smoothly, fine, load times will be non-existent,
> fine, games will run smoothly, but it seems to me that the
> advantages here for gamers are in the graphics on the whole and
> nothing else.
And AI (given the increases computational ability to work out a wider variety of options in a short amount of time)
And envirment... allowing both absolute freedom in a far vairable environment... having your character do a wider range of non-specific activities... I can see it being more possible that the programmers punch in a set of rules, with can than be learnt, adapted, enhanced, etc... by the program according to the users choices...
The aaplications of faster processors are pretty much limitless...
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The
> huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are
> released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER
> been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a
> patch at some stage?
Obviously the console HDD for consoles will be a question mark here... but... when have you played a PC game that wasnt smooth? maybe you have put the settings for your game too high?
The increased processor speeds is going to
> be a boon for governments, military, and business, all three
> 'industries' have HUGE demands for processing data quickly, so they
> will be the main beneficiaries from this advancement in
> technology.
The main benificiaries are gamers... why do you think Intel put so much into MMX? ... If it was just for specialised usage, then they would already be using specific hardware for these operations and not really ned the extentsions
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the
> technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it
> being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the
> number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the
> PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all
> the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be
> done.
Not really... We have seen, over the last five years an enourmous shift to standardisation... LArge brought about by Microsoft... In another five years, even if the number of harware component vendors doubles (which I highly doubt, I would expect a fall to larger companies) but with greater stansardisation in components...
I think developers are going to want to stick to the
> consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is
> reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just
> don't come into it.
Not if everyone uses the same interface... e.g. DirextX, where all copmponents can do their own thing on a local level, but connect using a standard set of components, which, as it becomes more integrated will cause less problems...
If consoles really are going to take over, why didnt they do it 10 years ago, when the Amiga/ST and other gameing computers were failing, and the SNES, Megadrive were hot stuff... The PC wasnt even seen as a viable gaming system at the time... ???
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of
> these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
Different mother board, etc required...
> 20GHz is, I think, a realistic objective for processor speeds 5
> years down the line, BUT, what will it be used for? Fine, your
> graphics will move smoothly, fine, load times will be non-existent,
> fine, games will run smoothly, but it seems to me that the
> advantages here for gamers are in the graphics on the whole and
> nothing else.
And AI (given the increases computational ability to work out a wider variety of options in a short amount of time)
And envirment... allowing both absolute freedom in a far vairable environment... having your character do a wider range of non-specific activities... I can see it being more possible that the programmers punch in a set of rules, with can than be learnt, adapted, enhanced, etc... by the program according to the users choices...
The aaplications of faster processors are pretty much limitless...
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The
> huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are
> released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER
> been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a
> patch at some stage?
Obviously the console HDD for consoles will be a question mark here... but... when have you played a PC game that wasnt smooth? maybe you have put the settings for your game too high?
The increased processor speeds is going to
> be a boon for governments, military, and business, all three
> 'industries' have HUGE demands for processing data quickly, so they
> will be the main beneficiaries from this advancement in
> technology.
The main benificiaries are gamers... why do you think Intel put so much into MMX? ... If it was just for specialised usage, then they would already be using specific hardware for these operations and not really ned the extentsions
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the
> technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it
> being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the
> number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the
> PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all
> the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be
> done.
Not really... We have seen, over the last five years an enourmous shift to standardisation... LArge brought about by Microsoft... In another five years, even if the number of harware component vendors doubles (which I highly doubt, I would expect a fall to larger companies) but with greater stansardisation in components...
I think developers are going to want to stick to the
> consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is
> reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just
> don't come into it.
Not if everyone uses the same interface... e.g. DirextX, where all copmponents can do their own thing on a local level, but connect using a standard set of components, which, as it becomes more integrated will cause less problems...
If consoles really are going to take over, why didnt they do it 10 years ago, when the Amiga/ST and other gameing computers were failing, and the SNES, Megadrive were hot stuff... The PC wasnt even seen as a viable gaming system at the time... ???
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of
> these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
Different mother board, etc required...
The gaming community will definately go to the consoles. Not so long ago consoles were referred to as geeky, but with the latest tech they can do everything a pc can do (games wise) except online multiplay, and we all know its on the way. Once thats up and running, PC gamers will move over to consoles more, as the setup is a lot easier, as well as the whole patch thing.
They are allways going to try and make chips more and more powerful, just to prove they can, regardless of wether they actually have any use in the world. Games in this 1Gb era are pretty sweet looking, photo-realistic is just round the corner, how much more do we need?
It'd be nice to pop to 5 years time and see what games look like though...
They are allways going to try and make chips more and more powerful, just to prove they can, regardless of wether they actually have any use in the world. Games in this 1Gb era are pretty sweet looking, photo-realistic is just round the corner, how much more do we need?
It'd be nice to pop to 5 years time and see what games look like though...
FantasyMeister wrote:
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The
> huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are
> released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER
> been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a
> patch at some stage?
True, but here we're back to the old "PC needs patches, but we can get updates, add-ons, new levels etc." Argument. PLUS I suspect that with consoles having HDD we'll see patches come out for console games as well. It's being said that the HDD can hold new levels and stuff, so it must be programmed into the game to look for newer stuff on the HDD, so sooner or later, there'll be a patch released.
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the
> technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it
> being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the
> number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the
> PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all
> the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be
> done.
But with each new incantation of DirectX compatibility is becoming less of a problem. But it could go either way, loads of peripherals that hardly ever work, or a reliable background software (like DirectX) that can be used to work around the inconsitancies.
I think developers are going to want to stick to the
> consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is
> reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just
> don't come into it.
Possibly, but not if the number of people buying PC's goes up because they know they can play games in 4 years time with no extra expenditure, unlike at the moment....
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of
> these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
Lol! That would certainly spped it up!
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The
> huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are
> released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER
> been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a
> patch at some stage?
True, but here we're back to the old "PC needs patches, but we can get updates, add-ons, new levels etc." Argument. PLUS I suspect that with consoles having HDD we'll see patches come out for console games as well. It's being said that the HDD can hold new levels and stuff, so it must be programmed into the game to look for newer stuff on the HDD, so sooner or later, there'll be a patch released.
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the
> technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it
> being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the
> number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the
> PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all
> the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be
> done.
But with each new incantation of DirectX compatibility is becoming less of a problem. But it could go either way, loads of peripherals that hardly ever work, or a reliable background software (like DirectX) that can be used to work around the inconsitancies.
I think developers are going to want to stick to the
> consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is
> reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just
> don't come into it.
Possibly, but not if the number of people buying PC's goes up because they know they can play games in 4 years time with no extra expenditure, unlike at the moment....
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of
> these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
Lol! That would certainly spped it up!
20GHz is, I think, a realistic objective for processor speeds 5 years down the line, BUT, what will it be used for? Fine, your graphics will move smoothly, fine, load times will be non-existent, fine, games will run smoothly, but it seems to me that the advantages here for gamers are in the graphics on the whole and nothing else.
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a patch at some stage?
The increased processor speeds is going to be a boon for governments, military, and business, all three 'industries' have HUGE demands for processing data quickly, so they will be the main beneficiaries from this advancement in technology.
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be done.
I think developers are going to want to stick to the consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just don't come into it.
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
Games already run smoothly on the consoles. The huge advantage of the consoles is that for some reason, games are released bug free (on the whole), whereas with PCs has there EVER been a game released in the last two years that didn't require a patch at some stage?
The increased processor speeds is going to be a boon for governments, military, and business, all three 'industries' have HUGE demands for processing data quickly, so they will be the main beneficiaries from this advancement in technology.
But gamers? I think we're more likely to see the technology shift over to the console and be used there than see it being put to real use in the home PC market, because imagine the number of different peripherals that are going to be around for the PC in 5 years time, all the different combinations of hardware, all the bug testing and platform testing that would have to be done.
I think developers are going to want to stick to the consoles for their games software because this amount of testing is reduced, everyone has the same components, hardware conflicts just don't come into it.
I wonder if you'll be able just to pop one of these 20GHz chips straight into an X-Box 5 years down the line?
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: