Everyone except Hephasteus can skip this post. It's just basically me bickering about why his 2ghz celeron and using P4s is fine in games 2 years down the road theory has a few flaws. I realize it's a massive wall of text and don't expect you to read it. Main point? I still suggest the quad.
Originally Posted by Hephasteus
Well like i said if you want something to happen people have to support it. But the problem is nobody is avoiding designing games a certain ways because of a lack of quad cores installed in the market. It's simply not needed. If you want to play GTA IV then all you have to do is look inside every game platform on the market. If you got that much CPU then thats what you need. Then you just have to decide if you want to play it on the game platform at low res or play it on computer with a boat load of video capability at high resolution.
A 2 ghz celeron, a 2.8 ghz northwood or prescott 32 bit cpu or even an athlon xp 2800 or higher would run GTA IV if someone threw out a motherboard that supported PCI express and you put enough graphics card in it. Even then you wouldn't need much. 9500GT would do it unless you ran at 1920x1080 rez.
You're not doing very well at speculating and predicting the future if you don't even notice that there's not exactly a ton of games out there that don't play on game systems and those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
Windows 7 and DirectX 11 will yank alot of chains that just don't exist and possibly couldn't exist for a long long long time. When it takes 10 to 60 million dollars to develop a hot game they aren't going to come out with one that will only run on a quad extreme just so people can feel good about having a quad extreme.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...GPU-Computing&
This is what it's all about. This is what it's been about for years. If you don't need these then all you're doing is making the powersupplies and SLI and tri-SLI cheaper for the people who want those. They might let ya help with folding but they really don't need the help any more.
I also wanted to say that by tight lipped about what they are planning and thinking all these companies don't give you enough information to even make a decision about what sort of future you want to lay a foundation for when you choose what to buy. But the supercomputer thing bugs me to no end. It makes a terrible future possible.
Hello. I'm a biological terrorist. And I'm a PC.
Hello. I'm a shadow government. And I'm a PC.
GTAIV may run
on a "2 ghz celeron" and "9500GT". But that's not the point, people want it to run, and they want to run at high settings. Using those components, judging by the PC port, it will probably look worse than on an xbox 360 or a ps3. When people build gaming computers they want their computers to run the game and make it look better than those.
You need to remember that you can't exactly compare game consoles to computers. You see, the consoles are standardized. Every PS3 has a very similar CPU. This means they can optimize for this CPU solely. Same goes for GPUs. They can't do this with PC games. They need the game to run on hundreds of CPUs, hundreds of GPUs, etc. And any given combination thereof.
That's why you can't compare the graphics a console can put out to the hardware it uses through equivalent PC hardware.
Also there are many games out today that won't run well on your proposed "2 ghz celeron" and "9500GT" combo. UT3? A 3ghz e4500 cpu was essentially a bottleneck for me on that game, going to a quad core more than doubled my framerate and made it playable where it was hardly playable before. Crysis? Obviously not going to like the 2 ghz celeron and 9500GT very much. Pretty much any recent game, over the past year, once you pump on some AA and max out the graphics won't run very well on that combo at all.
Now if, theoretically, for some reason Intel only ever made the 2 ghz celeron, over the past 5 years or so. And there was no AMD, meaning basically everybody
had this exact same CPU. Then games could be optimized far better to run on this specific cpu and probably no other CPU. This would yield much higher performance on the CPU than we have today. Same goes for the 9500GT. This is not the case, at all.
You're right, they won't make one that requires the quad extreme. They will make the game run on plenty of budget CPUs 2 years down the road fairly well. And they will run on current budget CPUs if you turn off a few settings such as certain particle effects, etc. Today’s quad extreme processors won't be as competitive with even more low-end processors down the road. That's the way technology advances. The point is, the quad will probably be able to turn all the settings higher than the dual a couple years down the road while keeping a more playable framerate and performance. Which is exactly what I was pointing out in my post (had you read it).
Please, put together a computer with the 5 year old processor that you're referring to here:
Originally Posted by Hephasteus
those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
And grab an equivalent GPU. Now put a game that's on consoles and computers, like oblivion or something. Turn up the graphical settings so that it looks as good as the xbox 360 in every way. I would be willing to wager that you will probably get less than 10fps. The xbox one, on the other hand, will play smoothly.
Some things are just non-comparable in such a way.
Also there are a few quad core optimized games already. The market population of dual and quadcore processors is increasing. As this market increases the game developers will be pushed to write code that's better optimized for multithreading. And as this happens things will start to work better with more cores. It's inevitable.
If you turn your attention to this recent STEAM survey (if you're unfamiliar STEAM is an extremely popular digital distribution, DRM, and multiplayer platform) you will see that almost 60% of the people surveyed have moved on to at least dual core, 10% of which are quads:http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/60534...tx-10-rig.html
And STEAM is most often used and associated with Source games, or other Valve games, such as counter strike and Half-life. Which are games that a lot of people play with older hardware. This enforces the fact that people are moving on to newer CPUs with more cores. The market is increasing and as such more games will be developed with multithreading in mind.
Now I only see one computer you have listed on here. So I don't know if you have a gaming machine. But if you try to run recent games they are a lot more CPU demanding than you let off. You might expect that they don't require a lot more processing power than previous games, but they really do. Maybe try running a few really new games on your computer and see how they do.
Yes, GPUs will be used as general processors in some certain specific tasks in games in the future as well. I'm glad you recognize this. You also seem to recognize that some of the games you've played have had really good AI and that it's getting a bit better. The thing is, in the past when you wanted 100+ enemies or other beings on screen at a time you would have to dumb down the AI a bit to get decent performance. What people want now is 100 beings on screen, each of which having the best AI possible.
You're right that we don't absolutely need
this processing power. You're right that it's basically an arms race between the companies. But as long as this race is happening games will start requiring more power just because the coders don't need
to optimize their stuff as well. It's sad, I agree, but it's the current state of the industry.
Your system may only use 0.5-1% but what games are you playing on it? Are you a gamer like the TC? Do you play recent games on your machine? Go ahead and download a few demos, one for games like UT3 that are heavily processor based. I can guarantee you it will max out your processor. You need to remember that your needs aren't exactly the same as the needs of others. The race will continue and the games will follow (to a certain degree).
Remember, the suggestions you are making are for someone who doesn't want to "fight the system" or whatever like you seem to. It's for someone who just wants to be able to go to a store 2.5 years down the road, pick up any of the most recent games, and run it very well. Without having to turn everything off because it's so poorly optimized.
For this I would still recommend the q6600. Even if the e8500 performs slightly better now (and remember, those were the two main options given in the thread) it will probably yield poorer performance than the q6600 in the future. Depending on the games you play it already does from time to time, things don't have to change much. Since they are about the same price my vote goes towards the Quad. That's all I was saying in my post.Edited by Deathsnapper - 12/21/08 at 9:31am