StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Most of these multi-processor wank-rigs wouldn't be much better for gaming than a single Athlon X2, games just aren't programmed to take advantage of the multiprocessor environment (plus you'd be looking at Windows Server Datacenter edition, which might make your drivers go "What?")

For the forseeable future, consoles are on top for gaming spec, and will remain so until multi-core capabilities are the norm in desktops, operating systems, and drivers. And even then, we'll be reaching the practical limits of silicon soon, at which point the consoles will stay ahead by a nose until the replacement technology arrives, because they don't have to deal with things like operating systems or target platform variations.

To equal the Xbox360(easier then a PS3), you'll need atleast a 2-socket duel core Opteron, G70 SLIed, a nice 2 gig of fast DDR RAM and a Raptor, also preferably a sound card to offload sound.

Ace Pace wrote:To equal the Xbox360(easier then a PS3), you'll need atleast a 2-socket duel core Opteron, G70 SLIed, a nice 2 gig of fast DDR RAM and a Raptor, also preferably a sound card to offload sound.

Actually, it might be easier to match the PS3. The RSX is basically a next-gen graphics chip, and not a brand new architecture like the GPU in the 360. And its going to be hard to get those math units to be useful - most of the load (and bottlenecks) will still fall on the PPC core. The more I think about, the more I believe MS has the better designed product and the more I believe Sony fucked up (yeah, DSP chips are fast, but they aren't meant for gaming! Decoding MPEG streams, mixing streams and doing FFTs and signal filtering is so far removed from gaming its not funny - however, I do want a Cell in my next HD DVR box!).

Microsoft also trashed Sony's architecture in an IGN article.

I also priced out a top of the line machine (non-SLI) on Newegg last night, and it ended up being ~$2800 with a new monitor. Consoles are looking better and better...

Arrow Mk84 wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:To equal the Xbox360(easier then a PS3), you'll need atleast a 2-socket duel core Opteron, G70 SLIed, a nice 2 gig of fast DDR RAM and a Raptor, also preferably a sound card to offload sound.

Actually, it might be easier to match the PS3. The RSX is basically a next-gen graphics chip, and not a brand new architecture like the GPU in the 360. And its going to be hard to get those math units to be useful - most of the load (and bottlenecks) will still fall on the PPC core. The more I think about, the more I believe MS has the better designed product and the more I believe Sony fucked up (yeah, DSP chips are fast, but they aren't meant for gaming! Decoding MPEG streams, mixing streams and doing FFTs and signal filtering is so far removed from gaming its not funny - however, I do want a Cell in my next HD DVR box!).

Microsoft also trashed Sony's architecture in an IGN article.

I also priced out a top of the line machine (non-SLI) on Newegg last night, and it ended up being ~$2800 with a new monitor. Consoles are looking better and better...

First off, fuck that article, their using numbers that came from Microsoft, and some of their analysis. is spotty, it dosn't matter the total Bandwidth, the bandwidth from the CELL to the G70 will matter.

And the PS3 so far impresses ALOT more then the Xbox 360. While it might be harder to program, you want something that equals it, so i'm taking theorectical preformance into account.

In some situations the Xbox360 will be better, in some the PS3, esspecially in GPU matters, having a general shader system might help long term, but unless ATi can have the pipelines change purpose quickly, I'll take nVidia's solution.




Without monitor, and wanking on newegg(their interface sucks) I'm getting...$2,964 for the Uber PC. This is caseless,monitor-less and speakerless. all that + cooling won't add that much.

Ace Pace wrote:To equal the Xbox360(easier then a PS3), you'll need atleast a 2-socket duel core Opteron, G70 SLIed, a nice 2 gig of fast DDR RAM and a Raptor, also preferably a sound card to offload sound.

That still won't be good enough because the games won't be written with the assumption of dual cores and tandem top-of-the-line graphics cards. It will be at least a year from the launch of the new consoles before the PC can catch up. Maybe more like a year and a half before an affordable PC (rather than a dream rig) is just as good.

As far as PS3 vs XBox 360 goes, you have to remember that Sony is the absolute, uncontested ruler of hype and marketing. They always have the most impressive demos, but I'm not at all convinced that the PS3 will be able to deliver significantly better looking games than the XBox 360.

Ace Pace wrote: First off, fuck that article, their using numbers that came from Microsoft, and some of their analysis. is spotty, it dosn't matter the total Bandwidth, the bandwidth from the CELL to the G70 will matter.

And the PS3 so far impresses ALOT more then the Xbox 360. While it might be harder to program, you want something that equals it, so i'm taking theorectical preformance into account.

In some situations the Xbox360 will be better, in some the PS3, esspecially in GPU matters, having a general shader system might help long term, but unless ATi can have the pipelines change purpose quickly, I'll take nVidia's solution.

Without monitor, and wanking on newegg(their interface sucks) I'm getting...$2,964 for the Uber PC. This is caseless,monitor-less and speakerless. all that + cooling won't add that much.

I'll have to disagree with you. The PS3 has 1 PPC core, a six math cores and a next-gen graphics chip, compared to the Xbox's 3 dual thread cores, a math unit per core, a unifed memory architecture and a brand new graphics architecture. While yes, that article is an MS marketing document, it does point out issues the Cell's instruction set, which could waste a lot of cycles. While MS has a big risk with its GPU working optimally, the ATI guys are very confident in it, and it was designed specifically for console gaming.

As far as theorectical performance goes, excuse me while I laugh. Sony's 2 teraflop claim has my bullshit detector lit up like a Christmas tree; especial since most of it is GPU performance. MS's numbers are more believable.

I could be wrong and you could be right, but I don't see it playing out that way.

And your probebly right, so I'll bow out there, I just can't get over those awesome demo's.

Arthur, the moment games from consoles start getting ported to PC we'll start seeing more using of cores on PC, though I agree with you current PC's will take a while to catch up, but they will.

Ace Pace wrote:And your probebly right, so I'll bow out there, I just can't get over those awesome demo's.

Arthur, the moment games from consoles start getting ported to PC we'll start seeing more using of cores on PC, though I agree with you current PC's will take a while to catch up, but they will.

Of course they will, they always do. And before it happens, there will be lots of threads on this board with titles like "Is PC gaming doomed?"

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:And your probebly right, so I'll bow out there, I just can't get over those awesome demo's.

Arthur, the moment games from consoles start getting ported to PC we'll start seeing more using of cores on PC, though I agree with you current PC's will take a while to catch up, but they will.

Of course they will, they always do. And before it happens, there will be lots of threads on this board with titles like "Is PC gaming doomed?"

For those retards, I give 2 words:

R:TW
and
UT2K4.

Only one thing is certain: My bank account will be in pain from fall to next spring...

If nothing else, I'll be upgrading my PC just for UT2k7.