Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the cut-on-out-speed-one-up dept.
INicheI writes "According to Intel, the plans for a release of a 2GHz Xeon for dual processor servers have been cancelled. Instead Intel is planning to debut a 2.2GHz chip codenamed "Prestonia" that will be ready the first quarter of 2002. I would love to see Quake running on a 4.4GHz computer."
Video editing is a killer app
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What the hardware industry needs is a new killer app like DOOM was in the early 1990's.
This new app is video editing. After Effects filters run slowly because they have to run 60 times to each second of video. The sheer amount of data involved still makes video compression a very tedious process, even after spatial and temporal downsampling (i.e. cutting res and fps).
Re:At what point...
by
Osty
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The difference here is that you're talking about a constant 24fps or 30fps (film vs. NTSC -- those numbers aren't exactly right, because most film projectors open the shutter 2-3 times per frame, making an apparent 48-72fps, while NTSC is interlaced, making an apparent 60fps) with motion blurring and other movement artifacts that make frames flow together. For a video game (quake, for instance), you're talking an average fps, meaning that if you're getting an average of 30fps, you're very likely going to drop down into the teens when you run into heavy action. 60fps is the "sweet spot", since you should still stay above 30fps even in heavy action. That said, there are no motion blur effects with video games (well, yet anyway -- when 3dfx tried to do that, they ended up getting an average of 3-4fps), which means that you need a higher fps just to see smooth motion. In other words, the point of having 100+fps in a video game, average case, is to make the worst case still look smooth.
Anyway, once you can achieve an average fps of 100+, it's time to start turning that detail level up. A GeForce 3 may scream with nearly 200fps in Q3A, in 640x480x16bpp with all the details turned down, and even get a decent 80fps or so with higher detail, but the next-gen games are going to be clocking in much lower, simply due to the fact that they are so graphically rich. What that means is that video accelerators will need to continue to improve, so that we can hit the 100+fps mark on these newer, higher-detail games, so that the generation after that can go back down to 30fps with even more detail, and so on.
Re:what is it good for?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
. Everyone knows that nobody can really see the difference between 40fps and 100+fps
We should play a game of quake 3 and I'll set my fps to max and you can set your max fps to 40.
I like seeing my fps in quake above 100. Anything less and you can see a statistical drop in my accuracy. Theres a reason companies like ati and nvidia are in the business they are in: fps matter. Heck a tnt2 can pull 40fps, why do you think people like geforce3 cards so much?
Re:At what point...
by
Kynde
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so.
I'm getting awfully tired of people mixing fps of normal video and 1st person 3D games. Having played quake and it's offspring online for 4 years now, without a shread of doubt I can say that Q3 offers you such playability that telling apart 40fps and lunartic 125fps (which btw is optimal for Quake3 engine physics, which alone would be enough reason for some ppl to go for 125) is relatively easy.
Where you easily notice it is quick glances backwards, i.e. when in midair you just lay a glance what's right behind you and turn right back. Such rapid motions and the smoothness there are actually rather essential in quake-like games (once you get past the shooting-everything-that-moves-along-with-your-tea m-mates-phase anyway).
In other words, the rant usually is that when looking at a screen the human eye cannot distinguish FPS's over 20 (...50 depending on who's ranting), but they usually neglect that with 1st person 3D games it's whole world ahead of you that keeps turning all around and in a very quick fashion even. We're not talking about a rotation of some teapot in a 3D animation. And what's worse, it's usually people that have zero or very very little experience in 3D gaming. The kinda "I've played through quake in hard core mode, I know what I'm talking about". Those people have very little idea how competative things have gotten in the online gaming scene.
I can't understand why people also forget that 20 FPS would mean 50ms rate of flow. Not directly comparable, but still, anyone (experienced) who has played on the net and in a lan know that's there's a huge difference between 50ms and 10ms.
Besides, try telling to some sprint athlete that wether his shoes weigh 10 grams less or more makes jack difference.
-- 1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
Re:what is it good for?
by
WasterDave
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is a big difference between 40 and 100 fps, particularly if you have a monitor that refreshes at 100Hz. Not wishing to harp on and get even more off topic, but if you turn 180 degrees, aim and fire in a quarter second that gives you:
40Hz 100Hz (apologies for lame fmt)
Turn 6 15
Aim 3 8
Fire 1 2
..frames in which to perform the operation. Those couple of extra frames for aiming with actually do make a difference. I actually got noticeably better at Quake (particularly the rail gun) when moving to a faster card and an optical mouse.
Back on topic, this is good for databases. Faster processors means fewer processors, less cache contention, good for all concerned really. And this is a really good move on Intel's part - rather than support a.18 micron part they really wish they hadn't made, in a socket they will use for precisely one processor, on a chipset for precisely one processor, they're swallowing pride and just getting on to the next one. Sensible. Very. Particularly when you consider how much the P4 needs its' on die cache to come up before it starts working properly.
The 8085 was an old 8-bit intel chip that could get more work done per clock than the 8086. The Pentium 3 does less work per clock than a 486 DX, too. This is getting to be a silly trend. We are not paying these people for innovative clock speeds.
-- "Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
Slashdot Mirror
What the hardware industry needs is a new killer app like DOOM was in the early 1990's.
This new app is video editing. After Effects filters run slowly because they have to run 60 times to each second of video. The sheer amount of data involved still makes video compression a very tedious process, even after spatial and temporal downsampling (i.e. cutting res and fps).
Will I retire or break 10K?
The difference here is that you're talking about a constant 24fps or 30fps (film vs. NTSC -- those numbers aren't exactly right, because most film projectors open the shutter 2-3 times per frame, making an apparent 48-72fps, while NTSC is interlaced, making an apparent 60fps) with motion blurring and other movement artifacts that make frames flow together. For a video game (quake, for instance), you're talking an average fps, meaning that if you're getting an average of 30fps, you're very likely going to drop down into the teens when you run into heavy action. 60fps is the "sweet spot", since you should still stay above 30fps even in heavy action. That said, there are no motion blur effects with video games (well, yet anyway -- when 3dfx tried to do that, they ended up getting an average of 3-4fps), which means that you need a higher fps just to see smooth motion. In other words, the point of having 100+fps in a video game, average case, is to make the worst case still look smooth.
Anyway, once you can achieve an average fps of 100+, it's time to start turning that detail level up. A GeForce 3 may scream with nearly 200fps in Q3A, in 640x480x16bpp with all the details turned down, and even get a decent 80fps or so with higher detail, but the next-gen games are going to be clocking in much lower, simply due to the fact that they are so graphically rich. What that means is that video accelerators will need to continue to improve, so that we can hit the 100+fps mark on these newer, higher-detail games, so that the generation after that can go back down to 30fps with even more detail, and so on.
. Everyone knows that nobody can really see the difference between 40fps and 100+fps
We should play a game of quake 3 and I'll set my fps to max and you can set your max fps to 40.
I like seeing my fps in quake above 100. Anything less and you can see a statistical drop in my accuracy. Theres a reason companies like ati and nvidia are in the business they are in: fps matter. Heck a tnt2 can pull 40fps, why do you think people like geforce3 cards so much?
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so.
a m-mates-phase anyway).
I'm getting awfully tired of people mixing fps of normal video and 1st person 3D games. Having played quake and it's offspring online for 4 years now, without a shread of doubt I can say that Q3 offers you such playability that telling apart 40fps and lunartic 125fps (which btw is optimal for Quake3 engine physics, which alone would be enough reason for some ppl to go for 125) is relatively easy.
Where you easily notice it is quick glances backwards, i.e. when in midair you just lay a glance what's right behind you and turn right back. Such rapid motions and the smoothness there are actually rather essential in quake-like games (once you get past the shooting-everything-that-moves-along-with-your-te
In other words, the rant usually is that when looking at a screen the human eye cannot distinguish FPS's over 20 (...50 depending on who's ranting), but they usually neglect that with 1st person 3D games it's whole world ahead of you that keeps turning all around and in a very quick fashion even. We're not talking about a rotation of some teapot in a 3D animation. And what's worse, it's usually people that have zero or very very little experience in 3D gaming. The kinda "I've played through quake in hard core mode, I know what I'm talking about". Those people have very little idea how competative things have gotten in the online gaming scene.
I can't understand why people also forget that 20 FPS would mean 50ms rate of flow. Not directly comparable, but still, anyone (experienced) who has played on the net and in a lan know that's there's a huge difference between 50ms and 10ms.
Besides, try telling to some sprint athlete that wether his shoes weigh 10 grams less or more makes jack difference.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
There is a big difference between 40 and 100 fps, particularly if you have a monitor that refreshes at 100Hz. Not wishing to harp on and get even more off topic, but if you turn 180 degrees, aim and fire in a quarter second that gives you:
.18 micron part they really wish they hadn't made, in a socket they will use for precisely one processor, on a chipset for precisely one processor, they're swallowing pride and just getting on to the next one. Sensible. Very. Particularly when you consider how much the P4 needs its' on die cache to come up before it starts working properly.
40Hz 100Hz (apologies for lame fmt)
Turn 6 15
Aim 3 8
Fire 1 2
..frames in which to perform the operation. Those couple of extra frames for aiming with actually do make a difference. I actually got noticeably better at Quake (particularly the rail gun) when moving to a faster card and an optical mouse.
Back on topic, this is good for databases. Faster processors means fewer processors, less cache contention, good for all concerned really. And this is a really good move on Intel's part - rather than support a
Mind you, it'd cost the same as my house.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
The 8085 was an old 8-bit intel chip that could get more work done per clock than the 8086. The Pentium 3 does less work per clock than a 486 DX, too. This is getting to be a silly trend. We are not paying these people for innovative clock speeds.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin