Slashdot Mirror
AMD Radeon HD 5870 Adds DX11, Multi-Monitor Gaming
Vigile writes "Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles and their dominating hold on developers. Today AMD is releasing the Radeon HD 5870 graphics card based on the Evergreen-series of GPUs first demonstrated in June. Besides offering best-in-class performance for a single-GPU graphics board, the new card is easily the most power efficient in terms of idle power consumption and performance per watt. Not only that, but AMD has introduced new features that could help keep PC gaming in the spotlight, including the first DirectX 11 implementation and a very impressive multi-monitor gaming technology, Eyefinity, which we discussed earlier this month. The review at PC Perspective includes the full gamut of gaming benchmarks in both single- and dual-GPU configurations as well as videos of Eyefinity running on three 30" displays."
There are some videos of Eyefinity at work in this article, here is a direct link as well:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=783&type=expert&pid=6
I can think of at least 10 guy friends of mine that are going to cream themselves when they hear about this .. if they haven't already bought them and suffered from a joy overload.
Time to move up from 1280x1024 displays finally? My hardrive size and processor speeds have gone up 10x in the last 10 years. My screen resolution is unchanged. I think for games, doubling pixel density would be more than noticeable. From their screen sizes could increase 15~21inch standard over 15 years is a pretty sad change for the computer industry.
ATI's last 4800 generation was already faster than anything you could get on a console and could do multi-monitor.
I'm not sure why an even faster graphics card would give you that needed shot in the arm. Or if your assertion that PC gaming needs anything is correct.
As far as I'm concerned, PC gaming doesn't need a shot in the arm any more than consoles need a mouse and keyboard.
Reading the PC perspective reviews and a couple of others the 5870 seems to be a bit faster than the GTX285 but not by much, and certainly not by a margin one would expect from a new generation of parts vs old.
Admittedly this is all DX9/10 stuff, and there's probably a lot of the transistor budget allocated to new DX11 features but I would have expected ATI's latest offering to have utterly destroyed NVIDIA's last gen part. The GTX 295 is really 2 gpus so it's not really a fair comparison.
It will be interesting to see what NVIDIA offers on the Dx11 front in the next few months. Until then I'm kinda waffling about the 5800's, it's hard to justify an upgrade to just support DX11 when it's not significantly better than what I have, which is sort of the same problem I have with the Corei7's vs Core2's. I suppose a 'killer app' for Dx11 might move people in that direction, but if we're not seeing many of those until Q1 2010 that gives NVIDIA a while to play catch up and release their hardware.
...I really with they'd come out with decent Linux support. I mean, come on guys, 1280x1024@75Hz is the max screen size you can do with fglrx in your driver?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Took the industry long enough to deliver a great 3D perforance and 3 monitor outputs on one card*. If the Linux support is on par with nVidia's support, I look forward to replacing my current nVidia dualhead card and Matrox Dualhead2go box with one of these beauties. Especially since the Dualhead2go "Digital" edition uses an analog VGA input and I can see some faint ghosting on text/sharp lines.
* I know that Matrox had the Parhelia line of 3 monitor cards, but the 3D performance was sadly lacking in those.
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Time to move up from 1280x1024 displays finally? My hardrive size and processor speeds have gone up 10x in the last 10 years. My screen resolution is unchanged.
As are your eyes. Beyond a certain point, FSAA will increase perceived quality as much as higher DPI.
I think for games, doubling pixel density would be more than noticeable.
Supporting ClearType style subpixel rendering in your FSAA might help too. But the big problem with doubling pixel density is that so many Windows applications other than games are hardcoded for 96 dpi, ignoring Display Properties > Settings > Advanced > General > DPI setting.
15~21inch standard over 15 years is a pretty sad change for the computer industry.
For one thing, desks haven't gotten much bigger. For another, after a certain point, the amount of glass and other materials in a display outweighs the number of pixels in determining price. I went to Walmart* and saw a 32" 720p class Vizio TV for $399 and an otherwise identical 1080p TV for $499. Compare that to the price difference between 32" vs. 42" TVs.
The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game. With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work. Yes, there are certain exceptions like hard drive requirements, etc., but for the most part it is true. The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.
There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.
Anandtech
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643
"At the end of the day, with its impressive performance and next-generation feature set, the Radeon HD 5870 kicks off the DirectX 11 generation with a bang and manages to take home the single-GPU performance crown in the process. It's without a doubt the high-end card to get"
Techreport
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618
"Well, Sherlock, what do you expect me to say? AMD has succeeded in delivering the first DirectX 11 GPU by some number of months, perhaps more than just a few, depending on how quickly Nvidia can get its DX11 part to market. AMD has also managed to double its graphics and compute performance outright from one generation to the next, while ratcheting up image quality at the same time. The Radeon HD 5870 is the fastest GPU on the planet, with the best visual output, and the most compelling set of features. Yet it's still a mid-sized chip by GPU standards. As a result, the 5870's power draw, noise levels, and GPU temperatures are all admirably low. My one gripe: I wish the board wasn't quite so long, because it may face clearance issues in some enclosures. "
Is this good enough? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Vf8R_gOec Extrema Eyefinity Tech Demo on Linux - 63 Megapixel - X-Plane --- 24 displays (4x6 array). - Clever sig temporarily out of service. 1994.01.01
"Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles..."
I know I don't count, but I resent the assumption that everyone cares. I don't care. I'd never buy a console to play games other than Wii sports.
I assume GPUs will get better and better, as will CPUs, and I'll benefit But I'm still playing StarCraft 1, and I just want a higher resolution interface for the same screen -- I know people think it affects the balance, but I'd like to see the zerglings when they're a little further away.
I don't think PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. I think it needs well designed games that stand the test of time.
But it would be nice if we could get the kind of power we can get for a reasonable price (sub $1000 PC including graphics) today to run cool without fans.
its working on DX11 "mindshare" building more than anything else were I to guess.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
The lack of PC games has very little to do with architecture changes. The perception that you always have to upgrade when a new generation of games arrive is little more than computer machismo, and just because you can't max everything out doesn't mean you need a new PC. I played Doom 3 perfectly fine on a GeForce Ti 4800 SE, and I played Crysis rather enjoyably on a Radeon HD 3870, even though everything was set to medium. The problem is most PC gamers' ego can't handle the not being able to play with "everything maxed out", so they feel the need to upgrade.
The reason consoles are gaining so much ground is no one wants to waste money on the PC. Why spend millions of dollars on developing a title when 25% of the user base is going to pirate it anyways? They can make the same game console only, and almost all hardcore gamers will purchase an XBox 360 for the games they're missing on the PC. I hate to finally admit it, but until we fully embrace an active activation system like steam to counteract piracy, PC gaming isn't going anywhere.
my impulsive ass just bought an NVidia 275 GTX two weeks ago so I could play Crysis and STALKER Clear Sky on my Dell 30". The card has certainly delivered, averaging around 30fps for both games at 2560x1600 at max detail but that doesn't leave a lot of breathing room for future titles. I paid $230 at Frys. Now I see that for a few bucks more I could have gotten the 5850 which would be far more future proof with considerable more power.
Unfortunately I threw the packaging away for my new video card which complicates returning it! This 5870 looks amazing for only $350ish.
My take away from the reviews is that it is significantly cheaper than Nvidia's current top of the line single-card solution while offering slightly better performance with a more modest power draw. In another year or two, we'll all be able to play Crysis with all the eye candy turned on. :)
The kind of shot in the arm that PC gaming needs isn't at the high end but at the low end. If something better than Intel graphics became common on slimline PCs (as opposed to bulky towers), that would open up the market for gaming on home theater PCs.
Reasonable.
Nvidia seems to be between a rock and hard place. AMD is nudging it out of the limelight in the graphics marketplace and Intel and AMD are nudging it out of the market for motherboard chipsets...with Intel doing so more aggressively.
Where do you see Nvidia 3-5 years down the line?
Seriously need foldable/rollable displays so we can get some large, high res, SINGLE DISPLAY action going.
I'm sick of monitor bezels physically separating my screen space.
I think it needs well designed games that stand the test of time.
But it would be nice if we could get the kind of power we can get for a reasonable price (sub $1000 PC including graphics) today to run cool without fans.
This. 1000 times this.
I have no interest on playing on a platform where I am forced to invest thousand of dollars every couple of years.
I would be interested on buying a fun game that runs on the computer I already have!
No sig for the moment.
PC Gaming may or may not need a shot in the arm, but it isn't because of graphics. It's most likely the plug-and-play nature of games and the dumbing down of controls. Not that ASWD is particularly complex, but if you throw in mouse-look...it's basically like rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Not everyone's up to the challenge.
Eyefinity seems pretty cool, but one thing I haven't read about is how it works for gaming spread across monitors of different sizes and resolutions. If I were to start using Eyefinity, I would want to buy a pair of 19-20" monitors to put in portrait mode to flank my 24" monitor. However, the two new monitors might have the same vertical size (in portrait mode) as the big one, they would have a slightly different resolution: 1280 vs. 1200. It makes things more complex, but it would be great if ATI could make this work well. What would be particularly useful is to allow the monitors on the periphery to have lower DPI, because peripheral vision is lower resolution anyways.
I would much much prefer 2 960 x 1200 monitors to a 1920 x 1200 wide screen, It just helps me group stuff better.
Then get a window manager that will do that for you. All versions of Windows since Windows 95 can do it: control-click on several windows in the title bar, right-click one of them, and choose "Tile Horizontally".
And you can't? Seriously, look at the graphs on the review sites, they're cranking it all up to 2560x1600 with max AA/AF with Ultra High quality. It's not like you can't play with anything less...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So, to be clear, you just want: - people to be reasonable on Slashdot Reasonable.
Interesting.
Speaking of cooler chips, [H]ard|OCP's review found this card to have reduced power draw and temperatures compared to the 4870 and GeForce GTX 285.
It does vary depending on the load the card is under (duh), but for a card that is about twice as powerful as its predecessor, it's quite impressive.
Console gaming is a much bigger market than PC gaming. I believe that "shot in the arm" is referring to expanding the PC market to more consumers, not improving the quality of the games. In any case, I have a hard time believing either statement.
I must be few people, as i doubt PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. The way i see it PC gaming has its market and consoles have theirs. For single seat games it is still (and always will be) the shit, except for a short period around the release of new consoles it is not lacking in the hardware department. The same way that the Wii didn't eat into "real" console sales, i doubt the console are eating into pc game sale, what they are doing is being played by a huge market of people who regularly enjoy playing with friends in the same room. It could be argued that PCs lack the software to play multiplayer in the same place (because the HW is there to do it with emulators), but tbh if your going to do that you need to plug it into a TV so either its expensive (laptop) or pointless (if you have a dedicated gaming box connected to you TV why not just call it a console).
If you don't play with local mates -> PC gaming
If you play with local mates --------> Console gaming
If you only play with local mates --> Casual Gaming
Despite these categories overlapping in terms of both games and players, they do not directly compete much.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
He said sub $1000 dollars. That's three times the cost of a a netbook.
And really, what he's asking for is entirely possible if you string together two netbook cpus + a low power high yield graphics card.
And well, we already have StarCraft, so the first is not a request.
Yes, and Xbit Labs, as is their tradition, got a true power consumption reading direct from the 12v and 5v PCIe supply lines.
It turns out the card has the same power consumption as the 4870 at load (3dmark), not to mention exceptional idle power. Way to go ATI, I could have sworn TSMC's 40nm bulk CMOS (no metal gates) would have raised leakage, but this proves me wrong!
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Seconded. I played lots of games with my 4670 at 1680x1050. Now that I have two of them, there aren't a ton of games I can't play at that res, even on decent settings (AA, and so on), and I paid less than $100 total for the pair of 'em.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
All those reveiws and not 1 of them tested a Lynnfield chip that I could find to see if the dual 8x pci-e slots get pinned when running a DX11 card in SLI. Not one review used a typical median computer that someone would currently own.
So after all those 'reviews' *cough advertisements* we still don't know if someone with a Core2 Duo at 3 Ghz can even feed that card effectively. No DDR2 systems, no Quad Core Core2 running DDR3... just the usual i7 Etremes that tell typical consumers anything. We don't know, after all those review if it's even worth buying based on a typical machine. ZZZzzzz....
If anyone can find a Core2 system tested with this new card let te rest of us know if any of us who don't own $1000 processors get a benefit...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
The review/source contains no information that's even remotely useful to those of us who look for video cards that are quiet, do not reach absurd temperatures (anything above 60C under load is considered absurd; do people realise just how hot 60C is?), and do not have excessive power requirements.
All I've seen after reading the review is a bunch of snapshots stolen from a PowerPoint presentation with said "technological improvements", and some graphs indicating the card draws less watts than competing cards.
Given the size of the HSF (it's full-length -- look at that sucker!), I'm inclined to believe it runs hot. Given the size of the HSF, I'm also inclined to believe the card sounds like a mack truck barrelling down the highway when under load. Finally, given that the card has two -- count 'em, two -- PCIe 6-pin power connectors, this indicates the card requires at least 24V (e.g. two dedicated 12V rails), and God only knows what its amperage requirements are. Then take a look at it's price.
I feel like the only one on this planet who cares about the amount of heat hardware emits, the amount of power it draws, and the amount of noise it makes. Instead, it appears that the "i gota haf 50829fps in WoW!!!!1!! fag!!!11" gamers have taken over technological evolution and turned it into what Intel during the days of the original Pentium 4. Are there others here who have the same reservations about this kind of hardware as I do?
Exactly, the author of the summary is totally confused. He correctly points out that developers are more attracted to consoles right now, but he falsely advocates this as the solution. Remember when the PS3 first came out and the good releases were so slow and spaced out because the processor architecture was so unusual? This multi-monitor gaming thing is different how?
Yes, developers want to make a game that sells. But they also want to make a game that's cost efficient and focuses more on drawing in as much of an audience as possible and not just one factor of that audience. That's why this break through is not going to be an answer, it might help, but it won't change much. Developers aren't going to take the time and resources to make their games fully support multi-monitor gaming. They know the % of people who will have a multi-monitor gaming capable PC (or even more than one monitor), while not having a console at the same time is undeniably insignificant.
The reasons game makers are most apprehensive about PC releases are compatibility issues, lack of predictable adoption due to hardware configurations, and mistakenly they fear piracy. Also you'll find that the established online communities of the Wii, 360, and PS3 are much more natural methods of getting people to buy DLC. The decentralized PC gaming market makes it less easy to distribute and advertise DLC, and unfortunately for developers the most centralized and effective distribution center of DLC for computer games is The Pirate Bay.
The real solutions would be:
Something like Steam to completely take over as a pseudo dashboard / platform for PC gaming, giving unity and simplicity. Developers and publishers should just meet and nominate something for this, doesn't have to be Steam, but it has to be universally accepted and used by gamers and game makers.
A full understanding of piracy and that sales lost due to piracy is significantly less than amount of times pirated. Most people pirate something because they won't pay for it anyway, others pirate as a means to test a game, and piracy means more players which means more advertisement through word of mouth. Piracy is largely not a measure of lost sales, it is a measure of interest and perhaps success if you could survey the amount of people who pirated your content and later bought it.
And of course, the major solution brought up by the parent comment in this article, hardware. The amount of PC owners does not equal the amount of customers in the PC gaming market. Additionally, PC gamers do not equal the potential audience for your game. The closest to a correct assumption a sales department can make is: As the technology requirements are scaled back (thus implying greater efficiency or lesser content), the amount of potential players is undefined. It remains undefined because it increases the amount of people who COULD play and purchase it, but decreases the amount of people who WOULD play and purchase it. Clearly this illustrates a sweet spot, but it's one that developers won't be able to find without getting better market research from customers and pirates alike. How will they better research their pirates? By accepting the piracy and asking them to participate in helping out the people who let them have a free game. Is that a risk people will take? Not likely.
TL;DR version: I agree with the parent comment, catering more to the high-end audience is not a sensible proof that making more games for the PC will be more profitable.
Thirded (? is that a word?). I have a fanless 4670. It plays the games I want fine. Not everything is maxed, but I play at 1680X1050 on the monitor fine. I have hooked the computer via hdmi to a 1080p tv and it looked great there as well.
If one does their homework before buying they are usually better off. This machine I was going for tv hdmi connectivity with it being a DVR. So I got a low power (no extra power plug) 4670 and a fanless one for less noise. It plays my games as well as my the 8800gt I have. Granted neither of these cards are new and nor the latest generation. But they work for what I use them for*. I usually plan on a video card lasting 5+ years. So I may buy near the top end when i get it. The thinking is that the card will still be good for some years to come. This new ATI card I would think would still be good 5-6 years from now.
*I am not playing the crysis. I am not a frames per second gamer. I want things to look good and be playable. The games I do play I do not have lag, and everything looks fine. The ATI card does have a better picture then the 8800gt. Which is sad since the 8800gt cost me 4 times what the 4670 did. But the 4670 has 1GB of RAM while the 8800gt has 512MB.
tbh if your going to do that you need to plug it into a TV
PCs have started to come with 19" monitors lately. These are big enough for two players, but I'll admit not four like on the consoles.
if you have a dedicated gaming box connected to you TV why not just call it a console
Because unlike a console, a gaming HTPC can run free software, freeware, shareware, mods for commercial games, and other software that hasn't been digitally signed by the PC maker.
If you don't play with local mates -> PC gaming
If you play with local mates --------> Console gaming
If I play with local mates, but I also want to play (and possibly even make) mods, then what?
Graphic cards have TV-Out (first S-Video, now HDMI) since what, 2000?
I see two kinds of PC cases at Best Buy: slimline and mid-tower. Mid-towers look out of place next to a TV. Slimline PCs look better, more like an Xbox 360 or an old PS3, but they typically don't come with a graphic card. Instead, they tend to have Intel's Voodoo3-class GMA chipset on the motherboard because they're designed for web and office apps.
Those aren't mutually exclusive, you're just in 2 groups.
My quad Opteron and 1GB Nvidia card are passively cooled from slow running case fans.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
If I play with local mates, but I also want to play (and possibly even make) mods, then what?
Those aren't mutually exclusive, you're just in 2 groups.
But are there any games that serve the two groups? Or are you thinking of one set of games to play with local mates and a separate, disjoint set of games to mod and play by myself or with remote mates?
What Nvidia card is this? I have a (stock) passively cooled 7950 GT, but I haven't been able to find any newer cards that come stock passively cooled and aren't junk (ie, low-mid end cards at best). Unless you mean watercooled, but I'd rather stay away from that.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Clearly you've never gamed on a 30" display and played Crysis or STALKER at 2560x1600 with max detail. Current video cards can ALMOST play those games at a constant 30fps...key word is almost. With these new cards we'll be able to play games that blow away console games in terms of quality and resolution. I love my 360, I really do but it doesn't hold a candle to my GTX 275 and Dell 30" LCD. It's pure graphical bliss and for gamers like me graphics are apart of the experience. It's all about the realism.
PC gaming is dead because of rampant piracy. It's time for Slashdot to accept that.
9600 GSO (384/768) and 9600 GT are both very capable DX9 and passable DX10 parts that come in passive flavors. On the ATI side of things there's a passive 4850.
Personally I would love a reduced core version of the 5870 with even lower idle power and low enough max power (~75W) to allow passive cooling.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
There is a small (possibly non-existent) intersect. e.g give me one modable game you play with friends on the same machine (emulators do not coun't)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
The graphics cards keep getting bigger and bigger. They make installation (not to mention motherboard access after the fact) a pain in the ass. If heat is really so bad as to warrant these giant cards can we get an external device that plugins into the motherboard and resides outside of the case?
Thanks.
Gigabyte has a GeForce 9800 GT that is passively cooled. That's the highest I've seen.
Sadly the 260 GTX cards seem like a much better deal (price/performance) if you don't mind it using a fan (coming from someone who's always insisted on fanless video cards).
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Thank you for proving my point.
What I was trying to say is that PC Gaming would be a lot more popular if there were games available that you could play with the on-board graphics chips most computer owners in the world have
No sig for the moment.
Most of the world has a computer barely capable of 3D graphics. If you want a game like that, look into World of Goo, Braid, Mahjongg, a number of board games, or something similar. There are new games, what in the hell are you bitching about?
If your physical hardware doesn't support 3D, THERE IS NO MAGIC THAT WILL CHANGE THAT! That said, new machines are coming out with better graphics all the time. Even entry level machines have more capable GPUs in them. My main point was that it is cheap as shit to get a decently performing gaming box nowdays. You can spend less than $50 to upgrade almost any desktop to play fairly modern 3D games.
Or were you simply complaining that your integrated hardware isn't fast enough to run stuff like Crysis, and you're feeling left out? If so... tough shit. My car can't take a Corvette in a race, either. I'm not bitching that nobody makes fuel that will make my car competitive, or a race that my car will win, because that would be stupid.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
As a follow-on, this is the most successful computer game, ever. Probably the most successful of ANY video game. Even my parents have played it. http://kotaku.com/391693/the-most-successful-video-game-of-all-time
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Sparkle 9500GT
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Surely no one is suggesting playing Crysis on Aunt Tilly's Pentium III! ;)
I was thinking more on the lines of "newer" motherboards that still have inexpensive integrated graphics, like Intel's G45 Express or Nvidia GeForce 8300
No sig for the moment.
While I think that the "curved" arrangement of monitor is probably the best way to make use of multiple monitors, at times, the graphics looked skewed and distorted.
I don't know about you, but I think the "shot in the arm" PC gaming needs is a serious divergence from console gaming in terms of titles, but it needs to take a big cue from console games in terms of fitting game design to the platform at hand.
Here's a useless antecdote: Need for Speed Shift just came out. Yay me, I love Need for Speed. So I bought it for my PC, which has an SLI pair of not-to-terribly-old nVidia graphics cards and should be pefectly capable of playing Shift. Surprise! It doesn't work. Presents me with a cute little "shift.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close" dialog every time I try to run it. Tried reinstalling video drivers, changing driver versions, updating Windows, reinstalling the game, reinstalling Windows entirely. No go.
Meanwhile, the kids with their Xboxes (those that aren't red-ringing) and their PS3's (that may have cost a zillion dollars) can just stick the disk in the drive, press power, and play the damn game.
Why can't we do this with PC games? Every major PC title I can think of in recent years has suffered from a pile porting, control, stability, and feature issues from launch, some of them continuing to this day. (GTA4 on the PC, anyone?) PC gaming needs to diverge from the "blockbuster title" mentality of current console games, and more importantly break away from just being a pile of (usually lousy) ports of games that are already available on consoles. I should not have to hack around, troll forums, download patches, and sacrifice a chicken to my video card drivers just to be able to play a recently released game. And when I get it working, I should not wind up with a lousy watered-down console port that isn't optimized in any way for my hardware, limits my control schemes, handles mouse and joystick input all weird (if it supports mouse or joystick input at all!), yet is still somehow incapable of playing online against the version of the same title running on everyone else's console.
Games need to be tailored to the hardware. And not just the video hardware or operating system or what have you for speed and stability, but to the control hardware (mouse and keyboard), display hardware (high resolution monitor relatively close to the user), and operating environment (running along with other applications, probably competing with torrent, IM, browser, and other software).
Pretty much the only outfit doing this properly is Valve, with the Steam platform. Steam is (relatively) stable, the Source engine runs on all kinds of hardware, all of the Valve designed games on it are designed foremost for the PC taking advantage of mouse-and-keyboard, it plays nice with other applications running alongside it, and it provides a community, downloadable content, free games, updates, and other shit people actually want via its network connection and not just more DRM (though it has that, too).
As much as it pains me to admit it and as much as I liked Bioshock, Fallout 3, Grid, NFS: Carbon, etc., the last game I really had a good PC gaming experience with was Half Life 2. Well, that and Plants Vs. Zombies. But you get the idea.
Forget the hardware. Let's get the software right.
Uh-huh. And a burgeoning community of console hackers, software mods, firmware hacks, millions of modchips sold, Nintendo DS flashcarts selling faster than actual Nintendo DS consoles, and a modchip installation store in just about every organized flea market and farmers market in the country proves that this is a problem endemic only to PC gaming.
Sure.
Pull the other one, it plays Metallica.
Own up now... who else thought of NetHack when they read...
There is a small (possibly non-existent) intersect.
My question was why is it small and possibly non-existent, other than historical reasons related to the rarity of large PC monitors prior to the middle of this decade?
why not just steal that alienware pc from your obnoxiously rich neighbor. it will still need a fan, but at least it's free.
So do I:
A) buy a new computer plus invest all my time to get it up and running with my applications, settings, etc, or
B) buy a console (PS3 and 360 have had good price drops) plug it into my TV and I am playing a game in 10 mins. and saving at least a couple hundred bucks in hardware and a lot more in time savings.
C. Go to Dell.com, order a Inspiron slimline desktop PC with NVIDIA graphics and no monitor, and plug it in to an HDTV. Use this PC only for gaming, video playback, and web surfing; use your existing PC for the your work. There are numerous worthwhile games for PC that will never be ported to any console due to console makers' policies against part-time development.
Anyone notice the giant jump in cache size? I'm not an ati fanatic so I could be imagining but it looks like the cache size is waaayy bigger than any other graphic cards before it.
What this says to me is they are designing this card to run far into the future. I wonder if that is true. I know current generation of games use very little memory management on the gpu level and general physx, shaders, gpgpu, and other dx11 based things do not use much more. I also know that pushing and pulling memory from vram is incredibly slow compared to the processing power gpus possess. This makes me wonder if ati plans for gpus of the future to juggle like cpus do; multitasking. There are so many threads the idea of one thread juggling the display output of a video game and the physx seems ridiculous.
I guess it is true: CPUs are becoming more and more like GPUs and GPUs are becoming more and more like CPUs. Or something like that, at least.
The kind of shot in the arm that PC gaming needs isn't at the high end but at the low end. If something better than Intel graphics became common on slimline PCs (as opposed to bulky towers), that would open up the market for gaming on home theater PCs.
The really great news about this card is that it's relatively inexpensive compared to what most top end cards cost at launch. The 5870 is going for $380 just about everywhere, while typical high-end cards launch closer to $500. I hope this is an indication that prices will drop across the board and therefore affect the low end, as well. As far as better graphics getting in to SFF PCs, we've long since left the realm of the "sane" when it comes to thermal requirements on decent graphics chips, but if you poke around, there are some compact, passively-cooled solutions that might not perform as well, but would definitely be considered acceptable by most people.
But what makes Eyefinity so different or better from Nvidia's tech?
For years Nvidia already has tech that allows you to have 2 (or more - quadros support 16) monitors look like one seamless display to the O/S - that's called "span". Span behaviour is undesirable for most people though.
In most usage scenarios, it is counterproductive to have X monitors look like one seamless display to the O/S when the real life image produced isn't seamless - nondisplay edges of the panels etc. So it's very silly to have your dialog boxes popping up spread across two or even more monitors, and your start menu button next to your left elbow.
The Nvidia mode sane people use is called "dualview". When you use dualview, the O/S is aware of the monitors and does not plonk stuff across monitor boundaries. And you can also have your taskbar and start menu on just one monitor, rather than the O/S thinking it's all one huge monitor and stretching the whole taskbar across multiple monitors.
The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game.
Stop spreading the FUD. If you don't understand PC gaming, which it shows you clearly don't, don't throw around your baseless opinions. Why do you insist that people need the latest and greatest hardware to run the newest games? Where did you ever get that idea in the first place?
When Crysis came out, I ran it on medium settings and the game worked fine and looked fine. So where was my need for the latest and greatest hardware there? The fact is, people routinely play newer PC games on dated hardware too. This is why the minimum requirements are usually so low. This is why games have options to change the settings for CPU and GPU intensive parts. If every game required the latest and greatest like you said, why would the time be taken to include those options?
With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work.
If you buy a game for the 360 and the PS3, you have no guarantee that the game will work. Plenty of games have not worked properly at launch. It's not the small name titles that are having the notorious problems, it's the big name titles like Fallout 3, GTA IV, and so on. They were all having problems where they needed to be patched either right on the launch date, or within the week. I'm not saying the issue is as big as it is on the PC, but the problem is still there. Be thankful that you can now patch your games. Before consoles had this feature, if you ran into a bug on your disc or cartridge, and it was game breaking for you, you were shit out of luck.
The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.
Not true across the board. For the PS2 and PS3, sure, it's true. Hard to develop platforms take time to figure out how to get the most out of it. Easy to develop for platforms like the 360, you're going to be pushing the hardware to its limits pretty fast.
There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.
More FUD on two points.
First point being that you assume that PC gaming is just for the hardcore people. Hello, casual games? There's a very large number of casual games. There's a lot of stay at home moms with not a whole lot to do from time to time. They're out there playing The Sims, or the latest creation of some weird game where you need to cook food to please your customers. And you know what? You don't need the latest and greatest hardware to play most of these casual games! PC gaming is for the hardcore as much as the consoles are.
Second point being that you assume that if people have a 360, they're going to have an HDTV, or if they have an HDTV, they have the proper cables to utilize it. This is false. I know people who have a 360 that do not have an HDTV. I know people who have a PS3 who are just too lazy to buy the right cables for their HDTV. Besides, you can have a big screen with your monitor too. You can hook your PC up to your big screen HDTV. You can sit back and relax, and play games that have gamepad support on your couch with your wireless controller.
I'm not sure why you were modded insightful. Nothing you've stated was truthful. Nothing was near the mark. All you've done is spread around the very same propaganda that is seen time after time again every time there's the slightest talk about anything remotely close to gaming. Do yourself a favor and get an original opinion that is based on truth.
Sure, you could run Wolfenstein on your 2560x1600 30" monitor and possible even hack it to be able to use that resolution, but it'll still look like shit due to low-resolution graphical assets
Of course, that'd be true for Castle Wolfenstein (Apple II) and Wolfenstein 3D (id Tech 0). But are you talking about Return to Castle Wolfenstein (id Tech 3) or Wolfenstein 09 (id Tech 4)?
Look into open-source games. Nexuiz, OpenArena... some of those Quake3 based games work fine. Neverball, Neverputt, Tuxracer... and of course, all the 2D and flash games that actually make up the majority of the games that people play. Flash is probably the most prevalent gaming platform in the world.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Most of the world has a computer barely capable of 3D graphics. If you want a game like that, look into World of Goo, Braid, Mahjongg, a number of board games, or something similar.
While World of Goo fits in that category quite well (and is a whole lot of fun, too), Braid (which is also quite good), despite being entirely 2D, is actually brutal to run on even relatively new hardware. It does a lot of wacky shader stuff for all the visual effects and becomes nearly unplayable if it can't maintain a consistently high framerate. My Geforce 8600 GT couldn't even keep up with it until I manually edited some of the relatively undocumented hidden settings. It's not an especially fast card anymore these days, but it absolutely blows away any on-board stuff, so I don't see it working out terribly well for people without a fairly decent discrete video card unless it's been patched to let you disable more stuff (preferably in-game) and auto-detect what your hardware can do better. Most people aren't going to put up with fiddling with command line options just to get the thing to run.
The key to saving PC gaming is not to turn them into consoles. We already have consoles for that. Focus on the strengths of the PC, complex games that you really do need a keyboard and mouse to play effectively. FPSs and strategy games mostly. If these genres die, who really cares if the casual games that replace them are played on a console or PC.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If [FPS and RTS] genres die, who really cares if the casual games that replace them are played on a console or PC.
Small developers care because console makers tend not to give them the time of day.
Tried that. Fans were too loud. And even with all that amazing GPU power it STILL wouldn't play StarCraft 1 at a higher resolution!
Broken a second window, snuck in and and put it back.
I can't quote statistics, but I hear constant refrains from gamers, as they grow older, who simply can't or don't want to to keep their computers up to date anymore to play the latest games. "Real consoles", as you put it, allow individuals to remain gamers but rid themselves of the tired, never-ending cycle of periodic upgrades, driver issues, and endless patching that generally plagues the PC experience. This is exactly what drove me away from the PC to consoles for my gaming platform of choice.
It's used a lot, but "just works" feels almost luxurious after working a full day, getting your two-year old to bed, then sitting down for a session of gaming.
Problem is, giving PC's with integrated graphics the same gaming capabilities as a PC with powerful discrete graphics would mean also mean than the reason why people buy those PC's is no longer valid.
People buy them because they are cheap, which they won't be if they're to have high-end graphics...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of that... I saw it looked like interesting 2D graphics that should be easily handled by most dual-core CPUs and basic GPUs that are common any more.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Problem is, giving PC's with integrated graphics the same gaming capabilities as a PC with powerful discrete graphics
The shot in the arm would be something between woefully underpowered integrated graphics and overpowered discrete graphics. For example, a PC maker might replace, say, Intel's 945 series chipsets for Atom with NVIDIA's ION chipset. If Nintendo can make a profit selling Wii consoles for $200 this holiday season, why can't PC makers make a profit upgrading their PCs' video to match even a Dreamcast that was $200 a decade ago?
The low end in PC tech will always play older games that most people are already tired of playing, classics excluded.
There are other types of cases than just towers and god forbid the case is three inches thicker than a dvd player OMFGAPOCALYPSE. Low profile cards are available for lower end GPU's but the higher end need the larger boards until they are refined enough.
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817233010
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131391
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103696
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148212
DVD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136167
HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136098
GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102857
Water cooling: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835108105
~$60 gpu waterblock and passively cooled memory heatsinks from 3rd party vendors.
Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811164125
Total Price: $906.91
If you want it to be completely fanless add on 2 more radiators.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835108086
Total Price: $986.89
A lesser graphics card and cpu would still be enough to play most games and run most programs relatively well. But for less than $1000 you can still get a damn nice setup.
Same setup with these parts exchanged for the cpu and gpu:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103681
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131162
Total Price: $729.90
In my primary monitor i run PlanetSide, my secondary shows TeamSpeak. i can easily see who is talking, who is in what channel and so on without a distracting overlay or alt tabbing.
Works very nicely.
The next step up is to have TeamSpeak run on a second computer so i don't have to alt tab move people between channels and i can set up keybinds that would otherwise cause problems in the game i'm playing.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!