As mentioned, PC games, and console games for that matter, are moving to digital distribution. The reason store shelves are filled with console games is because the used game market makes the retailers more money, and you can't resell a PC game.
That might have some influence, but the main reason is consoles are easier and cheaper than PC gaming machines, thus there are more customers buying console games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Less powerful than what, exactly? I'm sure a single Nehalem core can beat a single Xenon core any day of the week. Or a single core of any other consumer processor.
3D games need a fast/powerful processor and GPU, with a fast bus. The whole machine has to be equally fast. This produces heat, which requires elaborate cooling and makes it difficult to use in computers anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
As I'm sure you know, even the initial Core Duo processors were faster per clock than the PPC970, and the SPEs of the Cell are certainly not comparable to a fully featured core. The graphics cards in the consoles are almost four generations old. Frankly, it's silly to expect a $200 box to be able to outperform a $1000 gaming PC.
Your debating apples and oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Perhaps so, but that is a different market segment. Why would a gamer trend toward a netbook? They're a cheap novelty.
He trends for a netbook because he doesn't need a PC gaming rig anymore, the console is a better value and the quality is just about the same.
PC games would have to have a traumatic graphical advantage to justify it's expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Not unless you're still living in 2002. The current trend is for consoles to act as media extenders and/or media hubs.
Just extra features, not it's core purpose, still it usually does one thing at once very well and that's 3D gaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Really? I can put together a computer for less than $500 that can beat today's consoles on performance, crappy console ports aside. Remember, the Xbox 360 and PS3 play at low to medium resolutions.
PS3 plays at 1080, and since one sits far away from the TV, even if the resolution was twice that it wouldn't matter as one's eyes couldn't see it. Only close up, like computer monitors, need higher resolutions.
Also I can put together a computer for $500 too, if I use a pirated copy of a OS and trade my time and labor with some guy in China who eats a bowl of rice per day.
All things being equal, your going to be paying over $1000 for a decent 3D PC gaming rig and a $299 console with nearly the same quality is going to beat you in market share every time.
Video cards might be soon become obsolete too. Home builders could be going the way of the dinosaur for cheap, mass produced computers.
On another note, though there is no actual performance data yet, the integrated on package graphics chip that Intel will be debuting does appear at least on paper to be pretty formidable. I would expect (and hope) for graphics performance similar to what we already have with MCP79..
Whatever happens, Apple will not release a reworked Mini that is inferior in performance in any way to the current model. There is no incentive for that to happen.
If Intel forces Apple into a position of having to accept inferior performance, Apple will explore its options and Intel will be cast aside, just as IBM was.
On the other hand, if Intel's integrated graphics solution is able to perform at least as well as the 9400M and the overall user experience with Apple products equipped with Intel's components is decent enough, there is no issue.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
PC gaming is certainly not dying or on its way out. Its a completely different market than console games with games that appeal to different people than those who play console games.
Plus those used games stores like Gamestop and such make truckloads of money off used games sales, which they don't allow for PC games, as well as accessories for consoles. So its natural for them to push console games more than PC games.
Plus PC game sales have mostly moved online. PC gamers are smart enough to know that buying a game online WITH shipping is generally cheaper than buying it from the store, plus there are various digital distribution systems out there (Steam is just one) that allow you to buy the game and play it nearly instantly.
Also, when I walk into Walmart, I see PC gaming section that is just as large as the entire console gaming section. When I walk into Fry's I see a PC gaming section that is actually larger than the console section. When I go into Best Buy I see two full rows of PC games, as much as the Xbox360, PS3, and Wii combined.
Quote:
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Computer processors are less powerful now? Are you kidding me? The Core i7 desktop and notebook processors are the fastest CPUs on the market. They run circles around everything else. A 1.6GHz Core i7 notebook processor keeps pace with an old 2.53GHz Core 2 Quad processor. The 2GHz version mops the floor with the old Core 2 Quad. The Core i7 desktop CPUs tend to outperform the Core 2 Quad desktop series by double in nearly every benchmark. Computer processors are getting faster, not slower.
Look at GPUs as well. Look at the newest from ATI or even the now "old" GeForce GTX 295. Those two GPUs are wickedly fast.
Quote:
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
The Xbox360 does use a triple core PowerPC G5. The PS3 uses a single core PowerPC G5 as the main CPU and 8 co-processors dubbed "SPE", one is disabled for redundancy (so they can sell you a defective one), another is dedicated to the OS. So you have 1 main CPU and 6 32-bit co-processors.
Plus, as another poster mentioned, the original Core Duo, a mobile processor, was faster than the G5 clock per clock. When the Core 2 Duo was released in 2006 before the PS3, it already ran circles around the "Cell". Compared to modern PCs, the current game consoles are pretty weak.
Quote:
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
The netbook segment is just one segment of the market. A netbook is always a companion computer too, never a primary system. Netbooks also have the highest return rate of any market. Why? Because people don't like how weak and pathetic the hardware is.
Quote:
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Yet gaming PCs always outperform gaming consoles.
Quote:
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Absolutely not true. That couldn't be further from the truth if you tried to make it so.
As its already been pointed out, the original Core Duo and Core 2 Duos ran circles around the PS3's Cell and the G5 core in the Xbox360.
The GPU in the PS3 is also nothing to write home about. If you compare the specs of the "RSX" to the GeForce 7 line that its derived from, you'll see that its basically nothing more than a GeForce 7600 with a little bit of a speed boost thanks to a couple of GeForce 7800 features. The GPU in the Xbox360 has more in common with an ATI X1900 series (same generation as the GeForce 7). But both are now nearly half a decade old and beaten by low-end GPUs of today.
Basically, any Core 2 Duo system running at 2.5GHz or better with a GeForce 8600 GT will outperform the PS3.
The Xbox360's GPU is a bit more high end and would require at least a GeForce 8800 GT to outperform.
Right now you can easily build a PC for around $600 that will just kick the consoles around without breaking a sweat.
For $900 or so you can build a Core i7 system that will have no problem keeping pace with the Nehalem based Xeon in the Mac Pro and a GPU that puts its packed-in GT 120 to shame.
Quote:
3D games need a fast/powerful processor and GPU, with a fast bus. The whole machine has to be equally fast. This produces heat, which requires elaborate cooling and makes it difficult to use in computers anymore.
Not even close to being true. The stock OEM heatsink and fan that ship with todays CPUs and GPUs cool the systems down just fine. The only time you will need more cooling is if you want the system to run cooler. But otherwise, the stock cooling solutions that ship with the parts work just fine.
Quote:
PC games would have to have a traumatic graphical advantage to justify it's expense
What expense? For $500-$600 you can build a PC that will stomp the consoles into the ground. Plus that PC can make you money by being your work machine, if your job is computer related.
Quote:
PS3 plays at 1080, and since one sits far away from the TV, even if the resolution was twice that it wouldn't matter as one's eyes couldn't see it. Only close up, like computer monitors, need higher resolutions.
Not even close to being true.
The vast majority of PS3 games are rendered at 720p (or lower) and scaled up to whatever resolution your display is set at. Some PS3 games are only rendered at 1024x640, like Grand Theft Auto 4. Only handful of graphically unimpressive games are rendered at true 1080p.
Quote:
Also I can put together a computer for $500 too, if I use a pirated copy of a OS and trade my time and labor with some guy in China who eats a bowl of rice per day.
An OEM (full version) of Windows is only around $100. Time and labor? Takes 15 minutes to put together a PC, another 45 or so to install ALL software and drivers.
Quote:
All things being equal, your going to be paying over $1000 for a decent 3D PC gaming rig and a $299 console with nearly the same quality is going to beat you in market share every time.
Again, not even close to true. PC gaming and console gaming are two very different markets. A $500-$600 PC will beat a console every single time in terms of performance and graphic fidelity as well as overall capabilities.
Quote:
Video cards might be soon become obsolete too. Home builders could be going the way of the dinosaur for cheap, mass produced computers.
You can thank those home builders for the hardware we have today. If not for the speed war their overclocking in the late 90s sparked, we would still be stuck with slow as snail PowerPC and Pentium 4 chips.
One thing a lot of people seem to neglect is that one could have both a 9400M and a discrete GPU, meaning if the drivers were written properly, one could harness additional power from two GPUs not just one under SL. Having an Intel chipset would mean you could at best harness 1.5 GPUs if Intel made it possible to use multiple GPUs at the same time in a way that the 9400M allows, which is unlikely. So yeah this is bad news for the future of performance unless Intel steps up.
This is Intel wanting to take over the graphics chip market with their integrated graphics.
Expect future Mac's to have considerably less performance, this move is forcing Apple's hand but the writing on the wall has been there for quite some time since AMD bought ATI.
PC 3D gaming is nearly dead anyway in favor of consoles.
I keep hearing that with every new console generation...
I don't think nVidia and ATI would keep investing in new 3D hardware in case of imminent PC gaming death. Yet new DX11 parts from ATI look good, and even more recently announced parts from nVidia.
Consoles might be moving bigger numbers, but saying that PC gaming is dead is almost the same to saying that Mac is dead because PC segment is moving bigger numbers.
Guess this means the end of the road for integrated chips in macbooks. Sounds like great news, let intel stagnate and kill the integrated market. Plus this will give a much needed boost for AMD.
Didn't Apple invest (buy) in a company to make their own chips at some point? Nvidia is just shooting themselves in the foot.
nVidia has to do the analysis, weigh the cost of staying in the business against the reward. They know they'll lose that business if they can't sell those chips to Apple. It seems silly to suggest otherwise.
If nVidia can't get that license, do you think Apple can? Apple cannot build a chipset for an Intel processor unless Intel licenses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
Wouldn't it be better if they stopped using the integrated graphics anyway, and moved to discreet cards in all macs?
Only the cheapest iMac is integrated-only. The next model up and above have a discrete chip too. Not everyone needs a discrete graphics chip, it may be safe to say that most don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Having owned Mac towers, I've found the Nvidia cards better made than ATI ones.
Speaking of which, has anyone had the X1900 (the one in the first gen Mac Pro) last longer than a year? Mine fried, and a few months later, the replacement fried too. It seems to be kind of common. The questions body language of the Apple Genius I dealt with seemed to suggest that it's almost expected or that it's disproportionately common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Wrong, actually... It's not nearly dead, or on the way out or anything.
Does anyone have actual sales figures for game sales by platform? Anecdotes are failures. For one, it completely ignores MMOs, I think WOW makes Blizzard billions a year. Then there's Steam. All the consoles have DLC too. So basing the market on what you see in a given B&M retail store doesn't cut it. Not only that, there are plenty of PC games at Best Buy and Walmart. If you combine all the consoles, sure, they beat the PCs, but the PC is one platform for games, each console is also its own platform. Comparing the combined size of three platforms vs. one is an unbalanced comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Sorry to bring this up again but I guess I'm not going to be playing Diablo III on a MBP at the rate things are going?
Which MBP? I guess they are all called "Pro", except for the white holdovers. All 17" models and the 15" above the $1699 model have discrete graphics chips.
I had a feeling of such so thanks for the reassurance Jeff. The one response earlier about future MBPs becoming glossy glorified netbooks (even if it was just an opinion) had me a tad worried.
I must admit I trust Intel chipsets more. When I was home building my PC I deliberately chose a motherboard with Intel chipset over the alternatives, despite the initial lack of SLI.
This news sucks IMO. NVIDIA IGPs were and are quite acceptable. Now we'll have Intel IGPs which won't provide nearly as good performance.
My prediction: Mac Minis and MacBooks will use Intel IGPs when they move to Nehalem cpus (i3 or i5 mobile). They will not be able to leverage OCL using the gpu. MBs and Minis will probably get price cuts. The mini and MB will be Apple's version of a netbook and net top. More capable and a better user experience than pc netbooks and net tops but also more expensive than a pc net book/net top and less capable than a 'real' Mac.
MBPs and iMacs will move to dedicated gpu in all versions. MBPs and iMacs will stay about the same in cost owing to the added cost of gpus. In fact I can now envision OCL and GCD as software keys that unlock the features of the 'pro' machines that distinguish them from the 'consumer' machines. The iMac doesn't cleanly fit into this scenario. I guess this would move it upstream and make it an entry level pro machine and prosumer Mac.
Oh, and I predict that machines, especially minis, that have the 9400m IGPs will be highly sought after. They may sell at a premium on eBay and will sell quickly as refurbs.
apple buy amd+ati. Ati has always had the superior gfx and had apple bought amd a couple of years ago they'd easily be comparable if not superior to intel right now. Pity. That said it's never too late, amd is probably the best bargain in terms of price right now in the tec world. This will further enable apple to cut costs way lower down and have their own desktop cpus again, boy would that be great.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Wait, what? Let me get this straight, you seem to think that because clock speeds have dropped compared to the netburst (P4) era cpu clock e-penis race days that cpus are less powerful?
Even ignoring multi-core, clock speed is quite possibly the worst measurement of cpu performance, ignoring bus bandwidth, cache (size and relation), operations per clock, memory interconnects and allocation, etc.
Computer processors (and, what do you think the procs in the game systems are anyway) have gotten significantly faster, even just comparing single core machines. If I disable all but one core on my MP I promise you it will be faster than a single core of the G5-based proc in the xbox360.
Moreover, 3d performance is generally offloaded to the GPU, most games these days (console *or* pc) are not cpu bound, they are gpu bound, and considering consoles do not get gpu upgrades and have much longer generations than computers.... I wouldnt be surprised if most integrated graphics today outperform the xbox360s GPU (though I dont have benchmark numbers for that).
Quote:
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Repeat after me, "heat != performance". Write that 30 times on the board. the POWER5 series ran *hotter* than POWER5+/6 while delivering less performance/watt.
Quote:
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Well, they are trending towards a better power balance of perf/watt if that's what you mean. We've stopped seeing a massive push to diminishing returns on clock pumping, but performance is still definitely going up. A netbook with a 1.6ghz atom is much faster at nearly anything than the 1.5ghz pentium m-based d600 sitting next to me right now.
Quote:
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Actually console design is starting to look far more like a general computer design than it did a couple generations ago. The architectures are more similar, the programming techniques are too. All a console is these days is basically a memory-strapped computer running a specialized, stripped down, fairly lean OS (and yes, the xbox uses an NT kernel).
On the plus side there are more resources than on the same hardware in a general computer to devote to gaming. On the minus side, a computer would have *far* more resources.
Quote:
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Bull. My "gaming" machine is a first gen core duo machine with a geforce 7 series card in it (dont generally game on my MP, though I do sometimes, it has a bigger screen hooked up :-p). Works fine for my needs, but if I wanted to I could pick up a pc for a few hundred with a modern graphics card that would blow it, and any current gen console, away.
You should remember one thing though, a computer *is* often pushing more pixels at a far higher res screen, that increases workload and decreases performance, whereas a console is usually hooked up to a tv at a max currently of 1080p resolution.
Does ATI have any sort of a comparable solution to the NVIDIA system boards?
ATI's integrated graphics are better than Nvidia's. There's just one problem: those ATI IGPs reside in AMD chipsets. They will never work with Intel processors.
Had to repost this from another forum. I don't 100% agree with it, but it sums up the situation nicely. Nvidia is in a bit of a pickle. They're not doomed yet, but, in some pickle.
"PR Spinning Merely Clouds That Nvidia is Toast
By burpnrun on 10/9/2009 12:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
Nvidia can spin it anyway they like, but they are out of the new AMD and Intel chipset business. The "suspended" spin is so that their common shares don't tank overnight on the stock exchanges.
They are in the process of getting eaten alive by AMD in the discrete (add-in) graphics card business. The 58xx, 57xx, etc., new products from AMD mean Nvidia can't produce competing chipsets profitably ... a sure way to lose money quickly. But the discrete card business isn't that big anyways, the volumes are in the integrated chipset (with on-board GPU) business. Nvidia is getting eaten alive by both Intel and AMD there too, with both moving to put more of the integrated GPU functionality into the CPU.
Nvidia doesn't make CPUs and VIA's not an option. Shipments of Nvidia's ION can only be measured with an electron microscope. The new Nvidia Fermi chipset is humungously huge, expensive to make and price competitively, and isn't an x86-compatible processor if one want's to look at it that way. There's no software for it. Remember, applications drive adoption (or why else would everyone write for Windows which is pure x86.32&64?).
Nvidia has massively alienated the OEM and AIB (add-in board) partners through seriously flawed 8xxx and 9xxx (and some 2xx) series cards, including mobile chipsets. Apple, Sony, HP, Dell ... and more ... all hit by massive customer dissatisfaction & high return/repair rates. If you want to see the grisly details, surf over to semiaccurate.com and search on "bumpgate".
No, Nvidia is in a world of hurt, shortly to be joined in hurt world by their stock shareholders. All they can do is spin, spin, spin. The upcoming GT21x series are merely shrunk rebadges of 9500 - 9800's. Wow. What development prowess, eh? "Just wait until GT3xx days", cry fanbois? What, more re-labelled 9800 and 9600 chips? Bummer.
Lousy management, "whoop-ass" testosterone (and hugely misguided) postures of the CEO, and an unfortunate series of setbacks at the chipset foundry have finally reduced this mouthy, technology-leading, profit-milking company to "also ran" status in the period of two years. Quite a record of "accomplishment". Quite a "temporary suspension". No wonder they have been trying to shop the company for some time now (i.e., "for sale")."
Oh man would that ever be a welcome move for me. NVIDIA tends to cut corners on their cards.
What ATI has lacked in 3D performance they always made up for with the efficiency of their video hardware decoding.
Does ATI have any sort of a comparable solution to the NVIDIA system boards?
ATI now has the performance crown with their 40nm 5870 and 5850. For single-GPU cards, they are the fastest, ever. Soon out will be 40nm 5770 and 5750. So right now, ATI is not lacking in 3D performance in any way. It's Nvidia that is struggling with their 55nm rebranded stuff. And a die-shrink but essentially same tech from 55nm to 40nm with their GT220.
In the mid range whatever Nvidia has can compete with ATI's 40nm card series on a price and performance basis but involves Nvidia cutting prices, doing die shrinks, improving clock speeds, rebranding and so on. Short term survival moves.
AMD/ATI now focuses on motherboard chipsets for AMD CPUs.
Apparently Nvidia will stop making chipsets for AMD CPUs. Gigabyte now lists its mobos for AMD socket AM3 as completely based on AMD/ATI chipsets.
I think Nvidia chipset motherboards for socket AM3 and above will start to dwindle out.
As for Intel... Now, it looks like soon (beyond Core2) no one will make chipsets for Intel CPUs other than Intel.
Nvidia had a good run with their 6, 7, 8600 and 9600 cards and associated tech. Profitable, affordable, good performance. Then they screwed it up with all those soldering or what not ("google bumpgate") problems. The GTX260, 285 and 295 is definitely impressive on the high-end and they cut prices and rebranded the 8/9 series as GT-something 100 to 200-something. So up to this point, Nvidia is still in the game. But looking 3 to 6 months, If I were an Nvidia employee (I'm not, despite the username -- LOL long story) ... I'd be polishing up my resume and getting connections and recommendations on linkedin.com
Comments
As mentioned, PC games, and console games for that matter, are moving to digital distribution. The reason store shelves are filled with console games is because the used game market makes the retailers more money, and you can't resell a PC game.
That might have some influence, but the main reason is consoles are easier and cheaper than PC gaming machines, thus there are more customers buying console games.
Less powerful than what, exactly? I'm sure a single Nehalem core can beat a single Xenon core any day of the week. Or a single core of any other consumer processor.
3D games need a fast/powerful processor and GPU, with a fast bus. The whole machine has to be equally fast. This produces heat, which requires elaborate cooling and makes it difficult to use in computers anymore.
As I'm sure you know, even the initial Core Duo processors were faster per clock than the PPC970, and the SPEs of the Cell are certainly not comparable to a fully featured core. The graphics cards in the consoles are almost four generations old. Frankly, it's silly to expect a $200 box to be able to outperform a $1000 gaming PC.
Your debating apples and oranges.
Perhaps so, but that is a different market segment. Why would a gamer trend toward a netbook? They're a cheap novelty.
He trends for a netbook because he doesn't need a PC gaming rig anymore, the console is a better value and the quality is just about the same.
PC games would have to have a traumatic graphical advantage to justify it's expense.
Not unless you're still living in 2002. The current trend is for consoles to act as media extenders and/or media hubs.
Just extra features, not it's core purpose, still it usually does one thing at once very well and that's 3D gaming.
Really? I can put together a computer for less than $500 that can beat today's consoles on performance, crappy console ports aside. Remember, the Xbox 360 and PS3 play at low to medium resolutions.
PS3 plays at 1080, and since one sits far away from the TV, even if the resolution was twice that it wouldn't matter as one's eyes couldn't see it. Only close up, like computer monitors, need higher resolutions.
Also I can put together a computer for $500 too, if I use a pirated copy of a OS and trade my time and labor with some guy in China who eats a bowl of rice per day.
All things being equal, your going to be paying over $1000 for a decent 3D PC gaming rig and a $299 console with nearly the same quality is going to beat you in market share every time.
Video cards might be soon become obsolete too. Home builders could be going the way of the dinosaur for cheap, mass produced computers.
Cry Baby's. Build a better chipset.
Cry Babies. Cry Baby's is possessive.
On another note, though there is no actual performance data yet, the integrated on package graphics chip that Intel will be debuting does appear at least on paper to be pretty formidable. I would expect (and hope) for graphics performance similar to what we already have with MCP79..
Whatever happens, Apple will not release a reworked Mini that is inferior in performance in any way to the current model. There is no incentive for that to happen.
If Intel forces Apple into a position of having to accept inferior performance, Apple will explore its options and Intel will be cast aside, just as IBM was.
On the other hand, if Intel's integrated graphics solution is able to perform at least as well as the 9400M and the overall user experience with Apple products equipped with Intel's components is decent enough, there is no issue.
Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
PC gaming is certainly not dying or on its way out. Its a completely different market than console games with games that appeal to different people than those who play console games.
Plus those used games stores like Gamestop and such make truckloads of money off used games sales, which they don't allow for PC games, as well as accessories for consoles. So its natural for them to push console games more than PC games.
Plus PC game sales have mostly moved online. PC gamers are smart enough to know that buying a game online WITH shipping is generally cheaper than buying it from the store, plus there are various digital distribution systems out there (Steam is just one) that allow you to buy the game and play it nearly instantly.
Also, when I walk into Walmart, I see PC gaming section that is just as large as the entire console gaming section. When I walk into Fry's I see a PC gaming section that is actually larger than the console section. When I go into Best Buy I see two full rows of PC games, as much as the Xbox360, PS3, and Wii combined.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Computer processors are less powerful now? Are you kidding me? The Core i7 desktop and notebook processors are the fastest CPUs on the market. They run circles around everything else. A 1.6GHz Core i7 notebook processor keeps pace with an old 2.53GHz Core 2 Quad processor. The 2GHz version mops the floor with the old Core 2 Quad. The Core i7 desktop CPUs tend to outperform the Core 2 Quad desktop series by double in nearly every benchmark. Computer processors are getting faster, not slower.
Look at GPUs as well. Look at the newest from ATI or even the now "old" GeForce GTX 295. Those two GPUs are wickedly fast.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
The Xbox360 does use a triple core PowerPC G5. The PS3 uses a single core PowerPC G5 as the main CPU and 8 co-processors dubbed "SPE", one is disabled for redundancy (so they can sell you a defective one), another is dedicated to the OS. So you have 1 main CPU and 6 32-bit co-processors.
Plus, as another poster mentioned, the original Core Duo, a mobile processor, was faster than the G5 clock per clock. When the Core 2 Duo was released in 2006 before the PS3, it already ran circles around the "Cell". Compared to modern PCs, the current game consoles are pretty weak.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
The netbook segment is just one segment of the market. A netbook is always a companion computer too, never a primary system. Netbooks also have the highest return rate of any market. Why? Because people don't like how weak and pathetic the hardware is.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Yet gaming PCs always outperform gaming consoles.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Absolutely not true. That couldn't be further from the truth if you tried to make it so.
As its already been pointed out, the original Core Duo and Core 2 Duos ran circles around the PS3's Cell and the G5 core in the Xbox360.
The GPU in the PS3 is also nothing to write home about. If you compare the specs of the "RSX" to the GeForce 7 line that its derived from, you'll see that its basically nothing more than a GeForce 7600 with a little bit of a speed boost thanks to a couple of GeForce 7800 features. The GPU in the Xbox360 has more in common with an ATI X1900 series (same generation as the GeForce 7). But both are now nearly half a decade old and beaten by low-end GPUs of today.
Basically, any Core 2 Duo system running at 2.5GHz or better with a GeForce 8600 GT will outperform the PS3.
The Xbox360's GPU is a bit more high end and would require at least a GeForce 8800 GT to outperform.
Right now you can easily build a PC for around $600 that will just kick the consoles around without breaking a sweat.
For $900 or so you can build a Core i7 system that will have no problem keeping pace with the Nehalem based Xeon in the Mac Pro and a GPU that puts its packed-in GT 120 to shame.
3D games need a fast/powerful processor and GPU, with a fast bus. The whole machine has to be equally fast. This produces heat, which requires elaborate cooling and makes it difficult to use in computers anymore.
Not even close to being true. The stock OEM heatsink and fan that ship with todays CPUs and GPUs cool the systems down just fine. The only time you will need more cooling is if you want the system to run cooler. But otherwise, the stock cooling solutions that ship with the parts work just fine.
PC games would have to have a traumatic graphical advantage to justify it's expense
What expense? For $500-$600 you can build a PC that will stomp the consoles into the ground. Plus that PC can make you money by being your work machine, if your job is computer related.
PS3 plays at 1080, and since one sits far away from the TV, even if the resolution was twice that it wouldn't matter as one's eyes couldn't see it. Only close up, like computer monitors, need higher resolutions.
Not even close to being true.
The vast majority of PS3 games are rendered at 720p (or lower) and scaled up to whatever resolution your display is set at. Some PS3 games are only rendered at 1024x640, like Grand Theft Auto 4. Only handful of graphically unimpressive games are rendered at true 1080p.
Also I can put together a computer for $500 too, if I use a pirated copy of a OS and trade my time and labor with some guy in China who eats a bowl of rice per day.
An OEM (full version) of Windows is only around $100. Time and labor? Takes 15 minutes to put together a PC, another 45 or so to install ALL software and drivers.
All things being equal, your going to be paying over $1000 for a decent 3D PC gaming rig and a $299 console with nearly the same quality is going to beat you in market share every time.
Again, not even close to true. PC gaming and console gaming are two very different markets. A $500-$600 PC will beat a console every single time in terms of performance and graphic fidelity as well as overall capabilities.
Video cards might be soon become obsolete too. Home builders could be going the way of the dinosaur for cheap, mass produced computers.
You can thank those home builders for the hardware we have today. If not for the speed war their overclocking in the late 90s sparked, we would still be stuck with slow as snail PowerPC and Pentium 4 chips.
This is Intel wanting to take over the graphics chip market with their integrated graphics.
Expect future Mac's to have considerably less performance, this move is forcing Apple's hand but the writing on the wall has been there for quite some time since AMD bought ATI.
PC 3D gaming is nearly dead anyway in favor of consoles.
I keep hearing that with every new console generation...
I don't think nVidia and ATI would keep investing in new 3D hardware in case of imminent PC gaming death. Yet new DX11 parts from ATI look good, and even more recently announced parts from nVidia.
Consoles might be moving bigger numbers, but saying that PC gaming is dead is almost the same to saying that Mac is dead because PC segment is moving bigger numbers.
They simply make a GPU with IO and connect it with PCI-Express 8x.
It will be basically the same as a Chipset, except it will have its own Memory Controller.
Think of it as GPU + IO rather then IO Chipset + Graphics.
The major problem is, Intel refuse to make an Low End Dual Core Nahalem CPU without IGFX.
It doesn't matter. Nvidia will still make a Chipset, just abit differently.
They simply make a GPU with IO and connect it with PCI-Express 8x.
It will be basically the same as a Chipset, except it will have its own Memory Controller.
Think of it as GPU + IO rather then IO Chipset + Graphics.
The major problem is, Intel refuse to make an Low End Dual Core Nahalem CPU without IGFX.
not only that is it tied the built in pci-e bus.
Didn't Apple invest (buy) in a company to make their own chips at some point? Nvidia is just shooting themselves in the foot.
nVidia has to do the analysis, weigh the cost of staying in the business against the reward. They know they'll lose that business if they can't sell those chips to Apple. It seems silly to suggest otherwise.
If nVidia can't get that license, do you think Apple can? Apple cannot build a chipset for an Intel processor unless Intel licenses it.
Wouldn't it be better if they stopped using the integrated graphics anyway, and moved to discreet cards in all macs?
Only the cheapest iMac is integrated-only. The next model up and above have a discrete chip too. Not everyone needs a discrete graphics chip, it may be safe to say that most don't.
Having owned Mac towers, I've found the Nvidia cards better made than ATI ones.
Speaking of which, has anyone had the X1900 (the one in the first gen Mac Pro) last longer than a year? Mine fried, and a few months later, the replacement fried too. It seems to be kind of common. The questions body language of the Apple Genius I dealt with seemed to suggest that it's almost expected or that it's disproportionately common.
Wrong, actually... It's not nearly dead, or on the way out or anything.
Does anyone have actual sales figures for game sales by platform? Anecdotes are failures. For one, it completely ignores MMOs, I think WOW makes Blizzard billions a year. Then there's Steam. All the consoles have DLC too. So basing the market on what you see in a given B&M retail store doesn't cut it. Not only that, there are plenty of PC games at Best Buy and Walmart. If you combine all the consoles, sure, they beat the PCs, but the PC is one platform for games, each console is also its own platform. Comparing the combined size of three platforms vs. one is an unbalanced comparison.
Which MBP? I guess they are all called "Pro", except for the white holdovers. All 17" models and the 15" above the $1699 model have discrete graphics chips.
My prediction: Mac Minis and MacBooks will use Intel IGPs when they move to Nehalem cpus (i3 or i5 mobile). They will not be able to leverage OCL using the gpu. MBs and Minis will probably get price cuts. The mini and MB will be Apple's version of a netbook and net top. More capable and a better user experience than pc netbooks and net tops but also more expensive than a pc net book/net top and less capable than a 'real' Mac.
MBPs and iMacs will move to dedicated gpu in all versions. MBPs and iMacs will stay about the same in cost owing to the added cost of gpus. In fact I can now envision OCL and GCD as software keys that unlock the features of the 'pro' machines that distinguish them from the 'consumer' machines. The iMac doesn't cleanly fit into this scenario. I guess this would move it upstream and make it an entry level pro machine and prosumer Mac.
Oh, and I predict that machines, especially minis, that have the 9400m IGPs will be highly sought after. They may sell at a premium on eBay and will sell quickly as refurbs.
Let's see...
Maybe ATI can step up?
Oh man would that ever be a welcome move for me. NVIDIA tends to cut corners on their cards.
What ATI has lacked in 3D performance they always made up for with the efficiency of their video hardware decoding.
Does ATI have any sort of a comparable solution to the NVIDIA system boards?
Yes it is.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Wait, what? Let me get this straight, you seem to think that because clock speeds have dropped compared to the netburst (P4) era cpu clock e-penis race days that cpus are less powerful?
Even ignoring multi-core, clock speed is quite possibly the worst measurement of cpu performance, ignoring bus bandwidth, cache (size and relation), operations per clock, memory interconnects and allocation, etc.
Computer processors (and, what do you think the procs in the game systems are anyway) have gotten significantly faster, even just comparing single core machines. If I disable all but one core on my MP I promise you it will be faster than a single core of the G5-based proc in the xbox360.
Moreover, 3d performance is generally offloaded to the GPU, most games these days (console *or* pc) are not cpu bound, they are gpu bound, and considering consoles do not get gpu upgrades and have much longer generations than computers.... I wouldnt be surprised if most integrated graphics today outperform the xbox360s GPU (though I dont have benchmark numbers for that).
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
Repeat after me, "heat != performance". Write that 30 times on the board. the POWER5 series ran *hotter* than POWER5+/6 while delivering less performance/watt.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
Well, they are trending towards a better power balance of perf/watt if that's what you mean. We've stopped seeing a massive push to diminishing returns on clock pumping, but performance is still definitely going up. A netbook with a 1.6ghz atom is much faster at nearly anything than the 1.5ghz pentium m-based d600 sitting next to me right now.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Actually console design is starting to look far more like a general computer design than it did a couple generations ago. The architectures are more similar, the programming techniques are too. All a console is these days is basically a memory-strapped computer running a specialized, stripped down, fairly lean OS (and yes, the xbox uses an NT kernel).
On the plus side there are more resources than on the same hardware in a general computer to devote to gaming. On the minus side, a computer would have *far* more resources.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Bull. My "gaming" machine is a first gen core duo machine with a geforce 7 series card in it (dont generally game on my MP, though I do sometimes, it has a bigger screen hooked up :-p). Works fine for my needs, but if I wanted to I could pick up a pc for a few hundred with a modern graphics card that would blow it, and any current gen console, away.
You should remember one thing though, a computer *is* often pushing more pixels at a far higher res screen, that increases workload and decreases performance, whereas a console is usually hooked up to a tv at a max currently of 1080p resolution.
I know I probably just got trolled....
Does ATI have any sort of a comparable solution to the NVIDIA system boards?
ATI's integrated graphics are better than Nvidia's. There's just one problem: those ATI IGPs reside in AMD chipsets. They will never work with Intel processors.
"PR Spinning Merely Clouds That Nvidia is Toast
By burpnrun on 10/9/2009 12:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
Nvidia can spin it anyway they like, but they are out of the new AMD and Intel chipset business. The "suspended" spin is so that their common shares don't tank overnight on the stock exchanges.
They are in the process of getting eaten alive by AMD in the discrete (add-in) graphics card business. The 58xx, 57xx, etc., new products from AMD mean Nvidia can't produce competing chipsets profitably ... a sure way to lose money quickly. But the discrete card business isn't that big anyways, the volumes are in the integrated chipset (with on-board GPU) business. Nvidia is getting eaten alive by both Intel and AMD there too, with both moving to put more of the integrated GPU functionality into the CPU.
Nvidia doesn't make CPUs and VIA's not an option. Shipments of Nvidia's ION can only be measured with an electron microscope. The new Nvidia Fermi chipset is humungously huge, expensive to make and price competitively, and isn't an x86-compatible processor if one want's to look at it that way. There's no software for it. Remember, applications drive adoption (or why else would everyone write for Windows which is pure x86.32&64?).
Nvidia has massively alienated the OEM and AIB (add-in board) partners through seriously flawed 8xxx and 9xxx (and some 2xx) series cards, including mobile chipsets. Apple, Sony, HP, Dell ... and more ... all hit by massive customer dissatisfaction & high return/repair rates. If you want to see the grisly details, surf over to semiaccurate.com and search on "bumpgate".
No, Nvidia is in a world of hurt, shortly to be joined in hurt world by their stock shareholders. All they can do is spin, spin, spin. The upcoming GT21x series are merely shrunk rebadges of 9500 - 9800's. Wow. What development prowess, eh? "Just wait until GT3xx days", cry fanbois? What, more re-labelled 9800 and 9600 chips? Bummer.
Lousy management, "whoop-ass" testosterone (and hugely misguided) postures of the CEO, and an unfortunate series of setbacks at the chipset foundry have finally reduced this mouthy, technology-leading, profit-milking company to "also ran" status in the period of two years. Quite a record of "accomplishment". Quite a "temporary suspension". No wonder they have been trying to shop the company for some time now (i.e., "for sale")."
Oh man would that ever be a welcome move for me. NVIDIA tends to cut corners on their cards.
What ATI has lacked in 3D performance they always made up for with the efficiency of their video hardware decoding.
Does ATI have any sort of a comparable solution to the NVIDIA system boards?
ATI now has the performance crown with their 40nm 5870 and 5850. For single-GPU cards, they are the fastest, ever. Soon out will be 40nm 5770 and 5750. So right now, ATI is not lacking in 3D performance in any way. It's Nvidia that is struggling with their 55nm rebranded stuff. And a die-shrink but essentially same tech from 55nm to 40nm with their GT220.
In the mid range whatever Nvidia has can compete with ATI's 40nm card series on a price and performance basis but involves Nvidia cutting prices, doing die shrinks, improving clock speeds, rebranding and so on. Short term survival moves.
AMD/ATI now focuses on motherboard chipsets for AMD CPUs.
Apparently Nvidia will stop making chipsets for AMD CPUs. Gigabyte now lists its mobos for AMD socket AM3 as completely based on AMD/ATI chipsets.
I think Nvidia chipset motherboards for socket AM3 and above will start to dwindle out.
As for Intel... Now, it looks like soon (beyond Core2) no one will make chipsets for Intel CPUs other than Intel.
Nvidia had a good run with their 6, 7, 8600 and 9600 cards and associated tech. Profitable, affordable, good performance. Then they screwed it up with all those soldering or what not ("google bumpgate") problems. The GTX260, 285 and 295 is definitely impressive on the high-end and they cut prices and rebranded the 8/9 series as GT-something 100 to 200-something. So up to this point, Nvidia is still in the game. But looking 3 to 6 months, If I were an Nvidia employee (I'm not, despite the username -- LOL long story) ... I'd be polishing up my resume and getting connections and recommendations on linkedin.com