New graphics. What should they do?

[dxfan94]

Ok so my last post wasnt even worth peoples while. But i was looking around and it looks like companies need to start thinking about this whole intel thing.

Heres the link to the article. It may change the gaming community forever and what Eidos needs to do to.

http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/669/f/9...0A/story01.htm

hopefully you all can get to it if not go google TechRadar In depth: game over for graphics cards

[K^2]

It all depends on what kind of support they'll get form MS and their DirectX and with the OpenGL. If at least one of these libraries will be compatible with new CPU architecture, then yes, it has a chance of making graphics cards obsolete. This did happen once with math co-processors. We'll see how it goes.

[jordan_a]

When I got to see the game working during my visit in Montréal, it was already very beautiful, yet a guy from the staff told me it was nothing compare to the final result!

[K^2]

Originally Posted by jordan_a

When I got to see the game working during my visit in Montréal, it was already very beautiful, yet a guy from the staff told me it was nothing compare to the final result!

Do you happen to know, and if you can disclose this, was it running on under DX9 or DX10?

[van_HellSing]

Who cares, as long as it's not DX10 only.

[Jerion]

Originally Posted by van_HellSing

Who cares, as long as it's not DX10 only.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it's DX10 only- by 2009 DX10 will be more commonplace. And face it- there would be zero animosity to DX10 if it wasn't tied to Vista and Vista didn't have so many unrelated issues.

[van_HellSing]

I said it before, I'll say it again. I haven't seen a single game that looks significantly better in DX10 than in DX9. At best, a bit different. Not better.

[DXeXodus]

I think sometimes it is not only a visual improvement, but a performance improvement that one gets by using DX10.

[Absentia]

I think its astounding that even by the time jordan came to visit, they were developing prototypes for the actual engine implementation. Considering how long they now have in their schedule to spend on actually making the game, that gives me some new-found positivity.

I love it but also can't bear to think that the new DX story, characters, perhaps even dialogue, has probably been created already. It's exciting and annoying at the same time =P OCTOBER 9TH GUUUISEE

[FrankCSIS]

About the OT; Considering Intel's past experience and partnerships with the industry I wouldn't bet all my stacks on this horse just yet, and I'd hate to be the first developers to sign a co-sponsor bill with them!

[gamer0004]

Originally Posted by Absentia

I think its astounding that even by the time jordan came to visit, they were developing prototypes for the actual engine implementation. Considering how long they now have in their schedule to spend on actually making the game, that gives me some new-found positivity.

I love it but also can't bear to think that the new DX story, characters, perhaps even dialogue, has probably been created already. It's exciting and annoying at the same time =P OCTOBER 9TH GUUUISEE

Remember DX:IW? They had a lot of time left for actually designing the game as well.

















Until they decided the UT 2000/2001 wasn't fancy enough for our lovable graphics loving console colleagues. Which of course cause at least some minor delays and definately cause huge framerate problems which they then "resolved" by making the maps smaller.

[K^2]

Originally Posted by DXeXodus

I think sometimes it is not only a visual improvement, but a performance improvement that one gets by using DX10.

If you want performance improvement, you don't use DirectX at all.

[van_HellSing]

gamer0004 - That's wrong. Flesh (the new renderer) was far from perfect and did cause some framerate problems, but it was not the reason for cutting the levels. That was because of the Xbox' limited RAM. No matter what renderer they used, the textures etc. for a larger level still wouldn't fit into the Xbox' memory.

[Jerion]

Originally Posted by K^2

If you want performance improvement, you don't use DirectX at all.

Nicely done.

[IH-Denton]

Like one man said: it's just numbers
Lets count smth...

near 2010 Intel will show us their new processor named Larrabee.
Larrabee containes 24 cores (although i think there will be more)
1 core will be tuned to 1 Teraflops of its performance
It means 24 Teraflops in one processor

Currently one graphics card (i talk about Ageia) has about 100 Gigaglops of performance
It means, that ONE Larrabee will show us performance approximately (24 000 / 100) of 240 graphics cards.

So, Nvidia and ATI will be pretty dead... soon

[K^2]

Look, every chip-manufacturer has developments several generations ahead of what is out there. Intel will need to build new factories for Larrabee. ATI and NVidia will simply have to drop some cash into building new factories for designs they have been holding back to make more money on things they already have on production.

Sure, it will be a loss to ATI and NVidia, but they will be far from bankrupt. They will keep making chips that will do as well or better than Larrabee, and have full OpenGL and DirectX support, which is still an open question for Larrabee.

Either way, of course, this is very good news for gamers, because we'll either get better tech or same tech for a lot less.

[dxfan94]

Originally Posted by IH-Denton

Like one man said: it's just numbers
Lets count smth...

near 2010 Intel will show us their new processor named Larrabee.
Larrabee containes 24 cores (although i think there will be more)
1 core will be tuned to 1 Teraflops of its performance
It means 24 Teraflops in one processor

Currently one graphics card (i talk about Ageia) has about 100 Gigaglops of performance
It means, that ONE Larrabee will show us performance approximately (24 000 / 100) of 240 graphics cards.

So, Nvidia and ATI will be pretty dead... soon

THANK YOU OMG !! SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAYS IT BETTER THAN ME

[minus0ne]

Originally Posted by IH-Denton

Like one man said: it's just numbers
Lets count smth...

near 2010 Intel will show us their new processor named Larrabee.
Larrabee containes 24 cores (although i think there will be more)
1 core will be tuned to 1 Teraflops of its performance
It means 24 Teraflops in one processor

A single 1Ghz Pentium core doing 1 Teraflops You should go work for The Inquirer.

Originally Posted by IH-Denton

Currently one graphics card (i talk about Ageia) has about 100 Gigaglops of performance
It means, that ONE Larrabee will show us performance approximately (24 000 / 100) of 240 graphics cards.

So, Nvidia and ATI will be pretty dead... soon

I'll just slap you out that weird dream you're having and tell you straight away that Larrabee is made to perform 2 Teraflops, or about the same as a Radeon HD 4870 X2, and it's a bloody miracle considering they're just taping together old 1Ghz Pentium cores onto a single chip. Larrabee is just Intel's way of getting into the GPGPU market (dominated by nVidia and AMD) and trying to push it to the masses.

[Jerion]

Originally Posted by minus0ne

A single 1Ghz Pentium core doing 1 Teraflops You should go work for The Inquirer.

I'll just slap you out that weird dream you're having and tell you straight away that Larrabee is made to perform 2 Teraflops, or about the same as a Radeon HD 4870 X2, and it's a bloody miracle considering they're just taping together old 1Ghz Pentium cores onto a single chip. Larrabee is just Intel's way of getting into the GPGPU market (dominated by nVidia and AMD) and trying to push it to the masses.

Ditto.

[IH-Denton]

All that info about 2 Tf is just another piece of unproven rumours, which was appropriately spreaded in blogs. The official presentation has been made only ones - on 7 march 2006 whith tiny bit of details (few-words-discussion on Siggraph on august 2008 was barred to public). Maybe i was wrong and 20 Tf is too "hot" for GPU at present day, but 2 Tf is too worthless and unrealistic for its 300W of TDP in 2010. Lets simply wait for a first release and tests of this proc. I dont want to play holywar here (=

ps: for people, who have some interest in formula for performance calculation:
F x n x i /1 000 000 = R
(F - frequency, n - number of processors, i - number of instructions, R - Teraflops)

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by K^2

If you want performance improvement, you don't use DirectX at all.

Originally Posted by DXeXodus

I think sometimes it is not only a visual improvement, but a performance improvement that one gets by using DX10.

I've bought two virtually identical laptops (the second had an extra 128mb of RAM). The first ran on XP, the second on Vista. DirectX10 does make a difference, notso much visually, but rather, on the speed as eXodus mentioned. There were a few games that barely ran on my first laptop (such as Supreme Commander), while on the second, ran very smoothly, almost never slowing down in framerate, save for when there were hundreds of units at once. And most games these days require DX8 or higher, so K^2, your comment isn't overly well thought out...

Originally Posted by Kieranator

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it's DX10 only- by 2009 DX10 will be more commonplace. And face it- there would be zero animosity to DX10 if it wasn't tied to Vista and Vista didn't have so many unrelated issues.

I doubt it will require DX10. Most games either had a low required DX, or provided you with a better DX anyways. Seeing as how DX10 wont run on XP, I don't think they could do that, as they'd cut their market down only to gamers running Vista or on console. Which is another good point, the 360 has DX9 (so assuming it's on consoles current-gen, you should be fine) and I don't know what the PS3 has. Long-story short, many, many people are still on XP, which means there's no way Eidos will cut themselves off from that market.

[Jerion]

Originally Posted by Romeo

I've bought two virtually identical laptops (the second had an extra 128mb of RAM). The first ran on XP, the second on Vista. DirectX10 does make a difference, notso much visually, but rather, on the speed as eXodus mentioned. There were a few games that barely ran on my first laptop (such as Supreme Commander), while on the second, ran very smoothly, almost never slowing down in framerate, save for when there were hundreds of units at once. And most games these days require DX8 or higher, so K^2, your comment isn't overly well thought out...

I doubt it will require DX10. Most games either had a low required DX, or provided you with a better DX anyways. Seeing as how DX10 wont run on XP, I don't think they could do that, as they'd cut their market down only to gamers running Vista or on console. Which is another good point, the 360 has DX9 (so assuming it's on consoles current-gen, you should be fine) and I don't know what the PS3 has. Long-story short, many, many people are still on XP, which means there's no way Eidos will cut themselves off from that market.

I think what he was saying is that OpenGL 2.x is superior to Direct3D, not that D3D 10 is superior to D3D 9.

What you say sounds reasonable. But XP is an aging OS, and it won't last forever.

[Romeo]

Oh, undoubtedly. But there's always a couple of years worth of overlap, and Vista is still in it's infancy. It wouldn't make sense cutting off the estiblashed market and hope for the emerging market. That's all I'm saying.

[Jerion]

Originally Posted by Romeo

Oh, undoubtedly. But there's always a couple of years worth of overlap, and Vista is still in it's infancy. It wouldn't make sense cutting off the estiblashed market and hope for the emerging market. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed. Halo 2 Vista made that mistake and it cost MS dearly.

[Romeo]

Yeah, I don't even understand how one of the richest companies on Earth makes such a juvenile mistake like that.