the beauty of something like a SR-X is VT-d, you can run a dual 2687 xeon setup with 4 gtx-690s, or a complement of GPUs, say 2 690s, 4 7970s and a firepro or quadro, then build VMs with allocated GPU power, game A runs well with crossfire? load up 3 7970s into your VM and game away, while using the 690s for compute of a render, and take no performance hit for either application
what makes me sad is that the few people with an SR-X build take advantage of almost none of it's capability, most end up being show builds, but that is something that a console wont match, not at least for a few more generations
and as for graphics and smoothness, consoles have never really matched PC, but they are better for simply gaming, or at least they used to, it used to be you just put your game in and played, but now with constant downloading of patches and updates, and dealing with hard drive space, there really is no advantage to using a console anymore
I actually know how it works.
And while future gaming will likely get multi-core support, we're not there yet so I can only take that into account; More threads won't make it better for gaming. It will however probably make the CPUs have good enough bandwidth to not limit the GPUs though.
And I'd say consoles were more than competetive in their early cycles.
I'm not saying they'll be superior for years and years, but for maybe the first 6 months, the console experience might surprise a few.
Last edited by Butler to Baby Sloths; 2013-01-04 at 12:29 AM.
||i5 3570k @ 4.4GHz||H100 push/pull||AsRock Z77 Extreme4||16Gb G.Skill Ripjaws 1600MHz||Gigabyte Windforce GTX 970|| Coolermaster Storm Trooper||Corsair TX850 Enthusiast Series||Samsung 840 Pro 128gb(boot drive)||1TB WD HDD, 2x 3TB WD HDD, 2TB WD HDD||
Bdk Nagrand / Astae Nagrand
Pokemon X FC: 4656-7679-2545/Trainer Name: Keno
I am by no means a console gamer, so I don't know much about how things work, but does the limited hardware in consoles not force game developers to come up with more efficient code and have the pc world not gained from that?
Yes and no. While the code may be more efficient for consoles, the almost universal truth is that when they port to PC the job they do is sloppy, to say the least.
Look at GTA IV, which was terribly unoptimized for normal hardware. Or Skyrim, whose interface is absolutely terrible, and whose texture quality was originally clearly just ported from the console version, rather than taking a higher resolution version.
And then there's Dark Soul, which is abhorrent for keyboard and mouse, it's limited to a stupid low resolution as well, and runs GFWL on PC. I also assume that with this poor quality of porting the game was also littered with bugs, but I can't claim familiarity to that. (Though many of the issues were fixed by community, IIRC.)
Saw these on reddit:
http://imgur.com/a/W5tg2#0
Pretty damn awesome 10.40 dollars for 100 of em.
I like how the poster used a bunch of them, but the cable management still looked like crap...
The front is what "matters", but I think the biggest achievement is getting it clean on both sides.
One of the biggest culprits was the latest Duke Nukem release, which clearly had absolutely nothing done to it other than making it able to be run on PC.
I would also like some of those attachable management loops, I found that there weren't enough of them in my Arc, which led to my cable management being frustrating (even considering I hadn't done cable management in years) :/
Last edited by Butler to Baby Sloths; 2013-01-04 at 05:54 PM.
I would probably say Darkness 2 was a bigger culprit with the whole FoV issue...but more or less ALL console ports are culprits.
You can immediately tell when the PC playerbase has to jump in and figure out all the console commands to increase the FoV (why can't devs understand PC needs HIGHER FUCKING FOV), get graphics/textures running at higher resolutions, applying anti-aliasing, higher amounts of AF, etc etc. None of which are available on the ingame GUI.
I'm playing Mass Effect 2 (agaaaain!) and it astounds me how much better the game looks after about ~30 minutes of diving deep into all the shit that can be configured, along with a little help from player-made texture packs. The game also flawlessly supports FoV's of 100, but apparently Bioware couldn't figure this shit out:
Default:
100: (bonus - lets me see my shepherds as--I mean extra gun)
Last edited by Xuvial; 2013-01-04 at 09:00 PM.
WoW Character: Wintel - Frostmourne (OCE)
Gaming rig: i7 7700K, GTX 1080 Ti, 16GB DDR4, BenQ 144hz 1440p
Signature art courtesy of Blitzkatze
Yeah, it was absolutely ridiculous for me to look into ME3 and discover that the game, for all intents and purposes, looked like shit.
At least they thought to give PC gamers the option of a console input (was very useful in Skyrim for spawning NPCs or items that had bugged - and also useful for less constructive use, like spawning in 100 dragons or filling a pub with turnips). I wonder if they just thought "I can't be bothered fixing that for the few gamers that will buy the game for PC, I'll just give them access to a "GM" console so they can fix it themselves."
In other news, external PCI-E enclosures are coming...
That one only has a 250W PSU and drivers are an issue, but imagine if you had one with full PCI-E 2.0 16x or even PCI-E 3.0 - have a portable rendering box with a couple of graphics cards in it, or rather smaller enclosures for a portable PCI-E sound card to go with a portable beamer.
They've been showing concepts since early 2011, so about time they materialise.