Slimebeast said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
It will be a while before the average PC sets itself apart from the HD console.
Sure the top PC already do, but not every PC gamer has a 250$ graphic card.
+ lets not forget that PC runs game at 1600x1200 and consoles run them at a much lower resolution...
Average Dell PC ( I mean the 600-700$ PC)you can buy these days has a NVidia 8600 GT which while being better than what you find in HD consoles isn't that much better when you factor the higher resolution it has to run at compared to HD consoles.
Sure you can have a lot more graphic power running 8800 SLI but not that many people do.......
|
YOu don't realize how fast pcs advance do you? A year from now most pcs will be getting the integrated Cpu and Gpu in one processor which is suppose to make the average processor advance enough to play most games of the current. pcs advance really fast, they are already starting to set apart from consoles with games like far cry 2 running so poorly on consoles compared to pc. I belieive this could be good and bad. There will be more than just pc ports for my hd consoles, and my purchase woul dhave been more worth it, but not as many pc games for other people who like them to play on consoles. |
First of all there is no evidence that integrated/fusion GPU/CPUs will have anywhere near the performance needed for modern games. By all logic their GPU-power will be very crappy, just less-crappy than the power in integrated chips we have today. Second, your time guess. "A year from now" is just that, guessing. There's hardly any info about AMD's Fusion-project at all, and even less so on Intel's. Third, even if the time guess would become reality, mass market integrated/fusion GPUs would cripple PC-engines and their use of the latest graphics effects! Don't u see the logic? The PC games today are cutting edge because of the fact that the mass market adopted the use of dedicated GPUs, and thus are having a lot of horse-power for advanced 3D graphics. Cheap fusion GPU/CPU-solutions are actually a threat against PC devs putting resources on creating cutting edge advanced game engines. |
First of all like you said we know very little about these projects, but then say it will cripple it more than help conflicting with your first argument. I will also ask why intel and amd will go this direction and even say it will help more than hinder if they already if it will hinder more than help. Who said we will lose the dedicated gpu option anyway? Who even said they won't make a dedidcated line of these chips for the high end pc gamers? Like you said we know very little about it. I also remember reading somewhere that amd mentioned that they were hoping for the first chip to be released in 09 , but I'm not too sure. And that is still not relevant to my point anyway. Pcs advance quickly. Last year it would have costed me $200 dollars to play crysis, this year it costs $500 and crysis seems to be getting maxed with pc around the $1000 dollar mark and even lower. The ps3 and even more so the xbox 360 rely alot on pc games for their 3rd party, and after they lose this we will either see a decrease in support, or more games designed for the consoles excusively.
