Misconceptions about PC gaming.

[Jumplion]

Woo! The "Misconceptions of PC Gaming" thread is back! Woo!

 

[Danny Ocean]

I've edited the first post to include a point on Crysis, since I did say I was going to anyway, when I first typed it up.

Damn responsibilities, making me work my typing hands to the bone...*mumble mumble*

 

[Jumplion]

One thing I have thought up of is that in PCs, with the ever changing pieces and constantly upgraded parts (the models, not the PC itself) I find that a disadvantage for PC gaming.

For consoles, you have one specific specs to work with and with that you can pull out the console to it's fullest potential.

How many PC games use the PS3s cell proccessor (I'm assumeing it's available on PCs?) to it's full potential or even half of it? Or even it's own parts to it's fullest/half-est potential? Last I recal, games on the PS3 barely used 10-20% of the cell's potential, and that percentage could continue to improve as the console rolls along it's lifespan.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but it's something i'm pretty sure many other people thought of anyway.

 

[BardSeed]

Doesn't anybody have a link to somewhere that I can read the difference between Intel and AMD etc, basic PC construction and/or what the different parts do? I'm considering building a gaming PC but I don't know a lot about it.

 

[Danny Ocean]

One thing I have thought up of is that in PCs, with the ever changing pieces and constantly upgraded parts (the models, not the PC itself) I find that a disadvantage for PC gaming.

For consoles, you have one specific specs to work with and with that you can pull out the console to it's fullest potential.

How many PC games use the PS3s cell proccessor (I'm assumeing it's available on PCs?) to it's full potential or even half of it? Or even it's own parts to it's fullest/half-est potential? Last I recal, games on the PS3 barely used 10-20% of the cell's potential, and that percentage could continue to improve as the console rolls along it's lifespan.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but it's something i'm pretty sure many other people thought of anyway.

I think I know what you're getting at. However, the cell proccessor isn't available for PCs.

Anyway, yes, that is the advantage that consoles have. Having every single PS3 or 360 being exactly the same means that developers can optimise games much more easily, to work with whatever hardware is in their respective closed box.
The problem is, you can only take the hardware of the current gen so far, until you need to make a new console. Then it begins again.
With PCs it's similar, but due to the comparitively large variety of components available, it's more difficult to optimise games for a particular component, that's why games get patches more frequently on the PC, and they have more time spent playtesting. Along with open beta tests.

I say components, not system set ups. That's what DirectX is for, right? To make it easier for the game to interface with the hardware by labeling it 'Graphics Proccessor', rather than,"Nvidia Geforce GTX280.", for example.

Back on topic: You can't really compare a cell proccessor to a conventional cpu (say a Q6600). It's like apples and oranges.

Ones a red sweet treat, and the other is an orangy citrus explosion.

Just doesn't compare.

Of course, I'm probably wrong, I've only cast a cursory glance over the tech involved in a cell proccessor.

Doesn't anybody have a link to somewhere that I can read the difference between Intel and AMD etc, basic PC construction and/or what the different parts do? I'm considering building a gaming PC but I don't know a lot about it.

Intel and AMD are 2 different companies that both make Central Proccessing Units. AKA CPUs. These chips are the brains of the system, and tell all the other bits what to do. They are fitted into the motherboard, along with the other components, which are:

Power Supply Unit.
Graphics Card.
Sound Card (if you want one)
Hard Drive. This is like your long term memory.
Disk Drives.
Fans.
RAM. Or Random Access Memory. This is like your short term memory.

However they both build their CPUs quite differently, to the extent that they can only plug into an Intel motherboard (for intel chips) or an AMD motherboard (for AMD chips). If you tried to put an Intel chip on an AMD motherboard, it would be like trying to Plug a US power adapter into a UK socket.
Just doesn't fit.
There's more to it than that. Maybe we should make a new thread about how to make a PC, and what all the different bits do?

 

[BardSeed]

Thank you, maybe you should!

 

[Jumplion]

One thing I have thought up of is that in PCs, with the ever changing pieces and constantly upgraded parts (the models, not the PC itself) I find that a disadvantage for PC gaming.

For consoles, you have one specific specs to work with and with that you can pull out the console to it's fullest potential.

How many PC games use the PS3s cell proccessor (I'm assumeing it's available on PCs?) to it's full potential or even half of it? Or even it's own parts to it's fullest/half-est potential? Last I recal, games on the PS3 barely used 10-20% of the cell's potential, and that percentage could continue to improve as the console rolls along it's lifespan.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but it's something i'm pretty sure many other people thought of anyway.

I think I know what you're getting at. However, the cell proccessor isn't available for PCs.

Anyway, yes, that is the advantage that consoles have. Having every single PS3 or 360 being exactly the same means that developers can optimise games much more easily, to work with whatever hardware is in their respective closed box.
The problem is, you can only take the hardware of the current gen so far, until you need to make a new console. Then it begins again.
With PCs it's similar, but due to the comparitively large variety of components available, it's more difficult to optimise games for a particular component, that's why games get patches more frequently on the PC, and they have more time spent playtesting. Along with open beta tests.

I say components, not system set ups. That's what DirectX is for, right? To make it easier for the game to interface with the hardware by labeling it 'Graphics Proccessor', rather than,"Nvidia Geforce GTX280.", for example.

Back on topic: You can't really compare a cell proccessor to a conventional cpu (say a Q6600). It's like apples and oranges.

Ones a red sweet treat, and the other is an orangy citrus explosion.

Just doesn't compare.

Of course, I'm probably wrong, I've only cast a cursory glance over the tech involved in a cell proccessor.

Yeah, I might have thought of the supposed "Nvidia7800somethingsomethingwhateverhtehellthemodelnumberis" graphics chip for the PS3, but I could have sworn that (From PC-geeks nontheless) the "cell processor" for the PS3 was available for PC years before the PS3 was released.

And if a new console comes out with different specs, I'm positive that it would be easier for the people developing for it eariler would be familiar with it.

I don't think I worded that right, what I mean is that people who programmed for the PS1 found it easier to program for the PS2 even though I'm positive that many of the core components were different. And people who programmed for the PS2 frequently found the PS3 much easier to program than some people even though the components were VASTLY different than the PS2, so even if consoles do need to be replaced every 5 or so years (the same time some "PC-tards" say you need to replace some stuff just incase) the companies would be familiar with it instead of trying to program with something completely new that has no connection with the other brand (Nvidia and that other company whose name escapes me).

Console and PC gaming are very similar, especially now. That's sortof troublesome when I think about it...

Oh, and i'm all for constructing your own PC thread. I want to know some of that stuff just in case ;P

 

[Danny Ocean]

I want to know some of that stuff just in case ;P

Ba Dum Tsh?

*Looks up cell proccessor*

Okay, wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor] says that the cell is meant to bridge the gap between conventional desktop proccessors and the graphics chips made by ATI and Nvidia.

So it has one core, and eight sattelite cores, each of which can execute 2 threads, and the clock speed is 3.2GHz.

2 Cores are locked to keep the system running (one for OS, one for power management.) and the other 6 are used by the games.

That sounds sweet. But there must be a catch.

Reading through more of that page, it seems like it is more comparable to a Graphics card: One central core, and several supplimentary cores that do different tasks.

Still, that's an obscene amount of proccessing power. It's much smaller than a PC cpu, too.

Also, the cell proccessor was designed for the PS3

I don't think I worded that right, what I mean is that people who programmed for the PS1 found it easier to program for the PS2 even though I'm positive that many of the core components were different. And people who programmed for the PS2 frequently found the PS3 much easier to program than some people even though the components were VASTLY different than the PS2, so even if consoles do need to be replaced every 5 or so years (the same time some "PC-tards" say you need to replace some stuff just incase) the companies would be familiar with it instead of trying to program with something completely new that has no connection with the other brand (Nvidia and that other company whose name escapes me).

A lot of developers will simply buy an engine that has that all done for them (Such as the unreal III engine, or the Frostbite engine for Bad Company).

However, I'm not sure how it works for the people who make those engines, but I'd imagine that the PS3 has something similar to directX, which allows the programmers to use a single language on all the machines running that software.

Which I believe is why all games designed for windows will work on any computer running windows, regardless of hardware.

 

[Jumplion]

I want to know some of that stuff just in case ;P

Ba Dum Tsh?

*Looks up cell proccessor*

Okay, wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor] says that the cell is meant to bridge the gap between conventional desktop proccessors and the graphics chips made by ATI and Nvidia.

So it has one core, and eight sattelite cores, each of which can execute 2 threads, and the clock speed is 3.2GHz.

2 Cores are locked to keep the system running (one for OS, one for power management.) and the other 6 are used by the games.

That sounds sweet. But there must be a catch.

Reading through more of that page, it seems like it is more comparable to a Graphics card: One central core, and several supplimentary cores that do different tasks.

Still, that's an obscene amount of proccessing power. It's much smaller than a PC cpu, too.

Also, the cell proccessor was designed for the PS3.

So, the cell processor is revolutionary? That is definately a plus for consoles/the PS3.

 

[Danny Ocean]

So, the cell processor is revolutionary? That is definately a plus for consoles/the PS3.

Lets see how long intel takes to catch on. Although methinks my apples and oranges analogy still stands.
Anyway, because I love to quote myself so much:

This is NOT a thread about which is better.
Nor is it a thread exploring steriotypycal nerd culture.
It is a thread to discus common misconceptions that are often cited by people in arguments involving PC gaming.

I *might* expand that to non-flamey talk about consoles, too.

Might...

 

[Jumplion]

So, the cell processor is revolutionary? That is definately a plus for consoles/the PS3.

:facepalm:

Hey, I hear a bunch of crap from everyone and some PC-gamer told me that the Cell Processor for the PS3 was nothing new and that it was on PCs way before the PS3 was introduced. I'm here to learn arnt' I?

 

[Danny Ocean]

Fair enough, but this isn't the thread to make unintentionally trollish remarks whilst learning it seems

It's because earlier in the thread someone started calling all the consoler's in this thread 'Console Tards', so Jumplion coined 'PC-tards'.

But yeah, as I say, this isn't a competition thread, this is a learning thread.

this isn't the thread to make unintentionally trollish remarks

He didn't mean to, you just can't convey tone of voice over the internet. It's fair enough.

 

[Woe Is You]

So, the cell processor is revolutionary? That is definately a plus for consoles/the PS3.

Lets see how long intel takes to catch on. Although methinks my apples and oranges analogy still stands.

AMD (has been immediately after they bought ATi) is in the process of combining processors with GPUs. Not sure what Intel is up to, but considering they already do this on laptops (the GMA and X-whatever series just basically take the graphics rendering power off the processor), I wouldn't be surprised to see some CPUs that could be used as actual GPUs as well.

As for the Cell processor, it's based on IBM's Power architecture, and has more in common with the processors on the Wii and the 360 than it has with the x86 type processors on the PC. But yes, it's apples and oranges. There are some things the average x86 family processors do better, some that the Cell does better, overall it's about knowing what platform it is you're coding that will reap you the benefits (the Cell for instance is all about floating point performance at the cost of just about everything else, so you design your code accordingly).

The PC does have the double-edged sword of the fact that we constantly have better equipment coming to the market: right now, there are processors by Intel and AMD out there that dwarf the Cell in terms of performance, but games don't take full use of them. That's because you can't assume that everyone in your audience has a quad-core Nehalem, not even when you're doing the next Crysis.

Fair enough, but this isn't the thread to make unintentionally trollish remarks whilst learning it seems

It's because earlier in the thread someone started calling all the consoler's in this thread 'Console Tards', so Jumplion coined 'PC-tards'.

I see no mention of consoletards in this thread before Jumplion (in his first post on this thread, actually) started the whole PC-tard bullcrap. When notified of it, his answer was basically "but but but...on other boards..." and called the notifiers humorless [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm]. I'm surprised people have had as much patience as they've had here.

 

[Jumplion]

Fair enough, but this isn't the thread to make unintentionally trollish remarks whilst learning it seems

It's because earlier in the thread someone started calling all the consoler's in this thread 'Console Tards', so Jumplion coined 'PC-tards'.

I see no mention of consoletards in this thread before Jumplion (in his first post on this thread, actually) started the whole PC-tard bullcrap. When notified of it, his answer was basically "but but but...on other boards..." and called the notifiers humorless [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm]. I'm surprised people have had as much patience as they've had here.

I thought I saw some people call other people "console-tards", infact I'm pretty sure (but it could be my eyes), but even if there weren't in this particular thread I see it all the time and it's annoying. It's like, why bash us if we just want to have fun with our consoles? Because we can't upgrade out PCs, or that we don't have enough money to upgrade our PCs?

But before I go into a whole rant about this stuff, I VOW TO BE FAIR AND CALL EVERYONE -TARDS! Including PC-tards and Console-tards.

 

[Danny Ocean]

How about no-one calls anyone a tard?

Please? Pretty please?

 

[Jumplion]

How about no-one calls anyone a tard?

Please? Pretty please?

I'm not that forgiving ;P

 

[Woe Is You]

I thought I saw some people call other people "console-tards", infact I'm pretty sure (but it could be my eyes), but even if there weren't in this particular thread I see it all the time and it's annoying.

Then you quote those who do, notify them of it and don't go insulting people that have nothing to do with it? Doing stupid shit because elsewhere does stupid shit somewhere else doesn't make it any less stupid, you know.