Valve Boss: New Intel CPU Allows a "Console-Like Experience" on the PC
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Simply being able to allow the chip to do floating point operations would take a lot of burden off designers. The video card won't go away, but some of the operations that end up glitching out pc gamers could be offloaded to a chip tested in a more hermetic environment, and leave raw graphical computation to the PC core itself.
I think this might be good as a back up but I don't see something like this killing graphics cards as it is good to have both game capable if one craps out.
...not sure about you guys, but my going-on-4-year-old PC processes prettier, faster graphical effects than a PS3 or 360. The biggest bottlenecks in PC gaming are actually bloatsoftware related. Get a moderately priced custom-built machine (with current-gen non-budget graphics and a SATA III 10000RPM HDD) running a slim distro of Linux and you'll outperform anything on the factory-built personal computer or console market.
Hah actually this is crap. Well... let me clarify.
Intel's onboard graphics (Sandy Bridge) comes in two varieties, 2000 series and 3000 series. For laptops, almost all of them are the 3000 series chips, but for desktops, only the K series CPUs have 3000 series, which are the "unlocked" CPUs for overclocking, and generally speaking, overclockers are going to go with high powered discreet GPUs, not to mention using the top end motherboards, P67, which disable onboard graphics anyway. Therefore the mainstream market on the H67 platform will generally be stuck with the 2000 series onboard graphics, which is piss poor performance.
For laptops tho, yes, these will deliver mediocre graphics. At least comparable to current Nvidia and ATI offerings like 3xxM and 5xxxM, respectively.
As you can see, it's not even as good as a low-mid range card, the 5550. However, laptop resolutions are usually less than this even, so for that application, these new onboard graphics are going to be awesome.
Full article review here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-7.html
A couple nice features tho, the CPUs themselves are clock for clock the fastest ever. They are ridiculously fast. They also have one very nice feature with these onboard graphics, that is when doing video encoding. Currently most implementations focus on using all your CPU cores, and a few allow for CUDA (Nvidia) or Stream (ATI) to use GPU power on top of CPU to encode video. With these new Sandy Bridge CPUs, Intel already has some support for their onboard EUs (the graphic cores on the CPU) which speeds up video encoding by at least double what CPU+GPU encoding currently delivers. So that's really awesome.
Intel's onboard graphics (Sandy Bridge) comes in two varieties, 2000 series and 3000 series. For laptops, almost all of them are the 3000 series chips, but for desktops, only the K series CPUs have 3000 series, which are the "unlocked" CPUs for overclocking, and generally speaking, overclockers are going to go with high powered discreet GPUs, not to mention using the top end motherboards, P67, which disable onboard graphics anyway. Therefore the mainstream market on the H67 platform will generally be stuck with the 2000 series onboard graphics, which is piss poor performance.
For laptops tho, yes, these will deliver mediocre graphics. At least comparable to current Nvidia and ATI offerings like 3xxM and 5xxxM, respectively.
As you can see, it's not even as good as a low-mid range card, the 5550. However, laptop resolutions are usually less than this even, so for that application, these new onboard graphics are going to be awesome.
Full article review here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-7.html
A couple nice features tho, the CPUs themselves are clock for clock the fastest ever. They are ridiculously fast. They also have one very nice feature with these onboard graphics, that is when doing video encoding. Currently most implementations focus on using all your CPU cores, and a few allow for CUDA (Nvidia) or Stream (ATI) to use GPU power on top of CPU to encode video. With these new Sandy Bridge CPUs, Intel already has some support for their onboard EUs (the graphic cores on the CPU) which speeds up video encoding by at least double what CPU+GPU encoding currently delivers. So that's really awesome.
Finally I can maybe play some actual games on my PC, instead of just fixing a problem after problem.
I guess if the price is to hefty, intel is gonna absolutely own the business sector, not that they already don't.
Still, anyone who actually gets a computer for playing games will obviously go for a separate video card for the performance and interchangablility (totally just created a new word!).
Still, anyone who actually gets a computer for playing games will obviously go for a separate video card for the performance and interchangablility (totally just created a new word!).
A PC enthusiast has an understanding of what goes into a PC - not architecture or specifics, but rather how it all fits together. What a video card is, why it is important, and such. It is a requirement because one needs to know whether their particular configuration will work with any given game. That is, if I purchase Assassin's Creed 2 I need to know if it will work with my system or not, and that entails knowing what kind of video card I have, if I have a multicore CPU and at what speed, etc. People buying consoles don't need to know any of that; Xbox 360 games will work with an Xbox 360. Sure, it has a CPU and a GPU and various other components, but 90% of the people who buy a 360 don't know or care what speed they operate at, which is required knowledge for traditional PC gamership.Credge said:
Of course, this doesn't apply towards every game - for instance Bejeweled and web-based games have such minimal requirements as to be negligible. (I shouldn't have spoken in such broad terms, but alas, that is the detriment to brevity.)
Back on point, Newell is basically saying that this type of integration can help to bring the, "I don't care, as long as it works" crowd into PC gaming through simplification. It may even help devs by having a much more concrete low-end to work with.
Surprisingly few people actually ***** for no reason on the PC elitist front, Of course they are the most vocal, and people mix up Pc gamers who actually have valid points with complainers, which just makes the problem worse all round.GamesB2 said:
OT: Good intergrated graphics are nice enough for people who don't won't to pick (though have fun if something goes wrong
) But at least its not like they're saying "No more graphics card's full stop!" Which would be meet with (Completely justifiable ) riots.But of course, the question on everyones lips: Can it run Crysis?
Actually, you can get an i7 chip right now for ~$90, and they came out a long while ago.Lacsapix said:
Thus, all you need to do is wait for six months after this next generation release, and pick one up for ~$100.
Or shell out for a current i5 chip and a decent graphics card ($150 total) and play Portal 2 out of the gate at 50+ FPS. Either one works.
That's the question on the lips of everyone who has no idea how integrated graphics work.runedeadthA said:
Short answer: No, and they won't be able to until the mid 2020s. You'll need a graphics card (which every gamer should have anyways).
Andy Chalk said:Valve Boss: New Intel CPU Allows a "Console-Like Experience" on the PC
Gabe Newell, the big cheese at Valve [http://www.valvesoftware.com], says again I'm taking attention away from Half-life 2 epi. 3/ Half-life 3.
Blah
Blah
Permalink
Why would you need that kind of resolution and monitors? Duck-sight in FPS, videoediting or are you just serious in racingsims?RYjet911 said:How do you think I feel? I've just ordered two new monitors to get a glorious resolution of 5760x1080, and from the sounds of things even loading the Windows Classic desktop theme would make these cards chug. xDLordmarkus said:Rage? We will be relieved of the hassle of buying graphcards. That's a good thing and it can also revolutionize gaming-laptops.GamesB2 said:Oh I can't wait to see the PC elitists raging about this one.
Then of course, it has to meet certain qualifications of course. I will not endure anything under 1080p. *snort*.
To be honest, I can't see CPU/GPU combined chips becoming a replacement for the standard setup, more of an alternative for less power hungry users. Having them separate allows replacing faulty parts to be both easier and cheaper (As replacing either a CPU or GPU would more than likely be a fair bit cheaper than having to replace one component with both in), and it also allows the user to overclock them with less risk, cool the processors more easily, and most importantly for the more POWAAAH PC gamer easier to upgrade when newer chips get released.
It's just an upgrade of sorts to the current system of integrated graphics chips on motherboards. Except now it's put on the other most expensive piece of equipment in most machines, the processor.
Personally I'll always prefer standalone cards for the overclocking options and ease and cost effectiveness of replacement and upgrade.
I don't think this is going to eliminate the market for graphics cards at all; in fact, I don't see much of a change for the PC-gaming consumer, period. It may, however, make it easier for games to be programmed or optimized with these CPUs in mind, so we could get a more graphically impressive experience for our money (not that PC gaming is expensive to begin with.)
At first, I thought I was going to reply to this news with a "No! But that's what's special about PC gaming!"...
...But then I learned the article was about something COMPLETELY different, and now I'm like "I guess that works..."
Kinda happy for this change in PC gaming. CPUs with integrated video cards will definitely help make deciding computer parts much less of a hassle, but I'm not entirely sure if it will stick. It's all a matter of time.
...But then I learned the article was about something COMPLETELY different, and now I'm like "I guess that works..."
Kinda happy for this change in PC gaming. CPUs with integrated video cards will definitely help make deciding computer parts much less of a hassle, but I'm not entirely sure if it will stick. It's all a matter of time.