Unreal creator Tim Sweeney: "PCs are good for anything, just not games”

[archangelmorph]

What would be the difference between Larrabee and currently sold 45nm CPUs? The latter are only a tiny part of overall CPU sales but aren't much pricier than their 65nm counterparts.

You are aware that i'm talking about a 2010ish timeframe right..?

Problem with that is Larrabee is not powerful "all in one" chip, it has pretty bad single-threaded performance and majority of todays games wouldn't run that well on it.

... I'm pretty sure that any application that is still written single threaded in 2010 will be specifically lightweight enough to run fine on Larabee..

... & I'm pretty sure no heavyweight commercial game in 2010 will be single-threaded either.. Heck you'd be lucky to find one in 2009 at this rate..

I'll put money on that..

 

[Albuquerque]

Ok, so put money on this: IF larabee comes out in 2010, there will be more powerful hardware available in 2011, and again in 2012. Where are we then? In the exact same place we are now. Even if every single PC owner on the planet buys a brand new PC in 2010, we'll be right back where we are in five years or less.

You can't make a piece of computer hardware today that's "future proof" for three years. PC's are on a continually moving sliding scale; there's no pinning it down. If you were to use Moore's law literally, 36 months will yield a four-fold performance increase, and 54 months will yield an eight-fold performance increase.

By 2016, you're potentially sixteen times the performance of the bar you set in 2010, and I'd wager that less than 20% of the PC-owning public would have replaced their PC in that timeframe. Is everyone now required to upgrade every three years to make game developers' jobs easier?

 

[fearsomepirate]

AFAIK, no one's making games that will run well on integrated graphics. WoW runs on pretty much any gaming PC built in the last 6 or 7 years, but considering my mom's relatively new PC with IG has trouble with Quake II, I can't imagine it handling WoW. Anyway, I think he's talking from the perspective of cross-development with consoles, saying that you really can't develop a competitive game on the 360 that will scale down to DX7 hardware.

 

[archangelmorph]

Ok, so put money on this: IF larabee comes out in 2010, there will be more powerful hardware available in 2011, and again in 2012. Where are we then? In the exact same place we are now. Even if every single PC owner on the planet buys a brand new PC in 2010, we'll be right back where we are in five years or less.

You can't make a piece of computer hardware today that's "future proof" for three years. PC's are on a continually moving sliding scale; there's no pinning it down. If you were to use Moore's law literally, 36 months will yield a four-fold performance increase, and 54 months will yield an eight-fold performance increase.

By 2016, you're potentially sixteen times the performance of the bar you set in 2010, and I'd wager that less than 20% of the PC-owning public would have replaced their PC in that timeframe. Is everyone now required to upgrade every three years to make game developers' jobs easier?

You're assuming that Larabee is a fixed architecture that won't ever see revision & development at the same rate as the rest of the market (why might I ask are you doing this..?)

 

[hoho]

So let me ask again, what would be the difference to what is there today? There will still be lots of people with low-end HW and not everyone would want to buy more expensive/faster HW.

 

[archangelmorph]

So let me ask again, what would be the difference to what is there today? There will still be lots of people with low-end HW and not everyone would want to buy more expensive/faster HW.

The difference would be that reducing the cost of entry into advanced graphics hardware would 'bring up' the low end from where it is today..

For example I could go into Dell & maybe buy a £400-500 desktop which runs a 32-24 core Larabee & on-board IG chip which, when combined, in practice allow me to run the latest games albeit at lower settings however it would still run..

Whereas today a £400-500 PC with a Core2 & IG chip couldn't run Crysis at any level of fidelity in a million years..

In the end it doesn't alter that market in terms of how the games are developed nor who they are targetted at.. It would however drastically expand the range of 'game-capable' hardware & as a result, potentially have an exponentially positive effect on sales for the latest games on the market which push for the high end but can scale back well too..

 

[Mobius1aic]

Well have you seen the new 780 chipset from AMD? It's IGP is no marathon runner but it's fully HD/Blu-Ray/HD-DVD capable right out of the box with barely any CPU usage. Hell even for light gaming it's actually a decent GPU, definetly a multitude faster than X3100 from Intel.

One of the more interesting features about 780 is it's VRAM allocation capabilities in BIOS which can be set to 128, 256, or 512 depending on your chip usage for video playback where it'll eat up lots of RAM. The most intriguing idea is the hybrid crossfire capability with the IGP, so if you're on the cheap, you could add a cheap video card with hybrid crossfire capabilites like a Radeon 3450 for about $60 dollars, and the IGP and 3450 will work together for game rendering. From what I've read so far about this method, it works well.

It's not a state of the art solution that'll gain you super-high-fidelity graphics but it's a cheap solution for light gaming, and the motherboard is perfect for multimedia people because you won't need a graphics card AT ALL. Not to mention it's very efficient and according to Tom's hardware, it broke their records for power efficiency. I'd like to perform some of these benchmarks myself since I need a motherboard for my Phenom 9600 which doesn't work with my AM2 mobo like I had hoped, so the 780 will definetly be a priority when I can afford it and I'll definetly get something cheap like a 3450 and run my own benchmarks then get a badass card like a 3870 later on

Tom's hardware chipset 780 testing

Hot Hardware Benchmarking

 

[Feces]

Easy Solution

Software is just way behind hardware today, the only way to reverse this trend is to create software that will make current hardware scream for mercy. There is no way that software will overtake hardware any time soon so we must turn to another solution.

Specifically related to gaming we need to simply bring back console on a pci card back. If I remember correctly there was something like that for the dreamcast? Maybe it never became a real product but today this would make sense. We have lots of pc users that don't want to use consoles but want the console games. This way for example I can spend $400-500 on xbox360 card and if I choose so ps3 card as well. Now I have my pc that can play any game on the market without any emulation.

The only thing that will need to be changed is developers will need to create higher quality art packs for the hybrid pcs. All the online services and accessories will work directly with the plug in cards so that will remain easy to use.

The negative effect would be that such solution would stagnate the pc games just a little but I think that has already happened anyways. May not be the ideal solution but at least it will solve pc user complaints. I know there are small issues with keyboard/controller fairness in games and all that but that can be worked out.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Specifically related to gaming we need to simply bring back console on a pci card back. If I remember correctly there was something like that for the dreamcast? Maybe it never became a real product but today this would make sense. We have lots of pc users that don't want to use consoles but want the console games. This way for example I can spend $400-500 on xbox360 card and if I choose so ps3 card as well. Now I have my pc that can play any game on the market without any emulation.

You've really lost me here. Why not buy a console for less money and more functionality? The whole point of PC gaming is scalability. If you're going to lock to a piece of hardware, you may as well just buy into a closed platform.

The 'real' solution here is for high spec PCs to become a significant enough market that developers can ignore low end PCs. We didn't have developers creating games for XB360 and PS3 that would also run on PS2. They didn't waste their time supporting an outdated hardware platform that couldn't run their games. They said 'this is it, we're moving on, and you either buy into our gaming platforms or you get left behind.' If PC devs said 'you need a minimum spec to run this game' that was a significant spec, than PC gamers would just have to upgrade where needed, or be left in the dark, leaving the rest of the gamers to enjoy better games because they're not being held back by a limited lowest common denominator. The problem here is that the PC developers don't think they'd have a sustainable market if they did this, so they pander to the outdated tech and cripple the modern tech. Truth is most PC owners aren't power gamers who want performance mashing gaming but instead have an interest in games as one function of their home PC, and those who are hardcore PC gamers don't make the software guys enough money to be developed for explicitly. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[Albuquerque]

You're assuming that Larabee is a fixed architecture that won't ever see revision & development at the same rate as the rest of the market (why might I ask are you doing this..?)

WTF? I just got done saying it's successors will continually be faster, where the hell did I say anything to the contrary? Here, let me make it even clearer for you:

However if Intel can position Larabee as the "all in one" chip then they can distribute as the natural progression of consumer CPUs but with the added benefit of powerful graphics, physics & decoding silicon built in then vendors need not worry about seperate add in cards which will allow Larabee to reach right down into the low end of the market, something no PCI GPU has ever been able to do from a cost perspective..

Your quote above solves nothing about what Sweeney is complaining about regarding his perceived 100x performance difference between a LOW end and a HIGH end PC. If EVERYONE had a larrabee, there will still be performance differential.

I just finished saying this, in almost exact numeric form. What did you miss?

 

[archangelmorph]

You've really lost me here. Why not by a console for less money and more functionality? The whole point of PC gaming is scalability. If you're going to lock to a piece of hardware, you may as well just buy into a closed platform.

Not to mention the fact that a console-on-a-card wouldn't allow you to basically go out & buy a console game, drop it in and play it unless the card came bundled with optical drive to read the disc authentication & some interface for mem-cards & controllers. By that point what was supoosed to be just a PCI card has now taken over most of your PC & the whole idea becomes less convenient to having the console itself instead sitting next to the PC (& hooking it up to your monitor..)

But then that wouldn't 'save the PC market' would it..?

 

[Feces]

You've really lost me here. Why not by a console for less money and more functionality? The whole point of PC gaming is scalability. If you're going to lock to a piece of hardware, you may as well just buy into a closed platform.

This "solution" is not for the consolers it would net them nothing. This is only for those of us that don't want a console but want the console games with higher quality art/displays. If i am going to spend $400-500 on a console I would rather add that to my pc then have a stand alone box. Functionality would remain identical to the stand alone but I would get additional benefits that I value.

I think its clear that pc gaming will not recover anytime soon, instead of having to give up my computer for gaming I would rather just upgrade its capabilities to match current situation. Consoles rule the development cycles and features we see in games so might as well jump on board.

 

[archangelmorph]

This "solution" is not for the consolers it would net them nothing. This is only for those of us that don't want a console but want the console games with higher quality art/displays. If i am going to spend $400-500 on a console I would rather add that to my pc then have a stand alone box. Functionality would remain identical to the stand alone but I would get additional benefits that I value.

I think its clear that pc gaming will not recover anytime soon, instead of having to give up my computer for gaming I would rather just upgrade its capabilities to match current situation. Consoles rule the development cycles and features we see in games so might as well jump on board.

Yeah but..

Most consoles games are ported to PC anyway so what's the problem..?

 

[Feces]

Not to mention the fact that a console-on-a-card wouldn't allow you to basically go out & buy a console game, drop it in and play it unless the card came bundled with optical drive to read the disc authentication & some interface for mem-cards & controllers. By that point what was supoosed to be just a PCI card has now taken over most of your PC & the whole idea becomes less convenient to having the console itself instead sitting next to the PC (& hooking it up to your monitor..)

But then that wouldn't 'save the PC market' would it..?

I think with the bluray victory all future consoles and pcs will share a bluray drive so media wont be an issue in the near future. So yeah I would be able to just go get a game for a console and drop it in, few minutes of updating with new art assets and off we go.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Consoles on a card won't allow for scalable graphics. You wont' be able to put an XB360 card in your 2GB PC and get better art assets, rendering resolution and AA. The games are tied to the XB360 hardware which is what makes them so efficient. And on the downside, you couldn't have one person using the PC while another games on the XB360. Personally I don't see the problem with another box, unless you're living in very limited space like a dorm. A VGA switchbox for the outputs, and maybe a need to swap plugs over between machines, and then sit the console on or next to the PC (if you don't have it with the TV elsewhere) and it's job done. I appreciate you'd prefer a single box solution, but I think you're very much in the minority there.

 

[Feces]

You guys are amazing we working of a reality that pc gaming is dying if not dead already. I am not trying to revive the pc gaming just stop it from going away completely.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What do you mean by PC gaming then?

 

[Feces]

I will give you an example I have had a gaming pc for at least 5+ years now. Very nice top spec box that has gone through number of upgrades to stay current. November 2006 I got an xbox360 and that pretty much killed my pc gaming habits. I havent bought any pc games sense and instead got maybe 15 console games. In years prior I would get maybe 7-10 pc games a year with that slowly declining as consoles became leads. I prefer the higher quality pc games but there are so few good exclusives now that it hardly worth owning a pc. My friends all have xboxs and nearly all the great games are all on consoles.

I play on my nice 40" tv but I would trade that in for my 24" monitor with high ssaa and high quality textures anyday. At this point I use my pc for work and xbox for gaming. I spend way more time on my pc and I would rather have my pc pretend to be an xbox360+

I have 3 kids and 3 tvs in the house, the main nice tv is taken by kids most of the time so I would really preffer to play on my computer in the office when ever I want instead of fighting for the tv.

With the expansion card you can cut away a ton of parts such as network controller, dvd/bluray, hard drive, power supply to reduce the costs. All those services can be provided by the pc side. The pc side video card can do some very nice ssaa on the xbox360 output. Maybe even copy some files for faster loading to the pc huge hard drive.

Yes I could just put the xbox360 on my office desk with my computer and when I get the ps3 I could do the same and have a giant stack of hardware on my desk. But if i am going to spend the same amount of money on those parts why not just put it in my pc.

In any case no one is saying this something for everyone but at least for me this would be the best solution. I have access to all the console games with slighly better gfx and its part of my work computer.

Sadly though we all know where this world is headed, gaming will be done on consoles/handhelds and work will be done on laptops. Until developers find ways to make cheaper good games consoles will continue to kill gaming on the pc.

 

[archangelmorph]

I understand where you are comnig from Feces but your proposition is just not viable..

Most people who want to play console games would rather spend less & buy a console than try to fit it all into a PC (through which only one player can realistically game at one time.. unless you game on the PC in front of the TV by which you might as well have just gonew with the console in the first place..)

The fact that you prefer playing console games on PC rather than on consoles really only makes you the exception rather than the rule..

 

[pjbliverpool]

I will give you an example I have had a gaming pc for at least 5+ years now. Very nice top spec box that has gone through number of upgrades to stay current. November 2006 I got an xbox360 and that pretty much killed my pc gaming habits. I havent bought any pc games sense and instead got maybe 15 console games. In years prior I would get maybe 7-10 pc games a year with that slowly declining as consoles became leads. I prefer the higher quality pc games but there are so few good exclusives now that it hardly worth owning a pc. My friends all have xboxs and nearly all the great games are all on consoles.

What games are you actually playing on the 360? Because if your only playing games that aren't also on the PC thats a pretty small subset of what the console has to offer and it suggests that you prefer "console style" games (platformers/fighters) to "PC style" games (FPS/RTS/RPG) anyway. In which case it sounds like your better off with a console.

Sure, exclusing Sony/Wii exlcusives most of the great games are on the 360. But the're also on the PC. So if its the high res etc... of the PC that you like, why not just get the PC port?

I too got a 360 in about March 07. Aside from an initial flurry of new games and one party game purchased around September last year, there hasn't been a single game that come out for it that I wanted which I can't, or won't be able to get for the PC. Thus about 80% of my games since I got the 360 have been purchased on PC. Most of those are also availabe on the 360.