| Author |
Message |
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Nov 26, 2003 05:56 Post subject: |
    |
|
Nottheking wrote:
Your two ways are not fair. There has never been a new type of processor released that has, within months, had a program that has REQUIRED it.
Please refrain from redefining your statement after it has been crushed. Either provide evidence to support your original statement, or concede that you are wrong.
Nottheking wrote:
Instead... <incomprehensible statement>.
Nottheking wrote:
Unfortunately, Intel wasn't nice enough to have a comparison of the Itanium2 to 32-bit processors.
That's quite obviously since the Itanium is not a 32 bit processor.
Nottheking wrote:
As for RAM, Even DOOM3 only requires seems to only require some 256 MB. Blablabla.
As you obviusly have not understood what I was saying (failure to understand the difference between virtual and noncontinuous memory, and so on, and so on), no further comments are needed.
Nottheking wrote:
In the future, 32-bit processors will become completely obsolete. The same happened with 8 and 16 bit processors.
It is by now quite clear that you have failed to understand the difference between moving from 8 to 16 or 16 to 32, and moving from 32 to 64 bits. Thus, until such time that you have learned enough to discuss the subject, no further comments are needed, since your statements are self-evidently false.
Nottheking wrote:
I wonder, where you this apprehensive about the original Pentium, the first commerical 32-bit proccessor?
As you know perfectly well, I have always supported good technology and crushed bad technology, with no regard to political correctness. In the specific case you mentioned, I supported what the future held for the Pentium line of processors, though I did not actively promote it until the P55C was released.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 26, 2003 17:07 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm having a hard time believing that a person like you could spout so much Bull$#!+.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Please refrain from redefining your statement after it has been crushed. Either provide evidence to support your original statement, or concede that you are wrong.
My ORIGINAL statement was:
Nottheking originally wrote:
PCs can come with far better 64-bit proccessors
There can be a difference between "far better", and "REQUIRED". Please don't make your statement until you know what it is I'm saying.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Nottheking wrote:
Instead... <incomprehensible statement>.
I thought you had gotten fairly good with English, as most of your posts show. Perhaps I may have been mistaken, or perhaps you're afraid to admit that AN AMD PROCCESSOR ACTUALLY OUTPERFORMED A PENTIUM 4 ON A BENCHMARK!.
Mattias Welander wrote:
That's quite obviously since the Itanium is not a 32 bit processor.
I originally thought that Intel would be happy to show potential customers how much of an advantage, real or imagined, that may be gained by using their most advanced proccessors. Or, if you don't like the term "advanced", use recent or expensive.
Mattias Welander wrote:
As you obviusly have not understood what I was saying (failure to understand the difference between virtual and noncontinuous memory, and so on, and so on), no further comments are needed.
What would non-continuous memory be, then? The ammount of memory consumed by an application during its whole running proccess, which would go into the millions of Terrabytes? I wasn't aware of the fact that a proccessor addressed RAM and virtual memory on the same list... Or are you refering to a more literal definition, in which all applicaions use 0 bits of continuous memory, as they do when they're not opened?
No matter your meaning, This little statement of yours HURTS your arguement, either by saying that 64-bit proccessors are closer to obsolecence (if VM is part of CM), or by saying that you like to use irrelevant theorectical definitions for computers (if CM = 0 for everything) Of course, I doubt you will comprehend these two paragraphs, as they don't agree with you.
Mattias Welander wrote:
It is by now quite clear that you have failed to understand the difference between moving from 8 to 16 or 16 to 32, and moving from 32 to 64 bits. Thus, until such time that you have learned enough to discuss the subject, no further comments are needed, since your statements are self-evidently false.
Yes... While the difference between the first two sets are respectively 8 and 16, the third is a whole 32 different! Or are you meaning maximum value, where 64-bit proccessors can use "words" that can translate into a decimal value of up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616, while 32-bit proccessors can only reach a mere 4,294,967,296? What makes 64 bits inferior to 32 bits, while 32 bits is superior to 16 and 8?
Mattias Welander wrote:
As you know perfectly well...
I know perfectly well that you only see things in one way, and don't ever change.
Mattias Welander wrote:
...I have always supported good technology and crushed bad technology, with no regard to political correctness...
Oviously, you don't even care if any of your statements contradict. (as in that America is inherently evil, yet only America makes "good" technology) All you seem to do is flail about with your statements... Even in the times which you went against technology that actually WAS of poor quality, the quality of your argument made me reconsider whether the supposedly "bad" technology was actually good, instead of bad.
Mattias Welander wrote:
In the specific case you mentioned, I supported what the future held for the Pentium line of processors, though I did not actively promote it until the P55C was released.
Define "actively promoted"... If it means what I think it does, it just shows that you are scared of brand-new technology, until it has been well-worn. From your statements from the past, your "perfect" machine includes:A Pentium 4 Proccessor, unknown speed
1 to 2 GB of SDR DIMMs
A GeFORCE card, mabye the 5900
Running Windows NT 4
With the exception of the graphic accelerator card, many of those components have been in existence for several years. NT 4, I believe, has even been abandonned by Microsoft, allowing for no interactive technical support, even if you believe that it isn't neccessary.
I'm not saying you should be an early-adopter of every new technology, or even that you should overcome your phobia. I just think you should try to be more calm in your reccomendations, instead of telling them they're unintelligent. You'd be surprised that more people will listen to you seriously, and perhaps even agree.
...Of course, i don't know why I'm posting this, as you will quote something like this:
Mattias Welander believes Nottheking wrote:
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah
...Oh well...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 26, 2003 17:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing that a person like you could spout so much Bull$#!+.
I thought you had gotten fairly good with English, as most of your posts show. Perhaps I may have been mistaken, or perhaps you're afraid to admit that AN AMD PROCCESSOR ACTUALLY OUTPERFORMED A PENTIUM 4 ON A BENCHMARK!.
...Of course, i don't know why I'm posting this, as you will quote something like this:
Mattias Welander believes Nottheking wrote:
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah
...Oh well...
I aint a moderator, so I cant do anything about this, but I would say you are getting a little personal with your jabs there. I think maybe you could ease up a little and discuss this in a civilized manner.
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 26, 2003 18:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Tom Manning wrote:
I aint a moderator, so I cant do anything about this, but I would say you are getting a little personal with your jabs there. I think maybe you could ease up a little and discuss this in a civilized manner.
I do agree that is too personal, but I'm afraid it's neccessary to make my point. I estimate that, upon seeing that post, Mattias will flip out, and be unwilling to discuss/argue the subject further, and life can go on elsewhere. Even if he is still willing to argue, he'll make so little sense, all of us will readily ignore his comments.
Nonethesless, I do see little point in this thread now, as Mattias has not only dragged it off-topic, but even put words into other's mouths to keep his stance going.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 26, 2003 18:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Your original statement was "PCs can come with far better 64-bit proccessors". The only thing I have said is that you have to provide some kind of evidence supporting such a ridiculous statement. If you can't do that, just admit so. Or show us why you, who have admitted to have no game programming experience, is right about something everyone with game programming experience knows is wrong?
Nottheking wrote:
I thought you had gotten fairly good with English, as most of your posts show.
I am with correctly written English. That section did not make sense - in fact, I couldn't even parse it. I'd be more than willing to comment on it, if you'd be willing to look over it to see if you really wrote what you intended to write.
Nottheking wrote:
I originally thought that Intel would be happy to show potential customers how much of an advantage, real or imagined, that may be gained by using their most advanced proccessors. Or, if you don't like the term "advanced", use recent or expensive.
They are. But since 64 bit computing is virtually useless for game applications, there is no need for such comparisons. In fact, in many game applications switching to 64 bit operands actually decrease the performance slightly. Thus, you should not expect to find such comparisons. In non-gaming applications where 64 bit operands are useful, you'll get a good performance boost, and thus those are the benchmarks you'll see. Since no one is going to buy an Itanium for games, anything else would be ridiculous.
Nottheking wrote:
What would non-continuous memory be, then?
I'm glad to see you finally admit your lack of knowledge on the subject. That's a good start, which I respect.
However, I've never heard the term non-continous memory, but I guess everything that is not continuos could be called so. If that's the case, let's explain that continous memory is a block of memory that can be indexed with a single pointer.
Nottheking wrote:
Yes... While the difference between the first two sets are respectively 8 and 16, the third is a whole 32 different! Or are you meaning maximum value, where 64-bit proccessors can use "words" that can translate into a decimal value of up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616, while 32-bit proccessors can only reach a mere 4,294,967,296? What makes 64 bits inferior to 32 bits, while 32 bits is superior to 16 and 8?
*Please!*
I don't know if I should laugh or cry. But please, read up on base two operations before you start to discuss them?
When I wrote the comment you answered here, I was hoping you'd seriously think on the issue and write a real answer to it, thus realizing why the move from 32 to 64 bits is less important than the move from 8 to 16 or 16 to 32 bits. Unfortunately, you did not seem capable of doing so, or at least unwilling - something the fact that you didn't even understood what I wrote proves ("64 bits inferior to 32 bits", anywone? Not me.).
I guess I should by now have realized I have to talk to you like a child, since you really don't know what this is all about. So, I'll explain why, instead of hoping you'll think for yourself.
To perform a 32 bit operation (which are nearly all in a modern computer program) on an 8 bit processor, you need at least 8 registers (split the source 32 bits into four 8 bit registers, and do the same for the target), and corresponding instructions. That's *really* slow.
To perform a 32 bit operation on a 16 bit processor, you need at least 4 registers and corresponding instructions. That's a huge saving from 8 bit mode.
To perform a 32 bit operation on a 32 bit processor, you just need two registers and a single instruction. That's really great, and is a saving from 16 bit mode, but not as large as that from 8 to 16 bit mode.
To peform a 32 bit operation on a 64 bit processor, you still need two registers and a single instruction. Unfortunately, as the machine code now is larger, it's less likely to fit in the cache, thus on average slowing down the operation a bit. No saving at all, on other words.
Now remember that a game rarely use 64 bit operands. A typical figure of the use is about 0.1%.
Nottheking wrote:
America is inherently evil, yet only America makes "good" technology
Don't be ridiculous. If you look through what I said before, I have said that American ideals, American politics and most Americans are evil. I strongly doubt I have made any general comments on the good/evil issue of American technology. If you believe I have, please provide a quote. My opinion on that is like it have always been, that good American technology is good, and bad American technology is bad, and evil American technology is evil. Very simple, and very consistent.
Nottheking wrote:
Define "actively promoted"...
Technology I can without fear recommend the best of my friends.
Nottheking wrote:
From your statements from the past, your "perfect" machine includes:
A Pentium 4 Proccessor, unknown speed
1 to 2 GB of SDR DIMMs
A GeFORCE card, mabye the 5900
Running Windows NT 4
I guess that shows how little you know. Let me list my current perfect machine:
Two Xeon processors, 3.4 GHz each
16 GB of RDRAM
An NV45 card
Running Windows XP
To be honest, I don't see any correlation with your list.
Nottheking wrote:
NT 4, I believe, has even been abandonned by Microsoft, allowing for no interactive technical support
Wrong.
Nottheking wrote:
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah
I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that?
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
japh
Gamorrean
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 27, 2003 19:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Not true. The most common integer sizes used in games have always been 16 and 32 bits, with 32 bits leading. Even on the old 8 bit machines, games emulated 16 bit in software, simply because 8 bits isn't enough. And the switch to 32 bits as the main integer unit occured quite a while before Dark Forces even, and 32 bits have been the leading integer size ever since. While 64 bit integers have been available for many years, games usually don't use them for other things than timers and a few other minor things. The reason is that 64 bit integers really aren't useful for much in games.
I just looked through the Quake 2 source code. As you probably know, it is written for the latest generation of compilers, with 64 bit support. Yet in the whole source code, there are only four 64 bit integers, and only two 64 bit operation. That's how little 64 bit integers are used even in a program targeted at compilers natively supporting 64 bit operations.
|
|
GAThrawn_IGF
Dianoga
Joined: 28 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 29, 2003 02:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, I found someone else who likes the Sonic games. I got Sonic 1, 2, and Knuckles on Genesis (I rented Sonic 3 years ago), and I got a Sonic 3, Sonic 3 & Knuckles, and Sonic & Knuckles PC bundle. I also have Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic CD for the PC, and Sonic Adventure (the original) on the Dreamcast. You said Sonic & Knuckles was a remake of the original only better? Since I'm too lazy to play em, could you tell me what the comparisons are? (Ever notice that every single Sonic game has a lava level? EVERY one.) What is your favorite zone/level-in-zone of each game?
I would recommend a PS2 because of some games not available on PC, such as SOCOM 1 and 2, True Crime, Kill Switch, etc. But, the GTA 3 and GTA VC is the best on the PC.
GameCube I recommend for Phantasy Star Online, any 007 game (especially Everything or Nothing, coming out in February), Resident Evil 0, any Mario, F-Zero GX, and any Nintendo or Sega game.
XBox I recommend for KOTOR and Halo 1 and, when it comes out, Halo 2.
I might have missed more games, but =P
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 29, 2003 03:58 Post subject: |
|
|
hmm, I hadn't heard a new 007 game was comeing out. Is it for all platforms? I enjoyed Agent Under Fire, (Until I got stuck, anyone who has played it, if you woundn't mind PMing me I would like to ask how to get past.)
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
GAThrawn_IGF
Dianoga
Joined: 28 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 01:31 Post subject: |
|
|
The new Bond game is for Gamecube, PS2, XBox, and Game Boy Advance. You can even hook the GBA onto the GC to get special news from Q and M, and you'll be able to see around corners. There's an official website, I forget it offhand, do a google search, but it definitely looks like one of the best. Everyone who does the acting is Hollywood-talent, including M, Q, and Bond being played by their movie counterparts. Willem Dafoe (he can really do sweet villains) plays the bad guy, Shannon Elizabeth plays Bond girl #1, supermodel Heidi Klum plays Bond girl #2, singer Mya does the first official original song in a Bond game, movie-length, as well as being a cameo as an NSA operative, and some Japanese woman plays Bond girl #4, the assistant to Q.
You can drive the Aston Martin V-12 Vanguish, Porsche Cayenne SUV, and Triumph Daytona 600 motorcycle.
That's my spoiler =P
|
|
japh
Gamorrean
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 01:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Of course it's not available for the PC, is it. phrik them, modern games are too boring anyway. Same old snap.
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 02:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Have they made any of the recent Bond games for PC?
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2003 17:58 Post subject: |
|
|
GAThrawn_IGF, surely you didn't forget to recommend the Rogue Squadron games for Gamecube?
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 19:06 Post subject: |
|
|
To wrap up this arguement, let it be known that I can respect your initial dislike for untested new technology. I'm not saying you MUST use a 64-bit proccessor, especially considering that their improvement is currently less cost-efficient than 32-bit processors.
Just because all current games use a negligable amount of 64-bit operands, it doens't mean that 64-bit processing is never going to be the mainstay. If I understand correctly, the original DOOM had exactly 0 32-bit operands, even though a slew of Penitium chips were availible. The same could be said for earlier programs... When Intel unvieled the 80386, the first commercially mass-produced 16-bit processor, there was nothing waiting to take advantage of the new capabilities then.
Of course 64-bit proccessors don't offer a 100% boost over 32-bit ones... They just pave the way for other new technologies, and help provide improvements for older ones... As an example, a Penitum running at 75 Mhz got equal performance to a 80486 at 120 Mhz. If I remember, DirectX as we know it was impossible until the Pentium. there will definitely be great improvements provided by later version of DirectX, that will take advantage of the 64-bit arcitecture.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you..
Last edited by Nottheking on Dec 01, 2003 19:11; edited 3 times in total |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 19:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, I do have my own opinions on the best games to get for the platforms, giving each their own appeal...
Unfortunately, it seems that Ninja Gaiden, based upon one of the hottest NES series ever, won't be ported to the PC in the forseeable future.
For the Gamecube, I'm still in awe of F-Zero GX, mainly just called F-Zero, as it's been years since anything has come from the series.
I'll post more reccomended games later...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 20:10 Post subject: |
|
|
To wrap up my part of this arguement, let it be known that I am all for 64 bit computing. Had I had the money, I would have bought an Itanium 2 yesterday. However, I still maintain that 64 bit computing will never provide a substantial performance boost for games.
Nottheking wrote:
Just because all current games use a negligable amount of 64-bit operands, it doens't mean that 64-bit processing is never going to be the mainstay.
Then I ask: what common operation in a game can you imagine needing 64 bit operands?
Nottheking wrote:
If I understand correctly, the original DOOM had exactly 0 32-bit operands, even though a slew of Penitium chips were availible. The same could be said for earlier programs...
Then you understand wrong. I just looked through the original DOOM source code, and counted 487 32 bit variables. That's so many it'd be virtually impossible to count operands - there will be tens of thousands of them.
Nottheking wrote:
When Intel unvieled the 80386, the first commercially mass-produced 16-bit processor, there was nothing waiting to take advantage of the new capabilities then.
Wrong. The 80386 was a 32 bit processor.
Nottheking wrote:
If I remember, DirectX as we know it was impossible until the Pentium. there will definitely be great improvements provided by later version of DirectX, that will take advantage of the 64-bit arcitecture.
Depends on what you mean by "as we know it". It's true that you can't install an existing version of DirectX on a 486 computer. It's false that it's impossible to write a version with the current functionality that still runs on 486 computers.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
To wrap up my part of this arguement, let it be known that I am all for 64 bit computing. Had I had the money, I would have bought an Itanium 2 yesterday. However, I still maintain that 64 bit computing will never provide a substantial performance boost for games.
I still say that things will change when 64-bits becomes far more common for operations, and perhaps the future posibility of running two 32-bit operations simulataneously (I.E.; one clock cycle would compute part of two different operations at once, assuming that they would fit together) would certainly make 64-bit proccessor far more desireable, allowing for better multitasking, if the idea were to ever be gotten to work.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Then I ask: what common operation in a game can you imagine needing 64 bit operands?
Although I don't know how much this would benefit from 64-bit proccessors, releases from Id Software say DOOM3 will use 64-bit textures... The extra 32 bits will be for the bump-mapping, and perhaps other things, supposedly allowing more advanced proccessors to complete a texturing calculation for a single pixel in one pass, instead of doing the normal 32-bit texture first, then applying detail textures, etc... Resulting in a MUCH better framrate than if DOOM3 were to use 32-bit texturing.
Also, as games get more complex, finer and finer detail is required. Eventually, I don't think it would be bizzare for even 128-bit operands (and more!) being used, to record things such as player position, especially in games with huge worlds/levels, such as those in the MMORPG genre.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Then you understand wrong. I just looked through the original DOOM source code, and counted 487 32 bit variables. That's so many it'd be virtually impossible to count operands - there will be tens of thousands of them.
I didn't know that DOOM handled any numbers higher than 65536... Just out of curiosity, what do some of the variables pertain to? Oh wait a minute, let me guess... Location?
Mattias Welander wrote:
Wrong. The 80386 was a 32 bit processor.
I think we are using different definitions of "32-bit". If you count path size, the 80386 was the first 32-bit proccessor: it had 16 interior paths, and 16 exterior paths. I'm going by word size, where the 80386 handled 16-bit "words"
Mattias Welander wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "as we know it". It's true that you can't install an existing version of DirectX on a 486 computer. It's false that it's impossible to write a version with the current functionality that still runs on 486 computers.
By "as we know it", I mean with the capability to take advantage of modern hardware, and provide the serious boost of performance that DX does. A version of DX9 ported to work with a 80486 would most likely not be worth the effort, as it would be far less efficient than modern DX, when compared on a modern 32-bit or 64-bit proccessor.
Also, as far as games are concerned, I can't even start to think about how consoles such as the PS2 and Gamcube benefit from their 128-bit proccessors... I feel that they will eventually show more technologically advanced games than the Xbox with its 32-bit Pentium III (or is it 4? I never found the official and final specs...), once the programmers find a good amount of ways to take advantage of the proccessor.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 01, 2003 21:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
I still say that things will change when 64-bits becomes far more common for operations, and perhaps the future posibility of running two 32-bit operations simulataneously
You're talking about SIMD processing, something that has been done since the P55C. It has nothing to do with 64 bit processing. If we're talking about the SIMD unit, the Pentium 4 is already a 128 bit processor. But that's not what we're talking about.
Nottheking wrote:
Although I don't know how much this would benefit from 64-bit proccessors, releases from Id Software say DOOM3 will use 64-bit textures... The extra 32 bits will be for the bump-mapping, and perhaps other things, supposedly allowing more advanced proccessors to complete a texturing calculation for a single pixel in one pass, instead of doing the normal 32-bit texture first, then applying detail textures, etc... Resulting in a MUCH better framrate than if DOOM3 were to use 32-bit texturing.
I'm not quite sure where to start here. Well, first of all, the processor isn't involved in texturing, so for the subject of 64 bit computing, this whole passage is irrelevant. But, since it's an interesting subject on its own, I'll discuss it anyway, since you brought it up. I'm not particulary interested in DOOM 3 myself, so I haven't studied the specifications that carefully. I'll just assume the data you provide is correct. If that is the case, you don't have one 64 bit texture, but two 32 bit textures - one for the color map and one for the normal map. It's still possible the DOOM 3 file format will store them combined into one 64 bit texture, but that's just a convenient disc storage trick and is unrelated to the textures themselves. Once they're loaded into graphics memory, the two textures will be combined in the pixel shader (I don't know if DOOM 3 has a FFP path, too).
Nottheking wrote:
Also, as games get more complex, finer and finer detail is required. Eventually, I don't think it would be bizzare for even 128-bit operands (and more!) being used, to record things such as player position, especially in games with huge worlds/levels, such as those in the MMORPG genre.
I agree that position storage is an interesting problem. However, I disagree that 64 bit processing would solve it. The reason is that few developers are using 64 bit storage for that problem even today, when it is available in software (absolute positional computations are very rare in games, so software 64 bit computations aren't very expensive). Furthermore, positions usually are stored as floating point numbers and not integers, making 64 bit computations virtually useless for this.
Nottheking wrote:
I didn't know that DOOM handled any numbers higher than 65536... Just out of curiosity, what do some of the variables pertain to? Oh wait a minute, let me guess... Location?
Everything from current map number through event IDs, through time values, through string length computations, through message IDs, through health... and so on. Since you specifically asked about positional values, they're a mix between 16 and 32 bit values, probably because the maps are so small.
Nottheking wrote:
I think we are using different definitions of "32-bit". If you count path size, the 80386 was the first 32-bit proccessor: it had 16 interior paths, and 16 exterior paths. I'm going by word size, where the 80386 handled 16-bit "words"
I think you'll have to explain this in greater detail, since the processor word of the 80386 is 32 bit. After all, it's the first processor with EnX registers, and as I'm sure you know, they are 32 bit.
Nottheking wrote:
A version of DX9 ported to work with a 80486 would most likely not be worth the effort, as it would be far less efficient than modern DX, when compared on a modern 32-bit or 64-bit proccessor.
You are correct. DX9 does indeed use SIMD processing for many calculations, something that would be slower on a 486. I do think the lower clock frequency would be a significantly bigger problem there than the lack of SIMD operations, though.
Nottheking wrote:
Also, as far as games are concerned, I can't even start to think about how consoles such as the PS2 and Gamcube benefit from their 128-bit proccessors...
Although I have never programmed the PS2 or the Gamecube, I'm fairly certain that is a 128 bit vector processor, and not a 128 bit general purpose processing, which is what we're talking about here.
|
|
Darth Oosha
Trandoshan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 09, 2003 18:42 Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Nottheking"]The XBox, unlike the PC, has fixed specifications. Halo is just about the maximum of what the XBox can offer; future games ported, such as Doom 3, will undoubtedly lose some of their brilliance.[/quote]
Not seen Halo 2?
Dunno what losing brilliance means. They'll be less brilliant than something? Is this a lighting/reflections thing?
|
|
XDelusion
Ree-Yees
Joined: 18 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 04:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Being as I was NEVER a Sony fan since the beginning, I bought an XBOX. I installed a MOD chip, a 120Gb Hard Drive, and I have to admit that I am VERY VERY pleased, only now I need a larger hard drive still. 
Aside of being able to install Linux, run emulators for just about anything under the sun on my TV, play the latest homebrew PC ports such as Quake, Quake 2, and perhaps a DOOM port or two, I also enjoy the XBOX's growing library of quality games.
I realize that the PS2 has a larger library and a larger fan base, but I am not content with a lot of the games on there, as many of them seem to be clones of each other, aside of that factor, the PS2 in my eyes only seems to be a over hyped Dreamcast for a VERY expensive price tag, and to make it worse, if you want to add on things that the XBOX has by default such as an Ethernet adaptor or Hard Drive, you got to fork out more cash...
...but you still be behind Poly, Light Effects, and RAM wise, not to mention you still stuck with your PS Controller with LOOSE as hell analogs which suck for playing FPS games.
The XBOX on the other hand gives you the BEST bang for the buck, built in ethernet, hard drive, Networkable, custom sound tracks, 64MB RAM, 733 Mhz CPU, NVIDIA technology (most advanced GFX technology for its time), ect.
It has a great libary of games, and more to come that will not, and CAN NOT EVER make there way to the PS2, such as:
Half Life 2
DOOM 3
Unreal 2
Knights Of the Old Republic
Jedi Outcast
Jedi Academy
Prince Of Persia
I-Ninja
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Halo
Halo 2 (over 200 reserves in my store alone)
Legacy Of Kain
Metal Arms
Otogi
Serious Sam
Sphinx ANd the Cursed Mummy
Beyond Good And Evil
Simpsons Hit And Run
Hobbit
Unreal Championship
Mace Griffin
ect ect ect
I could go on, but all I can say is that the XBOX has never been a regretted purchase since day one.
My next system will be a Game Cube, then some day a PS2 so I can play Castlevania, Megaman, and COntra, which SHOULD have been ported to all consoles in the 1st place.
|
|
|
