|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19409 |  scottwilkins (55) Feb 05, 2008 - 06:55 am
| | AMD doesn't need a company to buy. nVidia's purchase will soon be trashed, as they find there is no real benifit, as ATI/AMD has already developed a good parallel process, and can handle physics, or any other set of data in parallel (i.e. Folding@Home) very very well. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19409 | scottwilkins (55) Feb 05, 2008 - 06:53 am
| | DirectX will have the standard for Physics processing soon. This will create a problem for nVidia which has a bad history with DirectX support initially. I feel this will cause them to dump Ageia technology, like they did 3Dfx after purchasing them, and do their own thing once again. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19414 | scottwilkins (55) Feb 05, 2008 - 06:41 am
| | AMD/ATI has been blowing the doors off the nVidia corporate offices in terms of parallel processing power. You need an example? Folding@Home. Still not doable on an nVidia chip, but works wonders on ATI. nVidia had to do something to keep up with ATI's strong showing in this area and the purchase of Agiea was a last ditch effort. nVidia's chip speed trump is starting to fail them, and they need more talent to keep at a competitive level. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17418 | scottwilkins (55) Oct 08, 2007 - 05:36 pm » Edited on Oct 08, 2007 - 05:36 pm
| » Ads, definately ads...
Games are already too damn expensive. Ads will NOT hurt gameplay in one little bit. Sorry it just won't. No matter how ANAL! you are, it won't matter. But, to me, if it's going to have Ads, it needs to be cheaper period. $25 per game period. $50/$60 per game is too much.
Most kiddies here don't remember $70/movie VHS tapes... 'nuff said. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17541 | scottwilkins (55) Sep 24, 2007 - 06:05 am
| » original hype
99% of the original hype for Halo 1 was from the players. I guess you aren't a game player? Hardly anyone reviewed Halo 1 at it's time of launch because everyone thought the Xbox 1 was going to die. Halo showed that the Xbox platform had legs and could walk all over the competition. Most of the printed hype came after the press found out that people actually LIKED Halo 1 and enjoyed playing it over and over. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17541 | scottwilkins (55) Sep 24, 2007 - 05:59 am » Edited on Sep 24, 2007 - 06:00 am
| » Halo vs. Bioshock???
Bioshock sucked. Sorry, but it was extremely repetitive and very boring.
Halo has always been a pinnacle for all FPS games, either on consoles or on the PC. Those that respond it to be "boring" or "over-hypes" are usually easily tagged as PS2/3 fanbois, without exception. Few games before, or since (especially since) have lived up to the extreme hype or even created such a stir as Halo.
For me personally, Halo's the only single player FPS I've ever had the desire to play more than once. Most who play it feel the same. If you must be "special" and disagree, at least don't be such a goob about it. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=16967 | scottwilkins (55) Aug 16, 2007 - 07:54 am
| » Definately a lot of BS
I agree with DrKeo, they just don't need that space to do a good game. Personally, I'd never trust my games or movies to Blu-Ray. They have removed 80% of the protective layer over the data on the discs. And don't believe that "special coating" BS either, because they DON'T USE IT! It's too expensive to use, so the discs are basically unprotected from light damage and scratch damage. Kiss your $60/game goodbye if even a tiny scratch hits it. Bad. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15890 | scottwilkins (55) Jun 10, 2007 - 09:41 pm
| » Why wouldn't it be on one disc?
It's not like games really NEED a bunch of FMV files to make a game great. Pre-rendered movies is why most games over 1 DVD need more than 1 DVD (and why Sony PS3 games need Blu-Ray, because of pre-renders B.S. that ruins a game. bah!) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15606 | scottwilkins (55) Jun 10, 2007 - 09:02 pm
| » Why "older" games run upto 15% slower...
OK guys, this ain't rocket science. Games written for 32-bit Windows must run in the WOW32 mode in Vista 64. Just like in XP, when you run an old 16-bit application, it is run inside a virtual machine (sort of, but close enough for this reply) that mimics a 16-bit platform so the memory addressing is proper. In 64-bit Vista, most games will run in the 32-bit virtualization, to also properly address memory in the right way, translated. Hence the slight slow down. Overall though, you will see the the latest games slow down almost zero, and actually run a bit smoother overall. Massive slowdowns seen in the 32-bit Vista will be less seen in the 64-bit Vista. So, for me, I'll take a 5% drop to get an overall speed increase on average. 64-bit computing just BREATHS better.
Want a real kick? Try 8 gig ram in a quad CPU system under 64-bits. You can actually run 2 windowed 3D games (I did WoW and LoTRO side by side) at the same time, respectfully with little difference in gameplay. Not that it is a good thing to do that, but it was neat anyway. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15606 | scottwilkins (55) Jun 10, 2007 - 08:53 pm
| » 32bit rubbish in article
I disagree with the "32-bit drivers are a priority to nVIdia and game makers" like comments in the article. You didn't take for instance that any game marked "Games for Windows" on the box has to be able to run in both 32 and 64 bit modes, as mandated by Microsoft themselves. Microsoft is not letting up on the 64-bit push, not one bit. Plus, the driver model for both 32-bit and 64-bit are virtually identical. SO, if the drivers work properly in 32-bit, they should by most considerations work good in 64-bit mode. If not, then there is a bigger problem to be tackled. Over all nVidia has sucked at drivers in Vista so far. I personally have 3 machines running 64-bit Vista, 2 with ATI and 1 with nVidia. The ATI machines have been rock solid. The nVidia machine still suffers from video driver related issues in everything from sleep mode awakening to resolution changes at random for no reason.
64-bit gaming already rocks, for both 32-bit games, and for the few 64-bit games available. 64-bit will revolutionize the gaming world, especially when DX10 gets here.
Firingsquad: Next time get someone who is more involved with the 64-bit movement on both the Microsoft partner side and the developer side to do this article, not some hack wannabe. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14226 | scottwilkins (55) Feb 10, 2007 - 09:02 pm
| » Vista's worth getting now, as long as you run ATI
I'm running 64-bit Vista with an X1900XTX and it runs perfectly. I'm sorry the nVidia guys are having so many problems, but ATI can be given kudos for not rushing stuff to market this time and working to get the software right. Vista is good, and no, it not XP. If you like XP, stick with it. If you want more out of your OS, get Vista. Anyone (like Kessandra) stating "wait a year" is living under a rock. Hey, the Earth is still moving, get on or get left behind... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14227 | scottwilkins (55) Feb 10, 2007 - 08:56 pm » Edited on Feb 10, 2007 - 08:56 pm
| » PS3's problem? Blu-Ray!
If it were not for the Blu-Ray debacle PS3 would be worth owning. Sony has paid a TON of money to advertise that this is a plus, but it's not. Blu-Ray is truely a mistake both for games, and movies. Anyone who thinks moving the data 80% closer to the surface and closer to the laser is a good thing, has a lot of loss ahead of them as their media destroys itself in a short few years. All plastic media has a life, Blu-Ray is much much shorter than CD or DVD media due to change Sony made in the format. And, don't buy the "protective coating" bull either, so far Sony has not shipped any discs with this coating on it. It's too EXPENSIVE! Also, the storage plus? Not that much of a plus after all. HD-DVD discs can hold 8 hours of HD movies, Blu-Ray can hold... only 9! 1 hour difference. Only about 12% more. And for SD movies, HD-DVD actually holds more. The reason is Sony won't use the new encodings properly due to their DRM mess, which is much more heavier and cumbersom than HD-DVD causing all kinds of head-aches for some movies. Is this really worth a $200 premium on the PS3? No. And the public so far agrees as PS3 sales have all but dried up. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
