Personal computing discussed
Shobai wrote:GamesIndustry.biz has presented their review of the year - the death of PC gaming continues apace.
sweatshopking wrote:Actually, the rise of mobile gaming is shocking. that does show a serious problem for pc/consoles.
Kougar wrote:I am more curious how it will affect consoles, when mobile devices are quickly catching up to consoles in hardware capabilities.
LostCat wrote:Kougar wrote:I am more curious how it will affect consoles, when mobile devices are quickly catching up to consoles in hardware capabilities.
They've been 'quickly catching up to consoles in hardware capabilities' every year that it's the year of Linux on the desktop, heh.
As long as they rely on batteries, it's not going to happen.
LostCat wrote:They've been 'quickly catching up to consoles in hardware capabilities' every year that it's the year of Linux on the desktop, heh.
Kougar wrote:And right now MS/Sony both seem focused on going the downsizing route.
Vhalidictes wrote:That's a good point! Fortunately, the Nintendo Switch isn't a tablet and doesn't have a battery...
LostCat wrote:Err....PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are the flagship products, neither of which qualifies as downsizing.
Kougar wrote:So, by that comparison just glue eight 2006 "Conroe" architecture cores together and you have a 2018 "flagship" console processor. Which if correct, means the smartphone A11 Bionic already outperforms Jaguar in single-thread performance. Equalize the core counts and the A11 Bionic probably would run circles around the Jaguar chip. The latest consoles still use 5400RPM drives, and smartphones already use faster NAND storage. So at this point the only thing making a console more powerful than the iphone X would be it's graphics capabilities.
Kougar wrote:LostCat wrote:Err....PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are the flagship products, neither of which qualifies as downsizing.
Flagship or not, the Jaguar core was at the bottom of the charts the day the original Xbox One and PS4 launched, and since then both Sony and Microsoft have been focused on shrinking the internals and console itself to cut production costs rather than add performance.
Let's look at the Jaguar core itself. AMD's Bulldozer could outperform the Jaguar core. The 2500K obliterates it it in a quad vs quad matchup. The 920 still offers 50% better single-thread performance in Cinebench. Even the ancient 2006 Core 2 Duo E6400 looks to equal the single-thread performance as the 2.1Ghz Jaguar in the PS4 Pro.
So, by that comparison just glue eight 2006 "Conroe" architecture cores together and you have a 2018 "flagship" console processor. Which if correct, means the smartphone A11 Bionic already outperforms Jaguar in single-thread performance. Equalize the core counts and the A11 Bionic probably would run circles around the Jaguar chip. The latest consoles still use 5400RPM drives, and smartphones already use faster NAND storage. So at this point the only thing making a console more powerful than the iphone X would be it's graphics capabilities.
drfish wrote:Rollcage.
drfish wrote:Also, the CTF game you're talking about is something I've wanted to see redone as an FPS ever since.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:I had a paintball game from back in the day that was a straight-fps. That was the closest thing to a virtual form of a game that could actually be played physically.
Vhalidictes wrote:The AMD "cat" cores were intended for netbooks, as an equivalent to Intel's Atom series. In that regard they basically overperform. I assume that they were used for modern consoles because they were 1) fast enough, 2) cheap, and 3) relatively low-power.
Kougar wrote:Aye. Though one thing I don't understand is that it is a little odd consoles use eight of them when PC gaming can't even get past four cores.
If the rumor about Apple developing its own graphics pans out, it will be very interesting to see how it matches up.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:I had a paintball game from back in the day that was a straight-fps. That was the closest thing to a virtual form of a game that could actually be played physically.
derFunkenstein wrote:It's not hard to understand. At least on the Xbox One, two of the cores and a good chunk of RAM are dedicated to the OS.
Kougar wrote:The Xbox supposedly uses a more streamlined build of Windows 10 making it lighter and more efficient. Yet for running a heavier OS with background apps, desktop users still don't need to dedicate two cores to the OS, or see much if any benefit to have six cores to run games.
drfish wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:I had a paintball game from back in the day that was a straight-fps. That was the closest thing to a virtual form of a game that could actually be played physically.
It's old, and it runs best with a Glide wrapper[!], but Nerf Arena Blast is worth a look if you've never tried it. I still have my original CD.
Kougar wrote:The thing for me is that the only distinguishing factor left preventing a tablet from replacing a console is the GPU performance.