Author Topic: Which CPU are you waiting for? (Read 3435 times)

ZylonBane · **Reply #20 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:58:27 am

I prefer "Two Sheds" Prescott.

Petrarch of the VBB · **Reply #21 on:** August 13, 2003, 04:05:33 am

Good god! Zylon actually brought a smile to my face!

I can't be getting enough sleep.

Kazashi · **Reply #22 on:** August 13, 2003, 06:06:43 am

Opteron FX. It may only have half the cache of the regular Opteron, but it won't be limited to a 64-bit memory channel like the Clawhammer-based Athlon 64 will be. Yeah, I'm already sick of seeing FX as the latest hardware tag-on, but it's the numbers that will count.

Fancy that, first post in months and it's not even about Freespace.

Odyssey · **Reply #23 on:** August 13, 2003, 01:21:08 pm

I wish they'd make something like the processors in handhelds but using more normal architecture. In other words, a processor in the range of 100 to 400mhz, that's frickin' small, doesn't take a bit of power to run, and is fine with passive cooling, if that. It would be easily possible with current technology - for instance the old laptop I spoke of earlier (~75mhz) overheats itself very quickly if it's put on an insulating surface such as a bed where the 'feet' can't raise it up, yet my handheld (even when overclocked to 462mhz) which, like the laptop, has no fan, remains cold metal throughout. The only bit that heats up is the backlight if it's on full brightness.
Now if someone made something like that to stick in a laptop, it'd be perfect. 400mhz is enough for anything other than those newfangled three-dimensional games rampaging the market these days. And, to be honest, it isn't much of a loss. Most games around at the moment are the same, give or take a bit of graphics. 2D games get the most innovation, since you can't just overload it with pretty graphics and call it a sequel. Unless you're Sid Meier.

Unfortunately, it's all numbers these days, so it won't happen. Fun ol' world, innit?

Unknown Target · **Reply #24 on:** August 13, 2003, 01:28:22 pm

Lol, you are posting a putting a post saying that 3D games aren't really necessary, and it's all about 2D games, on a board based on one of the best 3D games ever made?

Anyways, yea, I was wondering myself why they didn't put something like a souped-up Palm processor in a PC. Of course, the big processors have more capability, and more hidden horsepower.

Odyssey · **Reply #25 on:** August 13, 2003, 01:57:47 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Lol, you are posting a putting a post saying that 3D games aren't really necessary, and it's all about 2D games, on a board based on one of the best 3D games ever made?

I am indeed. But I suppose freespace would run on 400mhz... *checks*
Okay, both FS and FS2 work on a 450mhz with a SiS 2D graphics card. Good old spare-parts computer. So with even a low-end graphics card from this era (instead of last century like the SiS), a laptop built around a 400mhz chip oughta do the trick.

01010 · **Reply #26 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:38:18 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Odyssey

I am indeed. But I suppose freespace would run on 400mhz... *checks*
Okay, both FS and FS2 work on a 450mhz with a SiS 2D graphics card. Good old spare-parts computer. So with even a low-end graphics card from this era (instead of last century like the SiS), a laptop built around a 400mhz chip oughta do the trick.

*Remembers being amazed by the Nebula on the FS2 demo running on his 400mhz k6-2 with 16mb tnt2*

Scary thing is that was only four years ago.

Odyssey · **Reply #27 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:42:20 pm

The spare-parts-machine is a 450mhz K6-2 with a 2mb SiS. It's crap. And it runs the best 3D game ever. How intriguing. Pity they don't make games that'll run great on just that any more

EDIT: Maybe it's something to do with the code being completely illogically written? Methinks old computers like that

01010 · **Reply #28 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:44:48 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Odyssey
The spare-parts-machine is a 450mhz K6-2 with a 2mb SiS. It's crap. And it runs the best 3D game ever. How intriguing. Pity they don't make games that'll run great on just that any more

You pay the price technology wise for the latest games, that is true. But with games like GTA: Vice City, C&C Generals and the forthcoming HL2 and Doom 3 I think it's worth it.

Odyssey · **Reply #29 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:50:22 pm

Quote

Originally posted by 01010
You pay the price technology wise for the latest games, that is true. But with games like GTA: Vice City, C&C Generals and the forthcoming HL2 and Doom 3 I think it's worth it.

C&C Generals = remake of all the 2D things in the series just because everything 'has to be 3D' these days with huge PC requirements otherwise people won't take it seriously.
GTA-ViceCity = glorified version of arcade games, with more violence.
HL2, Doom3, UT2003, etc. = all the same.

Myself, I don't see the appeal. Each to their own though

01010 · **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:55:45 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Odyssey

C&C Generals = remake of all the 2D things in the series just because everything 'has to be 3D' these days with huge PC requirements otherwise people won't take it seriously.
GTA-ViceCity = glorified version of arcade games, with more violence.
HL2, Doom3, UT2003, etc. = all the same.

Myself, I don't see the appeal. Each to their own though

Generals is just a 3d remake I agree, but I loved the originals so it's a moot point. I'd heavily disagree with you on the Vice City remark however, it's the closest you'll come to experiencing a livng, breathing world on a computer and it is so much fun that I'm still playing it solidly two months after I completed it, which is a complete change for me as I'm so jaded with most games nowadays I don't even bother to complete them.

I played the Doom 3 alpha and that game will be something special if ID manage to maintain the atmosphere from that for the entire game, the first time I was ever truly terrified to walk around the next bend for fear of what was there.

Half Life 2, that just speaks for itself. That game is going to decimate everything else on the shelves for a good six months at least in my opinion.

Odyssey · **Reply #31 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:59:17 pm

Well, I'm not going to argue - as I said, each to their own. I'm still playing Alpha Centauri, and that's been one hell of a long time since its release ^_^

Kamikaze · **Reply #32 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:06:45 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Odyssey
I wish they'd make something like the processors in handhelds but using more normal architecture. In other words, a processor in the range of 100 to 400mhz, that's frickin' small, doesn't take a bit of power to run, and is fine with passive cooling, if that. It would be easily possible with current technology - for instance the old laptop I spoke of earlier (~75mhz) overheats itself very quickly if it's put on an insulating surface such as a bed where the 'feet' can't raise it up, yet my handheld (even when overclocked to 462mhz) which, like the laptop, has no fan, remains cold metal throughout. The only bit that heats up is the backlight if it's on full brightness.
Now if someone made something like that to stick in a laptop, it'd be perfect. 400mhz is enough for anything other than those newfangled three-dimensional games rampaging the market these days. And, to be honest, it isn't much of a loss. Most games around at the moment are the same, give or take a bit of graphics. 2D games get the most innovation, since you can't just overload it with pretty graphics and call it a sequel. Unless you're Sid Meier.

Unfortunately, it's all numbers these days, so it won't happen. Fun ol' world, innit?

Get a transmeta processor then.

www.transmeta.com

01010 · **Reply #33 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:15:50 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Odyssey
Well, I'm not going to argue - as I said, each to their own. I'm still playing Alpha Centauri, and that's been one hell of a long time since its release ^_^

I'd like Civilization more if I wasn't so bad at it

Odyssey · **Reply #34 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:29:09 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Get a transmeta processor then.

www.transmeta.com

Yeah, they're good, but I haven't ever seen a teeny, cheap (i.e. not Sony Vaio) laptop mass-produced with one. If only...

Quote

Originally posted by 01010
I'd like Civilization more if I wasn't so bad at it

I've got Civ3 lying around from a friend, but I tried it for a few minutes and said "Aw, dammit", then returned to Alpha Centauri. I'm sure given an hour or two I'd pick it up (like Alpha Centauri at first), but I can't be arsed at the moment ^_^

Kamikaze · **Reply #35 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:33:21 pm

How much is cheap? If you're willing to pay 1500 you can get a sharp actius, very small notebook with a 1ghz transmeta processor.

Odyssey · **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2003, 03:42:57 pm

Well, my handheld cost £400 new a year ago, and the laptop would have to be less miniaturised than that, so knock off £100 or so, then add ~£200-300 for larger screen, casing, larger battery... And then, with a little more fudge factor, we get £700-ish.
Assuming that the price you gave for the Actius was in dollars, then that's £1000-ish. Not half bad, I suppose. But I don't need all that speed! Oh well, I can just wait until it all comes down in price. The old laptop has served for 5 years or so, it can go on a few more, albeit whilst burning my lap in the process... Bloody hot-running :S

News:

Poll

Which CPU are you waiting for?