Bioshock - PC Review @ IGN

I guess we all have different views on what is acceptable, I may just be spoiled because I refuse to play a game with any options turned off.

Not spoiled, just a bit silly. Game engines have future scalability built-in; many won't run at "maximum settings" on *any* hardware available now. The advantage is that they'll have a longer shelf life -- a game made with the Id Tech 5 or Unreal 3 will look better on iron made five years from now than on iron in use now. In my book, that's a good thing.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
I'm not sure where you live but where I am a 3.0 GHz dual core processor all by itself cost several hundred.

*edit* Assuming you mean a good dual core, not one of those old Pentium D processors.

Check out Newegg.com. You can get a brand new intel quad core retail with free game for under 300 with free shipping. How about that =)
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
246
Location
In the Sky
That's is indeed good. Close to $300 is still considered "several" hundred though.

...after all the amd/intel price battles the dual cores are mad cheap. Really, it isn't much to build a computer than can run this. Its almost a throw away with 8 core cpu's in the near future. That's the sad part :-\

But I want that 8 core. 2 cores to 8 cores will be one nice jump.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
246
Location
In the Sky
...after all the amd/intel price battles the dual cores are mad cheap. Really, it isn't much to build a computer than can run this. Its almost a throw away with 8 core cpu's in the near future. That's the sad part :-\

But I want that 8 core. 2 cores to 8 cores will be one nice jump.

It's unlikely you'll notice anything at all unless you run some very specialized software that's really well optimized for multithreading, or you run lots and lots of things at the same time. (I'm not talking about servers here; if you're running a bunch of virtual machines in one box, it'll make a huge difference.)

Single-core to dual-core is a significant jump, also in practice; dual-core to quad-core is much smaller; quad-core to 8-core... well, we'll see. Perhaps software taking advantage of it will be more common by then.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
It's unlikely you'll notice anything at all unless you run some very specialized software that's really well optimized for multithreading, or you run lots and lots of things at the same time. (I'm not talking about servers here; if you're running a bunch of virtual machines in one box, it'll make a huge difference.)

Single-core to dual-core is a significant jump, also in practice; dual-core to quad-core is much smaller; quad-core to 8-core... well, we'll see. Perhaps software taking advantage of it will be more common by then.

Seeing as how some programs are already working on 4 cores it won't take much to use 8 - if you use those programs.

Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
246
Location
In the Sky
Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.

Well, about "power" ... These multi-cores are also "power" ... read: current-hungry ...
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,946
Location
Old Europe
Seeing as how some programs are already working on 4 cores it won't take much to use 8 - if you use those programs.

Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.

Yup, those would be the "highly specialized" programs I mentioned. Specifically, there's some image processing software that is very nicely parallelized, but most games aren't.

Second, buying capacity before you need it is a poor economic decision, because capacity gets cheaper all the time. Buy enough to last you for 12-24 months, tops; otherwise you're overpaying big-time.

Practical example: I built my current rig about 18 months ago. At the time, the top-of-the line CPU was the Athlon x64 X2 4800+. It cost a bit over 1,000 euros. So I bought the X2 3800+ instead, for about 200 euros.

I have not been CPU-constrained during these 18 months.

If it turned out that, say, Bioshock was CPU-bottlenecked on my rig, I could get an X2 6000+ for under 200 euros. I would have to change my motherboard as well, since the socket has changed. That would add another 100 euros or so to the bill.

So, to tally up:

Mobo: 100 €
3800+: 200 €
New mobo: 100 €
6000+: 175 €
Total: 575 €
Sell old mobo+CPU: -100 €
Final total: 475€

Had I bought the 4800+ 18 months ago, I would have paid about 1,200 € total, and I would have a slower CPU.

Lesson learned: whether you're buying disk capacity, CPU capacity, or GPU capacity, buy just enough to get rid of the bottleneck for the next 12-24 months, no more. Otherwise you'll just be paying through the nose for something that will be overtaken buy cheap low-end stuff about halfway through the projected lifetime of your box.

(Incidentally, my CPU runs current games just fine, so I don't even need to upgrade any time soon. Which means that I probably overinvested when I bought it... but only by 100 euros or so, tops.)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
This discussion is wonderful ... but makes you understand why consoles are so popular ... a system that can run Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 on full resolution and detail would need an upgrade that would cost more than a PS3 to get reasonable results for these new games.

I'm just happy to know I've got about another year on my laptop ... and laptops are much worse in terms of the cycle of obsolescence.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
Back
Top Bottom