Well, I play my share of games, even on an aging midrange PC (P-D 930, 7600gt) I can run this very well @ 1680x1050, and to me the textures look great. The most hardcore games will turn all the options down anyways, and Unreal is just keeping an even bigger pool of potential buyers open by offering a beta that is a relatively SANE download size yet still looks good and runs smooth on older-gen hardware.
Gameplay is a little different from UT2k4, and it's a little more leveled out b/w the best and worst players. I like the hoverboard feature a TON more than the translocator, but I would still like that back for the non-vehicle maps.
Here is a question... With most gamers having dual or quad core processors in the first place, is there really any advantage to having a ppu? It seems to me that the usefullness will wear off with this whole focus on paralellisation.
But then again, perhaps the PhysX processor can do some math faster then an actual processor.. (although i doubt it).
Originally Posted by CardJoe Rein also took the chance to update the fans on the status of the PlayStation 3 version of the game. The PS3 port is, according to Rein, looking like it will still ship alongside the PC version of the game
Then I read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe [Unreal Tournament] will be coming out on the PC (late 2007), PlayStation 3 (early 2008) and Xbox 360 (mid 2008)
Originally Posted by UncertainGod sucks to be you.
Why? I can probably play at settings comparable to a $1500 computer on something that cost my friend $499 and it's free to me...so tbh it's pretty sweet
I spend more time running linux and playing movies on the damned thing than I do playing games. Although shortly that should change as I'll be playing Ratchet and Clank and Skate once my RMA exchange actually takes place.
Originally Posted by Archangel I spend more time running linux and playing movies on the damned thing than I do playing games. Although shortly that should change as I'll be playing Ratchet and Clank and Skate once my RMA exchange actually takes place.
RMA exchange? What happened? Arch, just like the 360, the PS3 will have good games come out by its 1-year b-day (US atleast) and tbh isn't being able to do multiple things on the PS3 a good thing, right? (i.e. running Ubuntu, using it as a media server, upconverting 1080p DVD player, etc.) I don't get how that "sucks" to own one.....I'm envious....also have you tried Motorstorm, Warhawk, RFoM, NFL '08, etc. to fill the void until the really good games debut this November-Xmas?
You can actually use more than those vehicles, by using cheat codes you can spawn the paladin,cicada,fury and one other (the necris tank, cant remember name).
Originally Posted by UncertainGod CPU is a general processing unit, GPU is a graphics proccessing unit and now PPU are physics proccessing units, in time both the GPU and the PPU will be replaced by a GPGPU setup that still has the massively parallel proccessing ability that CPU's lack but a more flexible function base.
That is very true, I completely agree. Just notice, both NV/ATI hardware are getting more "general" shaders that work for everything from pixel shaders to geometry ones. The more "stream processors" the better. Same goes for Intel/AMD: the more cores, the better. Just by reading a little bit on the topic makes evident why massively multithreading is good. Still, there's always the old problem: communication between hw. Once we get the data lighting fastly processed in the cpu/gpu, we're wasting time into moving it from one place to another. Same chip hw sounds like a logical evolution, but more in the likes of AMD's fusion, since you can only get so complex in a piece of chip when combining cpu/gpu. You could put everything there, but then it'd be a huge chip and you'd end up with a similar problem: even if in the same chip, data would take too long to it's destination.
Personally, i'm more excited about IBM being able to slow light beams down and make light connections between different pieces of hw. And talking about that, I've always thought, if we can do optic fiber connections to transmit huge internet data, why on earth don't we put optic fiber cables in everything from cpu/ram/gpu and make them communicate with each other with data-made-light, as in the internet? Isn't it much faster???
Comments 26 to 44 of 44
Gameplay is a little different from UT2k4, and it's a little more leveled out b/w the best and worst players. I like the hoverboard feature a TON more than the translocator, but I would still like that back for the non-vehicle maps.
But then again, perhaps the PhysX processor can do some math faster then an actual processor.. (although i doubt it).
Then I read:
Which one is correct?
That is very true, I completely agree. Just notice, both NV/ATI hardware are getting more "general" shaders that work for everything from pixel shaders to geometry ones. The more "stream processors" the better. Same goes for Intel/AMD: the more cores, the better. Just by reading a little bit on the topic makes evident why massively multithreading is good. Still, there's always the old problem: communication between hw. Once we get the data lighting fastly processed in the cpu/gpu, we're wasting time into moving it from one place to another. Same chip hw sounds like a logical evolution, but more in the likes of AMD's fusion, since you can only get so complex in a piece of chip when combining cpu/gpu. You could put everything there, but then it'd be a huge chip and you'd end up with a similar problem: even if in the same chip, data would take too long to it's destination.
Personally, i'm more excited about IBM being able to slow light beams down and make light connections between different pieces of hw. And talking about that, I've always thought, if we can do optic fiber connections to transmit huge internet data, why on earth don't we put optic fiber cables in everything from cpu/ram/gpu and make them communicate with each other with data-made-light, as in the internet? Isn't it much faster???