LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFutureproofing a GPU has in the past been a fools game - they move on so quickly that when the future comes you can already buy one three times faster/more efficient with xyz features for the same price as your 'futureproof' old one
Futureproofing a GPU has in the past been a fools game - they move on so quickly that when the future comes you can already buy one three times faster/more efficient with xyz features for the same price as your 'futureproof' old one
It seriously does, it was top line gear a few years ago but completely sucks on performance. SmallNetBuilder got similar results with the AP.Originally Posted by kalniel
Your wifi does suck thenMine is through several walls, though being a newish build they're not the thickest. I don't get full G bandwidth, but 48mbps is enough and the ping is great. Router is ye olde O2 wireless box II which is quite awful in most other regards.
The good stuff like Asus routers etc do much better in the 3x3 MIMO modes unsupported by most clients but the 802.11ac model is £160... and I have no ac clients, all the phones/tablets/laptops are 2x2 N at best. I even upgraded the WiFi card in my laptop...
True kalniel, but i've never before seen a new product being limited use for those with a certain range of card, in this case the Nvidia 6 series. If I go for the AMD I run the risk of missing out on this new "console"...Futureproofing a GPU has in the past been a fools game - they move on so quickly that when the future comes you can already buy one three times faster/more efficient with xyz features for the same price as your 'futureproof' old one
The main draw for me is the streaming from PC to device allowing portable gaming in the house. My partner can watch "One Born Every Minute" without me complaining, and I can still sit be in the room to pretend to listen to her.
Win Win Situation.
It happens all the time. Sometimes it's even done with no good reason, for example blocking physX acceleration on an nVidia card if an AMD card is present in the system, which is despicable and nVidia should be boycotted for it IMHO.
In this case if they've made the console then fair play to them if they want to make it only work with nVidia GPUs, but you'd have to be mad to buy an expensive PC GPU solely because you might want to play some future handhold console. Wait till it's actually been released and see if you want it, then use that to inform your buying decision. (IE: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush)
I am a bit of a nvidia fan so I don't mind
What's worse is, PhysX actually runs fine on CPU a lot of the time, despite being horribly unoptimised, and can be enabled with a simple ini tweak in some games. It's simple brand lock-in, no other reason for it.
And I doubt this new console would be physically limited to the (conveniently) new 600 series, if nothing else, AMD's newer cards also have a hardware video compression engine even though no-one seems to have bothered using it yet; a few use OpenCL and claim it to be VCE, but AFAIK there's none that actually use it yet. I mean like you say the did develop it so it's understandable they don't want to promote a competitor's product, but I doubt they'll leave the platform open for the sake of consumers!
Yeah, I also despise brand lock-in and the like...
They really need to take a cue from Sony or Nintendo as this thing looks ugly, even for concept work. The idea is interesting though.
If you wanted to play games pc on your tv there must be better ways than routing the video via a controller with an hdmi cable coming out of it?
the screen looks too small to really enjoy pc games, as they aren't designed with a 5" screen in mind.
Once looking past the "ooh shiny" phase I'm not realy getting the point of this, unless they want to take on the vita/ds?
Wow, that thing is still going on? I've not kept up with GPU changes since my primary PC is now a laptop, and GPU is only one factor, and the main one (good 1080p screen) usually narrows down my choices a lot (typically on nVidia's favour), and at the time of my last purchase, AMD did not have an Optimus equivalent (I understand that this has since changed, though going by an article I just dug from Anandtech dated on 09/2011, AMD still had way to go).
As long as you have a GTX 650 or up in your system (so baisically any kepler GPU), you can connect the shield to the computer through the local network.
Very sadly, yes. I can just about understand propitiatory technologies (there's R&D costs to recoup), though I would prefer more open standards for the sake of PC gaming in the longer term, I can't stand actively blocking a competitor's products for no reason other than anti-competitive reasons. I may one day have even bought an nVidia card for dedicated physX if they could demonstrate genuine advantages for it over CPU-based simulations, but by disabling that possibility if you happen to have an AMD card as well they've completely ruled that out.
It's spreading to other areas as well (though not as blatantly) - we've long had vendor involvement in game coding, often for good effect (shiny water in morrowind etc.) but where once it was just about helping devs use new standards of GPUs to making games better and encourage take up of new technology, it's becoming increasingly vendor specific with optimisations being suggested that barely improve performance under one vendor while giving a possible cost to the other (tessellating invisible water anyone?
And I doubt it's just nVidia - AMD have been increasing their developer relation efforts as well. Mostly I've seen this has been for the benefit of all, for example pioneering forward rendering techniques that allow technologies usually reserved for deferred rendering to be used together with nice image quality enhancements like edge detect AA, but I'd really like to someone to delve into things like global illumination on the latest codemasters driving games to see why nVidia cards do so badly on it (to the extent Hexus drop the quality setting to give them a fairer comparison in reviews). If it's just superior AMD hardware then they're to be applauded for it. If they have encouraged something to deliberately work badly on a competitors technology then I'll be very grumpy and go buy an Xbox.. only then I'll complain about exclusivity nonsense and try an ouya or something
-grumpy old man
Back to topic. This would be even neater if they separated the base unit from the controller and connected that wirelessly - ie have a box attached to the monitor that you stream from your PC to, then just have the controller talk to this box wirelessly. No cables in the way then
That is not a bad concept . it is reasonably cheap being only £126.07. the fact that it can "cross play" with steam is a great idea. however I would like to see a larger scale of compatibility.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
