games now going to be targeted at XBone and PS4: will CPU reqs stabilize?

Not sure what you mean by capability but there is always open potential.

The Dreamcast was far ahead of its time when it got released, the controller was of low matter, the entire architecture was no match to other systems at that time, it was well beyond. Unfortunately, Sega lacks the reach of other companys and was based on arcade to much. Nonetheless, it was my most beloved console and there is no other console i got 5 units from, a Dreamcast only thing so far.

The Gamecube may be considered "fail", but it was my most beloved Nintendo console ever made. SNES to some extend can match it but it got a retro bonus which is a different thing. To bad Nintendo didnt make a Gamecube 2, or another Cube, it would be a blast. The Wii thing is creating headache, to be honest. If they can not make a full scaled console, it is probably better to act the same way Sega is doing when it comes to financial matters, means stepping out of hardware. However, it would be sad, Nintendo is a real pioneer in the console industry and the day they stop having a own hardware, it will be a sad day (no matter for the good or bad). The hardware-demise of Sega is already hard enough, a second demise would be to much to handle and may even hurt the industrys reputance.

CPU is a relative term, "Uncharted" for example was using almost every power the CELL CPU got, a CPU with some special specs and still the most powerful console CPU ever made. But most games was not using it, devs didnt seem to be able to handle it or they didnt take the time because the Xbox360 was important to them, so the PS3 had to be throttled by weaker hardware. Although Xbox360 had a stronger GPU and the real difference vs. PS3 was not so heavy. XboxOne is another thing, 50% weaker vs. PS4, this is a clear difference. But i think it cant be spelled out in a way like "game need CPU or game does not need CPU", ressources are always useful in some way, the devs simply are utilizing the best possible and when there is no more ressources, thats it. There is not truly a thing such as "fix demand" or "maximum demand possible". But it is true that the new GCN architecture is offering a much higher versatility and thus the CPU is becoming less and less important. The GPU demand, as a result of the increased versatility and new resolutions is even higher than ever ago...

Ivy said:

But most games was not using it, devs didnt seem to be able to handle it or they didnt take the time because the Xbox360 was important to them.

Click to expand...

The first part, that developers could not "handle" it, is sorta true, as the Cell was hard to program for. The second part is pure opinion and speculation, that you simply cannot backup with facts at all lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and totally subbed cos Ivy, is first totally interesting person I've found....aside from Alaric, and Silver_Pharaoh

NZKshatriya said:

First, lets keep assumptions of thought capability out of this discussion.

Second. The Amiibo model is a standard model of hook the user, and constantly release new content for it. Same as World of Warcraft and its neverending expansions.
The Amiibo model is also there to feed into the nostalgia and collectible crowd, I really like my WiiU but could really care less about using an Amiibo in a game. But I'll be damned if I didn't think it would be cool to have a Megaman or one of the yarn Yoshi Amiibos.

The strategic move Nintendo made, was to partner with Disney, which is like the crack cocaine of childhood. Kids literally seem to be programmed from birth to demand anything Disney. Nintendo saw that, and capitalized on it. The fact you point out about Nintendo basically living off its current stock of customers is one of my major peeves about the company. During the 80s, Nintendo appealed to the entire gaming audience. Everything from family games, to RPG/Racing/fighting/arcade classics/etc.
Aside from Bayonetta 2, they have more or less focused on family oriented gaming only.
If anything you can say they know their intended audience, that will buy the current nintendo system to get their Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Pokemon, and Zelda fixes. Their biggest fault is not giving much effort into supporting third party developers/publishers for the system. That's where a lot of those games would come from, but they alienate the third parties with back-asswards policies, drastically different hardware, or gimmicks that aren't found in the other 2 competing consoles (whether or not they consider them a competitor is a different discussion).


Gamecube had Metroid Prime, which was awesome, and a Resident Evil version or two. Even though the GC is/was considered a failed console, it had a much more varied range of games available, and did not try and live off gimmicks like a controller that is also a portable console........Remember the Dreamcast with it's removable memory unit/game thing? In my opinion, Nintendo could do itself a MAJOR favor: Get out of the full console market as Sega did, and focus on creating great games like it did in the 80s/90s. Let them keep making handheld units. But for the love of god, do not ship a modern version of the gameboy without an AC adapter.
No disagreement there about the gimmicks, granted, those gimmicks (the motion control in the Wii) got them the huge amount of success that they saw in the last generation to have more console sales than the other two by a large margin. The fault with it is that it felt empty and didn't carry over to most other games (and the underpowered nature of the console as a whole). I agree with the New 3DS statement, I was very surprised they didn't bundle it with an AC adapter, making the assumption that the vast majority of the sales would be people upgrading their current 3DS to the 'New' one (and then either selling/gifting their old one without an adapter?) :boggled:

I love square.........when they actually assemble the right team to get a job done. I bought the special edition of FFXIV......before its inital launch. Before the initial development team was terminated....I loved my Miqo'te archer. But it got to the point all I was doing was fishing and crafting, there was no story. It took how many years until FFXIV: A Realm Reborn was launched? Heck, Square dropped the ball on half of the collectors edition extras I was supposed to get.

As for CPU's in gaming..........how much of the game performance is actually CPU based, and how much is based upon the power of the GPU in the system?
There's a balance or more directly, a minimum that must be accomplished by the CPU otherwise you are stuck with a ceiling on what is possible with no matter how much GPU you throw at a system (for example, I wouldn't want to put a 980ti on a machine with a single core Pentium 4). That's why a lot of new CPUs that come out with all things held equal show relatively small gains from generation to generation, specifically in current games as they are so GPU limited. If you go further back (games from the early to mid 2000s) CPU speed makes a pretty significant difference -- this is seen when looking at the Futuremark submissions for 3DMark01se through 3DMark05 where current generation CPUs and an older GPU can still crank out very high scores.

Click to expand...

I answered/responded to multiple of your points in red above.

You cant compare a 2001 or 2005 bench with todays newest benches, because they got very few GPU limitation and when the GPU is knocked out the CPU is in need to handle a superload of FPS... thousand of it... which is not only very unrealistic but it simply means that the GPU is not hitting the benchmark. A new benchmark is usually GPU limited for a good reason, because without strong GPU the CPU does not matter at all. The CPU demand increased in a way that a good Nehalem (i already told, this is a old CPU, not a new one) is still sufficient, but the GPU demand increased in a way that not even the strongest GPU is sufficient (dependable on setting, game, resolution of course). But when you come with a Pentium 4, a CPU that was not even sufficient at the time it has been aired (i still remember when i was playing some RTS on a single core, the CPU was always fighting for FPS, even 30 FPS was a hard cookie), then i simply am unable to follow you. This is not a "old CPU", this is a dusty and historical retro-CPU. It is almost the same such as when you use a Atari CPU on a PS4 and then you gonna tell "did you see! The CPU is the culprit!". Oh yeah... is that so?

Even more fun, the "good old consumer PC" was using single core for way to long, there was already a Sega Saturn console released with multicore-CPU, so as a consumer grade the consoles actually had the more futuristic CPU way sooner than the so called "mighty" PCs. The CPU issue was almost gone as soon as there was multicore CPUs released. The first dual core, it was such a incredible improvement, the first quadcore another incredible improvement, and with the first six core... the CPU issue was almost gone. The Sega Saturn was actually the forerunner of what is considered "the CPU that was able to get ride of the major performance issues, known as multi core". Actually the industry was able to release this juicy stuff way sooner but... they simply had fun handing out small upgrades over and over... so the gamers was in need of a new PC every 2-3 years. Yeah... world can be evil. Intel and others are still doing it, why to release the best tech today if you could release the best tech in 5 years and every year a marginal upgrade of the tech that will be there in 5 years? Do they really care advancement? I am not so sure... at least not when it comes at the cost of the profit.

Actually, i dont even get it why to feel proud by creating thousand of frames and then having the opinion that the CPU is now limiting, this is somewhat hilarious because there is no use. I have yet to see a game that would truly be benefiting from more than 100 FPS, most games run fine just by using 60 FPS (maybe with the exception of some shooters who contain abnormal fragging). Uusally, people do it because "they can", but there is not much common sense.

Sometimes i am not so sure if there is truly that many (self-proclaimed) blue pill eaters around, reality is always distorted, people think it is "their" reality and it will be the truth, but from another angle it is just as wrong such as any dreams. On the other hand, a dream could be true when viewed from another angle, so the world can become upside down and it may look alright (only have to be a bit "beyond" earth, and the matter will fade).

Btw. I wouldnt believe everything Dolk is telling, yes he got lot of knowledge, probably a good margin more than i do. But the issue is that he is nailed down into certain interests that has been sorted out by the industry. They are telling him how the stuff has to be done, how it will be done, how it has been done and so forth. So he may have gained incredible knowledge, but unfortunately lot of biased knowledge that doesnt take true potential into account, usually economical terms comes first, other stuff is basically ignored or considered hilarious.

Besides, the amount of game that handle six core is increasing, and this is for a good reason, because the consoles run with 6 core and this is a good ... a damn good... point into making a native six core support. It was not so long ago when gamers was telling "but there is almost no game using 4 core" and some years later almost any new game was utilizing 4 cores, another step forward to a major advancement. This is stuff half-blinded people may not see but it is there and it was very important. For a game, it is not the cache that is a limiting ressource (screw the cache that is taking so many transistors, game need almost none), it is not the IGP (another non required transistor hog) or whatelse. Core count was one of the truly limiting ressouces in the past and some games such as EVE Online can utilize near endless cores, so it is just straightforward wrong telling me that games may not handle above 4 core in a realistic manner, actually it is realistic today and it will become almost a standart spec in the future. Games, with theyr needs, are not so far away from a supercomputer, they need raw core count... in fact a GPU is a mass array of cores... nothing different than that, and it is nowadays the by far most important processor in gaming terms. Of course, someone could create a GPU replacement by using the same amount of cores done by countless CPUs. So the GPU is actually a way more effective "countless CPU module" for gaming needs, a CPU is only needed because it got a higher versatility, some stuff cant be done by GPU. But i told already... a GPU is becoming more versatile today and the stuff a GPU cant handle is becoming smaller than ever ago. This is my clear statement why it is simply wrong spreading around that a game doesnt need core count or... that a game can not use core count... it is actually the most critical thing.

I kinda got not so much clue regarding the stuff some people are telling, they may be far ahead of my knowledge but i still got a sense of what i call "intuition"; knowing stuff without knowing it, simply by good common senses, a hint of dreams, and some love. I would rather dig into a rabbit hole than being screwed by "common knowledge".

EarthDog said:

Oy vey...

Click to expand...

I'm surprised he didn't get the blue pill reference. How many people haven't seen The Matrix? I wonder what country Ivy is from?

magellan said:

I'm surprised he didn't get the blue pill reference. How many people haven't seen The Matrix? I wonder what country Ivy is from?

Click to expand...

Well, The Matrix basically seems to be based on a world most of the people actually dont know reality, and if they got the chance to know reality they may chose to ignore reality, because reality is truth and truth is hard to handle. But what is reality? Everyone is manipulated and living in a somewhat faked world? In that term we all are still living inside this Matrix, the movie may have ended but the real matrix is still active. The fun stuff about this movie is that we all know the deal but most of us may chose to take the "red pill" in order to continue being fooled, as long as we can continue with the soothing and repetitive lifestyle, able to grant security, but based on illusion. What is everyones reality? Blue pill is reality? Actually reality is not static. Is is baded on truth and the truth is based on absolutism, as long as the truth is based on someones reality, the truth is able to by sacrificed by lies. So the first level is reality based on illusion, second level reality based on individual truth and the third level is the reality based on absolute truth, yet we all lack to see the third level, so we are stuck inside some matrix. Human can not see absolute truth unless they eat the purple pill, means to see the entire content at once... by eating the blue pill someone is actually separaring themself and looking down, they are not looking up.

Please stay on topic...

I think its safe to say that this thread has already been brought out to the back yard.

Any greens want to pull the trigger?