backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 76 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on May 25 at 1:59 PM
AMD tries to up its GAME!

Video games are a huge industry and a large part of the money to be made from video games lies in hardware needed to enjoy them. Some gamers gravitate towards game consoles like the PS3 or Xbox and some gamers prefer the PC for their gaming needs.

Both the PC gaming platform and the console platform have their pros and cons. One of the most common cons for the PC gaming platform is the ease of use for gamers when buying computers. AMD announced a new program that it intends to make it easier for PC gamers to get the right hardware for playing PC games.

The program is called AMD GAME! and AMD says that it combines a balance of multi-core processors, HD media capabilities and next generation graphics power. Program partners include Acer, Alienware, Logitech and Microsoft; all of whom joined with AMD to help make it easier for consumers to identify PCs that work well for gaming and HD entertainment right out of the box.

AMD says that according to Jon Peddie Research, two-thirds of all the PCs sold last year had only very basic capabilities when it came to gaming. Nigel Dessau, senior vice president and chief marketing officer for AMD said, “With the support of industry leaders in PC gaming, AMD GAME! ensures consumers don’t need an enthusiast-level knowledge of PC hardware for an optimal gaming system. We in the PC industry owe consumers the same predictability, simplicity and affordability in finding a PC for gaming that the console industry currently provides.”

In addition to AMD GAME! logos on full computer systems, AMD also says that it will place the AMD GAME! logo onto PC components so that consumers will be able to easily identify gaming grade components when building their own computers. AMD says that computers carrying the AMD GAME! logo will combine AMD Phenom processors, future AMD Turion Ultra processors, Athlon processors, ATI Radeon HD 3000 series graphics and AMD chipsets for an enhanced mainstream gaming experience.

What’s not clear from the AMD GAME! offerings is how and if AMD and its partners will somehow let PC gamers know what systems are capable at running what types of games. Any PC gamer will tell you that what will run a mainstream game like The Sims may not offer the performance needed for marquee titles like Crysis or Call of Duty 4.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A welcome idea...
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2008 12:00:12 PM , Rating: 4
This actually sounds like a good idea in concept and is one of a few ways to address the abysmal problem facing the mass PC Market - awful on-board video(Intel chipset anyone?) and other hardware that makes gaming on that budget-box impossible.

For most of us hardcore users, we build our own PC's and have been for years. For the rest out there, they don't - and just pick up whatever is on the shelf at the local store. Much to their dismay later on, they can't play many games on the machine.

I welcome this, and any other solution that promotes PC's that have adequate hardware to game on. Nvidia should do something similar and as soon as the weak graphics hardware is eradicated on budget boxes, the better.

The systems probably will not be high-end, or top of the line, but anything is better than what the masses are using right now. If more average people had hardware that they could game on right out of the box, it would work wonders for the PC gaming scene and help it grow even larger.




RE: A welcome idea...
By Funksultan on 5/19/2008 12:12:00 PM , Rating: 5
I respectively disagree.

The inherant problem with this is that the logo is unlikely to ever change, while "gaming" standards change on what can be a ridiculously fast pace.

Grandma may walk into Walmart to pick up a new video card so her grandkids can play "WoW3: Digital Crack" and not realize she's buying a product that's been sitting on the shelf for a couple years, and doesn't even meet the basic requirements for the game.

I -hate- to say it, but I think the win here is using the Microsoft gaming index score. Games could easily have a big "5" printed on the label, indicating that you need a 5 to play the game well, while video cards can come with a similar label.

Yes, there are inherant flaws in that as well, but it's a hellava lot closer than just saying "great for gaming". I have a Radeon 6200 that proclaims it's hot for gaming as well, and it's fire died out over a year ago. :P


RE: A welcome idea...
By Funksultan on 5/19/2008 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
Did I just suggest "Garanimals" for video components?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garanimals

Yikes.


RE: A welcome idea...
By murphyslabrat on 5/19/2008 12:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. I have a Radeon 6200 that proclaims it's hot for gaming as well, and it's fire died out over a year ago. :P

I wouldn't call some smoldering leaves a fire.

Oh, and I am assuming that you mean GeForce, as the Radeon line started with the Radeon 7000


RE: A welcome idea...
By Alpha4 on 5/19/2008 11:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think he meant the Radeon 2600 maybe. The 6200 "turbo-cache" flame was blown the moment somebody opened the window. ;)


RE: A welcome idea...
By SlyNine on 5/20/2008 3:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
More like a wet match, or do we leave that anology for the 5200ultra.


RE: A welcome idea...
By murphyslabrat on 5/25/2008 1:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://pcpartscollection.com/apnvgefxuldd.html

Omigosh, I hav never seen such an innapropriate use of the "Ultra" moniker.


RE: A welcome idea...
By bryanW1995 on 5/20/2008 10:34:17 AM , Rating: 3
HEY! I used to have a 6200 with a passive heatsink, it was awesome for surfing the net!


RE: A welcome idea...
By omnicronx on 5/19/2008 11:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
The Radeon line started with the 'Radeon'.. I still have my original All in one wonder Radeon. When the number system was added, it was considered equivalent to a radeon 7200. The 7000 was usually a low profile card and was considerably slower.


RE: A welcome idea...
By StevoLincolnite on 5/20/2008 12:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
It did start with the "Radeon" they all later got renamed though to these:
Radeon SDR
Radeon DDR
Radeon VE
Radeon LE
Radeon AIW
Radeon 7000 (Same as the VE)
Radeon 64/32
Radeon 7200 (Same as the 64 and 32)
Radeon 7500
Radeon AIW VE
I used to have the Radeon 7200 LE back in the day, which was not the best performer by any length, however I soon fell in love with it once I unlocked the TnL unit :)
Paired up with a Voodoo 2 12mb card, I could play any game at the time, be it Glide, OpenGL, Direct 3D and so on.


RE: A welcome idea...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 12:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think the issue mention could very easily be worked around by updating the spec bi-annually.


RE: A welcome idea...
By Moishe on 5/19/2008 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 5
Even a box with a "5" on it could sit on the shelf for a couple of years and make that 5 useless.
Basically, any "rating" printed on anything will be obsolete and sooner rather than later in the gaming world.

How about a combination of the number and the year?
5:2008 would mean it can play Crysis... 5:2000 would mean it can play UT.


RE: A welcome idea...
By exanimas on 5/19/2008 12:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
The scale could increase as time goes on. Right now we might rate Crysis to need a "5" video card. A year from now the new top of the line game would need a 6 or 7 depending on how much more intensive it was. Two years from now the best game out (visually) would need maybe a 15 due to some new rendering technology. This is all just a made up scenario, but you get the point. For this purpose, numbers are infinite so why not make use of that?


RE: A welcome idea...
By spluurfg on 5/19/2008 2:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
I know everybody seems to hate 3dmark these days, but the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly suited for this sort of thing. It's not the vintage of a computer that determines how it should be benchmarked, but how it performs on each flavour of directx, assuming the features are enabled.

I.e. dx7 performance us 3dm2k2 score. Dx8 performance use 3dm2k3 score. Or use a similar benchmarking scheme that goes by directx versions

Then games could simply indicate what directx version you need to use, and what approximate benchmark score you need as a minimum acceptable performance. With a mildly populated database, you could quickly see if you could run your favorite games. And if you were in store, all you would need to do is pick up the title you want to play, look at the back, and see which computer fits your needs.

But I think ANY system will be fairly demanding for the average consumer... partly because people don't have a lot of time in their day to learn about this stuff, and partly because some people just don't think hard enough about what they buy.


RE: A welcome idea...
By Pryde on 5/19/2008 10:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
But 3dmark is incredibly inaccurate. Look at the 3870 compared to a 8800GT in 3dmark06, the scores are incredibly close yet in real world performance the 8800GT is 10-25% fast than the 3870. 3dmark has no real comparison to real world gaming.


RE: A welcome idea...
By PrinceGaz on 5/20/2008 12:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
A 10-25% discrepancy is irrelevant for a rating system like this. In order to avoid there being too many rating levels, a rating difference of 1 point should mean a difference in performance of at least 2x, maybe 3x or more.

So for DX9 performance, the 3DMark2006 equivalent ratings could go something like
1: 300-800
2: 800-2000
3: 2000-5000
4: 5000-12000
5: 12000-30000
a 10-25% discrepancy will be more or less irrelevant, as will the CPU so long as it tested on a fast multi-core CPU.

The whole point of ratings is to be able to say to an average game purchaser something simple like "you need a minimum of a 2 to play the game satisfactorily, and a 4 to provide the full graphics experience".


RE: A welcome idea...
By PrinceGaz on 5/20/2008 12:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
In addition to what I've just said, a card would only have one rating itself- based on the performance of it under its latest supported DX version.

A website would be provided where you can go and run a quick online test to determine your card's rating and DirectX version, which would be all you would need to know when choosing a game.

So they run the test and get "Rating: 2, DirectX 9". They can go to the store and automatically exclude games which have DirectX 10 graphics listed in their requirements, along with any games with a minimum rating higher than 2. They can then make their own decision about whether to choose a game that has a recommended rating higher than that of their card, knowing they will have to compromise on how it looks and that it won't be as pretty as any screenshots on the case. Alternatively they could buy a new card based on the game rating they really want to play.

They don't need to know anything about 3DMark or how the rating was decided, only what the game needs and works best with, and what their current or prospective card is rated at.


RE: A welcome idea...
By spluurfg on 5/20/2008 2:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But 3dmark is incredibly inaccurate. Look at the 3870 compared to a 8800GT in 3dmark06, the scores are incredibly close yet in real world performance the 8800GT is 10-25% fast than the 3870. 3dmark has no real comparison to real world gaming.


It's better than some of the existing schemes out there. Right now you could get two PCs that are 'vista ready' and get one dx10 capable PC and another dx9 capable PC. Compared to utter incompatibility, a 10-20% performance discrepancy is nothing.


RE: A welcome idea...
By exanimas on 5/19/2008 11:29:04 PM , Rating: 1
Your idea is pretty good in theory, but think more into it. Game X needs a 3DMark score of Y in order for it to be played acceptably. You're an average consumer and want to play Game X, but aren't sure what your 3DMark score would be with a particular graphics card. See what I'm saying? There needs to be some sort of universal graphics card / game rating. They could definitely base it off of 3DMark or a similar benchmark, however, most people would be more comfortable matching a "6" graphics card to a "6" game, than matching a game that requires 3DMark score of 12,485 in DirectX9 to a graphics card that may or may not get you into that ballpark.

So like I said, your ideas work for the company making the rating system, but most likely not for the average consumer.