backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Oct 25 at 5:35 PM


(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)
Focus on smaller size, lower cost

Computer gaming advanced dramatically last year when ATI ushered in the DirectX 11 age with the Radeon HD 5870 graphics card. The introduction of the DisplayPort connector and Eyefinity multi-monitor support meant games could be played with many more pixels, leading to a better visual experience. Windows 7 was just about to launch, and gamers were eager for some major hardware upgrades.

However, production difficulties at TSMC meant that AMD's graphics division only shipped half the GPUs they were hoping to during the busy holiday shopping season. They still managed to sell over two million DX11 chips, but could've sold a lot more.

The original plans for this year's launch were for an entire lineup of 32nm GPUs, but TSMC scrapped their 32nm development in favor of the 28nm process. ATI took their 32nm designs and rejigged it for their third generation of 40nm products, codenamed Northern Islands. The high end consists of Barts, Cayman, and Antilles.

The new Radeon 6800 series uses the new Barts GPU and is comprised of the Radeon HD 6870 (Barts XT) and the Radeon HD 6850 (Barts Pro). The new chip is designed for slightly lower performance at a much lower cost. At 255 mm2, it is 25% smaller than the 334 mm2  Cypress chips it will replace.

A new seventh generation hardware tessellation unit doubles the performance of the Radeon 5000 series through improved thread management and buffering. Anisotropic Filtering has been enhanced by using a refined algorithm that addresses visible discontinuities in very noisy textures. It also allows for smoother transitions between filter levels. The third generation Unified Video Decoder (UVD3) adds hardware MPEG-4 decoding for DivX and xVid, as well as Blu-Ray 3D.

Both cards sport a dual-slot design and provide 2 mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, 1 HDMI 1.4a connector, and 2 DVI ports. This allows the 6800 series to support up to four monitors natively.

Cards using the new chips and 1GB of GDDR5 will cost around $239 and $179 respectively. The pricing and performance is designed to target NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 460. Barts is 30% smaller than the GF104 chip used in the GTX 460 and consumes less power. That means it has a cost advantage in production, and board partners can chose a quieter and cheaper cooling solution.  Higher performance at a lower price is a strategy that has served AMD well in the CPU market.

AMD thinks supply should be adequate, with "tens of thousands" of GPUs shipped to board partners such as ASUS, Gigabyte, and Sapphire.

Video cards using Barts were originally going to be known as the Radeon HD 6700 series, but AMD has decided to continue on with the Radeon HD 5700 series as it is. Our sources tell us that there will be no rebranding, but that the 5700 series is a top seller and fits in its price category very well. The 5800 series, on the other hand, has been deemed too costly and will be discontinued by the end of the year.

Radeon HD 6970 and 6950 video cards using Cayman GPUs with much higher performance will be introduced next month. That will be followed up by Antilles, which will bring two Cayman GPUs together for the Radeon HD 6990.






 

Radeon HD 6870

Radeon HD 6850

GTX 460  1 GB

GTX 460   768 MB

Radeon HD 5870

Radeon HD 5850

Radeon HD 5770

Radeon HD 5750

Stream Processors

1120

960

336

336

1600

1440

800

720

Texture Units

56

48

56

56

80

72

40

36

ROPs

32

32

32

24

32

32

16

16

Core Clock

900MHz

775MHz

675 MHz

675 MHz

850MHz

725MHz

850MHz

700MHz

Memory Clock

1.05 GHz (4.2GHz data rate) GDDR5

1GHz (4.0GHz data rate) GDDR5

900MHz (3.6GHz data rate) GDDR5

900MHz (3.6GHz data rate) GDDR5

1.2GHz (4.8GHz data rate) GDDR5

1GHz (4.0GHz data rate) GDDR5

1.2GHz (4.8GHz data rate) GDDR5

1.15GHz (4.6GHz data rate) GDDR5

Memory Bus Width

256-bit

256-bit

256-bit

192-bit

256-bit

256-bit

128-bit

128-bit

Frame Buffer

1GB

1GB

1GB

768 MB

1GB

1GB

1GB

1GB

Transistor Count

1.7B

1.7B

1.95B

1.95B

2.15B

2.15B

1.04B

1.04B

TDP

151W

127W

160 W

160 W

188W

151W

108W

86W

Idle

19 W

19 W

30 W

30 W

27 W

27 W

18 W

16 W

Plugs

2x 6-pin

1x 6-pin

2x 6-pin

2x 6-pin

2x 6-pin

2x 6-pin

1x 6-pin

1x 6-pin

Die Size

255mm2

255mm2

368 mm2

368 mm2

334mm2

334mm2

166mm2

166mm2

Price Point

$239

$179

$229

$199

$379

$259

$149

$129  

 

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

wait for the 6970
By widowmaker314 on 10/21/2010 10:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
so going from 5870 to 6870 is actually a downgrade. +1 to confusing nomenclature... or more accurately, +1000




RE: wait for the 6970
By bunnyfubbles on 10/21/2010 11:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
We'll have to wait and see some real world test results. Yes, it has less shaders, but the clusters have been reconfigured. So while there are less shaders, each shader is more powerful on average.

While I'm not expecting the performance to be on par with 5800s I expect they'll be close but consume less power and produce less heat/noise relative to their 5800 counterparts.


RE: wait for the 6970
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 12:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
They already have extensive testing up on andandtech. The 6870 is faster than the 5850 but slower than the 5870 on every benchmark I saw. The 6850 is also faster than the 460 at the same price range, and uses less power, but they did put out a bit more heat than the 460, which was somewhat surprising. Overall seems like a good card, just confusing why they named it what they did.


RE: wait for the 6970
By Belard on 10/22/2010 1:35:04 AM , Rating: 4
But we must gather that when comparing performance of these cards to the GF460, we are referring to the much faster 1GB version...?

This was easily an Nvidia marketing scam to call the two GF460 the same name. They could have gone with GF460 and GF455 or GTX460 vs GT460... so instead, some customers will buy the cheaper 460 and think they're getting the great performance they are hearing about.


RE: wait for the 6970
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But we must gather that when comparing performance of these cards to the GF460, we are referring to the much faster 1GB version...?

We are indeed, have a see for yourself:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
With the exception of the OC'd EVGA 460, the 6850 and 6870 both outperform the standard 1GB 460.


RE: wait for the 6970
By B3an on 10/24/2010 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
But from all the places i shop at online the OC'ed EVGA FTW (and similarly clocked 460's, infact most 460 on sale are OC'ed) are the same price or cheaper than the 6870 now that NV have made price cuts. And from the reviews the OC'ed EVGA 460 is also slightly faster.


RE: wait for the 6970
By sviola on 10/22/2010 9:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the 460 is priced lower now (the 1 GB is at 199 while the 6870 is priced at around $240)


RE: wait for the 6970
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 1:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but the 6850 is ALSO better than the 460 1GB version in all the benchmarks and is only $180.


RE: wait for the 6970
By MrTeal on 10/22/2010 12:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 6850 is also faster than the 460 at the same price range, and uses less power, but they did put out a bit more heat than the 460, which was somewhat surprising.


Putting out heat and having high temperatures are two different things. The new cards do put out less heat, but they likely use a smaller heatsink and because of that the load temperatures are higher. Unless you plan to overclock or the load temperature is so high you can boil water on the die like some recent nVIDIA parts, having a higher load temp won't hurt anything.

I am surprised that the 6870 is so much louder than the 460 though. They must have really cheaped out with a little banshee of a fan.


RE: wait for the 6970
By kroker on 10/22/10, Rating: 0
It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By Goty on 10/21/2010 10:53:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think the title should be changed. The 6850 and 6870 not only target the 460, they obliterate it on price and performance respectively.




RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By bug77 on 10/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By ClownPuncher on 10/22/2010 1:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
What in the name of arbitrary puke are you talking about? 20% is just above what the naked eye can see? Just stop.


RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By bug77 on 10/22/2010 5:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, it is.
15% would be 23 instead of 20fps (still choppy). Or 92 instead of 80 (both smooth). You're usually going to need benchmarks to see the difference. Otherwise, if you didn't see which is which, you couldn't tell the difference.

Now don't get me wrong, 20% is a healthy increase generation over generation, but it doesn't make that much difference in practice. Say you were gaming at 1680x1050 (1.76MP) and are moving up to 1920x1200 (2.3MP). That's 30% more pixels to push, so with 20% more power, you're still losing fps.


RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 5:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
30% increase in resolution does not map linearly to 30% decrease in performance. There are far more things that you have to take into consideration. Either way, a 15-20% increase can be a lot, and your examples cut out the middle ground completely. Going from 40-48fps can make a big difference.


RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By bug77 on 10/22/2010 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say 20% doesn't make a difference. But by your own admission, it makes a difference only in bordercase scenarios. Which is why I said 20% is just above what you can see with the naked eye in the first place. 20% means going from 40 to 48fps? Ok, noticeable. 15%, 40 to 46, still noticeable. 10%, 40 to 44, not so much. But in all other cases (under 24fps or over 60) it still doesn't improve things in a meaningful way.

Look at the benchmarks at HardOCP: save for two titles, both 6870 and GTX460 max out at the same resolution. With better eye-candy for the 6870, of course.


RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 8:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
But when you are talking about performance over a competitor, no matter the framerate difference, 20% better is 20% better. If it's going to be an unnoticeable upgrade from your CURRENT card, then it's a stupid upgrade, but if we are speaking 20% faster than the competition for the same or similar price, even if the end result isn't a HUGE difference, it would be stupid not to go for it, because after some time you WILL get to the point where those cards will be running current-gen games at 40 and 48fps respectively.


RE: It Doesn't Just Target the 460
By bug77 on 10/23/2010 4:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, we agree.

But then, the 20% performance gain comes with a 15% price premium, to make the choice harder. Just as well, I think the world would end anyway the day the customer won't be confused anymore.


OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By Belard on 10/22/2010 1:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
~~The 5800 series, on the other hand, has been deemed too costly and will be discontinued by the end of the year.


Looking at the chart and todays pricing... this is funny and sad. By AMD standars, the 5800 is too costly?!

The GeForce 470~480s are huge and super expensive at $400+... the GF460 is price very good, but its still SOLD AT A LOSS to Nvidia and its few partners.

The 5870 GPU is cheaper than the GF460's
368 mm2 (GF460) vs. 334mm2 (5870/50) vs. 255mm2 (6870)

For Nvidia to lower the price of the already costly GF460 - AMD is going to give them more pain.

For us, we're not really having much of a price war going on.




RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By Fraggeren on 10/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By morphologia on 10/22/2010 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 3
These 2 cards are the mainstream. Their performance line hasn't come out yet. And if you look at the Anandtech facts and figures these "mainstream" cards do pretty wekk. It should be interesting to see what the high-end models can do, especially given the new, somewhat surprising improvement in Crossfire performance.


RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By morphologia on 10/22/2010 10:46:58 AM , Rating: 3
Pretty *well*. Ugh, I need coffee...


RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By clovell on 10/25/2010 5:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
X800 series has always been the bridge between mainstream and enthusiast. If this is AMD's 6800 series, then it's pretty anemic. They have a generation on Fermi and can't even keep up with a 470 GTX without a double-die card.

Pathetic. Chalk up another loss for consumers.


RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By corduroygt on 10/22/2010 2:06:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The GeForce 470~480s are huge and super expensive at $400+... the GF460 is price very good, but its still SOLD AT A LOSS to Nvidia and its few partners.

I reckon you know how much Nvidia pays for each chip and how much they sell them for then?


RE: OKAY - Kind of FUNNNY!
By sviola on 10/22/2010 9:32:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The GeForce 470~480s are huge and super expensive at $400+... the GF460 is price very good, but its still SOLD AT A LOSS to Nvidia and its few partners.


I doubt that Nvidia would sell the GTX460 at a loss, specially considering that GPUs are their main (possible only) source of revenue.


2gb models planned?
By darckhart on 10/21/2010 10:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
hm this time i can connect 4! displays but still only have 1gb of vram? interesting.




RE: 2gb models planned?
By Jansen (blog) on 10/21/2010 10:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
At least 1 AIB partner is considering a 2GB model, but the 6900 series should be very interesting...


A more thorough story
By drando on 10/22/2010 7:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
RE: A more thorough story
By jonmcc33 on 10/22/2010 7:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
THG is never thorough.


Branding
By tigz1218 on 10/22/2010 10:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't they follow a car companys way of branding? Since they release video cards ~6 month cycles they can use 3 names for the Summer and 3 for the Winter, and suffixs can be applied to further differentiate. For example:

Summer:
2010 Malibu (Entry)
2010 Camaro (Mid)
2010 Corvette (High)
Winter:
2010 Fusion (Entry)
2010 Mustang (Mid)
2010 Ford GT (High)
Summer:
2011 Malibu etc...
2011 Camaro etc...

Each of the names can add an RS, SS, etc. to further differentiate if needed. Wouldnt this make more sense or am I just being silly?




RE: Branding
By Unspoken Thought on 10/22/2010 1:57:36 PM , Rating: 1
It's all in the marketing. The 5700 series is selling well with production cost/revenue. The 5800 is considered the high end with the 5900 as the elite. Market the entry level cards as the 6800 series and you will confuse consumers into thinking they are receiving a high end card. The tech savvy will know the truth after research and benchmarks but still be confused as to the naming convention. Viewing AMD's graph makes it very apparent. Branding is the name, making money is the game.


RE: Branding
By bugnguts on 10/23/2010 12:16:00 AM , Rating: 1
I don't like what AMD has decided to do with rebranding, but the 6800's are not entry level at $179 and $239 and performance matching and beating NVIDA's 460 1GB cards. Your exactly right they did this for revenue, and that is just sad. Entry level typically refers to the < $100 cards. The 6800's are considered mainstream.


Editing
By Fracture on 10/22/2010 2:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cards using the new chips and 1GB of GDDR5 will cost around $239 and $179 respectively.


I was confused until I got to the bottom. Up to this point, the cards had only been refered to as "both" and respectively had no meaning. It looks like the last paragraph used to be above this but was moved down.




RE: Editing
By Fracture on 10/22/2010 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ignore this. I are dumb today and missed it.


I miss the days...
By Hieyeck on 10/22/2010 1:05:07 PM , Rating: 1
...when there were 3 cards. Budget/onboard; mainstream; performance.

It was easy. x2xx, x5xx, x7xx

WHY, ATI? Oh right, because now your marketing is done by AMD >=(




RE: I miss the days...
By Parhel on 10/22/2010 11:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're forgetting all the Pro, XT, LE, etc., etc. models.


Better Info
By Sazabi19 on 10/22/2010 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a link to Tom's Hardware for alot more info on the cards (6870/6850). I read it before i read this on DT and found it quite lacking in some basic info. Overall I think AMD has attacked the 460 and the 470 quite well. NVIDIA has already dropped those prices (AMD says NVIDIA price drop will only be for 3 weeks) so if you want 1 you may want to snag them now :). Can't wait for a 6990.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6870...




Beastinator
By excrucio on 10/21/2010 10:24:50 PM , Rating: 1
...and we present: The Beastinator




Riduculous branding
By Drag0nFire on 10/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Riduculous branding
By Jansen (blog) on 10/21/2010 11:25:26 PM , Rating: 5
Just be glad they decided not to rebrand the 5700 as the 6700.

Ultimately model numbers are decided by the manufacturer and can be arbitrarily changed. Like a certain other company did...three times.


RE: Riduculous branding
By Jansen (blog) on 10/21/2010 11:33:41 PM , Rating: 3
This is what I would've done:

6900 - Antilles
6800 - Cayman
6700 - Barts
6600 - Juniper

Unfortunately you would have to rebrand Juniper, but it would have the effect of keeping the product around and a consistent 600 series nomenclature. Plus you wouldn't expect someone to go from a 5700 to a 6600.


RE: Riduculous branding
By kroker on 10/22/2010 4:25:21 AM , Rating: 1
Rebranding Juniper as HD 6600 would have been a lot better than the confusion they've created. Barts should have been called HD 6700, no matter what AMD or anyone else says. And, even worse, they released these cards before releasing Cayman, so people who will be looking for a new card right now will see 6800 as the highest number available and they might think this is the high end.

Worse still, they did this right after ditching the ATI name, which created somewhat of an image void for them with they needed to fill (a brand is valuable, it's an investment, it takes a lot of time and effort to build trust and recognition, and then you throw it away?)

None of these decisions make any sense to me, but hey, AMD knows what it's doing, they're a successful company, it's not like they're loosing money or something...


RE: Riduculous branding
By AstroGuardian on 10/22/2010 9:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? If they named the 6800 to 6700 than which chip would be the 6800? Is it more logical to skip the 6800 and go towards 6900 with two chips?
The naming makes some logic but not perfect. In time they might introduce 6875 which will be better than 6870 and 5870 and everything will fit in.


RE: Riduculous branding
By insurgent on 10/22/2010 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
The naming sucks but at least they're priced right relative to the other cards. Everything stays the same: average joe will base his decision on buffer size or bus width, etc... and enthusiasts, well they always know better.


RE: Riduculous branding
By inighthawki on 10/21/2010 11:42:51 PM , Rating: 3
They decided to change it. The 6800 series is now the mid-range cards and the 6900s will replace the 5800 series. I guess we just have to live with it. I mean, is it really THAT big a deal?


RE: Riduculous branding
By someguy123 on 10/22/2010 1:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not really a big deal to people browsing DT, but it'll definitely confuse average consumers into thinking the 68XX is faster than the 58XX so they can push more orders. Probably intentional, but that's marketing for you.


RE: Riduculous branding
By morphologia on 10/22/2010 10:36:36 AM , Rating: 1
Whose fault is it if someone makes a decision based on an arbitrary model number without comparing the facts? Someone who doesn't know a Radeon from a radio shouldn't be spending $200 on a video card upgrade.


RE: Riduculous branding
By eskimospy on 10/22/2010 11:43:22 AM , Rating: 4
Why people continually make excuses for deceptive marketing is beyond me. Of course it's the customer's money in the end, but AMD is deliberately misleading people here and that's wrong.


RE: Riduculous branding
By kroker on 10/22/2010 4:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Changing the naming scheme is not the only thing they did, they also released them before Cayman, contrary to the tradition of releasing high end cards first instead of mid range, which might also potentially confuse customers.


RE: Riduculous branding
By Belard on 10/22/2010 1:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
Until I saw the chart and how its laid out - the label "6700" wouldn't quite make sense in that the x800 cards are $200+ cards and the x700 are sub $200 cards (in my mind). Having the "6770" at $240 has its own marketing problem.

If I was AMD, I could/would have resolved this by naming the cards:

6850 = $240 (faster than the 5850 - yet costs a bit less)
6830 = $180

Perhaps this time, in 4~6 months the 6850 will hit sub $100 pricing.


RE: Riduculous branding
By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 1:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
That's a decent idea, but a lot of people will associate the xx30 ati cards with low performance, xx50 with midrange, and xx70 with high end of their respective tier, but in fact the 6850 is actually quite a competitor, fairly worthy of the xx50 tag, yet maybe not the 800 tier since it's not a true successor to the previous 800 tier. Not the best marketing for your product to label it as the "low performance" version of the tier.


RE: Riduculous branding
By ninjaquick on 10/22/2010 5:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
We need, then, a number between 7 and 8...

6?50 and 6?70, cuz Xi is awesome


RE: Riduculous branding
By bug77 on 10/22/2010 3:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
Let's put it this way: whoever knew how to shop for a video card will continue to do so; whoever bought based on numbers on the box will continue to do so, too.

It seems AMD hinted they did this in order to make room within their naming schema for some unannounced product. Something to do with Fusion, probably.


RE: Riduculous branding
By gescom on 10/22/2010 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice if You'd check price/performance instead of given names.


RE: Riduculous branding
By MrBungle123 on 10/22/2010 6:35:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'm just glad the idiots in the marketing departments have run out of numbers... the slow creep up has been happening since the Radeon 8500 (high end in its day) then the 9700 then the x800...

sure 800 series has been been synonamous with the high end but it wasn't too much of a leap to see this day coming eventually.

hopefully no one in AMD's marketing department finds out about hexadecimal numbers or we may see the Radeon HD 7A00 series cards next year.

In the mean time I guess I have to be annoyed by both AMD's lack of consistency and nVidia's meaningless alphabetic prefixes on their model numbers.

CAN SOME COMPANY PICK A NAMING SCHEME AND STICK TO IT FOR F*CK SAKE?!!!!

/end rant


This is why I switched to consoles...
By jonmcc33 on 10/22/10, Rating: -1
By bug77 on 10/22/2010 10:30:03 AM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight: you a PC that was too powerful for the games you had, so you figured you spent too much money on it and switched to consoles instead.

PS I knew about PC gaming being dead, I've been reading about it since forever.


By morphologia on 10/22/2010 10:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sure...just like PCs are extinct thanks to netbooks.


By jrb531 on 10/22/2010 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
ROTFL

So you think the Xbox 360's ATI x1950XT or the PS3's Nvidia 7800's are superior?

Yeah you're right.... PC gaming sucks and Consoles with 256meg of memory and 6+ year old video cards are the way to go :)


By ninjaquick on 10/22/2010 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds to me like you don't really understand much about computer hardware or the PC advantage:
You own a PC right? I has a keyboard mouse and Internet connection I assume.
Lets say you spent, I dunno, 400 bucks on your PC. The CPU and RAM specs are pretty good, hell, you might even have a quad core. But what is this, the integrated GPU can't run your game? Don't worry, 300 bucks will get you all you will need for the next 2 to 3 years of PC gaming. Plus, you don't need to buy extra controllers, or pay to play online. Heck; DLC that costs money on consoles is usually free for the PC.
I'm buying the 6850 because it is year 2 of my 4850 which is a great card mind you, but games are coming that will be needing the upgrade. So I'm selling the old card to buy into 2 more years of high graphics settings. Sounds like a deal to me.
Oh, and 300 or even 200 too much to swallow? fret not the 5770 will play anything out today for around 130.
Actually, if you were to buy one of these 6850s or just use that 5850 and cancelled your XBL subscription you would pay for the car in savings.

So really, your argument is dumb. PC gaming has been dying for the last 12 years it seems. It just doesn't know or something since it's alive and kicking with no end in sight.


RE: This is why I switched to consoles...
By SPOOFE on 10/22/2010 6:59:08 PM , Rating: 1
I do the majority of my gaming on consoles nowadays, too, but the whole "PC gaming is dead" thing is just plain dumb. Games follow processing power; wherever there's spare cycles, someone will use 'em to make a game.


By inighthawki on 10/22/2010 7:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah except sadly with most games the trend is not to do MORE in the game, but just to do a quicker and sloppier job. More processing power + quick & sloppy = same as before


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki