Valve Boss: New Intel CPU Allows a "Console-Like Experience" on the PC

[Kenjitsuka]

"the potential elimination of discrete graphics cards as a core component of gaming-capable PCs "

And then it can't even outperform cheapo stand alone cards...
Marketing blurb, and they know it!

Besides he said "gaming capable" which basically means what, it can run Solitaire?

 

[Kenjitsuka]

It's just an upgrade of sorts to the current system of integrated graphics chips on motherboards. Except now it's put on the other most expensive piece of equipment in most machines, the processor.

I agree with your whole post, but the CPU the most expensive part?
I do spend ridiculous amounts of cash on the CPU, but for me the GPU's have always broken the bank (Yes, I *must* have that very latest top of the line model GPU! Been like that since the Voodoo era for me )

 

[Azaraxzealot]

again, PC gaming costs too damn much because now if i want to play games without the fear of them crashing or freezing or lagging on me, i have to go out, purchase this, and learn how to install the damn thing without zapping my computer to death

Uh, PC gaming doesn't cost much more than the initial jump into console gaming. Factor in the higher price of games for consoles, and the difference really doesn't exist beyond the hardware. Again, as I said above, the upgrade-once-a-year (Or every six months as a variation) isn't true, nor is the £2000 price tag for a PC. I can go out and get components for a PC for £700 (Give or take ~£50) and it'll give me superior performance, visuals, usability, versatility, control and sound over a £200 console, and it'll last a good three years at the very least, assuming no hardware failures (And, come on, it's not like consoles are immune to failure either). What's the price difference between a gaming PC and someone with a laptop/desktop and a console? Almost nothing, and the gaming PC gives a superior experience for most games.

Basic PC use and maintenance is very, very, very easy to learn and a lot of websites out there exist to help people with it. My PC is, bar Windows XP, running nothing but freeware. CCleaner, MyDefrag, SpyBot, Microsoft Security Essentials, iTunes (I've got an iPod Touch, so yeah), Opera/Firefox. They're all simple and easy to use, and work brilliantly for me. A console doesn't allow you anywhere near that level of control, and whilst it might be 'easier' to use games with, once a game is installed on a PC (Default options almost always work perfectly) that's it. Nothing else has to be done.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_265/7935-Punching-the-Baby-Seal-of-PC-Gaming

PC gaming is too unfriendly to newcomers to ever be truly superior. My desktop is a 1000 dollar computer bought about 2 years ago and cant run anything more complicated than Warcraft 3.

saying "OH YOU NEVER BUY PRE-BUILT NOOB!" is a completely idiotic comeback since it is stupid to expect someone who just wants to play some games to have to take lessons on how to take apart and rebuild their computer and which components go where and which cards are compatible with which systems and OS's and even certain GAMES THEMSELVES require specific graphics cards to run properly (and by "properly" i mean on the highest graphical settings... like console games, which work perfectly without having to gut the system and replace parts)

OT: if this chip is what Gabe says it is, then that means PC gaming would actually be fucking worth it. but otherwise, fuck PC gaming and all its unfriendly and complicated and expensive ways

 

[Fearzone]

If this forces more consistent and standardized drivers among the videocards then it's all good. Game makers shouldn't have to design, optimize, and debug their games with several dozen different videocards in mind. PC developers are already saddled with having to vary graphics options to suit the power of the system, and anything that makes their jobs more difficult still comes back around to hurt PC gaming overall.

 

[RA92]

Integrated GPU trying to push the dedicated graphics cards out of the market?

I smell Communism!

 

[Optimystic]

Oh I can't wait to see the PC elitists raging about this one.

Rage? We will be relieved of the hassle of buying graphcards. That's a good thing and it can also revolutionize gaming-laptops.

This. I just can't go back to desktops anymore and this sounds like just what the doctor ordered to make gaming laptops affordable.

But what another poster said about the heat makes me worry, I don't want my balls carbonized...

 

[RYjet911]

Snipanipples

Why would you need that kind of resolution and monitors? Duck-sight in FPS, videoediting or are you just serious in racingsims?

Actually a little of all three, and just for screen real estate in general. Also would help me greatly with sorting out my TF2 map pack with more screen to edit it on. xD

 

[RYjet911]

It's just an upgrade of sorts to the current system of integrated graphics chips on motherboards. Except now it's put on the other most expensive piece of equipment in most machines, the processor.

I agree with your whole post, but the CPU the most expensive part?
I do spend ridiculous amounts of cash on the CPU, but for me the GPU's have always broken the bank (Yes, I *must* have that very latest top of the line model GPU! Been like that since the Voodoo era for me )

My graphics cards have always been the second or third most expensive component of my PC setups, normally beaten by my processor and motherboard. Although to be honest that's changed very recently since I got a Radeon 5870 for under £200.

 

[Void(null)]

My graphics cards have always been the second or third most expensive component of my PC setups, normally beaten by my processor and motherboard. Although to be honest that's changed very recently since I got a Radeon 5870 for under £200.

Not mine. I have a GTX 580 and I think it cost me as much as the rest of my computer did.

Its a truly beautiful piece of hardware and I honestly can't see Intel being able to match this beast on a GPU built inside a CPU.

Besides, hasn't nVidia already sort of done this in reverse, turning the raw power of a Graphics Processing Unit to also work for processing such as Folding@home and video encoding etc.

 

[enriquetnt]

Oh... the good old times when we ran everithing straight up, no need to sell your kidneys for a GPU every 3 months...
this can be good for casual gamers and to drive down the price of game capable PC sistem, (you can say anithing about the 360 but those are some amazing grapichs for a mere 250bucks) and my dare still stands when you built me a PC whit ONLY 250 dollars that can match a 360 graphics then ill admit that PC still has a chance to return to theyr former glory (when it TRULY dominated not just relied on MMOs to inflate sales numbers)

 

[enriquetnt]

yes they did, i use CUDA technology for video encoding and it used to raise my speed nearly 30 percent back in the days of my old core-quad, now i have a core i7 and i can barely see any difference between using or not using CUDA (i have a NVIDIA 480 BTW)

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Why the hell would anyone want their PC to provide a more "console-like" experience? What does that even mean? Hell, any move that makes PCs more like consoles sounds to me like a giant step backwards, and the precise opposite of what people who use their PCs to game with would ever want under any possible condition what so ever... infinity.

Am I opposed to the development of integrated graphics processors on the CPU die? Of course not! But to call developments like this one a real "game changer" is just... seriously, how on earth does that make sense? Halfway decent integrated video (as opposed to the extremely shitty integrated video pervasive at the moment) is a good move at equalizing and expanding the potential market for PC games by allowing the cheapskates who buy systems without discrete video cards to actually run some games, so I suppose Gabe might have meant by his nonsensical "console experience" quip that moves like this could expand the market share to include "people with crappy computers they never upgrade" (or rather, future people with crappy computers they never upgrade, since a Core i7 strikes me as far too advanced for most crappy computers these days), thus becoming more like consoles in the sense that "just about everyone has one", or "you don't have to upgrade anything to play games on it (usually)". If that is what he meant, then in theory I am all for it - the technology on this chip doesn't actually do that, but still, a fair observation in theory.

But if that isn't what he meant then I am frankly hoping the fellow was direly misquoted, because what the hell. Becoming more like a game console is a very bad thing, because those are not as good, duh. Statements like that are about as ludicrous as telling someone with a Ferrari that "soon, your bitching fast car could provide a horse-and-buggy experience!" and expecting the owner of that Ferrari to be excited. The Core i7's graphic-rendering ability doesn't even match what's already out on the market now - there's no possible way it could revolutionize PC gaming unless you don't actually game on your PC.

 

[Exort]

I definely see why he would say that because in a few years PC developer can count on people owning at least the new Intel GMA HD. Therefore they no longer have to worry over the minuim requiement. However I don't see it effecting the high end GPU. Just like now PC games have different Graphic setting even with a standard minium doesn't mean the high setting will disappear.
Developing game would be much easier if they can count on the user owning something (like console have a standard setup that everyone would have). I just don't see any reason for people to raging about.

 

[Zer_]

Sorry, I'm siding with AMD's Bulldozers. Integrated graphics is almost never a good thing for any power users.

 

[Jandau]

Oh I can't wait to see the PC elitists raging about this one.

I don't know about the elitists, but as a PC gamer, I think this might really be a good thing. The variety of graphics cards has undeniable negative side effects on PC gaming and I'd be glad to see it gone, or at least the eternal arms race between the few major manufacturers reduced.

The problem that I see with this is that integrated graphics cards (I know this isn't the same thing, but it's similar) were already attempted and were an unmitigated disaster. I hope this turns out better.

Isn't making PC gaming "more console like" a step in the wrong direction?

Not in this case, no. The phrase isn't reffering to gameplay and mechanics bening simplified to the console level (which is what that phrase usually means) but rather cropping the hardware variety which is making developing for the PC a pain and putting people off PC gaming in the first place.

 

[UnravThreads]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_265/7935-Punching-the-Baby-Seal-of-PC-Gaming

PC gaming is too unfriendly to newcomers to ever be truly superior. My desktop is a 1000 dollar computer bought about 2 years ago and cant run anything more complicated than Warcraft 3.

saying "OH YOU NEVER BUY PRE-BUILT NOOB!" is a completely idiotic comeback since it is stupid to expect someone who just wants to play some games to have to take lessons on how to take apart and rebuild their computer and which components go where and which cards are compatible with which systems and OS's and even certain GAMES THEMSELVES require specific graphics cards to run properly (and by "properly" i mean on the highest graphical settings... like console games, which work perfectly without having to gut the system and replace parts)

My first 'gaming PC' was a pre-built with a graphics card in. By the time I'd finished, I'd spent £400 on it including the base unit. Worked fairly well, although not brilliantly.

Your two-year old, $1000 PC that can't run anything more than Warcraft 3 is not 'proof' that PC gaming is bad. The information is out there for people to find good PCs that are good value, and if you're not using those resources then of course you're going to make a bad purchase. It's a large purchase, and as such care and time should be put into deciding it. All it suggests, to me, is that you made a bad purchase and that you're using it as a reason as to why PC gaming is inferior to console gaming.

And again, highest settings =/= properly. That's a ridiculous misconception, and again, is a false reason as to why console gaming is superior. PC games improve in quality more than console games do, even on just medium settings. If it runs, no matter what graphics setting, then it's running properly.

when I say isnt as popular I mean its not the dev focus anymore, now we get pc ports of console games, instead of pc ports to consoles. Its very evident that some games are made with a console focus by just looking at the interface and how easy it is to do things, take borderlands for example, piss poor pc port, took them forever to get the multi working well for most pc players and the interface takes zero advantage of having a mouse with a mouse wheel, but really 2k games tends to do rather shoddy pc ports of games in general

Yeah, the PC's only the lead platform for a fair number of games, isn't it? Dragon Age's lead platform was the PC, for example. Bethesda games have, I believe, the PC as the lead platform. 2K are notoriously bad for PC support, outside of PC-exclusive titles anyway (Such as most of the Civ series), I'll agree, but they're just one publisher out of many. The major publishers have shafted the PC in the past, and many times have they done that, but they still give us games and support for them.

This console = easy mentality is also unfounded. Games are becoming simpler (Well, some games are) not because of console kiddies, but because of a need to open up to a wider audience. Games companies, both publishers and developers, want one thing - Money. What's a good way to make money? Ah, yes, make your titles accessible and appealing to all. Demon's Souls and Fallout: New Vegas show that people are willing to buy more complex games, but a number of titles are being 'simplified' to make them more accessible.

The PC is the dev focus, for many developers around the world. Just because the bigger titles are hitting consoles and gaining millions of sales, it doesn't mean that the PC has taken a backseat. Does the production of, say, Ferraris mean that family-centric cars aren't in production? No, it doesn't. Look at Paradox Interactive, Kalypso, THQ (Especially Relic), Blizzard, Petroglyph, Bethesda, Obsidian, Valve - The PC forms a major part of these companies and their products, in some cases being the sole platform for their products. Sure, some of their games might not achieve Halo Reach numbers, but they still do well in their own way and Valve's success is proof alone that the PC is, as a gaming platform, far from dead.

 

[pokepuke]

Oh this yeah, the technology is interesting, especially for easy upgrades.

I also like the idea of being able to kick processes onto the GPU for compiling code whilst still using the PC.

What about it is easy? Upgrading to a new computer, or upgrading the processor? I doubt it would work like your second sentence, either.

PC gaming is too unfriendly to newcomers to ever be truly superior.

That makes it superior?

My desktop is a 1000 dollar computer bought about 2 years ago and cant run anything more complicated than Warcraft 3.

saying "OH YOU NEVER BUY PRE-BUILT NOOB!" is a completely idiotic comeback since it is stupid to expect someone who just wants to play some games to have to take lessons on how to take apart and rebuild their computer and which components go where and which cards are compatible with which systems and OS's and even certain GAMES THEMSELVES require specific graphics cards to run properly (and by "properly" i mean on the highest graphical settings... like console games, which work perfectly without having to gut the system and replace parts)

My desktop is 750 dollars and over 3 years old, and I still play whatever I want at 1280x1024. Sure, I built it myself, but if I went to a PC-building website it wouldn't have even been $100 more for similar parts. Most of the reason why I did it was to pick the brands I wanted rather than from a limited selection.

It's all in the parts you choose and how much the store marks up the price. If you bought 16GB of RAM but use the graphics built into the motherboard then you may as well be a retard if you meant for it to be a gaming machine. Most packaged deals state which audience they are catering to, anyway.

OT: if this chip is what Gabe says it is, then that means PC gaming would actually be fucking worth it. but otherwise, fuck PC gaming and all its unfriendly and complicated and expensive ways

Is picking a graphics card really that difficult? Removing the option of just asking people what to get, it doesn't seem too difficult to just look at benchmarks and compare it to how much money you have. Plus you can now buy cheap crap and still beat out the consoles. And if you're worried about installing it, hell, even monkeys can do it. Literally.