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

[Assassin Xaero]

... wait, what? Umm... I have a controller for my PC, I don't see how it can expand much beyond that? Graphics, loading times, game play, and all that stuff (to me at least) is better on PC.

For anyone who wants to argue graphics, 360/PS3 have 256mb DDR3 GPU, my graphics card has 1280mb DDR5. So, yeah... it annihilates them.

 

[Worgen]

well it sounds better then alot of integrated cards but it still doesnt sound like it will really take the place of a graphics card for anyone in the know, but still I suppose anything that makes pc gaming easier is a good idea since the big reason its not as popular as console gaming is that its more complicated

Newsflash: PC-based gaming is more popular than console gaming and has been since at least Windows 95, possibly going back earlier due to Apple and Commodore/Amiga. It often doesn't have the sales levels of console games (With a few exceptions, usually Blizzard games and other titles), but the market for both is different.

The PC market is wider and deeper than the console market, and you just have to look at the games shelves (Or more likely stock lists online) to see what I mean. Where are the big RTS titles on your 360? Where are the adventure games? Where are the hidden object games? Most of them are on the PC (The DS is also a good platform for them, though) and exclusively on PC.

To say PC gaming 'isn't as popular' is ridiculous.

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

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Well I think this will be fantastic for laptops and mobile gaming, but I'm not sure integrated is the way to go. Granted it means it can run quicker since it's all on one chip, and that clock speed is very nice, but I'd prefer to be able to mix and match CPU and GPUs.

Also my new monitor is 1080p (and a lot of monitors are higher resolution than that) so I'd prefer to stick with my 460 for the time being thank you very much.

I'd also like to know how hot those things run. My GPU has a whopping great fan on it.

 

[Baresark]

Interesting. There has been a big move to integrate the various components in a PC for a long time. This is nothing new. I for instance am fine with the integrated sound on my motherboard. I know it's not the best sound I can get, and there still seems to be a market for non integrated sound cards. There is no way this would oust individual graphic cards, and there is no reason it should. Besides, you still face the issue where you will then be using system RAM to fill in for video memory. And, you can buy motherboards with on board video, the central issue still being that you set aside system memory to fill in for graphic memory.

The way I see it is, there isn't a problem with PC gaming not being like consoles, the problem is that the PC is still years ahead in development and capabilities. I do believe it is an article I read either here or on PCGamer outlining some genius who said PC gaming is years ahead of console game, as if that is any news to anyone at all.

In the mid 90's, while Nintendo and Sega were using sprites, PC's started using full motion video. When consoles started using full motion video a few years later, PC's had moved onto polygons. Consoles start using Polygons a few years after that, PC architecture allowed for a lot more polygons and better lighting effects. Now we have hardware PhysX enhanced games, and one day consoles will too, only by then the PC community will have moved onto the next big graphical revolution.

I like the stability of consoles, but I don't think anyone wants the PC's held back because someone thinks we should be more like them.

 

[Easton Dark]

to be honest, consoles are better task-wise when playing games since they only run the games applications, as opposed to every application or .exe that a computer runs on both visual and hidden processes.

Most computers also have 8x as much or more RAM than consoles though. Xbox's 500 or so MB to the now pretty standard 4GB RAM on PC's.

Not to mention their processors are getting to be 10 years old, advances have been made.

 

[RYjet911]

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.

Then of course, it has to meet certain qualifications of course. I will not endure anything under 1080p. *snort*.

How do you think I feel? I've just ordered two new monitors to get a glorious resolution of 5760x1080, and from the sounds of things even loading the Windows Classic desktop theme would make these cards chug. xD


To be honest, I can't see CPU/GPU combined chips becoming a replacement for the standard setup, more of an alternative for less power hungry users. Having them separate allows replacing faulty parts to be both easier and cheaper (As replacing either a CPU or GPU would more than likely be a fair bit cheaper than having to replace one component with both in), and it also allows the user to overclock them with less risk, cool the processors more easily, and most importantly for the more POWAAAH PC gamer easier to upgrade when newer chips get released.

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.

Personally I'll always prefer standalone cards for the overclocking options and ease and cost effectiveness of replacement and upgrade.

 

[Samus Aaron]

What an odd term to use. The only way I can imagine this providing a more console like experience is if it suddenly sprouts a controller to play with.

Because clearly there's no way to have a controller on PCs yet. The PC peripheral industry just hasn't quite got there. It's not as if PCs have had gamepads for decades now. Certainly there's not a popular console controller which is has flawless Windows support and is integrated into almost every major and indie game release in the past 5+ years... Yes... we PC gamers sure are primitive.

This is not a flame war. Don't turn it into one by deliberately misunderstanding GiantRaven's comment.

OP: This can only be a good thing, especially if Gabe Newall is touting it. I'm not into PC gaming because graphics cards are expensive and need to be continually updated and replaced, among other reasons, but this could be what gets me into it (especially considering how I've missed out on the gigantic Winter Steam Sale since I don't play PC's).

 

[pneuma08]

I think what Newell meant was that it's game-changing in the sense that it raises the minimum rather than competing with the maximum.

That is to say, in order to be a PC gamer nowadays and in the past, one would also need to be PC enthusiast. This tries to change that, and at least it's a big step up from current integrated hardware. In short, it tries to make things more accessible - like consoles.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

What an odd term to use. The only way I can imagine this providing a more console like experience is if it suddenly sprouts a controller to play with.

*plugs controller into PC*

Viola! Console vs PC control wars rendered moot!

The only real advantage that consoles have over PCs have is simplicity. Buy console, put game in, play.

 

[Cogwheel]

Does that mean I can't expect it to run on an integrated graphics card like the episodes and Portal?

 

[s0m3th1ng]

And consoles continue to try to become a PC as PCs continue to become consoles...will it ever end?
I could see this tech working extremely well for small laptop buyers wanting the option to enjoy more current-gen titles. For the majority of PC gamers this tech won't really have an effect on them, other than possibly slowing the development of graphics in games.

 

[Bealzibob]

SNIP

Because clearly there's no way to have a controller on PCs yet. The PC peripheral industry just hasn't quite got there. It's not as if PCs have had gamepads for decades now. Certainly there's not a popular console controller which is has flawless Windows support and is integrated into almost every major and indie game release in the past 5+ years... Yes... we PC gamers sure are primitive.

Sorry what? All I heard was "grunt, grunt, *scratch*, grunt, GRUNT! *Smacks club against the ground*".



OP:I have only a basic understand of computer hardware and am gifted with the hand-me-downs of a far more richer computer owner. So I'm going to assume valve, being omniscient and all, know what they are doing and thus this will be good. Havn't bought a new console game in a long time but I still find it hard to think of a game (thats not a RTS or MMO) that I'd would prefer to play on a computer.

 

[Credge]

I've never heard of any of these terms.

Discrete graphics card?

Console experience?

What do these mean?

 

[klasbo]

AMD owns ATI, so I'd expect them to do this sort of thing first, not Intel.

You shouldn't. AMD owns ATI. Logic dictates that they have NO incentive to produce well-performing IGPs.

With the ineffable success of the ipad, they have the incentive. And the tech too, since they do both CPUs and GPUs. In fact, I hear it's called

AMD Llano chips. They're coming out, and they'll be much better executed than Intel's offering.

Thanks, Ravenshrike. Never heard of that before - learn something new every day.

On another note:

As multiple sources have confirmed, the only thing holding game progress, are the (5 year old) consoles.

To some extent, yes. There's a limit to what the current generation can do (in terms of graphics), which means that the focus for current developers has been making things more efficient while producing better results. I think many developers are starting to feel very comfortable with working on the PS3/360 now, but at the same time a few are ready to move on again (read Cevat Yerli).

Windows 8 may very well be the spark for a new breed of consoles - no doubt Sony and Nintendo are also looking into the future.

 

[Credge]

That is to say, in order to be a PC gamer nowadays and in the past, one would also need to be PC enthusiast.

What is a PC enthusiast? Why is it a requirement to play games on the PC? Any games? If not, what games then?

 

[thiosk]

Simply being able to allow the chip to do floating point operations would take a lot of burden off designers. The video card won't go away, but some of the operations that end up glitching out pc gamers could be offloaded to a chip tested in a more hermetic environment, and leave raw graphical computation to the PC core itself.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I think this might be good as a back up but I don't see something like this killing graphics cards as it is good to have both game capable if one craps out.

 

[loc978]

...not sure about you guys, but my going-on-4-year-old PC processes prettier, faster graphical effects than a PS3 or 360. The biggest bottlenecks in PC gaming are actually bloatsoftware related. Get a moderately priced custom-built machine (with current-gen non-budget graphics and a SATA III 10000RPM HDD) running a slim distro of Linux and you'll outperform anything on the factory-built personal computer or console market.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

But I got a PC to avoid console gaming!

P.S Woo! No more suspension!

 

[Wolfram23]

Hah actually this is crap. Well... let me clarify.

Intel's onboard graphics (Sandy Bridge) comes in two varieties, 2000 series and 3000 series. For laptops, almost all of them are the 3000 series chips, but for desktops, only the K series CPUs have 3000 series, which are the "unlocked" CPUs for overclocking, and generally speaking, overclockers are going to go with high powered discreet GPUs, not to mention using the top end motherboards, P67, which disable onboard graphics anyway. Therefore the mainstream market on the H67 platform will generally be stuck with the 2000 series onboard graphics, which is piss poor performance.

For laptops tho, yes, these will deliver mediocre graphics. At least comparable to current Nvidia and ATI offerings like 3xxM and 5xxxM, respectively.

As you can see, it's not even as good as a low-mid range card, the 5550. However, laptop resolutions are usually less than this even, so for that application, these new onboard graphics are going to be awesome.

Full article review here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-7.html

A couple nice features tho, the CPUs themselves are clock for clock the fastest ever. They are ridiculously fast. They also have one very nice feature with these onboard graphics, that is when doing video encoding. Currently most implementations focus on using all your CPU cores, and a few allow for CUDA (Nvidia) or Stream (ATI) to use GPU power on top of CPU to encode video. With these new Sandy Bridge CPUs, Intel already has some support for their onboard EUs (the graphic cores on the CPU) which speeds up video encoding by at least double what CPU+GPU encoding currently delivers. So that's really awesome.