Wow that card!
Reminds me of Asus Ares
Now back to REAL nerdy things.
not PC related but anyone see the roomers of next gen consoles? Xbox to have 6-8 gigs of ram, ps4 to have 3-4 but faster speeds. PS4 to have a slower? but better processor? maybe out class the cell? Ethernet display option, possibility of phaseing out analog connections. Once again all just Roomers; only the ram and processor roomers have any heft behind them.
Supposedly, developers were begging Sony and MS for two things: faster RAM, and more RAM. For whatever reason, Sony and MS are splitting these needs and doing their own thing with them. I was really hoping for at least 6GB in PS4, but it's sounding like the speed just might make up for the meager amount of RAM it has.
For those who don't know, the arrangements of RAM are like this:
PS4 is supposed to have 4GB of GDDR5, with 512MB set aside for the OS.
Xbox is supposed to have 8GB of DDR3, with 3GB set aside for the OS.
So even with the OS overhead accounted for, the PS4 still has less. But the PS4's RAM is nearly 3x as fast, at 192GB/s, whereas Xbox's is only 68GB/s.
Still, I'm pretty worried about how Xbox to PS4 ports will turn out. Even now, with the consoles being fairly close in RAM capacity, there are some pretty huge differences in graphical quality (though, that could just be because the RAM is split on PS3).
Also, for comparison's sake: PS3's system RAM is 25GB/s, it's video RAM is 22GB/s, and 360's RAM is 22GB/s as well, so both PS4 and Xbox have a huge jump over this gen.
On the CPU front, anyone know what the hell is up with MS and Sony reaching for a more power efficient design? And for that matter, why AMD?
I know more efficient means less heat, but heat was never really an issue with the PS3, and it drew more power than the 360.
I don't see why the system has to be smaller, though. It's a home console. It isn't going to be going anywhere. Or is it just that Apple has set an arbitrary standard for electronic sizes, just to be more fashionable?
And, the PS3 used an Nvidia GPU, as did the first Xbox. While the PS3 wasn't particularly special, it did hold up very well, considering it didn't use a unified shader architecture like the 360's GPU did. But that's besides the point, since I was talking about CPU. AMD seems to have been tripping over themselves to screw up their own CPUs, and provide a consistently inferior product to Intel. I guess the companies have their reasons for going with AMD on the CPU front, but it really does seem silly to me.
Come to think of it, I seem to remember reading something saying the CPU and GPU are insanely small, and maybe that's one of the big reasons they are going with AMD. I can't remember the article, but they said that they think Sony and MS could sell their systems for about $300-$350 and still make a profit, even at launch. It took Sony like 4 years to make a profit on the PS3.
I'd be really happy to see a $300 system, though, and if that's the case, I'd welcome AMD with open arms.
It's just a shame that the new CPU architecture will mean the old systems won't be able to be emulated on the new systems.
I've still yet to purchase an HDTV as to play my current consoles properly (text/widescreen issues). But like this gen, I'll wait a few years until they iron out the console-killing bugs and the price drops significantly. If either console starts off at more than $400 for the base models, screw them.
Less console talk, more PC talk.
Koch media made Anno 1701, Stalker:Clear Sky and Dead Island.
That game didnt' seem to be what I would like to play
What about the erotic story or game was good?
New Gaming headphones for review:
Dual drivers (30mm and 40mm) with built in amp and EQ options
Won't be able to test it with gaming until next week though.
They don't sound like $150 headphones in the sense of audiophile headphone vs this. But their sound is pleasant and fun. Especially for a consumer mind set. Bass and mid centric with no such thing as highs basically.