{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/17/2014 11:30:04 PM
7
Games aren't nearly CPU-intensive enough to warrant server-quality CPUs.
English
-
They should be, damn it!
-
That's absurd. And what purpose would that even serve? (no pun intended) We'd all need ultra-fast graphics cards (maybe even multi-GPU setups) just to prevent a bottleneck, and that shit's expensive. And it wouldn't even be profitable for developers because the vast majority of people don't own server-quality CPUs because that's just plain overkill.
-
No I meant give a lot of the load to CPUs. At this stage I'm not sure how far graphics can go.
-
Edited by Elrond Hubbard: 1/17/2014 11:48:36 PM[quote]No I meant give a lot of the load to CPUs.[/quote] We invented GPUs and sound cards to avoid that exact scenario. [quote]At this stage I'm not sure how far graphics can go.[/quote] Graphics can go as far as we feel like, just about, but photorealism is still just fantasy. I think (keyword: think, because I'm not an expert on this) the main limitation of real-time graphics is hardware speed. There are plenty of gorgeous graphics techniques (ray-tracing, etc) that are still too intensive to be implemented without nerfing the rest of the graphics.
-
Excuse me if I don't mind my CPU being on fire! :p You see how many newer CPUs are getting more and more cores, it just seems wasteful not to use them.
-
Oh you :P I think that's a development issue more than a hardware issue. But with the Xbox One and PS4 using modern CPU architectures, CPU-efficient games may finally happen.
-
Yeah! Itshappening.gif
