Telling it Like it is Will Get You Fired
As the paragraph title suggests; for every honest flame, you can expect to get soundly singed.
It's interesting that in the two cases below one man rails against game reviews and the next writes a game review - both men end up severely singed.
-
Career Suicide?
In the case of of Harvey Smith, Creative Director of Midway (Austin), he had allot of real bad things to say about his development experience with Blacksite: Area 51. May a hard way to make a case against bad reviews Harvey.
Just some of the more notable quotes - "This project was so fucked up" and "I wasn't excited about this Area 51 game". You can read more on his views here.
Of course Harvey goes on in more detail about how this published debacle ended up being what it is but why stop at a potential reprimand when you can go for a sure sacking . Unfortunately for Harvey, it looks like a sacking - with a lead weight, concrete shoes and deep river.
No surprise Harvey Smith is no longer working for Midway. Read more here
-
Biting the Hand that Writes Checks
Now on a more scandalous note - A Game Reviewer Canned after giving a low score for a game.
It looks like Jeff Gerstmann of GameSpot may have weighed in rather honest but critical review of Kane and Lynch. It turns out that this delivery had spurned Eidos who publishes the title to seek his ouster. Eidos has paid allot of money in ad space for Kane and Lynch on the site and the immediate if not obvious conclusion was made about the firing.
Of interest is the video review that Jeff made of Kane and Lynch which is no longer available on GameSpot. See it here on YouTube.
No doubt that Jeff doesn't pull any punches in that review, but the fallout from this sacking has just started.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
ID's John Carmack on PC Games
PC Gaming Legend Calls it
In an interview for Gamasutra Carmack weighs in on the reasons the PC remains a viable gaming platform, if for one game genre at least.
On the PC becoming a Console port option
If you make a cross-platform game, the PC is not going to look that much different there. There is a little bit better graphics fidelity, and it’s lot more powerful than a high-end console. You certainly only have about half efficiency, but still, you get some influence. But it’s not really drastic.
The exception being...
But on the other hand, if you look at what’s really successful on the PC -- like World Of Warcraft, that’s an insanely successful product. It’s like a train driving all the PC sales numbers altogether on gaming.
Read interview here Gamasutra
The Death of PC Gaming? (R.I.P. 1994)
The PC as a gaming platform has been on the ropes since well before the PS2 and XBox made their debuts. Cost of development and sales took many developers under. Like then as now, only the ones with hot properties or well financing publishers would last.
The reality is that the PC is largely an enthusiast market. People buying off the shelf PCs may buy a new game with the PCs, but they aren't generally buying a PC with gaming as a priority. Kick in the steep hardware/software curve and many game experiences are less than stellar.
PC game developers can't go on the installed base of PCs when designing their games because they are generally targeting for the top 5% - 10%. And because PCs are not primarily used for gaming, the games sales associated with that 5%-10% is lower.
For small developers, this is a nice target as long as they can keep costs down while hoping to drive graphics and game innovation to sell the final product. For more established game developers, this sale base is increasingly smaller and less likely to sustain a return on their investments. Once a game studio achieves a certain critical mass - the PC as a platform is less viable and is more risk than its worth.
The PC and the MMPORG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. So long as games like World of Warcraft and Everquest allow multitudes of people to play interactive quests online, the PC will reign supreme in this game area. The numbers of people playing these PC games are in the millions. A far cry from most any console based game.
Console gaming has come a very long way in both game play and graphics. A dedicated gaming machine has never made more sense. Fortunately (for now) there is an equal balance between PC and Console. You can play a title on either one and get a similar experience (providing you're the PC enthusiast with uber hardware.)
PC gaming will be around when and if the next generation of consoles hit the market and again we will revisit the Death of PC Gaming.
In an interview for Gamasutra Carmack weighs in on the reasons the PC remains a viable gaming platform, if for one game genre at least.
On the PC becoming a Console port option
If you make a cross-platform game, the PC is not going to look that much different there. There is a little bit better graphics fidelity, and it’s lot more powerful than a high-end console. You certainly only have about half efficiency, but still, you get some influence. But it’s not really drastic.
The exception being...
But on the other hand, if you look at what’s really successful on the PC -- like World Of Warcraft, that’s an insanely successful product. It’s like a train driving all the PC sales numbers altogether on gaming.
Read interview here Gamasutra
The Death of PC Gaming? (R.I.P. 1994)
The PC as a gaming platform has been on the ropes since well before the PS2 and XBox made their debuts. Cost of development and sales took many developers under. Like then as now, only the ones with hot properties or well financing publishers would last.
The reality is that the PC is largely an enthusiast market. People buying off the shelf PCs may buy a new game with the PCs, but they aren't generally buying a PC with gaming as a priority. Kick in the steep hardware/software curve and many game experiences are less than stellar.
PC game developers can't go on the installed base of PCs when designing their games because they are generally targeting for the top 5% - 10%. And because PCs are not primarily used for gaming, the games sales associated with that 5%-10% is lower.
For small developers, this is a nice target as long as they can keep costs down while hoping to drive graphics and game innovation to sell the final product. For more established game developers, this sale base is increasingly smaller and less likely to sustain a return on their investments. Once a game studio achieves a certain critical mass - the PC as a platform is less viable and is more risk than its worth.
The PC and the MMPORG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. So long as games like World of Warcraft and Everquest allow multitudes of people to play interactive quests online, the PC will reign supreme in this game area. The numbers of people playing these PC games are in the millions. A far cry from most any console based game.
Console gaming has come a very long way in both game play and graphics. A dedicated gaming machine has never made more sense. Fortunately (for now) there is an equal balance between PC and Console. You can play a title on either one and get a similar experience (providing you're the PC enthusiast with uber hardware.)
PC gaming will be around when and if the next generation of consoles hit the market and again we will revisit the Death of PC Gaming.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Crysis - How To Benchmark
Latest (maybe last) Uber Spec PC Game
Crysis releases this week and it is probably one of the last uber PC games to be released for a long time. That's right, the game will not be seen on any console as it's spec requirements are greater than the current generation can handle.
That is not a glowing endorsement for anyone with aging PC hardware. As anyone who has played a next gen console port on their PC knows; those ports can drag performance down on anything but the fastest PCs.
The game has been in development for a few years but Crytek has stated that the game will scale across a wide range of PC hardware. Scale is a rather ambiguous word here. It really is dependent on what you are willing to settle for. What visuals and resolution you are willing to play in.
Built in Benchmark
If running your games at anything under 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 4xAf is an abomination, stop right here. It doens't matter if you're using the latest DX9 or DX10 hardware in XP or Vista. The Crysis game engine is going to stress hardware that hasn't hit the market yet.
If you're still on the fence on buying Crysis because of concerns these uber hardware requirements. You owe it to yourself to download the single player demo just to benchmark it against your current hardware.
In your game directory there are two batch files to benchmark your CPU and GPU.
Both of these are in the BIN32 directory. One is the Benchmark_CPU.BAT and Benchmark_GPU.BAT.
What you may want to do before running these is go into the games option screen and adjust the settings to your liking. Otherwise the game defaults to a low settings and 1024x768. Once you get the settings that you would like - exit the game and then run the benchmarks tests.
Both benchmarks run 4x each. You will see your FPS statistics on screen throughout the benchmark. At the end it will give you a final score in avg FPS and Max FPS.
Sample Benchmarks
Game options settings
1280x1024, No AA, No AF. All Settings on High
Core 2 Duo (Dual) E6400 2.13GHz (OC 3.4Ghz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GTS 640MB
CPU Bench - 26.28 Avg FPS
36.58 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 27.86 Avg FPS
32.90 Max FPS
Core 2 Duo(Quad) E6600 2.4GHz (OC 3.2GHz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GT 512 MB
CPU Bench - 39.23 Avg FPS
55.64 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 41.59 Avg FPS
49.88 Max FPS
The first thing to note is that the Crysis engine does utilize the more CPUs you throw at it. It's arguable that the additional CPUs are making a significant difference as they are being under utilized. They aren't even close to doubling performance but in gaming, 10 FPS can make or break the immersion experience.
On another note the 8800 GT vs the 8800 GTS. Considering that the GT is priced to be lower than its GTS counterpart, the GPU Bench proves it is the card to buy. It's liited to 512 MB DDR3 memory compared to the GTS's 640, but thats largely a resolution advantage that this game won't allow anyway. 8800 GT are the cards to go with if you can get one without paying an outrageous price because of short supply.
Whether or not Crysis is a commercial success for Crytek remains to be seen. It's tough for PC game developers these days. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that the game engine will be a cornerstone benchmark for PC hardware sites for a few years.
Crysis releases this week and it is probably one of the last uber PC games to be released for a long time. That's right, the game will not be seen on any console as it's spec requirements are greater than the current generation can handle.
That is not a glowing endorsement for anyone with aging PC hardware. As anyone who has played a next gen console port on their PC knows; those ports can drag performance down on anything but the fastest PCs.
The game has been in development for a few years but Crytek has stated that the game will scale across a wide range of PC hardware. Scale is a rather ambiguous word here. It really is dependent on what you are willing to settle for. What visuals and resolution you are willing to play in.
Built in Benchmark
If running your games at anything under 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 4xAf is an abomination, stop right here. It doens't matter if you're using the latest DX9 or DX10 hardware in XP or Vista. The Crysis game engine is going to stress hardware that hasn't hit the market yet.
If you're still on the fence on buying Crysis because of concerns these uber hardware requirements. You owe it to yourself to download the single player demo just to benchmark it against your current hardware.
In your game directory there are two batch files to benchmark your CPU and GPU.
Both of these are in the BIN32 directory. One is the Benchmark_CPU.BAT and Benchmark_GPU.BAT.
What you may want to do before running these is go into the games option screen and adjust the settings to your liking. Otherwise the game defaults to a low settings and 1024x768. Once you get the settings that you would like - exit the game and then run the benchmarks tests.
Both benchmarks run 4x each. You will see your FPS statistics on screen throughout the benchmark. At the end it will give you a final score in avg FPS and Max FPS.
Sample Benchmarks
Game options settings
1280x1024, No AA, No AF. All Settings on High
Core 2 Duo (Dual) E6400 2.13GHz (OC 3.4Ghz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GTS 640MB
CPU Bench - 26.28 Avg FPS
36.58 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 27.86 Avg FPS
32.90 Max FPS
Core 2 Duo(Quad) E6600 2.4GHz (OC 3.2GHz) 2 Gig System Ram, 8800 GT 512 MB
CPU Bench - 39.23 Avg FPS
55.64 Max FPS
GPU Bench - 41.59 Avg FPS
49.88 Max FPS
The first thing to note is that the Crysis engine does utilize the more CPUs you throw at it. It's arguable that the additional CPUs are making a significant difference as they are being under utilized. They aren't even close to doubling performance but in gaming, 10 FPS can make or break the immersion experience.
On another note the 8800 GT vs the 8800 GTS. Considering that the GT is priced to be lower than its GTS counterpart, the GPU Bench proves it is the card to buy. It's liited to 512 MB DDR3 memory compared to the GTS's 640, but thats largely a resolution advantage that this game won't allow anyway. 8800 GT are the cards to go with if you can get one without paying an outrageous price because of short supply.
Whether or not Crysis is a commercial success for Crytek remains to be seen. It's tough for PC game developers these days. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that the game engine will be a cornerstone benchmark for PC hardware sites for a few years.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Intels Quad Core Q6600 (Revisted)
Real Performance
Maybe it was a little greed coupled with ease of speed to 3.2GHz.
The Q6600 is a bedeviling processor. It's tempting when you see speed increases with little voltage adjustment. What would it take to throttle up higher?
3.3, 3.4, maybe More?
I was eagerly setting up scenes to render in Lightwave and Vue 6.5 and the awe I had anticipated shut smack down in my face. Occasional completed renders would be followed by immediate system shutdown/reboots.
NOOOOoooooooo!!! But Yes, the little proc that could was unable to perform stable in prolonged practical use in 3D applications. I tried everything I could imagine to get stability. BIOS updates, New ratios, voltage changes, ... the works. In the end the baseline was the only rock solid numbers I could get stability. 3.2Ghz
Something I hadn't Mentioned (SECRET)
I was actually playing the Crysis Demo @ 3.6Ghz and my jaw dropped at Max settings (using the 8800 640mb GTS). I was playing Team Fortress and Half-Life 2 2nd Episode at blazing speeds. (The HL2 Source engine known for its sensitivities to over clocking.) All games help up and gave great frames per second.
Sadly, it was the odd reboot when the PC was idle that forced the speed down.
Temps @ 60 C
After my last system analysis I found that temps that hovered/breached and held at 60C would cause an immediate shut down.
The interesting thing about the Q6600 is that higher FSB speeds did not necessarily mean more heat. In fact the span of 3.2 to 3.6 was nominal. At best there was a 2-5 C increase. In other words, the voltage increase required was nominal.
When all four cores were running in Lightwave and Vue6 benchmark tests, the rendering worked until the four cores pegged 60+C for for 6-10 seconds. As soon as that was breached - an immediate shut down reboot would occur. Interesting for a chip set to max temp capped at 70C.
The only feasible way to break the 3.2 barrier all around reliability is with more aggressive/expensive cooling.
It's 3.2 not 3.4 GHz - Still the Best Buy for the Money
It may not be 3.4GHz but @ 3.2GHz, the Q6600 is still a champ.
Since the Q6700 is $250.00 more and only offers a .220 MHz difference, it's hard to overlook this CPU.
There are plenty of Core 2 Duos that will run higher than 3.2, but its hard to beat 4 processors in one box.
Maybe it was a little greed coupled with ease of speed to 3.2GHz.
The Q6600 is a bedeviling processor. It's tempting when you see speed increases with little voltage adjustment. What would it take to throttle up higher?
3.3, 3.4, maybe More?
I was eagerly setting up scenes to render in Lightwave and Vue 6.5 and the awe I had anticipated shut smack down in my face. Occasional completed renders would be followed by immediate system shutdown/reboots.
NOOOOoooooooo!!! But Yes, the little proc that could was unable to perform stable in prolonged practical use in 3D applications. I tried everything I could imagine to get stability. BIOS updates, New ratios, voltage changes, ... the works. In the end the baseline was the only rock solid numbers I could get stability. 3.2Ghz
Something I hadn't Mentioned (SECRET)
I was actually playing the Crysis Demo @ 3.6Ghz and my jaw dropped at Max settings (using the 8800 640mb GTS). I was playing Team Fortress and Half-Life 2 2nd Episode at blazing speeds. (The HL2 Source engine known for its sensitivities to over clocking.) All games help up and gave great frames per second.
Sadly, it was the odd reboot when the PC was idle that forced the speed down.
Temps @ 60 C
After my last system analysis I found that temps that hovered/breached and held at 60C would cause an immediate shut down.
The interesting thing about the Q6600 is that higher FSB speeds did not necessarily mean more heat. In fact the span of 3.2 to 3.6 was nominal. At best there was a 2-5 C increase. In other words, the voltage increase required was nominal.
When all four cores were running in Lightwave and Vue6 benchmark tests, the rendering worked until the four cores pegged 60+C for for 6-10 seconds. As soon as that was breached - an immediate shut down reboot would occur. Interesting for a chip set to max temp capped at 70C.
The only feasible way to break the 3.2 barrier all around reliability is with more aggressive/expensive cooling.
It's 3.2 not 3.4 GHz - Still the Best Buy for the Money
It may not be 3.4GHz but @ 3.2GHz, the Q6600 is still a champ.
Since the Q6700 is $250.00 more and only offers a .220 MHz difference, it's hard to overlook this CPU.
There are plenty of Core 2 Duos that will run higher than 3.2, but its hard to beat 4 processors in one box.
Monday, November 05, 2007
I Want to be a CG Artist!
Make Models, Animate, Effects - Make Games and Movies .....
I've been into computers, graphics, and gaming for many years now and the pace at which computers and software have progressed has been nothing short of amazing. It's easy to see the association of gaming, movies, video and other productions as being a mutual learned process.
In many ways they are. Fortunately many software use close to the same commands for some features, which makes the learning curve of different programs less steep.
Ten years ago, as able as programs were; there was always the need to get an angle on a technique to achieve the right look or function in a model, composition or animation. Rarely did anything do as it was designed, right out of the box.
Not much has changed now. Many programs still offer features that work under the best of setups, but require a significant amount of tweaking and investigation to get the look you are after. Unlike what many clients may believe, the computer does not do all the work.
Curiosity vs. Drive and Investment of Time
I know plenty of young people that see CG everywhere they look and that is for sure, it is. CG has penetrated many forms of advertising and is less a luxury as it is a necessity for a variety of businesses beyond entertainment.
So of course, you hear about budgets of big movies and read about the cost of effects which must translate into a big pay day for the artists working on them. Not only do you like what you see but you would like to start a career creating and getting paid to do so.
The best advice I can give anyone is that if you don't have in inherent interest in art. Whether it be hand drawing, painting, or other creative outlet, the technical side of cg may run you down. I put up with the math elements and odd words and terms to get my artistic vision modeled, edited, and animated.
You don't need drawing skills to do any CG work, but you need that creative drive already in you. CG is best an extension of your existing creativity. Getting a grasp of the complexities and nuances that exist in programs and channeling those to produce whats in your minds eye can be a task. What gets you through it is your creative drive/ability.
As amazing as programs and processing powers exist now, I often wonder how I would fair if I just started today. I'm pretty sure I would be overwhelmed with my options. Considering the costs and the time I know that would be required, I would have to question this as a career.
Being young helps. I started when I was 30 which I think is a very tight borderline age today.
Expectations are very high now whereas when I started, the hobbiest market is what fed the early business markets with employees.
The job market has completely changed and the competition for the same jobs has quadrupled.
It's All in the Details - Investment of Time
Even though speed, accessibility, and program interoperability has increased, so has the overall complexity of programs. To be a Jack of All Trades or a Generalist of which I consider myself; is a product of multiple years of long nights and weekends training.
This career is not something honed in intermittent idle hours on an irregular schedule. Like any other job skill, it requires a commitment and effort to stick with it outside of a class.
The problem I see with commercials offering courses in CG studies is that they play to the obvious. People playing games and watching a finished animation. This gives no insight to the personal investment (which is long) to get there.
I've been into computers, graphics, and gaming for many years now and the pace at which computers and software have progressed has been nothing short of amazing. It's easy to see the association of gaming, movies, video and other productions as being a mutual learned process.
In many ways they are. Fortunately many software use close to the same commands for some features, which makes the learning curve of different programs less steep.
Ten years ago, as able as programs were; there was always the need to get an angle on a technique to achieve the right look or function in a model, composition or animation. Rarely did anything do as it was designed, right out of the box.
Not much has changed now. Many programs still offer features that work under the best of setups, but require a significant amount of tweaking and investigation to get the look you are after. Unlike what many clients may believe, the computer does not do all the work.
Curiosity vs. Drive and Investment of Time
I know plenty of young people that see CG everywhere they look and that is for sure, it is. CG has penetrated many forms of advertising and is less a luxury as it is a necessity for a variety of businesses beyond entertainment.
So of course, you hear about budgets of big movies and read about the cost of effects which must translate into a big pay day for the artists working on them. Not only do you like what you see but you would like to start a career creating and getting paid to do so.
The best advice I can give anyone is that if you don't have in inherent interest in art. Whether it be hand drawing, painting, or other creative outlet, the technical side of cg may run you down. I put up with the math elements and odd words and terms to get my artistic vision modeled, edited, and animated.
You don't need drawing skills to do any CG work, but you need that creative drive already in you. CG is best an extension of your existing creativity. Getting a grasp of the complexities and nuances that exist in programs and channeling those to produce whats in your minds eye can be a task. What gets you through it is your creative drive/ability.
As amazing as programs and processing powers exist now, I often wonder how I would fair if I just started today. I'm pretty sure I would be overwhelmed with my options. Considering the costs and the time I know that would be required, I would have to question this as a career.
Being young helps. I started when I was 30 which I think is a very tight borderline age today.
Expectations are very high now whereas when I started, the hobbiest market is what fed the early business markets with employees.
The job market has completely changed and the competition for the same jobs has quadrupled.
It's All in the Details - Investment of Time
Even though speed, accessibility, and program interoperability has increased, so has the overall complexity of programs. To be a Jack of All Trades or a Generalist of which I consider myself; is a product of multiple years of long nights and weekends training.
This career is not something honed in intermittent idle hours on an irregular schedule. Like any other job skill, it requires a commitment and effort to stick with it outside of a class.
The problem I see with commercials offering courses in CG studies is that they play to the obvious. People playing games and watching a finished animation. This gives no insight to the personal investment (which is long) to get there.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Intels Quad Core (Q6600) Overclocked Gaming
Untapped Power
There are allot of sites that have piled praise on the Core 2 Duo dual processors available in the market but there are fewer around pitching the praise of the quad core class.
This has allot to do with the fact that dual processors can generate a fair amount of heat. More often than not this heat issue is easily remedied with 3rd party air cooling. No doubt this gives Core 2 Duos a significant advantage and solid bang for the buck. I have four rigs using the E6400 rated @ 2.13 GHz running flawlessly @ 3.2GHz.
With that as an example of the possibilities, what could be done with the Quad Core Q6600.
Well aside from the concern of increased heat, the first batches from Intel were too hot to do much with. But with the introduction of the G0 class, we have the Holy Grail of quad processors.
The new class has a lower Thermal Design Power rating of 90 Watts compared to its earlier cousins that chewed through 105Watts. All the power coupled with over clocking really limited the speed range.
Identifying a Winner
Knowing if you have the winning class is as simple as checking the Product Code on the boxed unit. PROD CODE BX80562Q6600SLACR. That is the marking of a winner and one that gives you a range of possibilities depending on the hardware you couple with it.
What Kinds of Speeds Can I Get?
Not unlike the Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13 GHz, the Q6600 has ample room to speed up.
Whats important is which motherboard and memory you choose to go with. Ultimately the motherboard bios, cooling unit, and memory speed will cap your overall speed/stability.
With that said, with a few simple bios settings you can get to the 3.2Ghz base line. Not a bad speed at all when you consider that gaming is making the shift to multi core processors. In 5 minutes I was getting the same speed out of a quad that I was getting from my duals. More importantly is the thermals are almost equal. 38-42 Idle and 54-60 at Load.
Currently Newegg has the C2D E6400 @ 204.00 and the Q6600 @ $279.00.
Not a bad price for equal Ghz performance. If you're doing rendering (video or 3D) on top of gaming, going with the two extra processors is a no brainer.
Rather than doing a search use this link to get the essential settings using some of the most common motherboards for the Q6600 Bit-tech Net.
The article isn't the most recent on the subject, but it is the easiest to follow and gives the starting steps to tapping into your quads potential.
Aren't Quad Processors Overkill for Gaming?
Yes and No.
When you take into consideration that current and upcoming PC titles Valves The Orange Box (Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2) and Crytek's Crysis and Remedy's Alan Wake to name few, the position of single CPU games is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Also keep in mind that if you're a media developer like myself, the applications I use are all multiprocessor aware. So you can cover your business and pleasure...or better business and play/leisure needs with multiprocessor solutions.
Cryteks Crysis on Quads
Having played the Crysis single player demo on the quad I can say there is significant performance increase over its dual core counterpart. Playing on two identical systems with the exception of the processors, the demo does take advantage of the two extra processors. This is not a complete day a and night difference, but there is enough frame rate increase that allows smoother game play in dense areas.
Since the game has gone gold, it should be nice to see what further optimizations have been made to the engine.
Technology is always about the early adopters buying into future prospects but (practical) multiprocessors aren't the future anymore; they are here now.
There are allot of sites that have piled praise on the Core 2 Duo dual processors available in the market but there are fewer around pitching the praise of the quad core class.
This has allot to do with the fact that dual processors can generate a fair amount of heat. More often than not this heat issue is easily remedied with 3rd party air cooling. No doubt this gives Core 2 Duos a significant advantage and solid bang for the buck. I have four rigs using the E6400 rated @ 2.13 GHz running flawlessly @ 3.2GHz.
With that as an example of the possibilities, what could be done with the Quad Core Q6600.
Well aside from the concern of increased heat, the first batches from Intel were too hot to do much with. But with the introduction of the G0 class, we have the Holy Grail of quad processors.
The new class has a lower Thermal Design Power rating of 90 Watts compared to its earlier cousins that chewed through 105Watts. All the power coupled with over clocking really limited the speed range.
Identifying a Winner
Knowing if you have the winning class is as simple as checking the Product Code on the boxed unit. PROD CODE BX80562Q6600SLACR. That is the marking of a winner and one that gives you a range of possibilities depending on the hardware you couple with it.
What Kinds of Speeds Can I Get?
Not unlike the Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13 GHz, the Q6600 has ample room to speed up.
Whats important is which motherboard and memory you choose to go with. Ultimately the motherboard bios, cooling unit, and memory speed will cap your overall speed/stability.
With that said, with a few simple bios settings you can get to the 3.2Ghz base line. Not a bad speed at all when you consider that gaming is making the shift to multi core processors. In 5 minutes I was getting the same speed out of a quad that I was getting from my duals. More importantly is the thermals are almost equal. 38-42 Idle and 54-60 at Load.
Currently Newegg has the C2D E6400 @ 204.00 and the Q6600 @ $279.00.
Not a bad price for equal Ghz performance. If you're doing rendering (video or 3D) on top of gaming, going with the two extra processors is a no brainer.
Rather than doing a search use this link to get the essential settings using some of the most common motherboards for the Q6600 Bit-tech Net.
The article isn't the most recent on the subject, but it is the easiest to follow and gives the starting steps to tapping into your quads potential.
Aren't Quad Processors Overkill for Gaming?
Yes and No.
When you take into consideration that current and upcoming PC titles Valves The Orange Box (Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2) and Crytek's Crysis and Remedy's Alan Wake to name few, the position of single CPU games is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Also keep in mind that if you're a media developer like myself, the applications I use are all multiprocessor aware. So you can cover your business and pleasure...or better business and play/leisure needs with multiprocessor solutions.
Cryteks Crysis on Quads
Having played the Crysis single player demo on the quad I can say there is significant performance increase over its dual core counterpart. Playing on two identical systems with the exception of the processors, the demo does take advantage of the two extra processors. This is not a complete day a and night difference, but there is enough frame rate increase that allows smoother game play in dense areas.
Since the game has gone gold, it should be nice to see what further optimizations have been made to the engine.
Technology is always about the early adopters buying into future prospects but (practical) multiprocessors aren't the future anymore; they are here now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
