Valve: PC graphics have topped out

See, the second half of your response is exactly the kind of debate I was looking for. I totally agree that graphics ain't the be all and end all, and Valve are great at focusing on games that don't need amazing graphics to shine. I think having more cross platform games that are actually developed properly for BOTH platforms rather than just giving us half arsed ports that are released as an afterthought or as a quick cash cow is a huge step in the right direction for the gaming industry. It's great for ALL gamers no matter which system they use.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 8:58pm 11th October 2008

I look for the truth, not presumption. Like in the beggining of this very article when it suggests primitive graphics may be enough to win over Nintendo Wii owners, but PC gamers still want their games to look better with each generation. Just looking at the PC top 10 chart you soon realize that this is not true. Four out of the first five games look no better than Wii games! With that, he didn't say we'll "always" focus on the PC first and foremost anywhere in the interview. Suggesting that he'll make PC games first THEN the console games, or put less emphasis on game development for them. He didn't say it or even suggest it. Especially with Left 4 Dead being released simultaneously on both platforms, and with Orange Box on the 360 that looks and plays just as good as it's PC counterpart. It seems to me that he's giving equal attention to both. I like what Lombardi said in this article and it's a shame that CPC missed it. It bodes well for the console since they are closed systems and getting older. It seems that Valve can get down to the metal with these things and keep the games great while extending the console's lifecycles. I think that this is a positive step in the right direction for all involved, but if it can't be discussed truthfully, you're right...forget it.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 5:26pm 11th October 2008

Um.....I already did provide the quote. So did you. "We go PC first" seems pretty clear to me.... sometimes I think you just look for arguments. I was actually trying to be positive and have a reasonable discussion about the positive aspects of Valve developing for several platforms. But that ain't possible with you, so forget it.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 12:46pm 11th October 2008

"We go PC first"-Lombardi. "but they've always focused on the PC first and foremost, and, as he stated in his interview, will continue to focus on the PC first and foremost"-cyberspice1. He did not say that anywhere in the interview, if he did then produce the quote. Release dates mean everything. It means that the console version was worked on along side the PC one and is released at the same time. Valve is now going multi-platform in every sense of the word, not platform specific, favoring one over the other as you suggest. This is new, it's news and it's an important shift in a new direction.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 2:25am 11th October 2008

"Lombardi: We go PC first".... nuff said. I wasn't talking about release dates, I was talking about development focus. And they're not building a PS3 development team, they're re-evaluating their position on it. Which to be honest, will probably lead to them developing for it so really I'm just nit-picking there. But still, as I've said before, I think it'd be great if Valve could develop some decent cross platform multiplayer games, or even better, develop some decent "hardcore" games for the Wii. Just a shame Left 4 Dead won't have X-Platform Muliplayer!

Comment by cyberspice1 at 8:06am 10th October 2008

It surprised me! Valve is now going full "steam" into console development. This article missed that. Thats new, they've never done that before. No one suggested anything bad about the PC, you presumed it. Valve stated that they wanted to expand their business and the console install base couldn't be ignored any longer. He made no such statement that he will "always" continue to focus on the PC first and foremost. As a matter of fact he said nothing at all about who will be first, second or third. I do believe that the PC version of Left 4 Dead will be released along side the 360 version! All they're doing now is building a strong PS3 team and "maybe" a Wii team. "I" believe that they're fully in bed with EA. That has it's pros and cons.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:03am 10th October 2008

It surprised me! Valve is now going full "steam" into console development. This article missed that. Thats new, they've never done that before. No one suggested anything bad about the PC, you presumed it. Valve stated that they wanted to expand their business and the console install base couldn't be ignored any longer. He made no such statement that he will "always" continue to focus on the PC first and foremost. As a matter of fact he said nothing at all about who will be first, second or third. I do believe that the PC version of Left 4 Dead will be released along side the 360 version! All they're doing now is building a strong PS3 team and "maybe" a Wii team. "I" believe that they're fully in bed with EA. That has it's pros and cons.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:03am 10th October 2008

Wasn't suggesting you were lying, I was just interested in reading the full article. To be honest, it dosn't suprise me and I don't see it as anything new, or anything against PC gaming. Valve have always tried to get their games on multiple platforms, but they've always focused on the PC first and foremost, and, as he stated in his interview, will continue to focus on the PC first and foremost. Doug Lombardi is bloody good at both business and computer games, he's successfully adapted his PC gaming business to a changed marketplace and done incredibly well out of it, unlike other developers, who refuse to adapt and just cry about piracy. I'm hoping Valve DO start developing for the Wii as I'd love to see what they can do with the platform. I'm also hoping they continue to develop good games for the 360, and more importantly, I hope they can get some decent cross platform multiplayer action going on.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 8:41am 9th October 2008

Ubisoft's Michael de Plater says theft is crippling the platform. I posted this under the Peter Molyneux article for fear of it being "off topic" here.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 11:58pm 8th October 2008

Orange Box did hit the PS3, but the PS3 version, wasn't handled entirely by Valve. Who developed and published it? EA UK! Valve doesn't do PS3 and Wii. They've said as much. My statements are not "off topic" because I'm mentioning something from this very article and interview. The one posted here is more of a cut and paste job and NOT the whole interview! Even the link provided doesn't take you there. Why? Hmmmm...don't know. But they're just the latest PC developer to take a dip in the console pool and realize that the water is fine. Especially considering everything that is happening with PC gaming right now. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=198032

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:04pm 8th October 2008

Oversight on my part, orange box did come out on the PS3. Still, your statement seems a bit off topic, but I'd like to see a link to the article anyway.

Comment by cyberspice1 at 8:10am 8th October 2008

That IS my point. Notice that you didn't say PS3 or Wii! PC only development is not enough. They're just following suit like the other previous PC only developers. They can no longer ignore the console's install base and the millions of gamers and dollars that brings. Like they've said, they're looking at ways to expand out business and what better way to do it than to dedicate development to the console and not just token support.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:19pm 7th October 2008

Thats not news..... Half Life came out on the PS2, The orange box came out on the 360, left4dead is coming out on the 360.....Whats your point?

Comment by cyberspice1 at 2:38pm 7th October 2008

Why does development of graphics have to just be about how the graphics are rendered and how life like it all looks... why is there not more development in how it outputed? Why are we not all using multi-screen desktops for a larger view and when we are why are the main controls still in the way of where you want to look? what would be great to see is an increase in the takeup of multi-screen gaming and realise the potential which is there? for a few years now I've had the opitunity to try tripple screen gaming and it's great (development of tripple screen + 1 would be better). to have a paneramic view is good, if we could add a 4th screen to this which could give the chance to have health, maps, tool bars, and other costomisable things would make gaming better and show massive improvements in the games quality over a little more sparkle when you jump into a puddle

Comment by rlsdaveas2000 at 10:55am 7th October 2008

The PC is a versitile platform. Games consoles are trying to catch up by including web browsers but then again mobile phones are also. The PC remains the only platform that you can use for any kind of game, web browsing, video/photo editing/Office apps. The PC boasts some of the best games of all times, some of which are on other consoles but when will you buy one of every consoles to play a veriaty of games when you can do that any pc you can buy today? I have a PC that will run anything from Crysis to transport tycoon (which is still one of my favorite games). I would love to have that released again with much better graphics but it would probly loose the origional characture of the game. In Conclusion the PC is a powerful beast which will run any kind of game you want, to make good game play shouldn't mean spending over £500 on a PC it should mean having something enjoyable to play on what you can afford.

Comment by rlsdaveas2000 at 10:38am 7th October 2008

The PC is a versitile platform. Games consoles are trying to catch up by including web browsers but then again mobile phones are also. The PC remains the only platform that you can use for any kind of game, web browsing, video/photo editing/Office apps. The PC boasts some of the best games of all times, some of which are on other consoles but when will you buy one of every consoles to play a veriaty of games when you can do that any pc you can buy today? I have a PC that will run anything from Crysis to transport tycoon (which is still one of my favorite games). I would love to have that released again with much better graphics but it would probly loose the origional characture of the game. In Conclusion the PC is a powerful beast which will run any kind of game you want, to make good game play shouldn't mean spending over £500 on a PC it should mean having something enjoyable to play on what you can afford.

Comment by rlsdaveas2000 at 10:38am 7th October 2008

What was NOT said here is that Valve is now going multi-platform "So it was natural for us to decide that the first console we develop for internally would be the 360. But now that we've got a strong 360 team we're starting to look at ways to expand out business."-Valve. They're also looking at the PS3 as well, "So whether or not you like developing for that platform, if they've got millions of people connected to that platform and buying their games you have to take it seriously".-Valve Indeed.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 11:16pm 6th October 2008

I think the reason for the apparent slow down in graphical improvements is tools related. Think about it, we have all these new smart techniques and features coming out and new faster computational methods for handling things but unless you have a degree in maths 3 times over you really have very little hope of really pushing this stuff to its limits. So it all falls on the support of tools to do the complex stuff and present the user with more friendly ways of doing things. When building worlds is a simple matter of drag and drop then adding effects is just set a few property values you'll see some more impressive results. Classic example is the invention of windows, moving files arounda hard drive used to be rocket science and required knowledge of the system through dos / linux command lines, then along comes windows allowing you to do drag and drop moving of the same information. When 3D "grows up" so will the output from the gaming industry. Watch for .NET 4.0 combined with XNA Framework advances and releases of DX11, all planned for the next 2 to 3 years, in the meantime expect to see smarter games, that's where the tools are already available.

Comment by Wardy at 4:16pm 3rd October 2008

Pretty games sell to the masses. Forget AI, physics, gameplay and story. It'd be great to see more focus on the tech aspects/story but the way thinsg are going, I wouldn't hold my breath. Fine example at present would be GTR evolution. Did it make the sales and wow the masses of sheep? Nope. The only reason why Crysis gained so much popularity was due it's pretty graphics. Technically, it was a bull in a china shop. Just an example of how graphics are at the top the priority list. It's not all doom and gloom though. Look around you. Quality, not quantity?

Comment by bazzakay at 4:01pm 3rd October 2008

Id have to say that i think the story line in a game is the decieding factor if a game is good or not,(personally). As an example one of my favourite games is Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time on the N64. While it graphically wouldnt stand up to todays games i think the playability and storyline would be able to hold it high. Of course good graphics are always welcome but how good would a game be with the graphics of Monsters Inc. and the storyline of Neighbours. I think graphics will top out when they are faster than our eyesight. even then theyll add + ,x ,gt , just to squeeze more money from us.

Comment by barrie at 11:39pm 2nd October 2008

I'm not knocking the Wii - I like the Wii, and have one myself. I just used it as an example of different priorities in the gaming business - some are more geared towards graphics, and some more towards gameplay. The Wii's graphics are primitive, but that's not a problem, hence the example. Now, back on topic...

Comment by hardwidge at 11:42pm 2nd October 2008

It was cheaper then the Xbox360 & PS3 and has sold more than both combined without ramming HD content down everyones throat. It was never sold or marketed as a HD Hi Res gaming console and no one thinks it is. Not everyone had or has a HD flatscreen to game on and not everyone puts their console in their living room. It's mainly plugged into the second TV in the house or in the kid's bedroom. It's a cheap games machine that has got Grandma's playing games on. What's wrong with that? Expect the Wii HD out in 2011.

Comment by crazyceo at 10:43pm 2nd October 2008

There has always been a discussion on gameplay over graphics. And it probably always will be. But the fact remains that good graphics sell, so some game producers will go for better graphics as they hope it will sell them a few more copies, and it probably will. Though Cyrix was plagued by piracy, would it have got the same publicity if it had have mediocre graphics, of course not. But just as always, good honest gaming fun doesnt come from photo realistic graphics. If nothing else are the size of people's monitors increase and with that the screen resolutions. And frankly who wouldnt like to play a game on a massive monitor with some fantastic screen resolutions

Comment by jonisaksson at 8:22pm 2nd October 2008

I don't think it's fair to knock the Wii for having primitive graphics. Theres still plenty of fun games on it, and to be honest, it ain't about the graphics. Warrior does actually make a good point about games being selected for the wrong reasons. And a reviewer apologising for giving Crysis an 8! That is retarded..... Any chance of a link to that? I gotta see it. And on the subject of Crysis, yeah the game did wow me, but thinking about it, it wasn't just the graphics, it was more the shelters falling down around you during an intense firefight, or the remnants of trees crashing down after raping the forest with a vehicle mounted weapon..... or even the way the leaves brush past you as your sneaking through the forest.... I'd rather see games moving towards things like that

Comment by cyberspice1 at 7:28pm 2nd October 2008

Graphics try and simulate reality by bringing a sense of immersion and realism into the game. Adding the A.I. and physics and such ties it all together to make the world believeable with things behaving as they should. But without the graphics you'll never get the reality and immersion. Judging graphics is a subjective thing to do so who the hell made Valve the graphics judge and jury? I don't believe they've topped out either. What? It doesn't get any better than this? How can the Wii be knocked for "primitive" graphics but not Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2? Also how can you claim that PC gamers still want their games to look better with each generation when you have WoW, Spore, The Sims, Warhammer Online and Civilization IV leading the charts? That smacks of a double standard and contradicts what was said about the Wii. Also why attack E3? E3 is simply a showcase for new games that are coming. Doesn't he realize that 99.9% of the games there are unfinished? Some so much so that the only thing shown are some still shots or trailers. So what is there to really judge? Maybe they could've shown the programming language to the people, that would wow 'em. Many games are also shown behind closed doors to the media only. He cites Portal as an example but was it finished at E3 or after? What he should be attacking is how or why a game is selected. Hype, pressure, money, reputation, fanboyism ect all play a part in the selection. Anybody ever see a "Mario" or "Metal Gear Solid" game get a bad review? Exactly! Remember the reviewer who had to apologize for giving Crysis an "8"! How about the firing at Gamepro over the review of Kane and Lynch? It's hardly about graphics.

Comment by Warrior24_7 at 4:33pm 2nd October 2008

yougotkicked - Yep, you are horribly wrong I'm afraid. The Xenos in the Xbox 360 has a unified shader architecture, but AFAIK the one in the Wii is only marginally more powerful than the one in the GameCube, which was somewhere around a Radeon 7500. Nintendo haven't actually released the specs of the Wii GPU, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't got anything particularly advanced in it. There's a reason why the graphics on the Wii don't look particularly advanced.

Comment by hardwidge at 2:42pm 2nd October 2008

ER the reason there is any slowdown in graphic improvements atm is because 99% of games are designed for consoles. why make them better than the main audience hardware can support. because were nearing the end of a console generation, the graphics in games is starting to suck. and lets be realistic, console graphics are terrible. gta4, beautiful? no i dont think so, native resolution and AA/AF please. Graphics are the be all and end all, physics and AI are just features/gimmicks/marketing tools. a good game will always be a good game however good/bad it looks, a pretty game will sell more.

Comment by TBallS at 9:55am 2nd October 2008

Totally agree with your 3D comment. For me, it's the 3rd dimension that 3D adds that is more exciting than any other GFX feature. The realism (spacial awareness) is a mind blower ... however, we need Nvidia etc to really push the R&D to perfect it. --- Have PC graphics really ‘topped out’ - PC GFX will never top out! --- Would you rather see game developers use your multi-core CPU to add more AI features, instead of focusing on graphics? - Core useage would be great, considering we've all invested in multicore ... it would be nice to see the damn gaming companies learn to program them!!

Comment by CSQuake at 10:32am 2nd October 2008

Niko, DL does not say that we need bigger and better CPUs, he - "makes a fair point about making BETTER USE of multi-core CPUs". ie. programming to utilise the cores, something which at the moment most game lack. At the moment, the most use your mutil core will get is when you encode/decode films.

Comment by CSQuake at 10:24am 2nd October 2008

how to make gameplay as great as possible in the process?? A graphically stunning game with great AI that lasts 5 minutes will be dissapointing!

Comment by Lightning_Pete at 9:56am 2nd October 2008

Why can't we have both? It seems to me that graphics will never really "top out" and there'll always be more challenges for more powerful GPU's (barring Larrabbee of course). I mean just look at ray tracing! It's the next GPU challenge in terms of Graphics. Multi core CPU's have now opened up options for developers to increase complexity in other areas, such as A.I intelligence, Game efficiency and all round intensity. It's a fair point that not all games need to be lush graphically to be enjoyable, but it seems this Lombardi is trying to tell me I want one and not so much the other. It shouldn't be a trade off. It's technology - it should ALL progress!

Comment by Woody59 at 9:01am 2nd October 2008

Graphics can get a lot better. Look at the high end video that promotes r6vegas 2, that's how i want the game to be. If games looked like that, current games even crysis would look rubbish like a spectrum game.

Comment by erratum1 at 7:11am 2nd October 2008

shadows my god it doesn't even have striate anti aliasing for edges and your thinking about shadows. There is a huge trend towards lax programing on the pc due to DX10 gpu power but i think a pc game could look like crysis for a lot less grunt than a gtx260 cranking out more heat than a 2 bar fire. Striate comparison is 1024x600 at x2AA for call of duty for the xbox360 most pcs would have a hard time getting down to that level. Wii is somewhere even lower. (my 360 is ace though wouldn't play beattem ups on a pc even.)

Comment by Cool_CR at 4:53am 2nd October 2008

thats a valad point, the wii will never be at the same graphical level as pc's, but i feel it is insulting to consider it primitive, unless i am mistaken, the ATI Hollywood graphics chip that powers the Wii features a unified shader architecture, which places it one step ahead of the graphics cards available at it's relese date (correct me if i am horribly wrong here). and what it lacks in power, it makes up for in smart programming (pay close attention to midna's shadow, the details may supprise you). btw; if you liked twilight princess, make sure you find play Ocarina of Time, it is hands down THE BEST game EVER, all arguments with me on this subject will result in me covering my ears and going "lalalalalalala" until the conversation ends. ;)

Comment by yougotkicked at 12:09am 2nd October 2008

yougotkicked - For the record, I bought a Wii at the Midnight launch in 2006, along with Twlight Princess, which is one of my favourite (if not my favourite) games. However, while it's got great atmosphere and it's presented nicely, the textures are flat and it doesn't look anywhere near as realistic and tangible as Crysis. I like the Wii, but graphically it's only marginally better than the GameCube. It's not going to threaten the PC for graphics, and the two two systems' games are usually aimed at very different markets.

Comment by hardwidge at 11:12pm 1st October 2008

I love a game with great graphics. The first time I really got into 3D acceleration was with RTCW. When I ramped up my settings and the glowing torches lit up the walls with flickering flames. I was amazed. I remember the first time that I played CoD and I could see the breath of German soldiers condensing in the cold, giving away their location. Good graphics can be jaw-dropping eye candy, or an essential part of game play and we shouldn't give up on perfection yet, while continuing to develop support for physics processing and multi-threading.

Comment by trigent_killer at 10:51pm 1st October 2008

i have never understood why people love games just because of their good graphics. i appreciate the desire for a sense of clarity and a semblance of our world, but i cannot understand the desire to have rality re-produced on a screen. games are a departure from reality by nature, so why should we seek to make them look like reality? to me, 'good' graphics and 'realistic' graphics are two wholly different things. i like the graphics of games like TF2, Twilight Princess, and HL2 genuinely impresses me without going too far, i think games would benefit from better physics, leave graphics as they are. though i can see where it is nice in driving games. and you call the Wii 'primitive graphics'? ill admit it is a little behind the times, but play through Twilight Princess and say they are primitive.

Comment by yougotkicked at 9:55pm 1st October 2008

If every vehicle looks like it has come from GRID and every stunned Korean looks like he has fallen out of nomads hands it wont all be bad but the average standard has to go up. Age of Conan showed what could be done with an MMO when warhammer came out i was left thinking i reinstalled WoW. How long till i can get crysis level garphics in my RTS and MMO's. You can get a quad core q6600 and 4850 pc for 500 pounds if games developers made this the recommended system requirements then i think there is still some room to push forwards.

Comment by Cool_CR at 9:49pm 1st October 2008

...game designers could work on graphics that require less AA? This would reduce the work load on gpus, increasing frame rates? especially for ATI/AMD cards. CPU's have immense power for AI and Physics. I reckon games will only get better looking and with more intelligent gameplay sooner than we think!

Comment by rayge21 at 8:49pm 1st October 2008

I still think there's a lot more that can be added graphically, for example all the foliage in Crysis could be made truly 3D. But an immersive experience is what really counts, and things like Physics and AI are what are most lacking at the moment.

Comment by Frohicky1 at 8:26pm 1st October 2008

Graphical should be considered wholistically within the full game experience, where a game experience can be enhanced by making the graphics better, then go for it, but you cant just improve the graphics and expect a game to be better... The example of Team Fortress 2 is a good one, he graphics have been (arguably) simplified, yet things like explosions and fire have been given a lot of graphical oomph, because having great looking explosions in this kind of game really adds something to the atmosphere. One area that I find to be particularly guilty of relying on graphics to do a job it isn't particularly suited to is characters... often you see beautifully realised characters in a game, but because they have about as much depth and personality as an american supermodel (ie. none), they act as negatives in the game expreience rather than positives... sometimes pretty graphics just highlight other flaws, when really the time should have been spent ironing out those flaws in the first place.

Comment by NewParadigm at 6:48pm 1st October 2008

We need to look at pushing the rest of the gaming platform forward, much as graphics were pushed for the last ten years. Graphics need to take a back seat for a while whilst AI and physics get developed and pushed further. When we start getting ray tracing, it'll be virtually useless, unless playing a one on one environmentless FPS, but very pretty, and then graphics processors will have to catch up to doing ray tracing on ever more objects to make it actually feasible for gaming. Whilst that is happening we can dedicate years to much better AI and physics, as well as still incrementally progressing audio and gameplay, and reap the rewards of the ray traced graphics at a later date.

Comment by Assassin8or at 5:56pm 1st October 2008

well made. graphics dont need to be the focus of games, but that doesnt mean they should stop being advanced. games like crysis push the envelope, but i think most people spent more time worrying about if they could run the game than sat enjoying it and playing it, which is not a good thing for any game. if new games manage to push the graphics a little while advancing the rest of the game more, then we will acheive a balance, instead of every company deciding we all want to struggle and play games on our hardware even if its less than 6 months old

Comment by vulcanproject at 6:34pm 1st October 2008

If recent efforts by Nvidia and Zalman are anything to go by, true 3D in games will be the next big thing.

Comment by l3v1ck at 5:56pm 1st October 2008

We need to look at pushing the rest of the gaming platform forward, much as graphics were pushed for the last ten years. Graphics need to take a back seat for a while whilst AI and physics get developed and pushed further. When we start getting ray tracing, it'll be virtually useless, unless playing a one on one environmentless FPS, but very pretty, and then graphics processors will have to catch up to doing ray tracing on ever more objects to make it actually feasible for gaming. Whilst that is happening we can dedicate years to much better AI and physics, as well as still incrementally progressing audio and gameplay, and reap the rewards of the ray traced graphics at a later date.

Comment by Assassin8or at 5:56pm 1st October 2008

I think it is important to strike a balance between graphics and gameplay. At the one extreme you have the Wii, which is like 1989 all over again and it is frankly embarassing that after a decade of development the masses have settled for a jumped up SNES. At the other extreme you have Crysis which looks gorgeous and is enjoyable but is bogged down with filler and repetition. Half Life 2 was bang in the middle and an awesome game as a result, but if it was given a makeover to look as good as Crysis, I'm not going to turn my nose up.

Comment by gavomatic57 at 5:36pm 1st October 2008

I agree with his sentiment, that perhaps the industry has stopped focusing on gameplay and content, opting instead to develop the best LOOKING game. Naming no names, I can think of several of the big games over the past few years to do this! I think we have a long way to go before graphics ever "Top-out". The people here would likely know this above all. Ray tracing, for example. But I ABSOLUTELY agree with regards to Multi core CPUs and GPUs to be utilised. I remember when DirectX 10 was supposed to free up resources to allow "Super AIs" and ten times the number of objects and entities on screen. The potential is there to include a whole heck of a lot of content utilising new tech, and rightly so. But don't disregard graphics altogether. :)

Comment by SanguineAngel at 5:20pm 1st October 2008

I think I agree to some extent. Graphics ain't the be all and end all. It's great to have showcase with really pretty lighting or water effects, but to be honest, Half life 2 still manages to make me go "wow!" in places, and thats 4 years old now! It just shows that pretty graphics ain't necessary to give a games that "wow" factor

Comment by cyberspice1 at 5:04pm 1st October 2008

But the only problem that we have there is the fact that AMD is holding us back way too much. We need someone to develop CPUs which can compete with Intel for performance and price. But until then, it looks as though we will continue to see boring games like Crysis (1) with no real fun!.

Comment by NikoBellic at 4:24pm 1st October 2008

• One top four motherboard maker will die, says MSI
• AMD plans supercomputer with 1,000 GPUs
• Nvidia announces GeForce GTX 285
• Creative takes wraps off Zii processor architecture
• Nvidia announces stereoscopic 3D glasses
• BFG unveils hand built Phobos gaming PCs
• UPDATED: LiveJournal announces mass layoffs
• Top 10 PC games chart
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 gets 500GB on single platter
• Creative reveals new Zii processor

These are the most popular news articles over the past seven days.

• Phenom II overclocked to 6GHz
• GeIL unveils Cyclone RAM cooler
• Rumour control: GeForce GTX 260 GX2 in January
• Nvidia cuts price of 216 SP GeForce GTX 260
• VIDEO: PC version of Mirror’s Edge features hardware PhysX
• Get Half-Life for less than a dollar on Steam
• IBM plans to build virtual human brain
• RivaTuner 2.20 adds SLI and CrossFire support
• VIDEO: ArmA II trailer released