Future game development.

[Rhinoceros]

Wanted to share a point my buddy made today about general game development. He called that we'd probably see games in the future better optimized for AMD hardware based on the fact that all of the consoles use their hardware. Now I don't mean to start a flame war here. I actually don't have a system yet, but I am currently transitioning away from consoles. I'm waiting to see how the Oculus Rift will turn out, what kind of hard ware it'll require to have the full experience...basically researching and saving before committing to a system for several years.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I accidentally double posted. Maybe someone can take this down or tell me how

Edited December 8, 2014 by Rhinoceros

[eelnico09]

The differences are right now, if all games ran better on some special brand, benchs would be sensless. But the difference is not that big to say "games run better on X brand", so yeah, i think games will run better on some brands in the future, but won't be that big of a deal.

[Guest]

Ok, technically the current gen is AMD-based, and last gen was Nvidia-based, but it's not like the chips in those were high-end ones that supported nvidia-specific features like PhysX or HBAO anyway.

 

Lately, games for PC aren't even fully optimized by developers; it's more up to them sending the code to Nvidia/AMD (whoever they partner with, typically Nvidia), and then the chip maker will optimize it and create a driver that contains tweaks specific to the game. Sadly, this means that, more frequently, AMD users have issues on launch because the developers didn't release the code to AMD until too late.

[skywake]

Ok, technically the current gen is AMD-based, and last gen was Nvidia-based

The original XBox and the PS3 were both NVidia but every other platform since the Gamecube has been ATI/AMD. Including all of Nintendo's consoles.

 

 

Anyways, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference to anyone other than shareholders. Just look at Assassin's Creed Unity, it was obviously developed primarily for the consoles but on PC it runs significantly worse on AMD hardware. I think that in the end only two things will matter in terms of "which card is better overall". Whether or not AMD can improve their drivers and whether or not NVidia can "win" against Freesync in terms of variable refresh rate monitors availability/price.

[Guest]

The original XBox and the PS3 were both NVidia but every other platform since the Gamecube has been ATI/AMD. Including all of Nintendo's consoles.

 

 

Anyways, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference to anyone other than shareholders. Just look at Assassin's Creed Unity, it was obviously developed primarily for the consoles but on PC it runs significantly worse on AMD hardware. I think that in the end only two things will matter in terms of "which card is better overall". Whether or not AMD can improve their drivers and whether or not NVidia can "win" against Freesync in terms of variable refresh rate monitors availability/price.

Oops, mistake. But at the same time, the PS3 never got special optimization because it was based on an Nvidia chip.

[thekeemo]

im just waiting for my computer to sell and then X99

[Pomfinator]

Oops, mistake. But at the same time, the PS3 never got special optimization because it was based on an Nvidia chip.

No, it was because of this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29

[teddyteddyteddy]

maybe you should wait just a little bit for the new AMD cards just to see how they perform. Otherwise, why wait why longer?

For the gpu, get whatever is cheapest for the amount of performance that you want.

For the cpu, I think you should go with Intel unless your budget is around $500 out under.