AMD Puma. 3X faster than Intel integrated?

OMG! The AMD guy says "CUT" and the guy goes "We're not gonna cut we need this on real-time" lol. AMD guy says "Some people talk about performance but we deliver it" OH! AMD what a BS-er of you.

Besides he's demoing on Episode 2, I can run HL on a EMachine, that engine is super optimized.
 
OMG! The AMD guy says "CUT" and the guy goes "We're not gonna cut we need this on real-time" lol. AMD guy says "Some people talk about performance but we deliver it" OH! AMD what a BS-er of you.
Um...? That isn't exactly what happened. The AMD guy called for a cut and then decided one wasn't needed, and then the Hexus guy tried to cover it with a joke. It just didn't strike me as an important moment, certainly not one where anyone was exposed as a bullshitter.

Anyway, this thing sounds interesting. The equivalent of a Radeon 3400 series in an integrated graphics chip could be great, as long as it's significantly more affordable than the average 'gaming' laptop.

If this is an attempt by AMD to increase the industry standard of integrated graphics then I welcome it wholeheartedly. If anything is harming PC gaming atm it's the fracturing of the market by hardware elitism, with only the top tiny percentile of wealthier PC owners feeling as if they can be bothered to maintain a gaming rig. If, however, we can arrive at a point some time in the near future where even a POS pre-built PC, bought by someone with no knowledge of hardware, could run a lot of fairly recent games pretty well (due to having a better standard of integrated graphics), then it could do a lot for getting the average consumer interested in PC gaming.
 
This is my last post for the night, so, NO, you're all amazingly incorrect.
 
There an article for people without sound? :|
 
Unreal 3 is the most optimised engine.
 
Nice. If a company like AMD is able to provide a powerful integrated chipset at almost the same price as an Intel chipset, this could be a very positive thing for PC gaming. If it's also 3x as expensive, I wouldn't see many manufacturers picking it up though.
 
Source engine is weird. When I had my desktop which had AMD64 3700+, 7900GT and 2GB DDR400 I got about 10-120fps. Now I have a laptop with some 1,9ghz amd dual core (might be slower), 7000m geforce and 3gb ddr2. I get 1-25fps with fps configs everything low and 800*600 resolution. The thing I don't get in the source engine is that the fps varies way too much. Just by moving around the fps could move between 120-10. Makes it an ass to play online imo :/

Back to AQ2 \o/
 
No sir, PAIN was the most creative, perfect engine made, Source is the second. While on the other hand; Quake 2 was the mos stable as far as MP. :P

I've recently bought Painkiller through Steam and I got all these random slow-motion moments. Not low framerates, just slow-motion movement/physics/etc. Apparently, this is how the Pain engine handles low framerates, it slows everything down to have less calculations / second. It's a clever solution, but kind of annoying. And I would've thought the 2003 (?) game would play a little better on my laptop, which has a 2 GHz T7250, 2GB memory and a Nvidia 8400 GS. Not a gaming rig, but would've expected a good framerate at high settings.
 
Back
Top