Celeron D -builds and opinions-

Wow, pretty brave! Good luck with that. How many games can you run on a linux-based system these days?

 

Hmm... extra RAM might make ES4 run better on the 360. I got the 360 and Oblivion last month and it runs ok... like 45 FPS at best but never below 20. Just gets low in huge fight sequences... 512MB of RAM IS NOT enough for a next gen system. It should have been a GB or maybe 2. Those 3.2GHz processors and Dual 6800 Ultras do have enough power for any game available though. It just hurts the system when you skip out on the RAM. Maybe they'll release a RAM card that you can buy and plug in... somewhere...

As for Linux based games... Quake 3, Starwars Battlefront, RTW will work with a patch, maybe FEAR.

I tought Half Life 2 on the Xbox was a good port... but it's pretty jerky. I put it on my 360 and it cleared right up... just thought I'd say that.

 

Yeah, I suppose 512MB is a bit low. It'll belike the N64 all over again! But yeah, that would make sense. Come when games use 3 cores of the 360, and seven of the PS3, 512MB RAM really ain't going to cut it.

 

I agree; but 64mb didn't seem like remotely enough for a 700mhz, and look at how well they pulled that.

But yeah. If an easy softmod gets released, I will be saving for a nice secondary unit for linux and/or windows and looking into additional ram. I don't know that I'd feel a need for more than 1gb, but I would definitely consider going to 2gb. There isn't really a VAST amount of info on the 360 specs/hardware yet. But with the original, they used the same layout for the dev as the public; leaving two very noticable footprints for additional ram chips, which could be used to up to 128mb ram.

I'm hoping the 360 is the same way. But only time will tell.

 

So things look good for the next gen consoles!

 

Well even 768MB wouldhave been better that 512MB... I mean come on people!!! It recommends 1GB for Oblivion on PC!!! If it can work like that on 360 I should be scoring about 50FPS solid even with my weak rig. I hate it when they can optimize a game for consoles and then make it run like crap on a computer with similar specs

It just kind of ticked me off when they released Half Life 2 on Xbox and it runs ok and then it barely manages TWO frames per second on my computer... ok, so it was about 40-45 with my 5700LE but still. They got FarCry to run well on a GeForce 3 Ti200 but it probably wouldn't run at all on a real computer. I sometimes feel cheated *sigh*

*sorry I'm just ranting now*

But I've got friends that have 128MB of RAM on their Xboxes and they run games much better than mine. The game industry is sort of messed up but if they can make the game work I'll try it

 

You're forgetting one important factor - windows.
Windows not only uses lots of memory on its own, but also runs slower than games running through console firmware. I wouldn't feel cheated, you can play those games at high resolution, they can't, regardless of what happens.

 

True, very true. I suppose that makes sense. But I wonder why they don't optimize the games for PC like they do on consoles? I'm not talking like a 20FPS increase or anything but how about a 20FPS lowest frame limit? I mean look at the video hardware for the Xbox. It's a GeForce3Ti200 hybrid.

I'm pretty sure though that the source engine has this "framerate safety net". I had Half-life 2 running at a constant 19.9FPS on Extreme Graphics 2 with a Northwood Celeron 2.4GHz and 768MB RAM. Everything was as low as it could go but it was holding steady for the very first part of the first level. When combat started any chance of a playable experience died horribly. Pretty good looking, even on low \/

I'm also sure that Starwars Battlefront had this too because with highest details possible in 800x600 it was playable on the Extreme Graphics 2. This is all after my FX5700LE PCI died though. Otherwise I would never have bought those games.

 

Ugh, Intel extreme graphics. That name sends shivers down my spine.

 

@Estuansis

Thank you for your question about pc optimizing. I actually like explaining this, because it creates an understanding that can really spread. It's nice.

Okay; there are very valid reasons for console versions being more optimized.

---Consoles have such limited hardware, that it is absolutely necessary for even subpar performance. If they didn't no one would play these at all.

---Console hardware vs. PC hardware:
Consoles have lower grade hardware than PCs usually. Consoles do, however have a consistent set of almost EXACT hardware, which always has the same architecture, down to a tee. PCs have overall software flow that is always the same, but many factors affect the way a system performs in different situations. There are too many pieces of hardware to individually program into this kind of depth for PCs. Consoles only need one set of instructions. It would take many months, sometimes even years to start this kind of optimizing for all the major hardware out there. They analyze, and understand the pipeline priorities, the exact speed rating of the internal memory, the exact speed and transfer rates of the cd and hard drive; and can account for all of these numbers to flow perfectly while counterbalancing eachother in what is most certainly a most advanced ballet of perfectly managed performance.

And again, windows=system hog.

Does my rambling make sense?

 

Absolutely, and I agree 100%. You can do the same on a console as a windows PC with just half the hardware.

 

In other words, they can optimize for the consoles because they all use the same proprietary hardware and software? They can't optimize for computer beacuse there are too many components out there to make optimization a feasible idea?

I think I get it...

 

That and the fact that Windows is a resource hog!

 

I caught that... hmm. I guess I'm glad that I'm running dual boots of Windows and Red Hat. Red Hat does speed up my gaming a little... on the games that work with it.

 

I'd be surprised if it didn't!

 

360 having 512 shared and PS3 having 256 system + 256 video.

Either way; it's a win, more ram would be even better on both; but it'll work very well, since there's no big OS stealing resources like Windows.

I wonder if a linux port of Oblivion would run much better. I have a huge issue with that one.


@Estuansis

I'm glad to have helped there. That question comes up a LOT; and it frustrated me until I finally understood why it was like that. It makes a lot of sense in hindsight though, with the explanation.

 

Absolutely. I bet you can do an awful lot with 512MB unstolen memory!
In fact, theoretically, you could set up two of the 3.2Ghz cores just for paging!

 

Seriously, The total size of the largest games is about 4-5GB. A small part of that world isn't going to take up an eighth of the whole friggin' disk! Half a gig of RAM should theoretically be enough for just about anything except for heavy 3D and Photo work.

 

Hmmm, true though that would be, You easily see games using more than 512MB on windows, so it is feasible, especially when we're running 1080p.

 

Hmm, I usually just play on 1024x768 with just about everything. I like the speed versus graphical clarity. I'm definitely not just a casual gamer but I am also not a perfection psycho.

If I need it cleared up I'll turn on my AA and AF a little. That usually gets the job done without putting as big a damper on my performance.