Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (37141)	4/23/2001 10:53:28 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Kash: My understandaing was that most gamers buy the cheapest CPU and highest performance graphics card they can afford. My understanding was that at higher resolutions that most folks play the CPU makes no difference. That's not entirely accurate, but yes, to some extent, this is the case. So what? As long as the demand for performance isn't "falling off" compared to increases in available performance, it makes little difference: the demand for ever increasing performance is still there - it's just a speed grade or two behind the curve (at least until graphics cards catch up). Still, this "unused" CPU power won't go wasted in future games. Have you seen the AI in games today? It's down right pathetic. I don't think I know of a single game (not counting "classic" games like chess, checkers, card games etc.) where the AI on even the most difficult settings is remotely challenging. That's not to say that it's a piece of cake to defeat it, since it (90% of the time) cheats (or, to put it differently, "isn't playing the game"). It's the rate of increase in performance demand that's relevant, not the absolute performance demand. -fyo