Are we ready for the "Next Gen" of Consoles?

With my last blog I had mentioned the possible release of the new PS4 this fall/winter. It seems to be about "on target" as far as previous release dates are concerned, but are we really ready for a "Next Gen" console release war again? Though the hardcore gamers say bring it on, would the general consensus of the masses embrace a release of a console from the big three in the next 6-12 months, or shun it and stay wed to the system they currently use; and are most likely quite happy with? Or will the power of the new systems just be juxtaposed by the PC computing strength? 

This is Part 1 of a two-part post.

Quick console release history:
(For a complete list, this is a great page.)
The first generation of home gaming systems fell in the 70's with the Magnavox Odessey and the Atari 2600 soon followed. Everything was hunky-dory for a while, then the crash hit. Attribute it to what you will; too many cooks in the kitchen, a multitude of sub-par released cartridges for the systems came out, people generally desiring being in the arcade as opposed to watching cheap 4 and 8 color knock offs on their small TVs at home...What ever the reason you want to blame it on, gaming at home was nearly eradicated. The disillusioned public didn't want to "play".

Then the paradigm shift occurred...1985 brought the release of the groundbreaking and game changing NES to our homes. The race was on. Sega jumped in, NEC wanted some, Atari and even Apple played a part in there too... everyone wanted a peice. Every handful of years or so, ever since the NES, a surge of computing and graphical power is released with a new console system; each one competing for the top of the pile with the faster/prettier system. First we jumped from Atari/Coleco vision to the NES who brought us "8-bit", then we surged again from "8-bit" to "16-bit" with the release of the Genesis, SNES, and TurboGrafix. On and on it went and by the mid 1990's we had 4-5 major players vying for the top slot: Atari's Jaguar, Sega's Saturn, Sony's new Playstation, Nintendo's N64, and the 3DO.

By the 6th gen we had three major manufacturers, and today, here in the7th generation, the three major systems (ignoring mobile and handheld all together for this article) are the Microsoft's XBox 360, Nintendo's Wii, and Sony's PS3. With the advent of technology through the years, systems have fought over graphics capability, hard drive space, processing power, inter connectivity (I'm still curious about all those extra ports on my old Nintendo systems...), WiFi/Networking, web access, BluRay, 1080p... As a consumer, this battle is great. Their war for the best constantly releases new tech to us with better and better capabilities. We Win! But... do we?

PC progress/Mr. Moore
Gaming consoles are just half of the story in the eyes of this writer. The interesting track record of the release of consoles over the last 30 years is that they have been offset by the slow and ever gradually changing curve of Moore's Law and processing power. If we couple that with the increase of RAM Speeds, HDD space, GPU/Video card capability, we find the curve is a trend that is offset by the stair-step of the console release.

Every time a console is released the hardware is fixed, in that none of the architecture inside can be upgraded by simply plopping in more ram, or replacing the cpu. In order to increase power and output, the whole system needs to be updated, hence another generation. PCs on the other hand have the upgradability to be able to grow with a user's desire. Want more ram? Simply replace or upgrade what you have... barring any motherboard (MoBo) limitations. Need more processing power? Pop off the old CPU and replace it with a newer, shiny, faster one (again, MoBo dependant). Same goes for disk space, cd/dvd/bluray drives, video cards, sound cards... all of the components are upgradeable... based on the MoBo limitations of course.

One can assess a computers updatability, or "future proofing", by simply looking at a mother board's capability. If you buy a motherboard that can handle what you need now, but the end of the line is near what you are buying into... you have a short (relatively speaking) lifespan of upgrade-ability. Buy into a decent board with architecture for the future and you have a stable platform on which to build a speedy beast for years to come (Watch for this article soon... "The New Gaming PC build")

But how does this tie into the VG Console you say? Or more importantly, how does this relate to the readiness of consumers to purchase a new wave of consoles starting this winter? Well lets look at the timelines side by side:

Time for upgrade?
If we look at the processing speeds, RAM speeds, and HDD space available for computers starting with 1995, along with their console counter part, you get a good cross section of the average computer available at the time compared to the console. Now, I could spend weeks compiling all of the data and comparing all of the options. (...please, go ahead and do that if you want to, and add to this article... I sure as hell am not!) What I am doing here is a simple comparison on the average, in lamens terms, so as to produce an example to build my premise on. This is a hypothesis in the making from a blogger, not some Scientific American article. :-)


In 1995 a new computer listing might look something like this:
90Mhz CPU
800 MB Hard Drive
8 MB RAM
15” CRT Color Monitor
2 MB Video Memory
2X CD-Rom
...and it could cost anywhere around $2000-$2800 bucks.




For comparison, the Playstation (Released in 1994) came with:

MIPS R3000A-family R3051 @ 33.8688 MHz
Games came on Black CDs (700 MB)
Memory cards for saving game data ran in 1, 2, and 4 MB sizes
1 MB Video Memory
2X CD-Rom with a 128 kB buffer
...and it cost around $300 bucks for the September release. It dropped to $200 in May of 1996.

...And the N64 (Released in 1996) came with:

93.75 MHz NEC VR4300
Games came on cartridges with saving capability upon them (4MB to 64MB)
Memory cards for additional save data ran in 1, 2 and 4 MB sizes
4 MB RDRAM Memory (expandable to 8)
Video support for SDTV up to 480i (A majority of the games used the 240p/288p)

...and it cost $250 when it released in September of 1996.




 Now, lets jump forward five years... 2000/2001. Home gaming systems were in full swing, Pc gaming was on the rise commercially, and the home computer/dot com boom was thriving. Gone were the days of the PC being a "worker's tool" or only for "businessmen", as students and parents used them for everyday enjoyment and personal use. The rise of the prevalence in the home computer was making the need for speed, and cost effectiveness more commonplace. The gaming system, however, was still just that... just a gaming system... for now.


In 2000 an average computer listing may have offered these options:


300 Mhz  - 500 MHz CPU
12 - 20 GB Hard Drive
16 - 64 MB RAM
4 MB  - 8MB Video Memory
8X CD-Rom
...and it ran at about $1800 - $2400 when purchased new.





The Playstation 2 (Released by Sony in 2000) came with:


64-bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz

40 GB HDD available (as an add on)
8 MB Memory cards for saving game data.
32 MB RDRAM
GPU clocked at 147.456 MHz
DVD/CD-Rom for games, music and movies.

...and it cost around $300 bucks for the September release. It dropped to $200 in May of 1996.




Nintendo's Game Cube (Released in 2001) had:


IBM PowerPC "Gekko", 486 MHz
Games came on proprietary GameCube mini disks with 1.5 GHz capacity

Memory cards with various sizes (16 MB, 24MB, 32 MB, 64MB...)
43 MB total Ram (16 MB DRAM, 24 MB "Splash" ram, 3 MB embedded ram within "Flipper")
162 MHz "Flipper" LSI GPU
Video modes of 240i, 240p, 480i or 480p @ 60 Hz

...and it cost $200 when it released in November of 2001.



The XBox from Microsoft (Released in 2001) ran with:


Custom 733 MHz Intel Pentium III "Coppermine-based" processor
Games came on DVDs
8 - 10 GB HDD formatted to FATX
Memory cards for additional save data ran in 4, 8 and 16 MB sizes
64 MB of DDR SDRAM @ 200 MHz
233 MHz "NV2A" ASIC GPU
Video resolutions of 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, 720p, 1080i

...and it cost $300 when it released in November of 2001.

As you can see, the new computer was still a little slower than the console at their release, depending on the components you purchased and how much you wanted to spend. Remember though, start small and grow with the times in the case of a computer, but purchase once and never upgrade with the console. In 2000/2001 a new bench mark was set with the consoles and over the next few years the computers slowly caught up.

Stay tuned for part two of this article which will review the 7th generation console release in 2005/2006 along with a side by side comparison on the average computer available then. I will also reveal my opinion/position on the possibility of the release of the 8th generation of console based on the current PC computing market and my thoughts on the 8th gen's release in the next 6-12 months.

Chad is an Adjunct Faculty member teaching video game design in Boston, MA. He is currently a freelance designer and owner of Phlume Artist Management. He can be reached for comment at chad @ phlume.com.

New Computer - Part 2a (Motherboard)

NEWEST NOTE (4-23-12)
I have stopped this series (sort of before it even got going) because the architecture and components I was focusing on are now a bit out dated. Please continue to read the new posts and follow the series I will start labeled SCAD RIG to catch up n the new PC I plan to build for my MFA.

(Continued from the Part 1 post "AMD or Intel")

NOTE: I know less about hardware than I do software. I know enough to get by, and that is where the interactivity of this series of blog posts will come in. If you see something that you may laugh at, don't flame me... just guide me as I would guide you if you wanted to know something I knew about. I am not an expert computer builder so please do your own research and follow the advice of others as well and make an educated decision on your own.

Now that we've (well, I) decided to go with the Intel chip for our computer, it is time to think about a motherboard to set it onto. We've narrowed the choices down a bit by deciding on the chip set, but the choice is still not an easy one. There are still many, many factors to think about when choosing a motherboard. One of the main questions you need to ask at this point is "What will be my computers main purpose?"

New Sabertooth P67 board

Are you a web surfer and casual user?
Are you a casual gamer who plays some titles online and a few PC releases?
Are you a hard core gamer playing "top of the line" releases the day they come out?
An artist? A programmer? A business person? A Student?

Knowing what you want out of your computer will help you decide what you need to put into it for technology and components. A casual web surfer will not need nearly as much processor power or memory than an extreme gamer. A video editor will need loads more storage space than an average artist or programmer. Student? Get massive storage space for all the videos and music and games you will end up downloading, as well as good amount of memory and processor speed for multitasking while "studying" ;-)

Deciding what your computer will need to handle beforehand can save you a lot of time and money in the long run. I am going to be using my computer for digital animation, high end 3D animations and rendering, as well as some hard-core gaming. The build I will post about in this series will follow the specs needed to complete a powerful enough system to complete these tasks with ease. I will be looking for higher video resolution and multiple display capabilities, a lot of physical memory and storage space as well as multiple core processing power (so I can multitask with various programs at once). Even though I would like to max out my computer from the start, that would be an expensive way to build a computer. Remember… you can usually add more components later on down the road, and save some of that precious cash now for other bills.

As I know I want to have a relatively fast machine from the start, with enough room for upgrades later, I will be looking at the expandability of the motherboard and possibility of using it for the next 5 years or so. If Moore's Law continues, the computer I build today will be 8-10 times slower than the market. So... if I want to try and stay on top of that curve, I should make sure I create a system that can be upgraded over the years. Unfortunately there is no sure fire way to stay ahead of the curve. New processors are released all the time and the architecture needed to run those changes with it. 

(A lot of the following decision process was pre-decided, which is why I went with the i7 2600k, but my logic will be broken down here...)

LGA 1155

Right now the big “Intel decision” is whether or not to go LGA 1366, 1155, or wait for the new LGA 2011 to be released. This topic is an entirely different thread all together so I will leave that for you to research…For now, I am leaning toward the LGA 1155 because of the high probability that the new Ivy Bridge will be backwards compatible to the 1155. If that changes, so shall my focus on the 1155. Plus the Sandy Bridge i7 processor can be overclocked to nearly 5 Ghz. That works for me!

We now know we are looking for an Intel based board with a CPU socket type of LGA 1155. Now we are getting somewhere...our choices are getting slimmer. (From 377 Intel boards on Newegg.com, down to 209.)

Lets narrow the search down a bit more. As far as I can see (again, I'm no pro builder), there are a few key areas that can be considered "upgradeable" when working with an existing board. As we are starting from scratch with the hopes of using the technology through the years, our Motherboard needs to be set up and ready for the future technology. Some key components that can easily be upgraded over time are the processor, the memory, and the peripheral cards in the slots. The processor goes into a slot, or socket, and that slot has to be forward compatible for the next wave of architecture in order to upgrade. (Head back to the LGA 1366, LGA 1155, or LGA 2011 debate). If they switch the slot/socket style you are limited to the processing power that is set up with that type of "seat". As of now there is discussion that Intel's 2012 "Ivy Bridge" chip will be backwards compatible with the 1155 socket style.

Asus P55TP4XE circa 1996

We also need to take a look at the "Northbridge" information on the board. To lighten this article a bit, Northbridge technology is discussed here.

...And this information is a nice bite sized chunk on how to choose between them.

Knowing that I want to overclock the system, reach for more DDR3 RAM over time, and have multiple video cards and I also want to look at a relatively less expensive system, I'm going to shoot for the P67. I may research the Z68 boards with a LGA 1366 socket a bit more though as the maximum RAM jumps quite a bit for those boards (...from 32GB to 48GB).

So... We now know we want to primarily look at LGA 1155 P67 Intel boards. (However, we will keep an eye on the LGA 1366 Z68 as well. But a decission to go with this type of board would change the processor type to an i7 980 and increase our cost on the processor by about $200). This brings us down to 120 boards. Still a lot to choose from, but our options are thinning out.

Lastly I want to look at the Memory. I know I want quite a bit of memory available as a maximum so I'm going to look for the top end of LGA 1155 p67 boards and they are at 32 GB of RAM right now. If I narrow my Newegg search this lands us at only 55 results (with another 46 available in the Z68 line.)

With 55 "LGA 1155 P67 Intel" boards to choose from we have cut down our search considerably. Part 2b of this article will narrow that choice down to two or three options, perhaps 2 P67 boards and 2 Z68 boards to keep options open.

As you prepare to venture down the road of purchase, wading through the sea of motherboards that are available, keep in mind the technical capabilities you want the system to be able to have at the start. Also be aware of the maximum expandability you want down the road, and the cards and memory types you plan on buying to outfit the computer with. Armed with this information you can better assess what the requirements of the board will have to be to suit your needs.

Chad is an Adjunct Faculty member teaching video game design in Boston, MA. His school web site is http://www.phlume.com/EDU. He can be reached for comment there.

New Computer - Part 1 (Intel or AMD)

NEWEST NOTE (4-23-12)
I have stopped this series (sort of before it even got going) because the architecture and components I was focusing on are now a bit out dated. Please continue to read the new posts and follow the series I will start labeled SCAD RIG to catch up n the new PC I plan to build for my MFA.

 NOTE: I know less about hardware than I do software. I know enough to get by, and that is where the interactivity of this series of blog posts will come in. If you see something that you laugh at, don't flame me... just guide me as I would guide you if you needed to know something I did. I am not an expert computer builder so please do your own research and follow the advice of others as well and make an educated decision on your own.

When I was in my first year of college as a 3D animator back in the late 90's I had the pleasure of designing my first computer with the help of a reseller online. It was a Quantex brand computer... and unlike the Rain Man "Quantas never crashed..." quote, this computer crashed. Often. Perhaps it was Windows 95? perhaps it was the software loaded? Who knows. What I did know was that I outgrew the specs on that computer really fast.

I still have the spec sheet on it as I knew it would be fun to look at someday. It was printed on a dot matrix computer though so it is a bit faded. From what I could make out (and remember) the main specs of the machine were as follows:

300Mhz P2
32mb of RAM
8mb video card
8GB of hard drive space
56.6 dial up modem
and a 17" CRT monitor...

All for just over $2,000

Times sure have changed! Here it is in 2011, nearly 15 years later and I'd like to build a new machine. I figured I could create recurring blog on this site detailing my personal experience designing and building my new computer. I know there is a lot of research out there but I thought it may be fun to document my findings and share with the masses my personal choice. Not to mention grown and learn from the feedback that may be offered in return.

First things first: In designing the computer I want to set out knowing what I want the computer to be able to do and handle. I could get away with the basics if I was going to surf the web and write a book on the machine... but as you all know, this is NOT the kind of tower I want to design. What do I want to do with this computer? Well being a gamer and designer I need the computer to handle a lot of high end graphics. Let me make a list of the games/software that may be running at any time on the machine, most often, 3 or four of them open at once:

• A high end image/vector/video editing program (PS, IL, FL, AE, PR, ID...)
• 3DS Max, Mudbox, Maya, and UDK
• Possibly Unity or Torque
• Office suite (excell, word blah blah blah)
• A variety of smaller programs such as a browser window, notepad editor, mail client, AVG antivirus...

As for games, well I use the PS3 a lot for that now, but i am very interested in Dungeon Seige III and possibly From Dust... at least at first glance. but both of those would run easily with any system I set up to design/develop so lets focus on the 3D modeling/rendering and video editing capabilities of the machine.

AMD or INTEL?
As I embark on the first of many MAJOR decision of this new build, I will have to rely on what I can find/read online. My intuition tells me to go with an Intel chip. From what I have read they handle graphics a lot better. Am I wrong? This is where the feedback from the blog readers comes in. I was looking at the Core i7 2600K, "Sandy Bridge" (I'm thinking waiting for the Ivy bridge may be expensive, and Time consuming... thoughts there?). I noticed the 2600K and upon reading further the "K" means it is unlocked and you can overclock it, right? Though I have never over clocked a computer before, I think it sounds like an interesting idea and would certainly be interested in trying it. So for $15 - $20 bucks or so, I'll keep the "K" there and leave the option available.

The Intel chips are a bit pricier, but budget is secondary to a good, stable build. Oh... and speaking of budget. Don't get me wrong. I don't have thousands to drop on this computer so I will try to keep my entire budget to under $1000, leaving room for expansion over the next few years.

Intel Core i7 Quad Core 2600K 3.4GHz:
New Egg: $314.99 (link)
Tiger Direct: $314.99 (link)

Total budget in: $314.00

So now that I know I will be going with the Intel chip my next post will review some of the motherboard options. Before I close though, I'd love the feedback from the masses on i3, i5, and i7. Knowing what I'm doing should I even look at the i3/i5 processors? I'm pretty set on the i7 Quad core. If I have the cash I'd go for the hex.. but that may be too much muscle for the price right now.

Thoughts?

-C
Chad is an Adjunct Faculty member teaching video game design in Boston, MA. His school web site is http://www.phlume.com/EDU. He can be reached for comment there.