Why create the AMD Game! Program?
According to Barry, 80% of PCs don't have the capability of playing games. When we asked him to clarify that statement, Barry cited integrated graphics as an example of a hardware issue. "They don't have basic capabilities to deliver a good gaming experience," he said. "For example, they can't pop in Call of Duty 4 and play at a reasonable resolution with reasonable settings and get reasonable framerate. For a lot of mainstream users out there, they don't understand why."
What are the current requirements?
AMD GAME! Ultra
- AMD Phenom X4 9650 processor
- ATI Radeon HD 3870 graphics
- AMD 770 chipset
- 2GB DDR2 system memory
- AMD Athlon X2 processor 5600+
- ATI Radeon HD 3650 graphics
- AMD 770 chipset or NVIDIA nForce 500 series chipset
- 2GB DDR2 system memory
AMD also showed us a chart of in-house benchmarks they ran with each of these computers, shown above. Curiously, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and The Sims 2 Deluxe run better on the AMD Game! system than its Ultra counterpart.
The AMD Game! label says, 'If you're looking for gaming PC ready for today's games, this is the right PC for you.'" |
As for the ever-changing minimum requirements, Barry noted that they are in control of the program requirements. "Part of the funding mechanism helps us to give incentive to our customers to stay in line with what we're doing," he said. The minimum requirements for each label will update every six months. "If you're looking for gaming PC ready for today's games, this is the right PC for you," he said. Barry wouldn't commit to saying how long an AMD Game! PC would last – "you can never make that judgment call, honestly, that's a really hard prediction to make." He did, however, estimate that a PC "typically can give you about three years of a good experience."
Can these computer runs Crysis?
On AMD Game Ultra! it should be able to run game at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 resolution, 30 frames per second. On AMD Games, 1024x786 or 1280x1024 with 30 frames per second. There are a variety of game that are gonna pound [a system like] that, but some games are just not meant to run at 30 fps. For example, a real-time strategy game is more geared to 15 to 30fps experience.
When you're running at default settings, these are the type of machines that are capable. At AMD, we could run Crysis on 780G integrated with 3450 discrete card with 30 frames per second.
What software developers are involved?Barry said they had talked to both big and small developers from China, Korea, Europe and the US, to see what systems were needed to play their games. The "quick and easy list," as he noted, were Games for Windows titles. Stardock, NCSoft and Gamecock has piped up with their support, but we were quick to note that first-person shooter powerhouses Id Software and Epic Games weren't mentioned.
"We talked to Epic, who we've worked with on PC Gaming Alliance," he said."We have a great relationship with those guys, we look at all their next-gen products and titles ... one of the big problems with pc gaming. our competitors choose to compartmentalize with exclusivity pacts." Barry said this was "cutting apart the industry."
What about Intel? The PC Gaming Alliance?
"If we start getting PC gaming industry healthier, everyone benefits." |
We asked if AMD competitor Intel would be at all a part of this initiative. Barry said that this was not about bad politics with them but maintaining control over the program. "If we start setting requirements that include hardware that we don't really control, it gets out of our control, it would allow our competitor to sabotage it," he said.
"What I would hope is that Intel and Nvidia would see that this realy is the right way to go and I would hope they introduce their own similar programs. An Intel gaming program would be great if it was about delviering right platform program to deliver better gaming experience. If we start getting PC gaming industry healthier, everyone benefits."
"I'd really love to see these guys do something," he said. "The PC Gaming Alliance brings us and Nvidia and Intel together to try and establish these kinds of things, but we felt that while that is great, we can take the first steps ourselves as well."
(Page 1) Reader Comments
Oh well.
Reply
But if I were to be building a system from scratch rather than upgrading, I'd still plump for Nvidia's 8800 GT.
Now only if AMD could help themselves. Note to AMD: make your processors not suck (in price at least), especially Phenom. FYI I have a X2 5200 or 5400, can't remember which.
Reply
+1 s939 FTW!!
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=560
In the end, it looks like a flub that should be an industry-wide initiative not an AMD-only one.
In other words, he's agreeing with you.
Reply
Western Developers, who get soooo much credit for innovation, just need to adapt to the changing PC gaming market instead of ranting about piracy and running away.
They need a big label on the front e.g. "This card was made in early 2008 and could run Crysis pretty well" or "This card was made in mid-2007 and is aimed at mid-range gamers"
I was hoping you might add your two-scents good Sir Fid. You have certainly established yourself as a Champion of the Computer on this blogsite. :)
1. Those specs can sometimes be annoyingly misworded. I'm a 3D graphics guy (as in I make my living doing computer graphics) and even I go, "wait... what?"
2. Those specs are based around a bare system, nothign else running including the OS running at it's most barebones. Not realistic in any way.
3. There are websites out there that will test your system performance and give you a graphical display showing how well the game will run on your system. WHY IS THIS NOT A PART OF STEAM?!? As an example, Prey. Bought it via steam. Runs like a dream except for the excessive amount of vertical tearing. It's damn near gamebreaking.
4. Windows Vista, in their game tab, assign your system a number in regards to performance. Mine is a 6.4. Any game you purchase is given a number with min and recommended. Why isn't this number on packaging? They have a simple way to tell how good your system will run a game (which, incidently, is the lowest number of four tests so it's very adequate in rating your systems low point as the rating). If you go into a store knowing your system in a 4, and this game is a 4, that means you can run it.
Also the geforce 6600 seems like its used on a lot of boxes as the recommended specs, but it occured to me what the hell sort of experience will that produce in a game like company of heroes or world in conflict? Will it let me run high levels at 1024 or will I simply have a stable frame rate on low settings at 800x600?
It seems like the PC gaming industry is trying to convince people to buy THE most powerful machines just so we know that it'll run games well for a few years. I fully support any initiative like this that clears up at least some of the confusion around PC gaming.
truthfully, i have never needed to know. i pay attention to other consumers and performance charts. there are plenty of websites that benchmark all sorts of hardware (tomshardware). about the best bang for your buck right now is an 8800GT. It can play Crysis reasonably well and is great for hl2, tf2, utiii, coh, bioshock, gears, etc. basically it can max out the settings of any fairly modern game (besides crysis) at 1920 with a good framerate (most games 50+, some 120+). you can pick up a brand new one for about 150 bucks after rebate.
"Also the geforce 6600 seems like its used on a lot of boxes as the recommended specs"
unfortunately (and fortunately) video cards are the most quickly obsolete equipment in a computer. a 6600 recommended is like "pentium III 800mhz recommended". it probably won't play any of the new games well if at all and is not something you want to buy for a build. with nvidia, the series of cards changes about every year (bumping up the front number each time 6800, 7800, 8800, 9800). we are on the 9xxx series right now with aparently an amazing new series just around the corner. 6xxx series is about worthless now. I just upgraded from 2 6800 Xtremes in SLI (two identical video cards connected to split duties and act as one.) In my experience, SLI gain is marginal. Typically an nvidia card in the x800's or higher is desirable for gpx intense games. I'll sell you one of my 6800's for $35 shipped if you really want to go budget. caveat emptor, its dated. otherwise, i'd go 8800gt (at least 512mb) for immediate value.
you'll need a pcie x16 slot on your motherboard for any modern graphics. AGP is the way of the dinosaur.
Reply
Though realistically speaking, that year would always end up being "the next one" :P
And system requirements on PC games should list the required and recommended AMD and Intel setups as well as the standard system requirements for system builders like me. So you would see something like:
Minimum Requirement: AMD Game! 2008 or Intel OMG! 2008
Recommended: AMD Game! Ultra 2009 or Intel OMG! Fatal1ty 2009
Along with the standard system requirements.
/Core 2 Duo T7500
//GeForce 8600 GS 512MB, overclocked to 635 MHz
///laptop
////Stealing slashies from Fark
Reply
Reply
Reply
History really likes to repeat itself...when will these companies learn?
First they tried this in '90 with the MPC specifications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_PC
Which eventually evolved into the PC System Design Guide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_System_Design_Guide
This is just marketing hoohaw.
What is the point of having these sorts of designations if people have to look up and see what the representations imply?
You can bet that Intel is going to counter with their own labeling scheme, and probably nVidia as well...then we're back to square one.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
They don't care about PC.