Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD PC Games (Games) Hardware

AMD Wants to Standardize PC Gaming 277

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the long-road-ahead dept.
Vigile writes "Even though PC gaming has a very devout fan-base, it is impossible to not see the many benefits that console gaming offers: faster loads, better compatibility and more games that fully utilize the hardware to name a few. AMD just launched a new initiative called AMD GAME! that attempts to bring some of these benefits to PC games as well. AMD will be certifying hardware for two different levels of PC gaming standards, testing compatibility with a host of current and future PC titles as well as offering up AMD GAME! ready components or pre-built systems from partners."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Wants to Standardize PC Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • by eln (21727) on Monday May 19, 2008 @03:16PM (#23466660) Homepage
    I think you have that exactly backwards. The software won't be "AMD GAME!" branded, the hardware will be. It's basically a certification program similar to Microsoft's "Windows XP/Vista Certified" stickers on computers and components. AMD will test various components (certain video cards, etc.) to make sure they work as intended with the "latest games" (not sure which games they'll test).

    So, if you buy hardware components that are "AMD GAME! Ready", you can be reasonably confident that you can play the most popular games on them. Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea, as if the label takes off, AMD can charge hardware manufacturers a premium to get the certification. And, of course, AMD's own offerings will be AMD GAME! certified before anyone else's.
  • as doomed as (Score:2, Informative)

    by Wootzor von Leetenha (938602) on Monday May 19, 2008 @03:22PM (#23466748)
    ODF standardizing document formats. While it succeeded, the 800 lb gorilla in that market quickly came in and created their own standard. I await Intel / Nvidia's response. This might be off, I apologize if it is.

    Wasn't Windows Vista supposed to have something like this where they'd take all your components and assign you a number based off of their estimated performance? Then games would be marked with a number - "You need at least an X computer to play this game. Y is recommended". I don't run Vista so I don't know.
  • by chill (34294) on Monday May 19, 2008 @03:32PM (#23466866) Journal
    ...are doomed to repeat it.

    Can you say "MSX [gamespy.com]"?

      + What is a MSX computer?
          The whole MSX story started in 1983 when the computer companies
          wanted to make a worldwide home computer standard.
          The idea was that you could run programs made for one machine
          on a variation on models from different companies (Just like the
          PC standard today).
          Companies involved with this was among others, Sony, Philips,
          Spectravideo, Sanyo, Yamaha, Mitshubishi, Panasonic, Dragon,
          Daewoo and a lot of other companies.
          The MSX was based around the Z80 3.5Mhz 8Bit CPU, a well
          know and well supported CPU for its time. It also came with
          a 3 channel PSG which had no problems matching the poor quality
          PC sound or other machines made in the early 80's. There was also
          the possibility to add extra sounds via SCC cartridges made by
          Konami, MSX Music (FM-Pac) from Panasonic and also a soundcard
          originally made by Philips. As it also supported 16 colors the
          machine was well suited for games and education programs.
          Later models had more colors and more RAM.
          The MSX did very well in Japan, South America (there are 400.000
          MSX machines only in Brazil!) and quite well also in Europe.
          It did not however become a huge success worldwide, but it did
          reasonably well, in fact it was made and sold in Japan till
          well into the 90's... and the user base still have lots of active
          fans (including myself), though not the same as it was 10 years
          ago for natural reasons... (the developent goes on and so does the
          computer freaks :)) Still it is possible to obtain new hardware
          for the MSX even today thanks to various MSX clubs. These clubs
          make the Moonsound soundcard based on OPL-4 and is said to be
          very good. There is also the GFX9000 graphics board that add even
          better graphics to the MSX in addition comes things like SCSI
          interfaces, adapters etc......
  • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday May 19, 2008 @03:41PM (#23466990) Homepage Journal

    I think the best chance for standardized PC gaming is for someone to pitch a desktop-console. Essentially they'd just be selling a standardized box of subsidized PC hardware.
    The problem here is that for the last couple decades, just about every subsidized gaming platform has shut out smaller developers. Don't expect to see a lot of free software, freeware, shareware, or user-created mods on a subsidized platform, as the platform's security won't be able to distinguish those from illegally copied commercial games.
  • Re:Players per PC? (Score:3, Informative)

    by justinlee37 (993373) on Monday May 19, 2008 @04:48PM (#23467812)

    because the multiplayer mode requires more gaming PCs (one per player) than you own (one per household).

    What does this look like to you, the ghetto? Me and my roommate have 3 computers between the 2 of us (two quad-cores and a dual-core), and we're starving college students!

  • Re:eh (Score:4, Informative)

    by nuzak (959558) on Monday May 19, 2008 @05:30PM (#23468186) Journal
    90FPS means that the framerate can dip 30FPS before it's possible to notice. Agreed, it's kind of silly to demand 90FPS when you're really just demanding a consistent 60FPS with no dips, regardless of how you get it.

  • by IntlHarvester (11985) * on Monday May 19, 2008 @05:50PM (#23468408) Journal
    Windows Experience Index only tells you about your expected Windows experience. It wasn't designed for games and doesn't produce useful scores for such.
  • Re:eh (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2008 @06:14PM (#23468662)
    Maybe if you have shitty eyes or are ancient. Young people can notice frame rates up to 50+.
  • Re:eh (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2008 @06:22PM (#23468734)
    You don't notice choppiness when films are showing panning scenes? TV is 30 frames per second, but it's interlaced so you get 60 fields per second. If you want a real demo that 30fps isn't nearly enough, check out fpscompare, linked from this article [tweakguides.com].
  • Re:eh (Score:4, Informative)

    by nuzak (959558) on Monday May 19, 2008 @07:08PM (#23469134) Journal
    Your eyes are continuous input, and they don't "run at" any particular speed. We're easily able to detect stimulus thresholds of thousandths of a second, but only for rapid changes. Things sitting still don't generate the same kind of sensory events. It's not altogether different from video compression, really.

    Motion blur was invented for movies so they wouldn't all look like Charlie Chaplin routines. Even so, cinematographers avoid fast pans unless they're deliberately aiming for a disorienting effect.

  • Re:The real solution (Score:3, Informative)

    by mdarksbane (587589) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:39PM (#23470262)
    Nothing changes until Intel Extreme Graphics either stop stucking or stop dominating the market. Or people bother putting "get a real graphics card" in their buying a pc for dummies guides.

    Even if every system today shipped with something equivalent to a six year top of the line nvidia or ati chipset, it would be significantly faster than the current generation of "extreme" graphics that gets slapped into every bargain basement pc currently made. It's nearly impossible to write anything fancier than popcap when that's your base platform you're stuck with.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...