|
|
Post by Notesurfer on Sept 24, 2009 21:07:38 GMT -5
Hydra thingamabob. Thoughts? I know Draxx will prolly hate on comp gaming due to the exorbitant expenditure required, and frankly I can't blame him. Still pretty neat though . . . kind of makes you wonder what took so long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 25, 2009 9:08:29 GMT -5
Actually, if I'm interpreting this correctly, this chip may be able to eliminate some of the ludicrous problems that have plagued PC gaming since its earliest days: namely, hardware support issues, incompatability, and every single freaking game requiring a different set of configurations to run properly. If this one chip can fix some of those issues, then I think it's a stroke of genius.
Of course, none of this helps the bigger problems with PC gaming: Release of incomplete or horribly broken games that take months or years to patch into working software, insane tinkering to get the installation and drivers to work just right with your system, obtrusive and destructive copy protection schemes, and of course, the need to upgrade your hardware every 3 months just to stay on top of the curve (though with this chip installed, at least you won't have to throw the old hardware into the trash and can install the new stuff in parallel).
|
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 25, 2009 16:16:33 GMT -5
The trouble is that you still have to buy multiple GPUs if you want a full effect. What I was unable to deduce from the article (skimming through technical): does running multiple GPUs offer higher performance and compatibility? IE, do the two run simultaneously on the same software and tasks to do the job twice as well and to fill in the gaps of the other? Or do you just have a greater variety of compatibility *options*?
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxas on Sept 25, 2009 16:55:02 GMT -5
The article gave me the impression that anything you had linked up to the Hydra ran in parallel, unless there was a severe compatability issue with one (or more) of the GPUs, in which case they were simply shut off. Otherwise, what would be the point, other than not having to swap cards?
|
|
|
|
Post by N3B on Sept 25, 2009 17:18:43 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the terminology for "in parallel" but, what I'm getting at: does that mean that two cards operate at twice the normal capacity, or at virtually single capacity with more efficiency?
|
|
|
|
Post by Notesurfer on Sept 25, 2009 20:10:35 GMT -5
My impression was that both cards would run simultaneously at full-ish power, similar to how two chips of RAM run when plugged into your computer.
|
|
