Minimum PC requirements for 2009 PC demos?
category: general [glöplog]
I have an e4500 + 2gig ram + 8800 gts and had no troubles running latest demos, I think you can go a bit upper than these.
viznut is a zealot, nana-na-nanaa-naa.
I somewhat agree with bigcheese here, as I've actually been thinking for some years now that it would be great for "high end" demos to experiment with extensive scalability, so that they would run on a large scale of hardware configurations, either in realtime or as a non-realtime videofile renderer. This could also open some new doors for democoding, like the possibility of surpassing anything that the gamer-lamer display hardware and programming interfaces are able to offer. Unfortunately, these are the kind of ideas (along with concepts such as open-source, dynamic or interactive demos) that the mainstream demoscene generally doesn't care a slightest bit about.
Perhaps that's because the proponent of such concepts always come across as zealous dickheads who always dismiss and insult everyone else with "arguments" that can be called flimsy at best. Or that's just me, who knows
Quote:
I've actually been thinking for some years now that it would be great for "high end" demos to experiment with extensive scalability, so that they would run on a large scale of hardware configurations, either in realtime or as a non-realtime videofile renderer.
Why would that be great?
Quote:
I've actually been thinking for some years now that it would be great for "high end" demos to experiment with extensive scalability, so that they would run on a large scale of hardware configurations, either in realtime or as a non-realtime videofile renderer.
actually what exactly is the difference to having a demo run only smooth on the fastest machines currently available and for people not having such watching a video provided with the prod? except not having to wait 4 days to have the video rendered yourself on your amazing 20 years old 386 PC ...
1. Video releases: The possibility to use higher detail, better rendering techniques and less compromises.
2. Accessibility: If you can't run it in realtime or the group has been too lazy to release a video, you can either tune down the rendering parameters or render a video file on your own.
3. The possibility to use an older demo to test a newer machine's capabilities.
4. The possibility for the PC demoscene (for once) to be on the "cutting edge" instead of lamely following in the footsteps of the video game industry.
5. The possibility to create "high-end" demos that do not advertise a hardware manufacturer or advocate ultra-short hardware lifecycles.
6. Being more independent from specific hardware manufacturers and their buggy drivers.
7. The possibility to bring software-rendering engines back to the higher status they belong to.
2. Accessibility: If you can't run it in realtime or the group has been too lazy to release a video, you can either tune down the rendering parameters or render a video file on your own.
3. The possibility to use an older demo to test a newer machine's capabilities.
4. The possibility for the PC demoscene (for once) to be on the "cutting edge" instead of lamely following in the footsteps of the video game industry.
5. The possibility to create "high-end" demos that do not advertise a hardware manufacturer or advocate ultra-short hardware lifecycles.
6. Being more independent from specific hardware manufacturers and their buggy drivers.
7. The possibility to bring software-rendering engines back to the higher status they belong to.
1. thats what animation/video compos are indented for
2. a 1x1 fullscreenpixel or 4 days of waiting ... great options
3. how could anyone possibly know what hardware will be available in a few years to be able to fully test its capabilities. thats complete bullshit
4. how would your great ideas help here?
5. thats the way it is. get used to it
6. introducing more own bugs in your software renderers without beeing able to blame someone else
7. they had their time and right to exist, still have sometimes. get used to it
2. a 1x1 fullscreenpixel or 4 days of waiting ... great options
3. how could anyone possibly know what hardware will be available in a few years to be able to fully test its capabilities. thats complete bullshit
4. how would your great ideas help here?
5. thats the way it is. get used to it
6. introducing more own bugs in your software renderers without beeing able to blame someone else
7. they had their time and right to exist, still have sometimes. get used to it
viznut: Whatever you're smoking, don't stop - it sounds like magic :)
Gopher:
1. Haven't you ever tried to question the existing categories, traditions or dogma? The whole point in my rant here has been the questioning of the necessity of the real-time rendering.
2. Now, that's a school example of a strawman argument.
3. I was simply referring to the possibility of real-time-rendering something that wasn't previously possible in realtime (due to insufficient CPU performance etc.) I was never talking about "full testing" -- in fact, the whole idea about being able to code a demo that "fully tests" all the capabilities of a specific PC hardware configuration (without man-decades of low-level coding) is mindbogglingly stupid.
4. By not being stuck with the realtime capabilities of the current line of display hardware (like video game industry is), one is able to experiment with ideas that won't be realtime-renderable for a long while.
5. That's the way it is, yes, but do you really think that's the way it should be? In my opinion, every single one who advocates unnecessary hardware upgrades, artificially shortened hardware life-cycles and other ideas that worsen the upcoming ecological disaster, is part of the lowest scum of the contemporary human civilization, and I am definitely not going to "get used to it".
6. Creating one's own bugs is always better than being dependent on the specific bugs of a specific hardware, library or driver revision.
7. It is always possible to create a software rendering engine, yes, but they aren't very appreaciated or appealing on the PC demoscene because of the 3D hardware that produces better superficial quality with less effort. A pity, as I think one of the most promising developments on the PC demoscene was the realtime raytracing trend which saw a dead-end many years ago. Having more acceptance to non-realtime rendering would help resurrect this kind of ideas a little bit.
1. Haven't you ever tried to question the existing categories, traditions or dogma? The whole point in my rant here has been the questioning of the necessity of the real-time rendering.
2. Now, that's a school example of a strawman argument.
3. I was simply referring to the possibility of real-time-rendering something that wasn't previously possible in realtime (due to insufficient CPU performance etc.) I was never talking about "full testing" -- in fact, the whole idea about being able to code a demo that "fully tests" all the capabilities of a specific PC hardware configuration (without man-decades of low-level coding) is mindbogglingly stupid.
4. By not being stuck with the realtime capabilities of the current line of display hardware (like video game industry is), one is able to experiment with ideas that won't be realtime-renderable for a long while.
5. That's the way it is, yes, but do you really think that's the way it should be? In my opinion, every single one who advocates unnecessary hardware upgrades, artificially shortened hardware life-cycles and other ideas that worsen the upcoming ecological disaster, is part of the lowest scum of the contemporary human civilization, and I am definitely not going to "get used to it".
6. Creating one's own bugs is always better than being dependent on the specific bugs of a specific hardware, library or driver revision.
7. It is always possible to create a software rendering engine, yes, but they aren't very appreaciated or appealing on the PC demoscene because of the 3D hardware that produces better superficial quality with less effort. A pity, as I think one of the most promising developments on the PC demoscene was the realtime raytracing trend which saw a dead-end many years ago. Having more acceptance to non-realtime rendering would help resurrect this kind of ideas a little bit.
Quote:
4. By not being stuck with the realtime capabilities of the current line of display hardware (like video game industry is), one is able to experiment with ideas that won't be realtime-renderable for a long while.
its not like most sceners are pushing the very limits of the 3d hardware is it. :) maybe if the hardware rather than the skills were the bottleneck the argument would be worthwhile.
Quote:
7. It is always possible to create a software rendering engine, yes, but they aren't very appreaciated or appealing on the PC demoscene because of the 3D hardware that produces better superficial quality with less effort. A pity, as I think one of the most promising developments on the PC demoscene was the realtime raytracing trend which saw a dead-end many years ago. Having more acceptance to non-realtime rendering would help resurrect this kind of ideas a little bit.
the smart money is on utilising the 3d hardware and other massively multicore stream processing systems (larabee, spu) to do the realtime raytracing you speak of.
Quote:
In my opinion, every single one who advocates unnecessary hardware upgrades, artificially shortened hardware life-cycles and other ideas that worsen the upcoming ecological disaster, is part of the lowest scum of the contemporary human civilization
BOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
Quote:
3. ... in fact, the whole idea about being able to code a demo that "fully tests" all the capabilities of a specific PC hardware configuration (without man-decades of low-level coding) is mindbogglingly stupid.
you do realize that this is exactly what happened to c64 and amiga? squeezing the max out of that certain hardware cconfiguration. so are all the c64 and amiga guys stupid?
Quote:
5. That's the way it is, yes, but do you really think that's the way it should be? In my opinion, every single one who advocates unnecessary hardware upgrades, artificially shortened hardware life-cycles and other ideas that worsen the upcoming ecological disaster, is part of the lowest scum of the contemporary human civilization, and I am definitely not going to "get used to it".
in general i'd call it progress, or in terms of biological stuff evolution.
if all cells one billion years ago had your attitude we'd still be swiming happily in the primeval soup yelling "cell division .... nah ... dont need that"
and since progress is probably the most fundamental law of nature .... fucking get used to it.
tactlesstroll, do you realize that there is still no demo that squeezes EVERYTHING out of the C-64 or the OCS/ECS chipset? After these years of exploration of an unchanging hardware configuration, there are still questions left about the inner workings of the hardware. As any modern PC configuration is hundreds of times more complex than these classical machines, it would definitely take at least man-decades to create a demo that "squeezes everything out" of it, just as I said.
Gopher, another strawman argument, and horribly stupid and far-fetched as well.
First of all, I have never been against progress -- actually, if I was against progress, I wouldn't have participated in this thread on the first place, putting my odds against decadent conservatists who are stuck in an obsolete way of thinking and their unability to see out of their good old 1990's demoscene box.
Second, regarding the present state of vanity technology industry as being representative of "progress" or something comparable to what evolution has achieved during billions of years, is an example of so unbelievably retarded "turn-black-into-white" thinking that it nearly makes me vomit. If you haven't noticed, evolution has been able to produce balanced systems that use natural resources very efficiently and reuse all the produced waste in order to keep the cycle running. This is a total opposite to what e.g. the global consumer electronics industry is aiming at with its ever-shortening product lifetimes and ever-growing piles of poisonous junk. Of course, you can always live in the fictional dream world constructed by the market forces and deny the unpleasant pieces of reality, but DON'T FUCKING ENFORCE YOUR RETARTED ILLUSION ON OTHER PEOPLE, thank you.
Gopher, another strawman argument, and horribly stupid and far-fetched as well.
First of all, I have never been against progress -- actually, if I was against progress, I wouldn't have participated in this thread on the first place, putting my odds against decadent conservatists who are stuck in an obsolete way of thinking and their unability to see out of their good old 1990's demoscene box.
Second, regarding the present state of vanity technology industry as being representative of "progress" or something comparable to what evolution has achieved during billions of years, is an example of so unbelievably retarded "turn-black-into-white" thinking that it nearly makes me vomit. If you haven't noticed, evolution has been able to produce balanced systems that use natural resources very efficiently and reuse all the produced waste in order to keep the cycle running. This is a total opposite to what e.g. the global consumer electronics industry is aiming at with its ever-shortening product lifetimes and ever-growing piles of poisonous junk. Of course, you can always live in the fictional dream world constructed by the market forces and deny the unpleasant pieces of reality, but DON'T FUCKING ENFORCE YOUR RETARTED ILLUSION ON OTHER PEOPLE, thank you.
here we go again, can we never discuss anything on pouet as adults ?
viznut: why don't you make an open-source, multi-platform, future-proofed fully scalable hardware utilizing w/ a software fallback path demo about it?
guybrush: you forgot the environmentally neutral bit :)
Quote:
DON'T FUCKING ENFORCE YOUR RETARTED ILLUSION ON OTHER PEOPLE, thank you.
You said it.
GbND, I wish I had enough time to work on every crazy idea I have! As I don't, I need to troll on pouet.net to get some ideas across :)
Environmentally sustainable algorithmic esthetics is indeed a rather interesting concept, by the way.
Environmentally sustainable algorithmic esthetics is indeed a rather interesting concept, by the way.
viznut: make the time. Or perhaps your ideas aren't worth implementing?
The "problem" in my case is that I generate too many ideas compared to the speed in which I can implement them. And I'm quite sure that there are people who have the opposite problem :)
Right now, I'm more interested in the interactivity dimension than the rendering technique dimension.
Right now, I'm more interested in the interactivity dimension than the rendering technique dimension.
viznut: go make an interactive demo that doesnt suck and you'll get my thumb. and if its scaleable and can output video you'll even get my cdc :)
Quote:
In my opinion, every single one who advocates unnecessary hardware upgrades, artificially shortened hardware life-cycles and other ideas that worsen the upcoming ecological disaster, is part of the lowest scum of the contemporary human civilization
It's a tough choice. Either you buy stuff and contribute to the ecological disaster, or you don't and instead contribute to the economic collapse. Welcome to the world.
If it was that simple we could fix the economy by smashing windows.
wait
That's worth a try. Someone get me all the windows boxes so I can smash them.
That's worth a try. Someone get me all the windows boxes so I can smash them.
