The report claims that baseline models will have an Intel Core i7 CPU, NVIDIA GPU and 8GBs of RAM, such as the Alienware X51, which may have been designed to be a Steam Box-capable device.
calex71 wrote: » That's not going to be cheap, last I checked i7 based systems where anything but
Robi Wan wrote: » I think its another ill informed story from ign they're jumping on a nonchalant comment made by gabe a few weeks. Their source is a blog site if I'm not mistaken. There hasn't being a leak from valve in a long long time.
ShadowHearth wrote: » I just don't see a reason for i7 though. It's useless for games.
gizmo wrote: » Nope, there's been a couple of rumors about this floating around for some time. There's something being talked about alright but it's been kept tightly under wraps I'd imagine.
Andy!! wrote: » Not if Steam are getting round to properly using i7's multicore architecture... developers will do eventually.
Burgo wrote: » In fairness theres been lots of talk about ep 3 for years Doesn't really mean anything tbh.
gizmo wrote: » The i5s and the i7s are based on the same core architecture, the only real differences are the number of cores, cache size and support for Hyper-Threading. The Source engine is already multi-threaded unless you mean the Steam client itself? These are a different kind of rumor, not the ones you'd read about on Kotaku.
cherryghost wrote: » Future proofing the console. The console probably won't be upgradeable.
ShadowHearth wrote: » even the core number is same, just it makes 2 more virtual cores. so the real difference is HT like you said m8. i dont even know where steam client comes in to play its already very optimised and it has jack **** difference in performance.
gizmo wrote: » Well there's the i7-3930K with 6 physical cores. :pac: I'm not sure about the reference to Steam client to be honest, he mentioned Steam in his post, so I assumed he meant Valve but the Source Engine is already multi-threaded. If he meant Steam then he could only be referring to the client itself which would be pointless. As for the box itself, well I was quite surprised I didn't see a thread around here for the Alienware X51 due to its supposed similarity. It's certainly a step in the right direction but there's one major issue here: upgrade ability. From a development point of the view this is the biggest headache. If users are able to chop and change parts as they see fit then it means the optimisation process gets incredibly hard (read: non-existent) and testing becomes a nightmare. If developers target the launch hardware then users who do upgrade will take to the internet to complain that their more expensive hardware isn't being utilised to its full extent. The original Verge article regarding the Steam Box, however, makes no mention of the ability to upgrade and instead mentions a "baseline for hardware" which "will give developers a clear lifecycle for their products, with changes possibly coming every three to four years". So you're basically talking about a beefier console with a shorter lifecycle for the core components. Then there's the issue of the OS. Given the fact it'll be running Steam and other "rival gaming services" then I think it's safe to assume it'll be Windows based. I assume it would also come with at least DVD drive which would then enable the use of normal PC games from retail. So now what do we have? A fixed hardware spec PC. Throw in the ability to ability to use controllers or a keyboard and mouse and this is even more reinforced. Practically speaking in terms of the games though, this would also open the door to widespread abuse during multiplayer games. Since the platform would allow for both controllers or keyboard/mouse, developers would be forced to include filtering options for different games so the two couldn't mix. This would end up splitting the community. If this was ignored then it would lead to those using a controller being completely annihilated and many players just giving up or wanting to move to a keyboard and mouse. Unfortunately, this is still a console whose place is in the living room and I'd wager that the vast majority of people would be ill equipped to have a keyboard and mouse, wireless or otherwise, in this room. All things considered, I don't know how it would work.
ríomhaire wrote: » From reading the original verge article the only way this would make sense is if it was a console-like PC and not a PC-like console. That's a pretty big distinction. They say you'd be free to install other software like Origin on it. That's a pretty big difference to a console and if they're going to want to make this sell they'll want to make sure people can bring their Steam library over to it and unless they have enough money to pay every developer to port their games to a new OS, that means this is a Windows machine. This would be a standardized set of hardware and software requirements to make a PC that easily and natively works by plugging in to your TV. It'll be a PC with a console feel and ease of use.
ShadowHearth wrote: » yeah, but you can do it now already. take any gaming pc and connect it to TV same way you connect it to monitor. If you can install origin and other crap, then it is just a PC with STEAM logo. might it be a "poor man's" version of alienware then? not enough info thats for sure.
ShadowHearth wrote: » i think they could make their own steam OS m8. why not? that in a way would make the product they want to do - console. If they will still have to stick with windows then it will be just fixed hardware pc with steam label on top of it.
gizmo wrote: » The i5s and the i7s are based on the same core architecture, the only real differences are the number of cores, cache size and support for Hyper-Threading. The Source engine is already multi-threaded unless you mean the Steam client itself?
Andy!! wrote: » Sorry I meant to say Valve. At some point i7s should be better for gaming; it's just a matter of devs getting better at properly assigning tasks to that amount of cores.
Overheal wrote: » Valve are the last people I expected to want to kill PC gaming.
