Alienware Alpha pretty much looks like a scam, on the local version of the website it redirects me to it only says "2 GB Nvidia GTX graphics"... What does that even mean? A 2GB GTX 910? Useless. Also the CPU's are kind of low in clock speed, the i5 has a max turbo of 3 ghz which is not slow but you could get faster for the price.
(08-02-2015, 12:19 PM)ssshadow Wrote: [ -> ]Alienware Alpha pretty much looks like a scam, on the local version of the website it redirects me to it only says "2 GB Nvidia GTX graphics"... What does that even mean? A 2GB GTX 910? Useless. Also the CPU's are kind of low in clock speed, the i5 has a max turbo of 3 ghz which is not slow but you could get faster for the price.
I've done quite a bit of research about it. From what I gather, the graphics card is a custom built Nvidia Card with virtual identical architecture to a GTX 750ti or GTX 860m. Most people say that everything gaming wise is pretty much bottlenecked through the card itself, and gaming performance is virtually reliant on that. Because it is custom built, most people complain about the inability to eventually upgrade the card if they so choose. The card itself outperforms PS4 and Xbox One in most cases, however.
They have different models (i3, i5, i7, 4GB RAM, 8GB RAM, HDD size, etc.) and there is little difference in gaming with games that don't take advantage of the extra threads/cores in the processor itself.
For example, games like Battlefield show little difference in framerate/gameplay when comparing the i3, i5, and i7, but a game like Crysis 3, which is highly demanding, will kick in access to the processor and suck up some extra power and improve performance.
From what I've heard, the Alpha is not the best (pre) Steam Machine that is available right now, but it battles in value for specification. I am actually in love with it because of it's Windows-first based OS. I plan to get the i7 with 2TB HDD 8GB RAM and use it for music production and a gaming device as an addition.
I am certain a better gaming PC can be built, likely for a better price, but the Alpha is also almost just a quarter of the size of the PS4/Xbone and that is really cool to me as well. And its case is cool
Sorry for the long post, but that is my take on the Alpha, and why I will be getting it. Its graphics card and processing power should be sufficient to handle RPCS3 when the time comes.
(08-03-2015, 02:10 PM)ssshadow Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2015, 12:39 AM)TyWillems19 Wrote: [ -> ]Its graphics card and processing power should be sufficient to handle RPCS3 when the time comes.
Probably not...
Depends on a Game. I'm sure it can handle Sonic just fine even today.
(08-03-2015, 02:10 PM)ssshadow Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2015, 12:39 AM)TyWillems19 Wrote: [ -> ]Its graphics card and processing power should be sufficient to handle RPCS3 when the time comes.
Probably not...
Eh, I don't see why the GTX 750/680m-type card wouldn't hold up. I understand emulation takes a little extra power versus running off of hardware, such as with a console, but I'm confident that when RPCS3 begins booting 3D environments, the graphics combined with the processor will hold up well enough. If the development team can incorporate the use of extra threads from the processor, especially, the i7 will really multiply the performance.
I don't see why it wouldn't. I don't think RPCS3 will require (when stable builds are playing native games) a top end $1,000+ machine.
Maybe I am slightly naive about it, but I feel decently versed in the technology required to run something of this caliber.
You can buy a far better machine, for an equal or lower price, and you're choosing to buy this custom, un-upgradable bastardized machine because of its crappy proprietary "Windows-based" UI. Well, I'm sorry but it's not going to be a good gaming machine for very long unless you play really low res with low settings.
RPCS3 is not even going to work well in its lifetime, probably, anyway. Don't worry too much about that I guess?
(08-03-2015, 04:01 PM)TyWillems19 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2015, 02:10 PM)ssshadow Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2015, 12:39 AM)TyWillems19 Wrote: [ -> ]Its graphics card and processing power should be sufficient to handle RPCS3 when the time comes.
Probably not...
Eh, I don't see why the GTX 750/680m-type card wouldn't hold up. I understand emulation takes a little extra power versus running off of hardware, such as with a console, but I'm confident that when RPCS3 begins booting 3D environments, the graphics combined with the processor will hold up well enough. If the development team can incorporate the use of extra threads from the processor, especially, the i7 will really multiply the performance.
I don't see why it wouldn't. I don't think RPCS3 will require (when stable builds are playing native games) a top end $1,000+ machine.
Maybe I am slightly naive about it, but I feel decently versed in the technology required to run something of this caliber.
Graphics card will easily hold up with the new DirectX 12 renderer soon.
I'm pretty sure depending on the game we already create new threads? I know in SysCalls you could get about 2-3 threads out of a single game (video decoding, audio decoding, in future cellSail and cellRudp also). Plus there's a seperate thread for RSX. But hey, what do I know about how threads are handled in RPCS3, haven't really investigated that. Someone else more experienced in those areas might be able to tell you more.
I don't think perfomance will change much if someone doesn't write a custom PPU recompiler (Xenia has one) - but it's kinda doubtful anyone will anytime soon.
(08-03-2015, 04:18 PM)derpf Wrote: [ -> ]You can buy a far better machine, for an equal or lower price, and you're choosing to buy this custom, un-upgradable bastardized machine because of its crappy proprietary "Windows-based" UI. Well, I'm sorry but it's not going to be a good gaming machine for very long unless you play really low res with low settings.
RPCS3 is not even going to work well in its lifetime, probably, anyway. Don't worry too much about that I guess?
You forgot the part about the system being super small too! And yes I know Windows is Windows. Like I said, I think I understand the flaws and advantages (if there are any). It will work for what I need it for, it is portable and nice looking, and it should be able to keep up with the life of current gen consoles. I would love to build my own machine, but I just don't want to put together a big ATX/microATX machine.
Anyway, apart from all of the opinions about the Alienware Alpha (lol)...
I get a subtle negative vibe surrounding development of RPCS3. It seems like some of the responders here have a pessimistic view on whether or not it will ever actually become a viable emulator.
Is there any truth to that? Or am I reading into things too much?
(08-03-2015, 07:13 PM)TyWillems19 Wrote: [ -> ]I get a subtle negative vibe surrounding development of RPCS3. It seems like some of the responders here have a pessimistic view on whether or not it will ever actually become a viable emulator.
Is there any truth to that? Or am I reading into things too much?
It's not pessimistic. It's realistic. The more complicated the system is the more difficult it's to emulate it. For last gen (ps2/gamecube/wii) consoles it took many years for emulators to be able to emulate something big consistently.
PS3 is exponentially harder to emulate.
Until an emulator is able to emulate advanced game there is no warranty it's possible.
Actually it's always possible to emulate a system but it's not always possible to emulate it fast enough.
Even with an i7 rpcs3 still struggles to achieve realtime framerate for simple game.
I think one of the issue is that PS3 can run up to 9 threads concurrently (2 on PPU + 7 SPU) and it maps very badly on 4 threads only cpu found on PC (I'm not sure hyperthreading helps here, it "fakes" multiple threads). And there is no PC equivalent of things like Crossbar memory that allows to exchange data between thread very quickly.