If you are allowed to, I'd like to hear what kind of computer you're using and what game you're making, and whether it's 2D or 3D. And how well your game runs on that computer.

The reason why is because computer hardware and how it runs fascinates me.

I will answer my own question. The last game I made was a 2D outer space game with mild use of some rather long shaders and it couldn't even max out a HD 4400 when ran at 60 FPS, which *most certainly* is not a bad thing. I ordered a Core i5 box with a HD 5000, which is at maximum almost twice as fast graphically, so I hope and think it will be enough. I still find a good 7200RPM hard drive fast enough for game development, the last time I used one, but do find I have to wait a little bit on a 5400rpm, of a noname kind at least. I do like having 8GB RAM and will have that much in this new box, but lived with 4GB for a very long time. I will also be using Linux from now on - before, I used Windows. We will see how that goes and whether I can adapt.

By the way, I'm hoping I'm not annoying anyone with talking about hardware so much. It's the closest thing to game development I have to talk about until I get my box up and running so I can work on something :).

So, still waiting on your box? Waiting sucks, I know.

I'm currently doing a 2D game on my laptop. It's a 2nd gen i5 with 4gb of memory and a GeForce 610. My game isn't a demanding one, and being 2D, I only deal with sprites instead of 3D models and custom shaders.

There's this prejudice about Intel's integrated GPU's (mainly among gamers) that it simply sucks and would lose to AMD's or Nvidia's GPU's, even the entry-level ones. This might be true last decade, but not anymore. Of course, being integrated, they won't be able to compete with the dedicated GPUs from those two companies, but compare it to another integrated GPU, and it would match it on peformance, even winning in some aspects. One notable advantage offered by Intel's integrated GPUs is power efficiency. Most people tend to forget that these things are built for efficient day-to-day graphical use, instead of being a powerhouse. Therefore the fact that they can run some games (Skyrim comes to mind) in decent setting is actually very impressive.

Hi Truerror,

Yes, the box comes Friday. Will probably have it up and running by Saturday.

There is also something you should know. I will be using HD 5000 graphics but it's going to be WAY faster than benchmarks say it is because I will be using an almost harmless BIOS tweak which raises the processor's TDP a bit, to get rid of a throttling issue with the HD 5000 that shouldn't have honestly passed Intel's quality control. I now expect my Intel graphics to match or exceed like a Geforce 840m when I get it :).

I have been running a geforce 240 GDDR3 128 bit up to last January. Never managed to overload it even with the massive crush tests I had at the time. Some builds of the game I was working on were run on 1st gen atom and albeit not very smooth they were playable.

Maybe try using it and see if the performance is an issue before you start hacking the hardware...?

I'm using outdated hardware and not currently making a game. Taking my time to learn C++11 and C++14 (my C++ knowledge is still back at C++03)on my 8 year old laptop.

We're a small (startup-ish) group and basically our hardware has gotten revised over the years but it's a random mish-mash of stuff. Our primary target platform right now is iOS devices at 60 fps, but we also do run on PC for a number of internal things.

Note: ALL machines across the board are running SSDs for their primary drive.

Macs: 15" Retina MBP, 17" Retina MBP

The Macs are not our primary dev platform, so the laptops are perfectly fine. We don't use the simulators either, just devices, and the modern Macs are pretty good at reasonable build times etc. Memory has been a problem; 8 GB is not enough to work and 16 is cutting it close. Considered buying a Mac Pro trash can but ultimately decided it was unnecessary.

PCs:

Two: socket 1156, quad core i7-8xx based machines. These are running 16 GB of memory and the GPUs have rotated over time. Mine has a GTX 480 right now. These machines struggle to run the game at 60 fps in debug mode, which is pretty funny considering an iPad Air can manage that feat. There are reasons for it. These machines are on the borderline of acceptable for development.

Two: socket 1155, quad core Sandy/Ivy Bridge i7-39xx/i7-49xx based machines. These guys are running a 32 GB configuration and will have 7970s, GTX 680s, or a GTX Titan in them. The single thread performance on these boxes is staggering. Very comfortable machines for day-to-day dev work. Fast enough to do 1920x1080 60fps FRAPS capture of our game, which was a major goal when speccing out these machines.

One: ridiculously high end, 17" desktop replacement Alienware laptop. I think this is a quad core i7, 32 GB, GTX 680M SLI machine but I don't remember offhand. We needed a machine that was powerful enough to demo all of our work on the go, even with debug builds and highly non-optimal graphics code.

The New Machine: an Intel X99 hex core machine with 32 GB of memory (only half memory slots filled so far), twin 7970s (until my twin 980s show up), and multiple RAID arrays. (2x SSD, 3x WD Black total 12 TB.) This is my next gen, 4K editing and gaming monster.

I currently run a custom Octo-core Phenom box built out of a 2011 HP. I use 2 GT 640s in SLI. That's only within the last 2 years however. Before that, I was developing on a 1997 Macintosh Power PC running mac OS 9.1. It was on that that I dev'd my first 3D infinite, procedurally generated game. I had to send it over to a friend who had an up-to-date rig to test it. Ah the joys of not having money. -_-