Eidos has Thief 4 in the Pipeline
"Eidos is planning another chapter in its Thief game series with the official announcement coming on Monday."
Published: 5th May 2009 | Source: Eidos Montreal |
Eidos has Thief 4 in the Pipeline
Rumours have been ripe in the gaming industry about Eidos planning on adding another chapter in its “Thief” game series. The rumours are about to be confirmed as Fudzilla claims it has information that Eidos will be making an official announcement about Thief 4 shortly.The Thief saga has found a huge fan following owing to its unique game play, great settings and extremely innovative missions. When Eidos announced last year that it was working on a new game for its “AAA” franchise, fans welcomed the possibility that it might be another Thief title.
According to Fudzilla, Monday 11th May has been marked as the date when Eidos will put the word out officially. The news is that Eidos Montreal is developing the game and it is slated for release towards the end of the year. An official release date though has not been confirmed.
Discuss in our Forums
Most Recent Comments
Looks like a fantastic idea Hamster :) I shall look forward to some nice HSF reviews :D
This does look the knee's Ham, be a great asset once there is a range of tests done and you have a table of results you can go back too.
Be great to see some of the high end cooler really tested *cough* V8/V10 *cough*
Cooler Master were meant to send a V8/V10 through at some point IIRC...
Jim, do you know what happened to Miodrag?
Cheers for the comments guys.
The first review using this is underway, and therefore some power points need to be decided upon. I was thinking:
65w - A loaded Dual core @ stock/very mild OC
100w - OCed Dual core (As much as would be sensibly obtainable under an air heatsink)
135w - Stock Quad
150w - OCed Quad (again, were talking air values here, not trying to OC them to break WRs here)
Not sure about the high end myself. Phase is normally tuned for 250 - 300w for quads, but i have a feeling that some HSFs might just crumble under that power. Maybe just have 50, 100, 150 and 200?
Too low? Too high? Thoughts about them figures in general?
The first review using this is underway, and therefore some power points need to be decided upon. I was thinking:
65w - A loaded Dual core @ stock/very mild OC
100w - OCed Dual core (As much as would be sensibly obtainable under an air heatsink)
135w - Stock Quad
150w - OCed Quad (again, were talking air values here, not trying to OC them to break WRs here)
Not sure about the high end myself. Phase is normally tuned for 250 - 300w for quads, but i have a feeling that some HSFs might just crumble under that power. Maybe just have 50, 100, 150 and 200?
Too low? Too high? Thoughts about them figures in general?
200w is a task for an air-sink, but I think those should do the trick in what we would want to achieve.
Hmm I'm just wondering if we need to tune the wattage more to get the representation as close to the reference intel heatsink as possible?
For example, try a Dual and a Quad chip at stock and OC'd on a stock cooler and get the temps. Then find out what wattage gives the same results on the load tester and use that. I/w3bbo could also give you results for an i7 on a stock cooler?
For example, try a Dual and a Quad chip at stock and OC'd on a stock cooler and get the temps. Then find out what wattage gives the same results on the load tester and use that. I/w3bbo could also give you results for an i7 on a stock cooler?
How about also seeing how many watts of heat you can do before the temperature goes over 70, so you can see which cooler can handle the most heat?
I think we might end up with a conflict to what we want this test to be. A measure of how well a HSF can dispurse x amount of power or just trying to emulate a CPU.
IMO the former is going to be better, as whats the point in trying to emulate a CPU exactly when you can just use a real one? I know the 65/100/135/150 looked like CPU emulation, but it was more just to keep the data points slightly more relevent.
As I said before, I don't want to replace the normal idle/load, stock/OC tests we do as it gives people a better idea of what the sink will do on a real chip. But comparing two sinks tested with different CPUs (even if its the same chip type) will produce slightly different results. Where as xW will be xW no matter how you look at it.
Tom's idea isn't bad, but trying to regulate temperature is hard. Much harder than regualting the wattage, wich is a simple turn of a dial. Such a test has the potential to take hours for a singe HSF.
I'll produce some results in the next few days and see how it goes...
IMO the former is going to be better, as whats the point in trying to emulate a CPU exactly when you can just use a real one? I know the 65/100/135/150 looked like CPU emulation, but it was more just to keep the data points slightly more relevent.
As I said before, I don't want to replace the normal idle/load, stock/OC tests we do as it gives people a better idea of what the sink will do on a real chip. But comparing two sinks tested with different CPUs (even if its the same chip type) will produce slightly different results. Where as xW will be xW no matter how you look at it.
Tom's idea isn't bad, but trying to regulate temperature is hard. Much harder than regualting the wattage, wich is a simple turn of a dial. Such a test has the potential to take hours for a singe HSF.
I'll produce some results in the next few days and see how it goes...
I think you have it pretty well figured out Ham ;)
Just another thought.. How much noise/does the load tester make any noise? I know it's not the easiest thing in the world to measure, but getting some DB readings would be great...
I think if we're going to use this as the tester, we'd need to start it off with a huge round-up of a lot of the popular sinks.
CSS Valid