3 ms·
this seems like a lot of work compared to an LCG, which is blindingly fast and more than good enough for game purposes.
by jheriko 11y ago
this seems like a lot of work compared to an LCG, which is blindingly fast and more than good enough for game purposes.
- dragontamer 11y agoLCG is a pseudo-random number generator. The electronic design described in the article is a _true_ random number generator.
- shele 11y agoFor gaming purposes, a standard pseudo-random number generator is faster, more reliable and has better statistical properties (!) than this hardware random number generator. It is also cheaper (cheap as in free software).
- dragontamer 11y ago> has better statistical properties http://www.cryogenius.com/hardware/isarng/diehard.txt http://www.cryogenius.com/hardware/isarng/diehard.txt The hardware generator passes more diehard tests than the LCG. In any case, a true-RNG scheme is supposed to feed into a PRNG. True RNGs feed into sources of entropy, and then you use entropy sources as part of PRNGs to extract more randomness out of them (if you need speed). Or not... if you need "security". (Stay slow, so you get tons of entropy) > a standard pseudo-random number generator is faster This hardware RNG doesn't require a CPU at all. Its an electronics project that can feed into anything. It makes almost no sense to compare a hardware solution against a software one.
- jheriko 11y agoyou don't seem to understand the very low requirements for all of the practical use cases in games. having dedicated hardware for that is going to require more work for games developers for no detectable benefit.
- jheriko 11y agoyeah, thats kind of my point. you just don't need that level of strength in a random number generator for anything realistic in games at all...