Sign in to follow this  
MrJoshL

Next-Gen Gaming PC?

Recommended Posts

MrJoshL    810
In your opinion, is this what you think an average mid-high end gaming PC will be like in, say, 2015?

Intel Ivy Bridge processor
32gb RAM
x2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 880
8tb HDD
1tb SSD
1000W PSU
Blu-Ray Drive (with games that come on Blu-Ray, if discs are still around, but I don't think retailers will let them phase out)
1920x1080 monitor
some odd input device in addition to the mouse/keyboard
1gb/s internet

I was just curious, and I think that this is a pretty good prediction. What about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bregma    9201
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353176941' post='5001800']
1920x1080 monitor
[/quote]
Why restrict your speculation to decade-old technology, especially when there's already a host of gaming machines (iPads, iPhones, etc) with better than 96 dpi tech?

At least 3840x2160 if you need to reproduce the native resolution of WWII-era entertainment tech, maybe in a nice 32" form factor. For your first monitor. The second and third can be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cowsarenotevil    3005
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353176941' post='5001800']
In your opinion, is this what you think an average mid-high end gaming PC will be like in, say, 2015?

Intel Ivy Bridge processor[/quote]

This is pessimistic.

[quote]32gb RAM[/quote]

This is pessimistic.

[quote]x2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 880[/quote]

This is very pessimistic. (Wait, are you just assuming they'll keep using the naming convention they have been? Because I guess that's also optimistic)

[quote]Blu-Ray Drive (with games that come on Blu-Ray, if discs are still around, but I don't think retailers will let them phase out)[/quote]

This is optimistic. (Although only because I think optical drives will be even more rare on computers at that point)

[quote]1920x1080 monitor[/quote]

This is absurdly pessimistic.

[quote]some odd input device in addition to the mouse/keyboard[/quote]

This is optimistic.

[quote]1gb/s internet[/quote]

This is probably optimistic. Edited by cowsarenotevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_the_phantom_    11250
Frankly for game PLAYING above 8gig isn't going to be all that useful; there is after all a limit to the amount of memory you can touch in a frame.

CPU wise; Haswell is coming soon so Ivy Bridge already has its replacement.

Powerwise; power consumption is going down/staying level rather than climbing

GPU wise; SLI/Crossfire is not 'average' so forget that.

Optical media is already on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheChubu    9450
That's what I thought. 1000w PSUs for reasonable high end PCs? That's a disaster.

No single PC with one CPU and two GPUs should require 1Kw to function, that said, there are times in CPU/GPU development history when some architectures dont scale well enough and for the required increase in performance, a heavy hit to power consumption is made. ie, Pentium 4s, Bulldozers arent that good either, nVidia FX5xxx series, nVidia went along the high power consumption wagon for a long time with GF8xxx series, GTX2xxx series, first fermi chips, and AMD had their fair share of power beasts before the HD4xxx series came along, and today HD7xxx series does fairly worse than nVidias GTX6xx in power consumption.

You can buy a GTX680 that has twice the performance of my GTX560, yet its consumption is roughly the same. Sandy bridge and Ivy bridge CPUs are very, very power efficient given their performance, and Intel plans to make Haswell scale up in power consumption from mobile segments to high end server stuff.

1Kw as a "common thing" it'd be very bad imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cowsarenotevil    3005
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1353191612' post='5001859']
Frankly for game PLAYING above 8gig isn't going to be all that useful; there is after all a limit to the amount of memory you can touch in a frame.
[/quote]

Isn't it less a question of needing everything in a single frame and more a question of not knowing what you'll need in the next frame? Being able to have larger chunks of game stay in memory for longer seems like a useful thing to me. Besides, increasing the amount of RAM over time is generally comparatively cost effective, so frankly I'd be disappointed if people didn't find some way to make it "useful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ic0de    1012
2015 hmm.. three years away that's two periods of 18 months according to Moores law assuming the current top of the line has a 6 core i7 and 16 gb of ram it would be more like this: 24 core processor, 64gb of ram, 8 tb hard drive, 1 tb ssd. So you were right on with the HDD and SSD but try doubling your ram again. As for 64 cores I think the doubling of transistors will go into something more important like a new instruction set similar to SSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gavin Williams    985
In Australia, the National Broadband Network (optic fibre) is rolling out now that will provide fibre plans based on 12/1 Mbps or 25/5 Mbps and there are high-range plans giving at least up to 100/40 Mbps. And it isn't expected to be complete before 2015. So I think 1Gbps is way too high. These things take many years to develop and deploy. And you'll find that internet speeds will be staggered over time and across nations rather than gradually improving. Note that I currently have 8.5 Mbps (Our national average is 4.9 Mbps). I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world. Edited by Gavin Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrJoshL    810
[quote name='Gavin Williams' timestamp='1353215744' post='5001963']I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
[/quote]
But Korea is so small, so that really isn't a fair comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosEngine    5185
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353250401' post='5002048']
[quote name='Gavin Williams' timestamp='1353215744' post='5001963']I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
[/quote]
But Korea is so small, so that really isn't a fair comparison.
[/quote]

Eh? Korea (assuming you mean South), is the 25th largest country in the world by population and about about the median value in terms of area. It's not China, but I wouldn't call it "so small".

As for the OP, I think some of those are reasonable.
According to the [url="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc"]Steam Hardware Survey[/url][list]
[*]1080p is already the most common resolution. I expect it will remain so for a while with 1440p IPS panels starting to become prevalent in the high end. I know I'm looking at [url="http://www.overlordcomputer.com/overlord_tempest_X270OC_pixel_perfect_display_p/ot_x270oc_pp.htm"]one of these bad boys [/url]in the near future.
[*]There's a roughly even split between 2 and 4 core CPUs. Over the next few years, I'd expect to see that become a 3 way split between quad (~20%) hexa (another 20%) and 8 core [size=1]er, octo core?[/size] (40%).
[*]RAM is cheap. Again we see a split here between 3,4 and 8 gbs. By 2015, I would expect 8 to be the minimum and 16 or 32 to be the average. Simply because it's a cheap easy upgrade.
[/list]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimonForsman    7642
[quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1353187458' post='5001847']
[quote]1gb/s internet[/quote]

This is probably optimistic.
[/quote]

Depends on where you live i think, 1Gbps connections are allready available where i live. at around 50-80 euros / month.
There just isn't a great need for it yet, (100Mbps is enough for pretty much everything a normal user does). but yeah, 1000Gbps will not be "average" anytime soon.

[quote]
1080p is already the most common resolution. I expect it will remain so for a while with 1440p IPS panels starting to become prevalent in the high end. I know I'm looking at one of these bad boysin the near future.
[/quote]

yeah 1080p will remain dominant for atleast a few more years, they are optimal for HD video and are being mass produced which pushes prices down on them so if we're just looking at the average mid-high end gaming PC then it is likely to use a 1080p monitor in 2-3 years as well, the next good step for the average consumer(Who most likely will still want to watch 1080p vidoes at high quality then) would be 3840x2160 (Those monitors should be available at the high end by then but are unlikely to drop enough in price to really become common) Edited by SimonForsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
way2lazy2care    790
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1353273443' post='5002104']
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353250401' post='5002048']
[quote name='Gavin Williams' timestamp='1353215744' post='5001963']I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
[/quote]
But Korea is so small, so that really isn't a fair comparison.
[/quote]

Eh? Korea (assuming you mean South), is the 25th largest country in the world by population and about about the median value in terms of area. It's not China, but I wouldn't call it "so small".
[/quote]

I think the point was rather that they have a high population density. It's one of the biggest hurdles for US infrastructure development. We're so damn spread out :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lode    1003
My take:

Intel Broadwell processor (see Intel's roadmap)
64gb RAM (32gb is already seen today)
NVidia GeForce 900 Series (or whatever 3 generations after now will be named)
1TB SSDs, plus some old "moving" HDDs and external storage boxes for all those movies and stuff
PSU: Let's hope it doesn't require to be bigger than todays PSU's
No optical drive (I have one in my half year old PC and I honestly think I never even pushed its "open tray" button)
"Retina" monitor: it'll be normal then!
Same internet speed as today - it's not like they're gonna magically change the wires in the street here

[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353176941' post='5001800']
In your opinion, is this what you think an average mid-high end gaming PC will be like in, say, 2015?

Intel Ivy Bridge processor
32gb RAM
x2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 880
8tb HDD
1tb SSD
1000W PSU
Blu-Ray Drive (with games that come on Blu-Ray, if discs are still around, but I don't think retailers will let them phase out)
1920x1080 monitor
some odd input device in addition to the mouse/keyboard
1gb/s internet

I was just curious, and I think that this is a pretty good prediction. What about you?
[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sirisian    2263
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1353281075' post='5002153']
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1353273443' post='5002104']
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353250401' post='5002048']
[quote name='Gavin Williams' timestamp='1353215744' post='5001963']I think Korea currently has an average connection speed of about 17 Mbps, making them #1 in the world.
[/quote]
But Korea is so small, so that really isn't a fair comparison.
[/quote]

Eh? Korea (assuming you mean South), is the 25th largest country in the world by population and about about the median value in terms of area. It's not China, but I wouldn't call it "so small".
[/quote]

I think the point was rather that they have a high population density. It's one of the biggest hurdles for US infrastructure development. We're so damn spread out [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.png[/img]
[/quote]
That line of reasoning doesn't work out. If it was true you'd expect all cities to have an average of 20 mbps or something. That isn't the case though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacterius    13165
This is the build I'm looking to converge towards throughout the next two-three years:


[quote]
Ivy Bridge i7 (or better family)
HD 7970 (or equivalent GTX) + HD6950
2-4TB hard drive
200GB SSD
1000W PSU
16-32GB memory
5760x1080 (triple 1080p)
[/quote]


My current build:

[quote]
Sandy Bridge i5
HD 6950
1TB hard drive
120GB SSD
750W PSU
12GB memory
1920x1080
[/quote]



can play essentially any game I throw at it on maximum settings, even the most recent ones, so I'll probably only update the graphics card in a year's time (and even then, I will keep the old one if it's still working and use it as a secondary card for GPGPU - I mean, if there's enough room in my case [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png[/img] ) I've already saved up for the extra terabyte and second monitor for christmas. As for the internet, it is what it is over here - can't change that.


All that to say, I don't find games are really pushing the limits of hardware right now. Even an 6-year-old PC with its old 8800GT can comfortably play most recent releases on at least medium quality, so I don't feel the need to upgrade that much. But I feel game developers are neglecting the "gameplay" aspect of games, which makes technological advances rather moot (apart from the "wow, that looks lifelike" first impressions).

[quote]That's what I thought. 1000w PSUs for reasonable high end PCs? That's a disaster.[/quote]
Components only draw what they need from the PSU, and you want to be on the "too much" side than the "not enough" one. Though obviously getting a 3kW PSU is overkill, but even good-quality PSU's typically cannot sustain the advertised power, so you want to keep a bit of leeway. My build is only using 65% of my PSU's total capacity, but I'd rather that than cheapening out on the PSU and using 95% of its capacity, where plugging in my external hard drive would risk overloading everything. Edited by Bacterius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cowsarenotevil    3005
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1353274826' post='5002109']
yeah 1080p will remain dominant for atleast a few more years, they are optimal for HD video and are being mass produced which pushes prices down on them so if we're just looking at the average mid-high end gaming PC then it is likely to use a 1080p monitor in 2-3 years as well, the next good step for the average consumer(Who most likely will still want to watch 1080p vidoes at high quality then) would be 3840x2160 (Those monitors should be available at the high end by then but are unlikely to drop enough in price to really become common)
[/quote]

I'm very doubtful. People watch 1280x720 content on 1920x1080 monitors without being upset about the non-factor-of-2 scaling (in fact it's a factor of 1.5; the same ratio of 1920x1200 to the current "retina" macbook displays which are 2880x1800). I have no reason to believe that 2880x1800 or even 4k isn't going to be a very popular resolution in the next couple of years. Even if this somehow doesn't happen, I still think people will probably shift toward 1920x1200 as opposed to 1920x1080. For watching movies the vertical resolution is wasted, but for just about everything else it's very nice to have.

Frankly I'd be amazed if 1920x1080 lasted another three years as the dominant computer screen resolution. Computer resolutions almost invariably lead TV resolutions and people are already getting excited about 4k TVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1353288437' post='5002189']
In 3 years time, a lot of people will have the same PC they have right now, so don't get too optimistic.
[/quote]This, or an iPad.
I'm more concerned about PC becoming less and less common than what silly specs it will have. Who needs 32GiB for a game? Few present games truly need something bigger than a single mid-class graphics card and few use the major part of memory on present day machines.
Few people really have a need for running Skyrim with maximum settings on dual WQUXGA stereo displays at 600fps. For something kind of "reasonable", a present-time $150 graphics card, a 2-3 year old CPU, and 4-8GiB of RAM work just fine.

[quote]1000W PSU[/quote]This is what the 17 year old experts in specialized builder shops are trying to sell to you [i]right now[/i], if you have them build a PC having a CPU with a TDP of 77W, a graphics card with a TDP of 110W, and a SSD with a TDP of 2W.
Obviously typical mainboards consume upwards of 700W, because hey, the experts tell you that you need this. Or that's what you need for charging your mobile on USB...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kburkhart84    3182
I honestly think that things will get faster before they get bigger. The massive 128GB RAM is actually already available in some workstation type PCs, but I see DDR5(or even faster) coming to mainstream RAM before the average user even has more than 32GB of it. Also, the dual-channel RAM system had been around for a pretty long time before the new i7 processors finally came up with triple-channel access, and then it was a pretty short time(relatively) that suddenly we now have quad-channel access. Honestly, I see that also changing before RAM gets above 32GB in the average PC as well, say octo-channel RAM, heck, many MOBOs have 8 slots as it is.

As far as processors, by 2015 I'd expect to see more of the same. I'd love to see something radical, but 2015 is too soon I think. Intel will have some new architecture running on less power and at less "raw Ghz" but yet being much more productive. Also, I don't think that anything beyond 8 cores will be common by then, rather quad-core will probably still be in the mid to low range, with hex and octo-cores being the high end. This is because even intense games tend to not really be able to take advantage of so many cores.

For hard drives, the thing I would think would be more common would be the "hybrids" where the have a bit of SSD working like a massive cache, and a traditional spinner for real space storage. I think that this may indeed become much more commonplace, although I'm wondering if instead they might come up with "mini-RAM" that would fit in HDs as a cache instead. This mini-RAM would be something like DDR5 speeds, and would have maybe 4GB total size(similar to the RAM in today's high end graphic cards), and HD access would be much faster, even than SSD drives. But, to accomodate this, MOBOs would have to have a much faster connection than simple SATA3 cords we use right now.

For video cards, who knows? The naming convention used will probably change by then for both NVidia and ATI by then, and the RAM will probably be much faster(duh!!), and the processors will be faster, but beyond that I think 2015 is too soon for some massively radical change, similar to my opinions on CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdwh    1108
[quote name='Bregma' timestamp='1353178945' post='5001807']
[quote name='MrJoshL' timestamp='1353176941' post='5001800']
1920x1080 monitor
[/quote]
Why restrict your speculation to decade-old technology, especially when there's already a host of gaming machines (iPads, iPhones, etc) with better than 96 dpi tech?[/quote]I've wondered why we've seen resolution-obsession on Android etc devices, but not PCs. But there are some points to consider:

* Production costs may berelated to absolute number of pixels rather than dpi (which is a poor measure for saying one is better - e.g., my Galaxy Nexus has higher resolution and larger size than an iphone 4S, both of which are stats I prefer; the fact that the dpi is lower doesn't really mean anything to me).

* You need the GPU power to drive the larger number of pixels, and there's a higher standard of expectation on PCs, than "gaming machines" where Angry Birds is considered cutting edge.

* There's more pressure for certain companies to increase random specs in pursuit of marketing, whether or not there is practical use in doing so.

True, if we're talking of a hypothetical top of the range gaming machine, why not have a higher resolution with multiple monitors. But I don't think that Full HD is bad, or comparisons to cell phones and media players is necessarily entirely meaningful, and the OP did say "average" and "mid-high". And even if we think that companies should be increasing the resolutions, based on what they can do for other devices (just look at the Nexus 10's amazingly high resolution, for example), that doesn't mean they will for PCs. Personally I'm still waiting for netbooks to crawl past 1024x600... :)

I think a better thing to look at would be what's already available now for PCs, rather than phones - e.g., the 1440p monitor that someone linked to. SimonForsman makes a good point about making it easy to scale full HD content.

[quote name='Lode' timestamp='1353283171' post='5002164']
"Retina" monitor: it'll be normal then![/quote]Retina is an Apple trademark, so something you won't be seeing anywhere else - it is simply their name for their resolutions, and not about any particular technology. As I say above, comparing on densities rather than actual resolutions doesn't make sense most the time (and indeed, the standard industry terms are to use terms to describe actual resolutions - e.g., 1080p, 4K).

[quote name='cowsarenotevil']Frankly I'd be amazed if 1920x1080 lasted another three years as the dominant computer screen resolution. Computer resolutions almost invariably lead TV resolutions and people are already getting excited about 4k TVs. [/quote]Whilst 4k seems the obvious next step, I'd be surprised if this became dominant for computer screens within 3 years, given the average upgrade routes. Even for TVs, when I last checked a few months ago (in the UK at least), you have to spend quite a bit to get 4K, and many TVs (even say around the £1000 mark) are still 1080.

[quote name='samoth' timestamp='1353328818' post='5002324']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1353288437' post='5002189']
In 3 years time, a lot of people will have the same PC they have right now, so don't get too optimistic.
[/quote]This, or an iPad.

I'm more concerned about PC becoming less and less common than what silly specs it will have. Who needs 32GiB for a game? Few present games truly need something bigger than a single mid-class graphics card and few use the major part of memory on present day machines.[/quote]Well in that sense, PC gamers (or PC gaming machines) are already a subset of most people, but I don't think that means they're going to stop being PC gamers - we've been hearing about how ipads will change everything for years from the media, but we're still waiting. If Android tablets etc (which are predicted to outsell the ipad platform) become larger than PCs, I don't think that means gaming PCs disappearing, anymore than it did with the growth of Android phones, consoles, or whatever. Also consider that tablets are only useful for some genres of games.

I mean, we might as well say than in 2015, people will instead have a Samsung Galaxy or a Wii U. An ipad is just one of many products. I doubt every tablet will be an ipad (or every console a Wii U, or every phone a Samsung Galaxy), nor will it mean that PC gamers stop buying PCs (they might buy a tablet as well as a PC, just any many have a PC as well as a phone and/or console).

Also consider that with hybrid PCs, the distinction becomes a bit meaningless - if ones "tablet" is actually something that is a PC too, it doesn't really matter :)

On a related note, desktop PCs are already less common than laptop PCs, and this trend will continue. But then, laptops are becoming more powerful as gaming machines too. So it might be that more gamers move to laptops, such that the average spec doesn't increase as far as one might think, but there is the increased advantage of mobility. Edited by mdwh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosEngine    5185
Well, right now, it's starting to look like the "next gen gaming pc" [url="http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/26/intel-kills-off-the-desktop-pcs-go-with-it/"]won't actually exist[/url] (or at least, not in it's current form)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nytegard    839
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1354046484' post='5004642']
Well, right now, it's starting to look like the "next gen gaming pc" [url="http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/26/intel-kills-off-the-desktop-pcs-go-with-it/"]won't actually exist[/url] (or at least, not in it's current form)
[/quote]
[quote name='samoth' timestamp='1353328818' post='5002324']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1353288437' post='5002189']
In 3 years time, a lot of people will have the same PC they have right now, so don't get too optimistic.
[/quote]This, or an iPad.
I'm more concerned about PC becoming less and less common than what silly specs it will have. Who needs 32GiB for a game? Few present games truly need something bigger than a single mid-class graphics card and few use the major part of memory on present day machines.
Few people really have a need for running Skyrim with maximum settings on dual WQUXGA stereo displays at 600fps. For something kind of "reasonable", a present-time $150 graphics card, a 2-3 year old CPU, and 4-8GiB of RAM work just fine.

[quote]1000W PSU[/quote]This is what the 17 year old experts in specialized builder shops are trying to sell to you [i]right now[/i], if you have them build a PC having a CPU with a TDP of 77W, a graphics card with a TDP of 110W, and a SSD with a TDP of 2W.
Obviously typical mainboards consume upwards of 700W, because hey, the experts tell you that you need this. Or that's what you need for charging your mobile on USB...
[/quote]

In terms of a gaming PC, I think we've hit near the top of the line for at least the next decade. Laptops have surpassed desktop ownership, and tablets look to be on their way to surpassing both fairly quickly. Neither tablets nor laptops are anywhere near the power of the desktop, but that really doesn't matter. It's about money, and for most people, a 7 year old console is good enough for video games. Why would companies want to invest millions to cater towards a minute audience in terms of actual profit?

I think tablet technology will have to change somewhat, but that's the way of the future. Sooner or later, it will pass a stagnating PC in terms of capabilities, at which point, the PC as we know it will probably die off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talroth    3247
The problem with market share analysis is forgetting to view stuff in context.

Tablets rapidly out selling main PCs, and gaming PCs are becoming a small minority of the market? This means the PC market is dead right? well, no. This means the PC market is where it has been, and the Tablet market has exploded.

I have a PC suitable for gaming. Dual screen, looking to update to a triple head display sooner or later. I also have a tablet, and will likely buy another tablet before fully upgrading this PC, and will most likely be buying tablets at a rate of 3:1 vs the number of times I have to do a major overhaul/replacement of my PC. If you look at those numbers for myself alone, then 'obviously' the tablet market is [i]Three times the size of the PC market![/i]...

Only, it isn't. I spend about 50 times as much money on my PC's software as I do on stuff for my Tablet. In part because there is such pisspoor quality in software for the tablet, and stuff that is decent seems to be all nickel and time Freeimum stuff.

Everyone who I knew 5 years ago that had put $1000+ into a PC gaming system still has kept a $1000+ system reasonable up to date today. Most have bought one or two tablets at least, and all still continue to use their PC (or console in a few cases) as their primary gaming platform.

I have not met a single person who had a history of purchasing AAA PC titles in the past and who has now abandoned the PC gaming market. If anything the market [i]continues to grow[/i] with regards to customers. What doesn't continue to grow is the willingness to shell out $60 some dollars on yet another clone of what we've already played.


So, PCs of 2015? Likely much the same as we have now, with more cores and slightly higher clock speeds. Ram averages are likely to jump, but requirements aren't likely to sky rocket with them. I don't know about everyone else, but I will be keeping optical drives kicking around my case for another while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this