AMD talks GPU Gaming Physics

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
Believe it when I see it. ATI\AMD has been a string of disappointments on the dev relations side for the past 6-7 years.

I thought 4000 series was a big hit, to an extent 5800 as well.....one can say 6800/6900 has been somewhat disappointing....mostly due to poor implementation of gaming industry (dev).

On the CPU end, last time AMD shined was Barton/Winchester and 939 socket. Its been all downhill since then (on the gaming front anyways)
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
Hmm, are you guys going to play a game under OPENwhatever than DirectX? Dynamic tessellation has been on ATI card for years, but people are now so high about it because of Dx11 ...

Even now, I don't see dynamic tessellation is being used in any meaningful way.

Performance hit vs Picture quality. Is it worth it really?
 

drizek

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2005
1,410
0
71
I thought 4000 series was a big hit, to an extent 5800 as well.....one can say 6800/6900 has been somewhat disappointing....mostly due to poor implementation of gaming industry (dev).

On the CPU end, last time AMD shined was Barton/Winchester and 939 socket. Its been all downhill since then (on the gaming front anyways)

Barton was great.

I liked the 3000 series cards too. It brought great performance down to really low price points and power consumption.

As to why open standards are important, it's because they don't allow someone like MS, who doesn't really have our best interest at heart, to lock us in to using their product. Open standards mean freedom, choice and competition. Proprietary standards mean dominance and monopoly.
 

digitaldurandal

Golden Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,828
0
76
Hmm, are you guys going to play a game under OPENwhatever than DirectX? Dynamic tessellation has been on ATI card for years, but people are now so high about it because of Dx11 ...

Even now, I don't see dynamic tessellation is being used in any meaningful way.

Have you played Aliens vs Predator at all? Tessellation makes a huge difference if used properly.
 

digitaldurandal

Golden Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,828
0
76
Performance hit vs Picture quality. Is it worth it really?

What is that supposed to mean. You could say that about every single quality improvement over the years. By that logic maybe we should still be playing games like doom etc.

As we progress closer and closer to photorealism, the cost in performance of each improvement is going to increase in a nonlinear manner.

Hardware has to adapt to the needs of the software.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,849
146
The problem with physics for me is that the performance hit for what they've shown off so far just isn't worth it for me. A lot of this stuff can be done by "scripting" it. Sure, it won't be as realistic, but you can get most of what it adds for immersion without the massive performance hit. At least that's my opinion based on the cloth/particle/small object physics that has been made a fuss about. Likewise, with water, in most games it just wouldn't be worth it to implement it, and so you'll basically have to base the gameplay around the interaction with it. The bad thing is, while that would be awesome (imagine how much better the gravity gun would be), the performance hit would be so high that it'd be like Crysis.

I'd say that's true of a lot of these eye candy stuff recently, its not integral so it seems tacked on and the performance hit for it is just too high to justify.

It seemed like games were moving towards a return to software focus for processing (rendering, etc), which I was looking forward to as it seemed like that would allow them to implement a lot of stuff quicker/easier, where you could control the performance aspect more, where if you want better performance you just pay for more computing power (which granted is the case now, but you weren't limited by hardware support for certain features). It seemed like that was the best way to get audio processing out of the old Pre-Vista days, add physics, and even stuff like ray-tracing. This way, also, those things become integral to the game.

I was never big on Ageia and the PhysX card (mostly because of the aforementioned move to software focus), but it kinda sucks that dedicated physics hardware didn't take off, mostly because CPU based seems to have stagnated (CPU peformance improvements in general just has been mildly disappointing for several years, at least for desktop, although a lot of that is the low support for more cores and doing anything interesting with them), and GPU physics is pretty much a joke and it seems like its already being tossed aside in favor of tessellation.

Sony or Toshiba should have made that Cell add-in card they talked about way back when. It could have been used for physics (and other things) in games and video processing, and plenty of other things (3D conversion, audio processing).
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
considering the consolization of PhsyX its not like nVidia's effort has been worthwhile.

The effects I've seen with Batman AA and Mirror's Edge were totally underwhelming and practically inconsequential to the overall value of the respective games.

I don't know of any other titles that interest me that support PhysX in such a fashion that would make it a must-have.

At this juncture developers have to consider the ~100 million PS3/360 consoles out there along with all the AMD owners. As strong a position as nVidia is in they can't exactly strong arm a blockbusting title into having game changing physics.