AMD's Gaming Evolved snags FarCry3

[SirPauly]

Yes in effect that is exactly what you are advocating.

This is just a load nonsense, with no committal to anything. May offer, may bring, may enjoy, may forge, hopefully.

Of course it is to someone that offers "proprietary hurts consumers" in a sweeping, blanket, one-sided view.

 

[railven]

Nvidia doesn't just want people buying a cheap Nvidia card and using that for PhysX for a few years they want people buying cards every year.

An AMD user can buy a cheap Nvidia card and use it for PhysX and continue to buy new AMD cards as their main.

If Nvidia didn't play these stupid games I'd have a 460 in my system for the Batman games.

I have a 9800 GTX+ that handled Batman: AC good enough, but it isn't fairing too well in Borderlands 2.

Probably going to pick up a GTX 650 today on my way home see if it fixes the performance issue, otherwise - guess I'm out of the Hybrid mix until the newest drivers are hacked.

EDIT: Or perhaps a GT 640...I wonder which would be better. Isn't a GTX 650 just a higher clocked 640 with GDDR5 RAM?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Nvidia needs to grab a brain and license PhysX. Derp. This would instantly create potential to foster wide adoption. Give the dev tools away for free, commercial products pay licensing.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's because Ubicrack has alienated the entire PC gaming industry with their DRM, and they have focused on consoles so its no surprised their PC sales are bad.. frankly im amazed anyone buys their product on the PC at all.

Overall PC gaming is doing great, its just evolving and selling shoddy, short, single player games filled with DRM is not how you do well on this platform.

for the record, Ubisoft ditched always online DRM from now on.

 

[RussianSensation]

Of course it is to someone that offers "proprietary hurts consumers" in a sweeping, blanket, one-sided view.

In the world of technology, proprietary standards generally fail. It takes industry wide standardization for a new innovative technology to truly take off.

- VHS
- HDTV --> 4K, etc.
- BluRay
- USB 2.0/3.0
- SATA interface
- PCIe interface

You can have an eco-system that relies on industry open standards accessible to anyone - that drives innovation. PhysX is closed/proprietary. NV is the only company in the world that can drive innovation of PhysX and thus far they have failed to improve on PhysX. That means PhysX is already stagnating and not really evolving in real world games. It's becoming more and more obvious that unless NV makes PhysX an open-standard for everyone, it's never going to take off (unless AMD goes bankrupt and by default PhysX becomes the open-standard since 100% of discrete GPU gamers will be using NV GPUs). But even then it would only be 1 company, NV, driving innovation in PhysX. NV doesn't have the financial resources on its own to allow for amazing PhysX effects in all games. This is why we wait for 1-2 games that NV thinks will sell well before they actually spend any $ on PhysX. In other words, the developers themselves don't go out of their way to include PhysX in games - so it's totally dependent on NV marketing dollars to drive this feature.

The long-term viability of PhysX in its current form is questionable. As CPUs and GPUs continue to evolve and become more powerful to perform physics calculations/simulations, eventually an industry-wide open standard language/platform for physics simulation will emerge. PhysX in its current form is just a marketing gimmick to sell NV cards and as a physics simulation platform a fad. The whole premise behind Ageia physics effects was to make games more realistic. PhysX has not done this. In fact since the takeover of Ageia, not a single game that uses PhysX has approached the physics effects of Red Faction Guerilla, a pretty old game by now.

Unless real world physics effects actually impact gameplay mechanics, all PhysX is doing is adding superficial graphical effects into games. That's not real physics. PhysX does not actually affect the gameplay, which makes this a useless innovation for a new physics standard in games.

The fact that you can tell PhysX effects in games actually shows that PhysX is a failure. Proper implementation of physics in games would make games more realistic and make them look less like videogames and more like real world. The PhysX effects do the opposite, you can tell right away where PhysX effects have been implemented which more often than not means they look fake/unnatural to the observer of real world physics. Maybe NV hasn't put enough effort into PhysX, but its current simulation of real world physics continues to be a gross exaggeration and an inaccurate representation of real world particle effects.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Of course it is to someone that offers "proprietary hurts consumers" in a sweeping, blanket, one-sided view.

"Proprietary technology may serve to harm the consumer and limit choice, and possibly prevent the more rapid forging of standards that may serve to benefit all potential consumers with the desire for innovation."

Is that more in a language you understand?

 

[SirPauly]

It takes industry wide standardization for a new innovative technology to truly take off.

So, while one waits for an industry wide, mature, standardization, one can enjoy some content now. What's the big deal?

It's nVidia's resources to spend -- not AMD's. If nVidia desires to spend resources on proprietary it's their resources after all.

GPU PhysX may evolve and mature -- be ported to openCL -- may create enough awareness and innovation to create and forge an open standard that everyone agrees upon. To eventually mature so there is no need of proprietary at all. It may not and fall flat on its face.

What's the big deal?

 

[sontin]

And proprietary hurts consumers, which is certainly not letting "the market decide" as you so vehemently tout as critically important to you.

AMD promised GPU-based physic calculations since nVidia acquired Ageia. 3 years ago they started their "Open Physics Initiative".

It seems that your company doesn't care about this stuff in games. So PhysX is not hurting the customer it gives them more choice.
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-announces-new-levels-of-realism-2009sept30.aspx

 

[SirPauly]

Let's look at Cuda -- proprietary -- that helped push the industry forward and helped forge and create Open standards like OpenCL and DirectCompute.

I also have to give kudos to Nvidia for coming out with CUDA and pushing the whole GPGPU market in a certain direction

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/05/30/amd-betting-everything-on-opencl/1

 

[thilanliyan]

Personally I think people use this DRM nonsense as an excuse for piracy - ubi DRM is no different than origin. You just log in, hit one button and play.

I very rarely if ever play multiplayer games. Why should I have to create a Ubiplay/Origin/GFWL accounts to play a game I bought on Steam for the single player experience? An online CD-Check ala Witcher 2 I am totally okay with, but I don't like having to create multiple online accounts and install multiple programs so I can "keep track of achievements" (or whatever else) which I don't give a damn about. All these online DRM type games, I am not willing to put up with that, especially after I have paid for the game and so I find ways around it. The pirates really do have it easier than the paying customers.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It seems that your company doesn't care about this stuff in games.

My company? I own a GTX670, does that make Nvidia my company too?

 

[blackened23]

I very rarely if ever play multiplayer games. Why should I have to create a Ubiplay/Origin/GFWL accounts to play a game I bought on Steam for the single player experience? An online CD-Check ala Witcher 2 I am totally okay with, but I don't like having to create multiple online accounts and install multiple programs so I can "keep track of achievements" (or whatever else) which I don't give a damn about. All these online DRM type games, I am not willing to put up with that, especially after I have paid for the game and so I find ways around it. The pirates really do have it easier than the paying customers.

That's certainly your prerogative. What i'm saying is that it isn't that bad, you simply log in (and it saves your login info btw) and that's it. The entire process takes 1-2 seconds. It also does not have an always on requirement.

In the grand scheme of DRM, ubiplay really isn't as bad as people give it credit for. GFWL is certainly the worst out there, I can detail the reasons for that if you want - but I have never had issues with UBI, and I love their games.

 

[thilanliyan]

That's certainly your prerogative. What i'm saying is that it isn't that bad, you simply log in (and it saves your login info btw) and that's it. The entire process takes 1-2 seconds. It also does not have an always on requirement.

Ubisoft until recently DID have an always on requirement. Thankfully they are getting rid of it.

 

[Olikan]

AMD promised GPU-based physic calculations since nVidia acquired Ageia. 3 years ago they started their "Open Physics Initiative".

It seems that your company doesn't care about this stuff in games. So PhysX is not hurting the customer it gives them more choice.

it's called bullet physics now, and very few games uses it...
Red Dead Redemption and GTA 4 are the only "big" games that use it

hollywood actually loved bullet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_(software)

 

[SirPauly]

AMD is trying as well and did offer a demo with GPU Physic particles:

http://developer.amd.com/Resources/...os/pages/RadeonHD6900SeriesRealTimeDemos.aspx

 

[SlowSpyder]

AMD promised GPU-based physic calculations since nVidia acquired Ageia. 3 years ago they started their "Open Physics Initiative".

It seems that your company doesn't care about this stuff in games. So PhysX is not hurting the customer it gives them more choice.
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-announces-new-levels-of-realism-2009sept30.aspx

For me the thing is this... what has Physx added? I'm still waiting for that killer game that Physx is a must have for. Nvidia needs that to get it going. But then we have to ask what does GPU physics reallly add? CPU's are getting so powerful and often have cores idle and ready to be used.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

What I feel for consumers to potentially embrace PhysX more is actual content in titles. One can't expect developers to offer dramatic game-play differences for nVidia PhysX based on this would truly divide the market, fragment it and hurt not only the sales of the developers title -- locking it to just one company -- and why it has been more-so fidelity based with more realism and very modest game-play enhancements.

IF one notices, it's always fidelity setting enhancements and these don't fundamentally change the game-play of the title and virtually anyone can still receive a good experience, which I feel is the most important aspect over-all -- even without extremer settings for consumers over-all. It's not about selling video cards for a developer to me but how can my title offer a good experience to the vast amount of platforms out there? Where do I place my resources?

My idealism out of this: is nVidia creates enough noise, awareness, innovation so the industry takes notice and sits down and try to forge standards so there is no division, fragmentation and chaos at all. Tools available for a developer to use the CPU and GPU strengths to improve physics in gaming titles.

 

[AnandThenMan]

One can't expect developers to offer dramatic game-play differences for nVidia PhysX based on this would truly divide the market, fragment it and hurt not only the sales of the developers title -- locking it to just one company -- and why it has been more-so fidelity based with more realism and very modest game-play enhancements.

NV has shown they will take every opportunity to lock out features on competing hardware, never mind the end user. Batman, Hawx etc. are proof of this. And you chose to ignore one thing, there is NO technical reason that a person should not be allowed to run PhysX on a system with an AMD card. People do it all the time with hacks, what NV is doing is quite honestly anti competitive and probably violates anti trust laws. When you buy an Nvidia card one of the advertised features is PhysX, but I don't recall seeing anywhere on the box that says I can only use it in the absence of an AMD video card.

And now you're saying PhysX is only for modest enhancements? I thought PhysX is supposed to be revolutionizing gaming, adding substantial and significant visuals. If PhysX only mildly enhances the game then why bother with hardware physics at all, just do it on the CPU, it has proven to be perfectly capable. Everyone gets the visuals, not half the market.

My idealism out of this: is nVidia creates enough noise, awareness, innovation so the industry takes notice and sits down and try to forge standards so there is no division, fragmentation and chaos at all. Tools available for a developer to use the CPU and GPU strengths to improve physics in gaming titles.

I thought you said you were a realist?

 

[SlowSpyder]

NV has shown they will take every opportunity to lock out features on competing hardware, never mind the end user. Batman, Hawx etc. are proof of this. And you chose to ignore one thing, there is NO technical reason that a person should not be allowed to run PhysX on a system with an AMD card. People do it all the time with hacks, what NV is doing is quite honestly anti competitive and probably violates anti trust laws. When you buy an Nvidia card one of the advertised features is PhysX, but I don't recall seeing anywhere on the box that says I can only use it in the absence of an AMD video card.

And now you're saying PhysX is only for modest enhancements? I thought PhysX is supposed to be revolutionizing gaming, adding substantial and significant visuals. If PhysX only mildly enhances the game then why bother with hardware physics at all, just do it on the CPU, it has proven to be perfectly capable. Everyone gets the visuals, not half the market.

I thought you said you were a realist?

I have to say, I thought that was a very tasteless move on Nvidia's part, locking out AMD cards from Physx when coupled with an Nvidia card as the PPU. They sold the cards as Physx capable, people bought them, then Nvidia took that away. Granted, it probably didn't affect a large number of gamers, as I doubt the population of Radeon + Nvidia for Physx was very large, but to sell the card as Physx capable and then remove that was a pretty crappy move on Nvidia's part.

Can you imagine AMD doing something like that? Say you buy a Radeon card, then AMD's next driver detects an Intel chipset so it removes HTPC functions? Or stops supporting 3D gaming or something?

 

[blackened23]

I have to say, I thought that was a very tasteless move on Nvidia's part, locking out AMD cards from Physx when coupled with an Nvidia card as the PPU. They sold the cards as Physx capable, people bought them, then Nvidia took that away. Granted, it probably didn't affect a large number of gamers, as I doubt the population of Radeon + Nvidia for Physx was very large, but to sell the card as Physx capable and then remove that was a pretty crappy move on Nvidia's part.

Can you imagine AMD doing something like that? Say you buy a Radeon card, then AMD's next driver detects an Intel chipset so it removes HTPC functions? Or stops supporting 3D gaming or something?

I really don't' see it as a big deal. Okay, so physx gives the nvidia brand some value for users - yet we have been getting about 1 title per year that utilizes it, with differeng results. Sometimes the performance hit for physx is super high, and then at other times the effects are either non existant (metro 2033) or ridiciulous (mafia 2).

It does give value to nvidia for some users, that is why nvidia wants to keep it for themselves. I don't see it as a big deal, really because of the reasons outlined above - lack of titles, mixed results, sometimes a ridiculous performance hit for use. Those who like it can use it, but its not something that would weigh on a purchasing decision for me. At least, more titles need to utilize it, the rate of titles using it is pretty anemic.

Most titles are using CPU physics anyway, with most of them using havoc. Unlike 6 years ago there really isn't a need to keep phsics off the cpu, the cpu has a TON of power and can chew through that stuff like it's nothing these days. The only thing that could change this is maybe UE3? If that has more physx use that could be a win for nvidia - but on the other hand, it IS meant to be cross platform. A lot of time devs won't bother with phsyx on multiplatform titles, although there are exceptions.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Can you imagine AMD doing something like that? Say you buy a Radeon card, then AMD's next driver detects an Intel chipset so it removes HTPC functions? Or stops supporting 3D gaming or something?

If AMD did this, it would be considered anti competitive and illegal. But Nvidia is doing essentially the same thing, although I've heard some argue that it is because of technical and support reasons, which is nonsense. The average PC has a wide array of hardware and drivers and they all manage to get along most of the time.

 

[Red Hawk]

The point is, I think, that it would be better for all parties if Nvidia made dedicated PhysX acceleration open to work alongside AMD cards. Developers could program it into games without worrying so much about shutting out a large percentage of customers, Nvidia would still make money off of selling their smaller cards as PPUs, and gamers could more easily get PhysX if they wanted. Everybody would win.

 

[blackened23]

The point is, I think, that it would be better for all parties if Nvidia made dedicated PhysX acceleration open to work alongside AMD cards. Developers could program it into games without worrying so much about shutting out a large percentage of customers, Nvidia would still make money off of selling their smaller cards as PPUs, and gamers could more easily get PhysX if they wanted. Everybody would win.

AMD is a non factor. Phsyx won't happen because it isn't happening in consoles...so at best we get 1-2 titles per year that use it. It really isn't a jaw dropping feature either, it's easy to live without.

 

[thilanliyan]

Nvidia would still make money off of selling their smaller cards as PPUs, and gamers could more easily get PhysX if they wanted. Everybody would win.

Yeah but do you think nvidia would be happy selling just low end cards? Of course not...they want to sell you expensive cards instead, and locking physx to their own cards assures that to a certain extent. Thankfully we have the hacking community to get around those hurdles. :biggrin:

 

[Red Hawk]

AMD is a non factor. Phsyx won't happen because it isn't happening in consoles...so at best we get 1-2 titles per year that use it. It really isn't a jaw dropping feature either, it's easy to live without.

DirectX 11 isn't happening in consoles, yet DirectX 11 has been gaining momentum while PhysX has stayed at its measly one or two games a year. Not being on consoles isn't the problem.

Yeah but do you think nvidia would be happy selling just low end cards? Of course not...they want to sell you expensive cards instead, and locking physx to their own cards assures that to a certain extent. Thankfully we have the hacking community to get around those hurdles. :biggrin:

I would venture to say that if Nvidia were to make Physx more open but still require a dedicated PPU if not using a Nvidia GPU, then more developers would implement PhysX in their games and that would give gamers more incentive to buy the PPUs (especially gamers with AMD GPUs). Nvidia would make more money of the increased sales of weaker cards as PPUs rather than the occasional choice of a larger GPU because someone wanted to specifically be able to used PhysX effects in one of the rare PhysX games.