AMD's GPU Q3 2012 marketshare - 14% declines across the board to NVIDIA

[notty22]

Listen,do not get involved with me and Pauly.We have a long history across two forums and we get along great.GPU PhysX looks silly

In my country ''cool soldier '' is a compliment .I suggest you kindly STFU if you don't understand.

Or go run to your refugee forum and bash me if you like.

You guys derail all AMD threads with your Nvidia praising.

You are posting in a public forum and not in a personal message. So take a look back at your posts in this thread. Where you describe fanboys and bias and your views of ignorance.

 

[SirPauly]

You guys derail all AMD threads with your Nvidia praising.

How is this an AMD thread, when nVidia is in the title! Market share competitors in discrete are AMD and nVidia.

Personally feel that one of the major reasons for nVidia's success is their pro-active nature and is part of what defines their name-brand, which did take years and years to create. It is much more than splash screens but their pro-active nature into trying to differentiate and innovate The GeForce Experience.

AMD is making inroads by investing into developer relations by trying to improve The Radeon Experience but may take some time to build this.

For all the complaining about nVidia are the reasons for their success to me.

 

[AnandThenMan]

How is this an AMD thread, when nVidia is in the title! Market share competitors in discrete are AMD and nVidia.

How is this an Nvidia thread, when AMD is in the title! :awe: And I'll just leave this bold text here because that means I'm really important.

As for PhysX, I think the visuals look ridiculous and way over done, a waste of GPU/CPU cycles.

 

[GaiaHunter]

PlanetSide 2 and Hawken should offer support by the end of the year


PlanetSide 2 Closed Beta: PhysX Effects Preview

http://physxinfo.com/news/9951/planetside-2-closed-beta-physx-effects-preview/

Hawken Closed Beta: PhysX Effects Preview

http://physxinfo.com/news/9897/hawken-closed-beta-physx-effects-preview/

I'm not saying it is an absolute must have for all but it certainly isn't useless for all either.

The key is nVidia is pro-active in Physics and trying to innovate to me.

I had read the wiki information on GPU hardware PhysX titles and it stated Planetside 2 used physX for bullet and player gravity but apparently that part is CPU only.

Those games GPU accelerated effects are still restricted to visual effects.

Anyway it is good to see that more MMORPGs are getting more complex physic engines - GW2 uses havok, TERA uses the Unreal Engine and EQnext will use the same engine as planetside 2.

Dunno what TSW uses.

Good riddance to the "can only hit selected objects" MMORPGs and no physic trajectory projectiles.

 

[SirPauly]

How is this an Nvidia thread, when AMD is in the title! :awe: And I'll just leave this bold text here because that means I'm really important.

As for PhysX, I think the visuals look ridiculous and way over done, a waste of GPU/CPU cycles.

You're entitled to your view and personally don't try to mock anyone that disagrees. Thankfully there is a disabled option -- have no problem with this. Personally desire more innovation, open standards, more content, much more dynamics to improve realism, fidelity and hopefully some day redefine game-play.

 

[ICDP]

As for PhysX, I think the visuals look ridiculous and way over done, a waste of GPU/CPU cycles.

You are not alone, even those with Nvidia hardware are hardly singing its praises. I flip flop between Nvidia and AMD as the price/perf and my needs dictate. In all the years since PhysX was released I have not played one single game where the extra eye candy was worth the massive FPS hit.

There are many graphical effects that are done simply to look good, not realistic.

• PhysX effects - where matter simply magics into view.
• Excessive Bloom effects - Where even bald heads give a neon glow effect.
• Depth of Field - a totally worthless and unrealistic effect that does nothing but cripple FPS.
• Those horrible post process FSAA effect that blur the image and have setback textures 5-10 years.
• Lens Flare - our eyes aren't cameras, stop adding effects that only shows in images taken with a camera.

Not everything graphical is good, effects for effects sake does not make a game more realistic looking, it actually detracts from it. PhysX is one of those effects IMHO.

 

[SirPauly]

Isn't it great one can turn off features if one doesn't like them? But, what if a gamer likes them or improves their experience?

 

[tviceman]

Listen,do not get involved with me and Pauly.We have a long history across two forums and we get along great.GPU PhysX looks silly

In my country ''cool soldier '' is a compliment .I suggest you kindly STFU if you don't understand.

Or go run to your refugee forum and bash me if you like.

You guys derail all AMD threads with your Nvidia praising.

Wow you just tipped the scales way past 13 year old pre-puberty basement dwelling troll. Telling me to "kindly STFU" is oxy moronic, indicative of your maturity, and makes pretty much anything you say before and after worthless. Carry on there "cool soldier" and see how many more personal insults you can throw around in a minimal number of words and sentences.

 

[ICDP]

You're entitled to your view and don't try to mock anyone that disagrees. Thankfully there is a disabled option -- have no problem with this. Personally desire more innovation, open standards, more content, much more dynamics to improve realism, fidelity and hopefully some day redefine game-play.

You are absolutely correct, people are entitled to their opinions. Though I fail to see how PhysX adds realism as you allude to above? Extra bits of debris that appears from nowhere does not improve realism, it detracts from it. When I shoot a hole in a wall that has that much debris coming from it, shouldn't the wall eventually disintegrate? Instead we get masses upon masses of debris and a few bullet hole textures on the perfectly intact wall and or ground.

That Hawken video demo is a perfect illustration of this. Ironically it's called PhysX, the implication that it emulates real physics, but actually defies physics by creating matter from nowhere.

 

[tviceman]

You are absolutely correct, people are entitled to their opinions. Though I fail to see how PhysX adds realism as you allude to above? Extra bits of debris that appears from nowhere does not improve realism, it detracts from it. When I shoot a hole in a wall that has that much debris coming from it, shouldn't the wall eventually disintegrate? Instead we get masses upon masses of debris and a few bullet hole textures on the perfectly intact wall and or ground.

That Hawken video demo is a perfect illustration of this. Ironically it's called PhysX, the implication that it emulates real physics, but actually defies physics by creating matter from nowhere.

THE POINT - Nvidia gives you the option to turn it on or off, whereas AMD gives you the option to wait 3 more years while they develop a similar tech.

 

[SirPauly]

You are absolutely correct, people are entitled to their opinions. Though I fail to see how PhysX adds realism as you allude to above? Extra bits of debris that appears from nowhere does not improve realism, it detracts from it. When I shoot a hole in a wall that has that much debris coming from it, shouldn't the wall eventually disintegrate? Instead we get masses upon masses of debris and a few bullet hole textures on the perfectly intact wall and or ground.

That Hawken video demo is a perfect illustration of this. Ironically it's called PhysX, the implication that it emulates real physics, but actually defies physics by creating matter from nowhere.

Steps -- there was a time when rocket launchers and massive explosions would only offer markings if one was lucky! There is a ton of work to do to improve Physics, imho!

 

[3DVagabond]

Isn't it great one can turn off features if one doesn't like them? But, what if a gamer likes them or improves their experience?

Can you turn PhysX off in BL2? I thought "low" was as far as it went.

 

[SirPauly]

Low is CPU PhysX

 

[ICDP]

THE POINT - Nvidia gives you the option to turn it on or off, whereas AMD gives you the option to wait 3 more years while they develop a similar tech.

LOL, they don't give you the option to turn it on or off, they simply remove the option for it to be used on the CPU. I have never once seen a PhysX effect that hasn't been possible on CPU. The fact that a Nvidia GPU running PhysX takes a massive (sometimes over 50%) performance hit seems to be lost on most who think it is great.

Locking out effects in cheap nasty ways for the hell of it is not innovation, it is suppression. Take for example adding a simple config file lockout PhysX to Borderlands 2 and implying by pre release videos that PhysX was "teh awsum" and only possible with Nvidia GPUs.

Yes it's nice to have the option to run it, but don't confuse that with meaning CPU PhysX effect are impossible, or even would be less efficient.

 

[ICDP]

Steps -- there was a time when rocket launchers and massive explosions would only offer markings if one was lucky! There is a ton of work to do to improve Physics, imho!

Exactly, and in all the years PhysX has been around it has not progressed on single iota. This is why I get confused when people say it is advancing technology. It isn't, it has held it back for years because it can't be used for anything but simple eyecandy.

I remember working on a Flight Sim and the physics programmers looked into implementing PhysX to take the workload off the CPU. Months of effort and they eventually concluded that PhysX was so low fidelity it couldn't be used to even semi accurately calculate any part of a flight model, damage model or even ballistics. They even tried to make it handle the debris coming from an aeroplane when it was taking hits. PhysX couldn't even be used to accurately calculate the position of that debris in the event of it colliding with another object (ie your plane).

In the end they gave up on PhysX as worthless for anything but some random debris that had no collision model attached.

 

[SirPauly]

LOL, they don't give you the option to turn it on or off, they simply remove the option for it to be used on the CPU. I have never once seen a PhysX effect that hasn't been possible on CPU. The fact that a Nvidia GPU running PhysX takes a massive (sometimes over 50%) performance hit seems to be lost on most who think it is great.

Locking out effects in cheap nasty ways for the hell of it is not innovation, it is suppression. Take for example adding a simple config file lockout PhysX to Borderlands 2 and implying by pre release videos that PhysX was "teh awsum" and only possible with Nvidia GPUs.

Yes it's nice to have the option to run it, but don't confuse that with meaning CPU PhysX effect are impossible, or even would be less efficient.

I don't buy this idea that the CPU can do it all as the industry is moving toward GPU Processing and why wouldn't one desire to take advantage of GPU Processing? Why not use both strengths of the GPU and CPU?

One can run fluid mark that allows multi-core CPU's and GPU's.

 

[ICDP]

I don't buy this idea that the CPU can do it all as the industry is moving toward GPU Processing and why wouldn't one desire to take advantage of GPU Processing? Why not use both strengths of the GPU and CPU?

One can run fluid mark that allows multi-core CPU's and GPU's.

You attribute far too much power to PhysX. Ask yourself the simple question. In all the years since PhysX arrived, why has it not advanced beyond some blowing paper and some random debris that does not interact with the environment?

Read my post regarding how flight sim physics programmers decided it was only good for pure non interactive eye candy and not worth using. Ask yourself why not one single flightsim has implemented PhysX for physics calculations? It simply does not have the fidelity to do anything more than basic eye candy. The fact that even at this low fidelity it kills performance by such a massive amount should be a massive clue as to it's capabilities.

 

[tviceman]

You attribute far too much power to PhysX. Ask yourself the simple question. In all the years since PhysX arrived, why has it not advanced beyond some blowing paper and some random debris that does not interact with the environment?

Because it's proprietary? More appropriately, if it was so easy for the CPU to do it, why hasn't the same exact effects been done on the CPU to the same degree (or more) as physx in an actual game? Even more appropriately, if the CPU was so capable of doing it why has AMD said several times in the past they were investing in opencl and bullet physics to do what physx is doing (cloth simulation, debris, smoke, etc.) with their GPUs? Why not just let their CPU's do it, since they are (were) primarily a CPU company.

 

[SirPauly]

You attribute far too much power to PhysX. Ask yourself the simple question. In all the years since PhysX arrived, why has it not advanced beyond some blowing paper and some random debris that does not interact with the environment?

Read my post regarding how flight sim physics programmers decided it was only good for pure non interactive eye candy and not worth using. Ask yourself why not one single flightsim has implemented PhysX for physics calculations? It simply does not have the fidelity to do anything more than basic eye candy. The fact that even at this low fidelity it kills performance by such a massive amount should be a massive clue as to it's capabilities.

Personally been underwhelmed by the amount of content but do like the raw potential of GPU Processing and GPU Physics.

 

[AnandThenMan]

There are many graphical effects that are done simply to look good, not realistic.

Exactly. Happens in video games, happens in the movie industry. As they say, the best visual effects are the ones you don't even know are there. With PhysX, you know instantly, they call attention to themselves. Which is on purpose I'm sure, more than once I've heard an Nvidia rep gleefully point out exactly which effects were done by PhysX, as if that was some sort of plus.

 

[SirPauly]

Hehe, a huge explosion with subtle flair is the key!

 

[Firestorm007]

You are posting in a public forum and not in a personal message. So take a look back at your posts in this thread. Where you describe fanboys and bias and your views of ignorance.

I'm sure he can handle himself just fine without you jumping on the bandwagon; and how did this thread turn into a pro nvidia Physx love fest? I've seen it in action and I'm not that impressed. Sure, it's cool on my Nvidia 580, but do I miss it with my 7970. Nope. I agree with SirPauly that it's a nice feature to have, and yes it's great to have it on my 580, but I would hardly call it a purchase point. Just my opinion.

 

[Shmee]

Please keep things civil and lose the personal attacks and member callouts. We are here to have a technical discussion, not to bash and insult each other. I have already given out a warning and an infraction, next will be an infraction as well, and this thread may be closed.

Moderator Shmee

 

[Jaydip]

LOL, they don't give you the option to turn it on or off, they simply remove the option for it to be used on the CPU. I have never once seen a PhysX effect that hasn't been possible on CPU. The fact that a Nvidia GPU running PhysX takes a massive (sometimes over 50%) performance hit seems to be lost on most who think it is great.

Locking out effects in cheap nasty ways for the hell of it is not innovation, it is suppression. Take for example adding a simple config file lockout PhysX to Borderlands 2 and implying by pre release videos that PhysX was "teh awsum" and only possible with Nvidia GPUs.

Yes it's nice to have the option to run it, but don't confuse that with meaning CPU PhysX effect are impossible, or even would be less efficient.

You say you understand technology but unfortunately your post is so devoid of it.Being a CUDA programmer for a long time now there are things CPU just can't plain do efficiently compared to GPU.There is a reason HPC is moving towards GPU compute, its called parallelism.It is not NV's fault that AMD lacks something competitive, they have long relied on others to do the bidding for them.Time has changed, they should try to be a leader for change.

 

[thilanliyan]

I remember working on a Flight Sim and the physics programmers looked into implementing PhysX to take the workload off the CPU. Months of effort and they eventually concluded that PhysX was so low fidelity it couldn't be used to even semi accurately calculate any part of a flight model, damage model or even ballistics. They even tried to make it handle the debris coming from an aeroplane when it was taking hits. PhysX couldn't even be used to accurately calculate the position of that debris in the event of it colliding with another object (ie your plane).

In the end they gave up on PhysX as worthless for anything but some random debris that had no collision model attached.

To someone with more knowledge than me...is this true?

I thought for example random collisions and such were possible with physx? That is pretty basic and I can't imagine physx not being capable of that.