• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD's take on GPU physics

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lavaheadache

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2005
6,893
14
81
well, we'll see what happens. I think it is BS that AMD doesn't just give in and get a license for PhysX. Beat 'em in thier own game, or try.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
I really wish there was one OPEN standard that would be adopted by both vendors for physics.
I say Microsoft should integrate physics processing into a future DirectX. This way hardware vendors can write DX drivers for their hardware, and software devs can write their software to support that DX feature. Both ATI and NVIDIA can write DX physics drivers for their cards, and even Intel can do that for their CPUs (and later Larrabee?).
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
165
106
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: thilan29
I really wish there was one OPEN standard that would be adopted by both vendors for physics.
I say Microsoft should integrate physics processing into a future DirectX. This way hardware vendors can write DX drivers for their hardware, and software devs can write their software to support that DX feature. Both ATI and NVIDIA can write DX physics drivers for their cards, and even Intel can do that for their CPUs (and later Larrabee?).
You guys are looking at physics processing the wrong way. Physics isn't a hardware feature that requires an API, it's middleware (i.e. the way Havok is doing things). DirectX doesn't need a physics standard, it needs a GPGPU standard. Then it's just a matter of writing/buying a physics middleware package and integrating it in to your game, knowing that it'll run on all DirectX compliant GPUs.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
A nice feature for nVidia's PhysX would be to specify how many shaders you want to allocate to PhysX. From what I understand, you can't do this. You can only turn it on or off, or move it to another card entirely. Same feature would be nice if it becomes are DirectX standard.
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
and even better would be if it would also use the CPU; a dual core processor is used about 60-80% while gaming so why not use that leftover? especially when we'll move to 4 or 8 core processors
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
And this is exactly what's wrong with AMD and their supporter's view of GPU physics. What they're hoping for and what they're saying are completely different. The reasons they're giving for why they think PhysX will fail are completely disingenuous and the bolded portion are part of the reason why.

So now ask yourself, if they are going to be getting gpu physics no matter what, why retard the development of gpu physics in games for another 8-9 months when they could accelerate development by supporting PhysX now? At the soonest it will be DX11, but even then the SDK AMD is backing, Havok, may not have any hardware acceleration until Intel has Larrabee. On the other hand, Nvidia already has a proven commodity with PhysX that is both DX11 and OpenCL compatible and already being implemented in games.

 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: thilan29
I really wish there was one OPEN standard that would be adopted by both vendors for physics.
I say Microsoft should integrate physics processing into a future DirectX. This way hardware vendors can write DX drivers for their hardware, and software devs can write their software to support that DX feature. Both ATI and NVIDIA can write DX physics drivers for their cards, and even Intel can do that for their CPUs (and later Larrabee?).
You guys are looking at physics processing the wrong way. Physics isn't a hardware feature that requires an API, it's middleware (i.e. the way Havok is doing things). DirectX doesn't need a physics standard, it needs a GPGPU standard. Then it's just a matter of writing/buying a physics middleware package and integrating it in to your game, knowing that it'll run on all DirectX compliant GPUs.
Yep and both hardware vendors have stated numerous times that their GPGPU languages are moving towards DX11 and OpenCL compatibility, which means common middleware like PhysX and Havok should be able to run on either vendor's hardware as long as they're DX11 compatible. There may be some extensions that are proprietary but its obvious DX11 will make GPU physics ubiquitous, at which point you can expect AMD to do an about-face on their physics/PhysX stance.

Nvidias >> CUDA/PhysX >> OpenCL/DirectX11 << Brook+/Stream/Havok << AMD GPUs

That just gives you a relative flow chart about how everything should line up in terms of compatibility. The issue now is that AMD simply refuses to make the direct leap by porting Brook+ directly to CUDA so they can get PhysX now.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
And this is exactly what's wrong with AMD and their supporter's view of GPU physics. What they're hoping for and what they're saying are completely different. The reasons they're giving for why they think PhysX will fail are completely disingenuous and the bolded portion are part of the reason why.

So now ask yourself, if they are going to be getting gpu physics no matter what, why retard the development of gpu physics in games for another 8-9 months when they could accelerate development by supporting PhysX now? At the soonest it will be DX11, but even then the SDK AMD is backing, Havok, may not have any hardware acceleration until Intel has Larrabee. On the other hand, Nvidia already has a proven commodity with PhysX that is both DX11 and OpenCL compatible and already being implemented in games.
All I care about are great games, not some stupid gimmick. If for some reason things don't go the right way for ATi then they'll buy a license for Nvidia's PhysX.

In the meantime though their letting Nvidia foot the bill for PhysX. They want to see how much money Nvidia is willing to spend to keep GPU PhysX going.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
All I care about are great games, not some stupid gimmick. If for some reason things don't go the right way for ATi then they'll buy a license for Nvidia's PhysX.

In the meantime though their letting Nvidia foot the bill for PhysX. They want to see how much money Nvidia is willing to spend to keep GPU PhysX going.
If that were the case you'd be voicing displeasure about AMD's decision not to enable PhysX on your GPU, not following AMD's lead by trying to discredit PhysX or its significance.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: chizow
And this is exactly what's wrong with AMD and their supporter's view of GPU physics. What they're hoping for and what they're saying are completely different. The reasons they're giving for why they think PhysX will fail are completely disingenuous and the bolded portion are part of the reason why.

So now ask yourself, if they are going to be getting gpu physics no matter what, why retard the development of gpu physics in games for another 8-9 months when they could accelerate development by supporting PhysX now? At the soonest it will be DX11, but even then the SDK AMD is backing, Havok, may not have any hardware acceleration until Intel has Larrabee. On the other hand, Nvidia already has a proven commodity with PhysX that is both DX11 and OpenCL compatible and already being implemented in games.
All I care about are great games, not some stupid gimmick. If for some reason things don't go the right way for ATi then they'll buy a license for Nvidia's stupid PhysX.

In the meantime though their letting Nvidia foot the bill for PhysX. They want to see how much money Nvidia is willing to spend to keep GPU PhysX going.
What the........ If it's so "stupid" (can't fathom why you would use the word, stupid here)
Why would ATI ever license it?

Why should you care who foots the bill? This makes the least sense of all.
Care to list all the things that some considered a gimmick in the past, that are now mainstream?

SLI/Crossfire is a big one that comes to mind.

 

lavaheadache

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2005
6,893
14
81
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: chizow
And this is exactly what's wrong with AMD and their supporter's view of GPU physics. What they're hoping for and what they're saying are completely different. The reasons they're giving for why they think PhysX will fail are completely disingenuous and the bolded portion are part of the reason why.

So now ask yourself, if they are going to be getting gpu physics no matter what, why retard the development of gpu physics in games for another 8-9 months when they could accelerate development by supporting PhysX now? At the soonest it will be DX11, but even then the SDK AMD is backing, Havok, may not have any hardware acceleration until Intel has Larrabee. On the other hand, Nvidia already has a proven commodity with PhysX that is both DX11 and OpenCL compatible and already being implemented in games.
All I care about are great games, not some stupid gimmick. If for some reason things don't go the right way for ATi then they'll buy a license for Nvidia's stupid PhysX.

In the meantime though their letting Nvidia foot the bill for PhysX. They want to see how much money Nvidia is willing to spend to keep GPU PhysX going.
What the........ If it's so "stupid" (can't fathom why you would use the word, stupid here)
Why would ATI ever license it?

Why should you care who foots the bill? This makes the least sense of all.
Care to list all the things that some considered a gimmick in the past, that are now mainstream?

SLI/Crossfire is a big one that comes to mind.
I never have thought of Crossfire or SLI as a gimmick. There are plenty of instances where a single card isn't enough. Multi GPU maybe a gimmick to some people but for others it isn't.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
What the........ If it's so "stupid" (can't fathom why you would use the word, stupid here)
Why would ATI ever license it?

Why should you care who foots the bill? This makes the least sense of all.
Care to list all the things that some considered a gimmick in the past, that are now mainstream?

SLI/Crossfire is a big one that comes to mind.
2009 is on the way, what triple A games would I want GPU PhysX for. Sure it adds some extra eye candy, but can it make a B-C rated game into A game?
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,620
35
91
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Now, Resident Evil 1 was a darned great game. It had flaws but it was what one would call genre changing or creating a new genre. Super Mario 64 was a genre buster or changer as was Metal Gear Solid which surprisingly has a lot of gameplay concepts from the original Metal Gear on the NES (Yes, I'm old enough to have played it). RE5...Bioshock 2...sorry, don't see it. Nintendo created the "AAA Title" moniker so that they can try to say they had top quality software. It is overused IMHO.

If it isn't so good that it can be used as an ideal example of the genre or it changes the playing field of that genre or even create a new (and good) genre then don't give it these titles before it even comes out. I loved Bioshock and I'm a fan of the RE series but to be honest, aside from the first RE, these games are more derivative than anything. They're good but I wouldn't call them AAA titles.


Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
And this is exactly what's wrong with AMD and their supporter's view of GPU physics. What they're hoping for and what they're saying are completely different. The reasons they're giving for why they think PhysX will fail are completely disingenuous and the bolded portion are part of the reason why.

So now ask yourself, if they are going to be getting gpu physics no matter what, why retard the development of gpu physics in games for another 8-9 months when they could accelerate development by supporting PhysX now? At the soonest it will be DX11, but even then the SDK AMD is backing, Havok, may not have any hardware acceleration until Intel has Larrabee. On the other hand, Nvidia already has a proven commodity with PhysX that is both DX11 and OpenCL compatible and already being implemented in games.
I agree with what you say chizow. My beef with the blind nVidia supporters (you know who you are) is that they won't acknowledge that while PhysX holds a lot of promise, it is by no means set in stone that it will be the best. Perhaps MS or ATI comes out with a better solution a year down the line that will blow PhysX out of the water. I doubt ATI's solution will win out though, just like I don't think PhysX will be the answer.

I think developers are only playing with PhysX at this point to get a feel for better physics acceleration. I think that when an API that will provide acceleration on all GPU's come out, then we will have mass support for physics acceleration.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Now, Resident Evil 1 was a darned great game. It had flaws but it was what one would call genre changing or creating a new genre. Super Mario 64 was a genre buster or changer as was Metal Gear Solid which surprisingly has a lot of gameplay concepts from the original Metal Gear on the NES (Yes, I'm old enough to have played it). RE5...Bioshock 2...sorry, don't see it. Nintendo created the "AAA Title" moniker so that they can try to say they had top quality software. It is overused IMHO.

If it isn't so good that it can be used as an ideal example of the genre or it changes the playing field of that genre or even create a new (and good) genre then don't give it these titles before it even comes out. I loved Bioshock and I'm a fan of the RE series but to be honest, aside from the first RE, these games are more derivative than anything. They're good but I wouldn't call them AAA titles.
You might not like my choices, but they will be triple A titles in 09.

RE4 was rated 96
http://www.metacritic.com/game...rms/cube/residentevil4

Bioshock also rated 96
http://www.metacritic.com/game...pc/bioshock?q=bioshock
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.

Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.

Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Now, Resident Evil 1 was a darned great game. It had flaws but it was what one would call genre changing or creating a new genre. Super Mario 64 was a genre buster or changer as was Metal Gear Solid which surprisingly has a lot of gameplay concepts from the original Metal Gear on the NES (Yes, I'm old enough to have played it). RE5...Bioshock 2...sorry, don't see it. Nintendo created the "AAA Title" moniker so that they can try to say they had top quality software. It is overused IMHO.

If it isn't so good that it can be used as an ideal example of the genre or it changes the playing field of that genre or even create a new (and good) genre then don't give it these titles before it even comes out. I loved Bioshock and I'm a fan of the RE series but to be honest, aside from the first RE, these games are more derivative than anything. They're good but I wouldn't call them AAA titles.
You might not like my choices, but they will be triple A titles in 09.

RE4 was rated 96
http://www.metacritic.com/game...rms/cube/residentevil4

Bioshock also rated 96
http://www.metacritic.com/game...pc/bioshock?q=bioshock
Past games are NOT indicative of future sequels. Look at games like Devil May Cry. Sequels were junk compared to the first game. Both of these games will be best played on a Console anyhow I guarantee you that. The PC will get a port, yes a port. Mark my words.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
Originally posted by: chizow

As for DX10.1 lol.....the biggest knock on PhysX is that it only offers additional eye-candy. DX10.1 doesnt' even offer that! Not to mention the only worthwhile feature of DX10.1 has already been shown to work with Nvidia parts. Perhaps the saddest part of ATI's DX10.1 saga is that Nvidia parts currently run DX10.1 better than ATI does. ;)
Wrong, DX10.1 gives the developer more flexibility to accomplish a desired effect, also it improves the performance of Anti Aliasing and Deferred Rendering, Geometry Instancing, Global Illumination, and some other stuff, is a 30% performance increase when used, PhysX will simply drop the FPS for some more particles on screen, of course that nVidia can support the performance enhancements of Anti Aliasing, but only through the NVAPI, more work for developers yay! nVidia parts currently can't run DX10.1, so I don't know where are you pulling that off from. But unfortunately DX11 is on the corner that means that both, DX10.1 and PhysX are near of their death, at least the former doesn't need special coding and benefits can be seen in DX11, but I don't see the PhysX how it will manage to survive with it's own propietary programming model against the DX11 standard which is the one who rules the market.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

One could just as easily say without physics support ATI is going to slowly die.

They clearly missed the boat and fell off the dock here.

There are more PhysX titles than DirectX 10 titles.
This is the list of DX10.1 games
Assassin Creed (Unpatched)
Far Cry 2
STALKER Clear Sky

and other 3 games that comes from Sega and other brands

What a huge list of DX10.1, but let me see how much Hardware Accelerated PhysX games exists;

..

None, please prove me wrong. Please, tell us the list of Hardware Accelerated PhysX games, not the one which uses software PhysX like UT3

 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: evolucion8
Originally posted by: chizow

As for DX10.1 lol.....the biggest knock on PhysX is that it only offers additional eye-candy. DX10.1 doesnt' even offer that! Not to mention the only worthwhile feature of DX10.1 has already been shown to work with Nvidia parts. Perhaps the saddest part of ATI's DX10.1 saga is that Nvidia parts currently run DX10.1 better than ATI does. ;)
Wrong, DX10.1 gives the developer more flexibility to accomplish a desired effect, also it improves the performance of Anti Aliasing and Deferred Rendering, Geometry Instancing, Global Illumination, and some other stuff, is a 30% performance increase when used, PhysX will simply drop the FPS for some more particles on screen, of course that nVidia can support the performance enhancements of Anti Aliasing, but only through the NVAPI, more work for developers yay! nVidia parts currently can't run DX10.1, so I don't know where are you pulling that off from. But unfortunately DX11 is on the corner that means that both, DX10.1 and PhysX are near of their death, at least the former doesn't need special coding and benefits can be seen in DX11, but I don't see the PhysX how it will manage to survive with it's own propietary programming model against the DX11 standard which is the one who rules the market.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

One could just as easily say without physics support ATI is going to slowly die.

They clearly missed the boat and fell off the dock here.

There are more PhysX titles than DirectX 10 titles.
This is the list of DX10.1 games
Assassin Creed (Unpatched)
Far Cry 2
STALKER Clear Sky

and other 3 games that comes from Sega and other brands

What a huge list of DX10.1, but let me see how much Hardware Accelerated PhysX games exists;

..

None, please prove me wrong. Please, tell us the list of Hardware Accelerated PhysX games, not the one which uses software PhysX like UT3
How exactly does UT3 use software PhysX? Wouldn't that mean that the PhysX processing is run by the CPU? Last I checked, the PhysX levels in UT3 are processed by the GeForce GPU. But I guess your right in a certain sense. It's all software when you get right down to it.

As for PhysX titles. I understand you may not consider anything in existence if it is not installed in your computer, or at least currently available for purchase on store shelves, so I won't give you the list of PhysX games coming soon. Unless you want me to. No sense in listing things you would discard anyway.

As for the 3 DX10.1 titles you have listed. I don't know who mentioned DX10.1 first in this thread, but this is a PhysX thread so I won't go there for the sake of keeping things on topic. DX10.1 and PhysX have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: evolucion8
Wrong, DX10.1 gives the developer more flexibility to accomplish a desired effect, also it improves the performance of Anti Aliasing and Deferred Rendering, Geometry Instancing, Global Illumination, and some other stuff, is a 30% performance increase when used,
Actually it doesn't seem to do any of that, it just seems to provide rendering errors, sunken tires and rocks and stuttering on ATI parts. But back to my original point, it doesn't even provide any enhanced visuals over DX10, which is why its laughable that anyone would argue DX10.1 is more important than PhysX even from an eye-candy standpoint.

PhysX will simply drop the FPS for some more particles on screen, of course that nVidia can support the performance enhancements of Anti Aliasing, but only through the NVAPI, more work for developers yay! nVidia parts currently can't run DX10.1, so I don't know where are you pulling that off from.
Far Cry 2 supports DX10.1 features on NV parts @ Bit-Tech
"The Ubisoft team wanted to enhance the anti-aliasing through the reading of the multisampled depth Z-buffers, explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

But unfortunately DX11 is on the corner that means that both, DX10.1 and PhysX are near of their death, at least the former doesn't need special coding and benefits can be seen in DX11, but I don't see the PhysX how it will manage to survive with it's own propietary programming model against the DX11 standard which is the one who rules the market.
You need to start paying attention, as that's clearly disinformation. CUDA will fully support OpenCL and DirectX11, which means PhysX will be fully supported and portable as well. Saying PhysX relies on its own proprietary programming model means you believe the same for Brook+ and/or Stream, which I'm sure you support fully. :)
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,283
1,135
126
Originally posted by: chizow
Actually it doesn't seem to do any of that, it just seems to provide rendering errors, sunken tires and rocks and stuttering on ATI parts.
How do you know DX10.1 was responsible for those errors?
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: chizow
Actually it doesn't seem to do any of that, it just seems to provide rendering errors, sunken tires and rocks and stuttering on ATI parts.
How do you know DX10.1 was responsible for those errors?
It certainly was for Assassin's Creed. Remember they patched out DX10.1 due to rendering errors according to Ubi, at which point the errors went away. You can still play DX10.1 Assassin's Creed.

In Far Cry 2 the rendering errors were fixed I believe in one of the 30 hot fixes/patches since 8.10, but I'm not entirely sure about that. From all reports however the stuttering is still rampant, which only occurs in DX10 mode. So as of now, I'd say its safe to say Nvidia runs DX10.1 better than ATI does. :laugh:
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: chizow
Actually it doesn't seem to do any of that, it just seems to provide rendering errors, sunken tires and rocks and stuttering on ATI parts.
GPU PHYSX thread people!!!!
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
hey Keysplayr2003,

I wanna say that since I've been actively posting on AT (lurker before), you have impressed me with your ability to
1) stay on topic
2) not quickly retort back at a caustic post
3) support what you say with data however the data may be
4) present your answers in logical steps
5) don't get into a pissing match

anyway, back to topic...

Of course AMD will dumb down GPU physicx because NV is currently owning this space. I don't even know why people would over analyze a company (ATI) dumbing down a competor's (NV) product or feature.

And Physx is not to be compared with DX 10, 10.1, 11, etc.. Physx is an add-on, with out which games will still play on Windows. DirectX, on the other hand, is a complete API, without which, most games will not play on Windows (gone are the days of OpenGL games on Windows). Since it's an add-on feature, buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't care. It's that simple!

I remember the early days of Creative's EAX. EAX started out as an "add-on". You could still play games with sound without EAX, but with EAX, you get all the "ear candies" (bullets bouncing off the wall). And in the beginning, there were plenty of doubters, haters, of Creative... saying no developer is going to support EAX (because Creative is evil), but as we can see today, many serious games will support it. How long will EAX last? nobody knows, probably not forever,.. but Physx could become for NV like EAX for Creative. I mean today, no serious gamers will be caught playing with onboard Realtek or Sigmatel.
 

BlueAcolyte

Platinum Member
Nov 19, 2007
2,793
2
0
Originally posted by: shangshang
hey Keysplayr2003,

I wanna say that since I've been actively posting on AT (lurker before), you have impressed me with your ability to
1) stay on topic
2) not quickly retort back at a caustic post
3) support what you say with data however the data may be
4) present your answers in logical steps
5) don't get into a pissing match

anyway, back to topic...

Of course AMD will dumb down GPU physicx because NV is currently owning this space. I don't even know why people would over analyze a company (ATI) dumbing down a competor's (NV) product or feature.

And Physx is not to be compared with DX 10, 10.1, 11, etc.. Physx is an add-on, with out which games will still play on Windows. DirectX, on the other hand, is a complete API, without which, most games will not play on Windows (gone are the days of OpenGL games on Windows). Since it's an add-on feature, buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't care. It's that simple!

I remember the early days of Creative's EAX. EAX started out as an "add-on". You could still play games with sound without EAX, but with EAX, you get all the "ear candies" (bullets bouncing off the wall). And in the beginning, there were plenty of doubters, haters, of Creative... saying no developer is going to support EAX (because Creative is evil), but as we can see today, many serious games will support it. How long will EAX last? nobody knows, probably not forever,.. but Physx could become for NV like EAX for Creative. I mean today, no serious gamers will be caught playing with onboard Realtek or Sigmatel.
Ahem!

Anyway, so far I have not seen good use of physx. It has potential, yes. But I am waiting for something big to happen. When Physx or whatever makes a big impact I will factor it into my next purchase. I am pretty neutral between ATI and NV and as long as either one comes out with a good product or feature that is the one I will support.

Anyway, DX11, physx, stream, dx10.1... Many people have not even heard of this stuff. :Q
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Originally posted by: shangshang
hey Keysplayr2003,

I wanna say that since I've been actively posting on AT (lurker before), you have impressed me with your ability to
1) stay on topic
2) not quickly retort back at a caustic post
3) support what you say with data however the data may be
4) present your answers in logical steps
5) don't get into a pissing match

anyway, back to topic...

Of course AMD will dumb down GPU physicx because NV is currently owning this space. I don't even know why people would over analyze a company (ATI) dumbing down a competor's (NV) product or feature.

And Physx is not to be compared with DX 10, 10.1, 11, etc.. Physx is an add-on, with out which games will still play on Windows. DirectX, on the other hand, is a complete API, without which, most games will not play on Windows (gone are the days of OpenGL games on Windows). Since it's an add-on feature, buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't care. It's that simple!

I remember the early days of Creative's EAX. EAX started out as an "add-on". You could still play games with sound without EAX, but with EAX, you get all the "ear candies" (bullets bouncing off the wall). And in the beginning, there were plenty of doubters, haters, of Creative... saying no developer is going to support EAX (because Creative is evil), but as we can see today, many serious games will support it. How long will EAX last? nobody knows, probably not forever,.. but Physx could become for NV like EAX for Creative. I mean today, no serious gamers will be caught playing with onboard Realtek or Sigmatel.
Ahem!

Anyway, so far I have not seen good use of physx. It has potential, yes. But I am waiting for something big to happen. When Physx or whatever makes a big impact I will factor it into my next purchase. I am pretty neutral between ATI and NV and as long as either one comes out with a good product or feature that is the one I will support.

Anyway, DX11, physx, stream, dx10.1... Many people have not even heard of this stuff. :Q
oh my bad brother! I was speakin figuratively! BTW, why are you still pending on oc/ing the E4500 like your sig says? I crank the one i had to 3.2Ghz on stock air cooler and stock voltage.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY