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.
Originally posted by: thilan29
I really wish there was one OPEN standard that would be adopted by both vendors for physics.
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.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?).
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.
Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
Originally posted by: ViRGE
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.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?).
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.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.
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.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.
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 stupid PhysX.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.
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.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
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 stupid PhysX.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.
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.
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?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.
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
Here's at least 2 I'm looking forward to having.
Bioshock 2 and Resident Evil 5.
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
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.
You might not like my choices, but they will be triple A titles in 09.Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
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: SSChevy2001
You might not like my choices, but they will be triple A titles in 09.Originally posted by: akugami
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Yes they will, and there are games that get that approval before there even out the door.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.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,
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.
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.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: 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.
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.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?
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!!!!
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.
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