any consideration to PhysiX factor?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,816
126
Rofl what? It is an industry standard. All the logos and representation on the Khronos Group make it so, not your arbitrary criteria.
Except PhysX isn?t part of the Khronos group and if you think it is then you need to provide evidence of this. OpenCL != PhysX.

If only one vendor implements something ? as is currently the case with PhysX - then it?s not an industry standard.

They all know the spec, they know the requirements, its the individual IHVs responsibility to implement it based on the standard, not Nvidia's.
Who gives a shit if they know it? Until they implement it then it?s not a standard. Until you can get developers writing OpenCL code and getting hardware acceleration on all major IHvs then it?s not a standard.

OpenCL is the standard, not PhysX. That PhysX can be done through OpenCL is no different to claiming Glide is a standard given there are wrappers for it that run on Direct3D or OpenGL.

I'm not basing it on adoption, I'm basing it on capability, which you finally seem to be coming to grips with.
Bullshit you are. How exactly does the list at nzone tell us what the APIs are physically capable of? You were playing the title game and you know it.

If you're going to claim Havok is somehow superior because of its flexibility you need to acknowledge PhysX can do everything Havok can, and *MORE*.
Please provide evidence of your claims. Specifically, cite specific code or API examples that demonstrate a given physics effect is possible in PhysX but not with Havok. Otherwise retract your claims.

Those PhysX lists prove just that, PhysX in games on multiple platforms with various hardware implementations.
But again those lists are longer with Havok.

You've claimed Havok is the better option, when it clearly is not as PhysX can do everything Havok can, and much much more.
Where? Show me. I did not such thing. I simply stated Havok was more widespread (in terms of title use) and that it runs on any x86 processor, unlike hardware PhysX which only runs on nVidia boards.

Now before you point out PhysX can run in software, hardware PhysX (and ergo nVidia?s advantage) is what is being pimped in this thread, not software PhysX, so you can forget about using that strawman even before you type it.

You claimed legacy PhysX titles did not benefit from GPU acceleration like games did with 32-bit color and/or HW T&L, when that was clearly not true. A handful of legacy titles benefitted from GPU acceleration, just as a handful benefitted in examples you brought up.
Uh, no. The games that benefit from nVidia hardware acceleration already have PhysX code in them and were targeting a PPU to begin with. The claim I had made was that games that had no idea about said features could have them forced.

A non-PhysX game can?t have PhysX forced into it; the same does not apply to 32 bit color or T&L.

What's there to discuss about DX10.1? Nothing. lol.
That you don?t know doesn?t mean there isn?t anything to discuss.

OK, so again, is Carmack writing OpenGL drivers for all the different IHVs.
Why should he given the IHVs have written their own ICDs? This is unlike PhysX which currently only has one vendor.

No, he's not. It doesn't matter if only one vendor implements PhysX, just as it didn't matter that only one vendor implemented OpenGL via wrapper for GLQuake.
It didn?t matter because (1) OpenGL already existed as an open platform on Windows (i.e. more than one vendor supported it) and (2), there were already non-3dfx parts that had OpenGL ICDs and could run GLQuake.

Neither applies to PhysX so your reasoning is comically woeful, as usual.

Guess they better get working on some drivers/wrappers then. Or they can keep blowing sunshine.
Or they can not work on them so PhysX stays a proprietary standard like it is now, which is the point being made in this thread.

Who knows, but they sure as hell aren't going to be able to hide behind the "proprietary standards" excuse much longer. In the end adoption won't be up to ATI or Intel, it'll be up to developers and making PhysX compatible with the industry standard OpenCL is a great step in that direction.
Total and utter speculation on your part. Again show us PhysX getting hardware acceleration with multiple IHVs with developers simply writing OpenCL code and I?ll be more than happy to call it a standard. Until you do you?re simply blowing hot air out of your ass.

Again, that's certainly the decision of the individual IHVs, they're just going to have to start coming up with better excuses for not implementing PhysX than "its proprietary", or better yet, maybe they'll come up with a hardware solution of their own.
Blah blah blah blah blah. You continue to type empty words and play rhetorical games while avoiding the real issue. Again, show us this implementation that provides PhysX acceleration on non-nVidia parts, or refrain from calling PhysX an open standard in the future.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,816
126
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Guys, we really do know what each of you has said. Your arguments are full throttle to destination nowhere.
Say when for all our sakes! :D
Whoops, I didn't see that until after I posted my second response.

At Key's request (and in the interest of not derailing the thread any further), I'm ceasing this discussion.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Guys, we really do know what each of you has said. Your arguments are full throttle to destination nowhere.
Say when for all our sakes! :D
Whoops, I didn't see that until after I posted my second response.

At Key's request (and in the interest of not derailing the thread any further), I'm ceasing this discussion.

You are a gentlemen and a scholar BFG!! Thank you muchly!
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Guys, we really do know what each of you has said. Your arguments are full throttle to destination nowhere.
Say when for all our sakes! :D
Whoops, I didn't see that until after I posted my second response.

At Key's request (and in the interest of not derailing the thread any further), I'm ceasing this discussion.

You are a gentlemen and a scholar BFG!! Thank you muchly!

Aww, I was looking forward to my scrollbar being really tiny ;)
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
But I linked to other peoples? experiences as well but you claimed they didn?t count. Here are some choice quotes from you about it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Originally posted by: chizow

Again, a statement you can't back up with hard data or even comprehensive personal experience.

Well lets see: you have no personal experience with NV cards in Vista and you have no personal experience with ATI cards in Vista. So that leaves you with second-hand experience and conjecture as the only basis for your generalizations

Online feedback = not your experiences.

My point stands. No relevant experience, just conjecture and second-hand feedback.
So again I?ll ask why can you quote online feedback, but dismiss it when I use it?
Perfect example, nothing quoted contradicts what I've said here, the difference is you attempted to use external feedback as part of your personal experience when again, you had not used an ATI part in over 3 years. You keep trying to sweep this under the rug, do you want me to dig up the exact quotes where you tried to use your frame of reference as relevant experience when in reality, you had no frame of reference? If you had just referenced outside opinion that would have been fine, I took exception when you tried to claim it was part of your experience with the drivers, when it clearly was not.

Funny, you couldn?t seem to distinguish in that other thread when I was telling you online evidence was backing my claims, as well as personal experiences. You just kept repeating I couldn?t use online feedback because I didn?t have relevant experience, as indicated in the above quotes from you.

Yet you appear to have no qualms to make sweeping generalizations about the state of monthly drivers from ATi despite having not touched an ATi part for seven years. Your rampant double-standards are hardly surprising.
Yawn, again, I make no distinction because you clearly attempt to prove your claims of "experience" with external links in the absence of actual experience, which is why I took exception in the first place.

And no I have no problems about making sweeping generalizations about the state of monthly drivers from ATI because I'm not claiming they're based on my experiences, however, they still prove you clearly have no clue what you're talking about with regards to ATI's drivers "in your experience".

So if you?re saying you?re not making any claim about who is better, when you say the following:

When a company has to release 3 hot fixes/betas to specifically fix a problem and goes through 3 driver revisions without actually fixing anything, its clearly obvious monthly drivers are just marketing fluff. You're not getting quality, you're getting whatever slop they manage to throw together to meet a monthly deadline.
Are you stating nVidia and ATi are equal?
I'm not making any claims based on my experience, just a plea to common sense. In the above scenario, its obvious to me the monthly driver model is broken and accomplishes nothing it is praised for when the above continues release after release.

And again, you?re making sweeping generalizations about monthly driver support despite having no relevant experience in the last 7 years with them. To quote you above: my point stands. No relevant experience, just conjecture and second-hand feedback.

Every comment you now make is an absolute farce given it?s possible to contradict it with some other random comment you made in the other thread.
Once again, please find where I contradict myself and make an idiotic claim based on experiences I never claimed to have, like you did multiple times.

But then this was argued by Derek when he said outright that your claims were inaccurate. He also stated the GF7 parts actually had more issues than the GF8 parts, thereby nullifying your claims that it was a new architecture and DX10 that somehow excused nVidia from the issue.

Since Derek (and other reviewers) actually used both parts but you hadn?t their comments hold more weight than yours since according to your words, your perspective on the issue is limited by your experience, which is zero.

Again Derek?s comments backed my claims that ATi?s drivers were superior to nVidia?s in the earlier Vista days. Are you going to retract your claims to the contrary in the other thread now, or are you going to keep playing your little games?
Derek claimed the Steam survey wasn't an accurate gauge of market share in early 2007 even though the survey was cumulative to-date. While it did not list an exact number of parts at the time, it would've picked up all parts in that period, unless replaced. That means the actual number of G80/DX10 parts in Vista might've actually been higher, but as it was, it showed an overwhelming 87% of Nvidia to ATI parts in Vista. Now, just using common sense, was there any product in early 2007 that would've come close to rivaling the G80 8800 from Nvidia? Of course not, ATI didn't even have a DX10 part until late May.

So again, even if Nvidia had more problems in Vista in early 2007, the obvious reason would be because there was more chance for problems due to market share, not simply because their drivers were worst. This would be similar to you making an idiotic claim about experiencing more problems with Nvidia drivers when your frame of reference is at least 3:1 in favor of Nvidia and much more than that in time spent. Its obvious you'd run into more problems with Nvidia parts given time and experience preclude a relevant comparison.....

But the sky problem was an nVidia only problem. Are you going to admit that now?
The Red Faction problem was an nVidia only problem. Are you going to admit that now?

The other part was that dithering was an nVidia driver issue regardless of whether ATi had it and, I still have yet to get an admission from you.

Answer the question: do you acknowledge existence of the two nVidia driver issues, as noted by the coder of the fix?
Once again, I never cared about the details of your problems, it was just funny to see a problem you whined about for pages as an Nvidia-only problem turned out to be false, which again proved my point that your claims based on experience were pure bullshit.

Yes, absolutely, but then I?ve actually experienced recent benefits of monthly WHQL drivers (namely fast official application fixes), unlike you.
If they were better from the outset, namely the 4 previous years of perfect drivers which you had no experience with, why would any fast official application fixes be needed? And have you experienced a fast official fix yet for Far Cry 2 studdering? Seems that one has still eluded everyone after a few "fast official application fixes".

I?m not going to re-read anything. You made the claim so now provide the evidence. Please provide direct link & quotes or retract your claims. Thanks.

You felt his input was relevant yet you never retracted your arguments when I was arguing exactly what Derek and other reviewers confirmed later ? that nVidia indeed had worse drivers than ATi on Vista. Are you going to admit I turned out to be right or are you still going to play rhetorical games?

I don?t give a shit if you think you?re using personal experiences or not. Stop playing games and answer the question: did Derek (and other reviewers) end up backing my claims?
I acknowledged Nvidia's problems were more widespread simply because more people were using their parts. I backed my claims up with market data and simple common sense. Your claims about people being "cured" by switching to ATI shows just how little you understood about the problems, as that 22 page ATIMDKAG.dll link showed.

But yes, if Nvidia had worst drivers then based on Derek and Anand's opinion, ATI clearly has much worst drivers now. I don't recall Derek ever going as far to say he "wanted to kill himself" over Nvidia's drivers, like he did with ATI. :)

He also pointed out that if third party issues were breaking nVidia?s drivers more then it means their drivers aren?t as robust. Do you admit he?s right?
Actually I was referring to nearly a dozen MS hot fixes that greatly reduced TDR errors in Vista.

Don?t change the issue; will you admit you were wrong given Derek (and other reviewers) ended up backing my claims that ATi had better drivers than nVidia during the early Vista days?
Again, there's nothing to retract. Just as I said then, if it appeared Nvidia had worst driver problems it was because there was more opportunity to expose problems, ie. more people were using the hardware. This is common sense. It would be ignorant to assume ATI didn't have their own problems, but of course they'd be less widespread as there was very little reason to use an ATI part at the time, particularly under Vista. Now that people do finally have a reason to use ATI parts, do you think its a coincidence we've seen a spike in driver problems and TDR errors? And that's with the hot fixes, imagine what the landscape would've looked like in Jan-Jun 07 with the same number of users heh.

But I had the opinion that nVidia?s drivers weren?t as robust as ATi?s on Vista and that's based on other's people's experiences, observation and just common sense, and Derek (and other reviewers) ended up agreeing with me. Are you going to retract your erroneous claims now?
Again, there's nothing for me to retract. As I said then, if Nvidia drivers appeared to have more problems it was simply a function of having more parts in play. Derek's input certainly indicates Nvidia had more issues but again, nothing on the scale we're seeing with ATI's drivers now.

Nope ? the same standards, namely expecting games to work.
Funny, I don't see the same foot stomping and pages worth of bug reports when they don't work with bumps every few days pleading for others to find the same problems. Or is that something you reserve for Nvidia parts only?

I expect exactly the same of my ATi card. Again go to Rage3D and check out any of my bug reports. Since ATi have an online bug report form there?s no need for me to get as vocal since they not only read my reports but I get fixes very quickly (in many cases in the next official driver).
ROFL. Nvidia has an online support function as well, they just ignore you. So maybe you need to submit a bug report for Far Cry 2 studdering and CF support in Vista, since it seems they listen to you, but not everyone else who has submitted an online bug report.

AF, AA, and application profiles. Of course these concepts would be alien to someone that has no clue as to what the real differences of the vendors are. Such a person would also repeatedly have to ask as to why I would pick an nVidia card.
That's funny coming from someone who has repeatedly claimed ATI's drivers are more robust than Nvidia's. ATI's AF is certainly inferior, but AA at 8x and beyond tends to favor ATi particularly if comparing CSAA to AAA. Along with the other factors listed, which many would consider far superior as they directly impact price/performance, I'd say its obvious you're full of shit.

Actually you?re full of shit with your blatant double standards. You were also full of shit about your claims about Vista driver quality given Derek (and other reviewers) ended up backing my claims, people that had actually used the hardware unlike you.

Again I?m still waiting for a retraction from you about the issue, along with a retraction that online feedback isn?t valid.
Nah, it shows you're full of shit when you repeatedly blast Nvidia and their drivers, then turn around and spend thousands on Nvidia parts instead of ATI parts, then claim driver features as the reason why.