any consideration to PhysiX factor?

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well then, it's a good gosh darn thing that faster cards come out quite frequently. Isn't that just darling?

That means absolutely jack in regard to buying a card today.

You don't generally pay for your videocards though, do you Keys?

 

[BenSkywalker]

32 bit color, hardware T&L, pixel and vertex shaders- all horrible, horrible things that have been pushed on to innocent gamers by companies who were bragging up technology that games didn't support. Obviously, they all crashed and burned horribly and luckily we don't have to see any of them in games today. Same thing will happen with hardware accelerated physics, just you wait and see.

 

[kylebisme]

Hey Ben, long time no see.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure everyone here understands that hardware accelerated physics is here to stay, but none of us can predict whether or not PhysX will end up like Glide.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
AMD or ATI had their shot to impliment it, they didn't want it.

And Nvidia wouldn't have wanted it either if AMD owned it. To do so is akin to playing poker with someone who is free to change the rules as the game goes along. It was as sucker's bet and AMD's only smart move was to pass.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yeah I looked at those but what I'm saying is the game based on the tech demo is playable, and I'd bet even a 3.2Ghz C2D with a GTX260...

And I'm saying with the 9800gtx+ the OP was thinking of getting it may be to damn slow to be worth using the PhysX effects at all.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That tells me that physx can work, it in fact does work. Like I said in my previous post, physics needs to be hardware accelerated to go forward.

And going forward it is likely that newer games will need even faster cards to make PhysX support useful.

1)The smart thing was NOT to pass on it. Who are you to say that Nvidia wouldn't have wanted to license it for Cuda? Being a non-player in a market that clearely is showing a liking for physx is a bad idea.

2)No a 9800GTX+ won't be slow or haven't you looked at any of the physx benchmarks using that exact card on various sites?

3) faster cards come out all the time, and lets see...a 9800GTX+ can do physx now and it is useful now. That card isn't the newest thing out there...hell even an 8800gt can do it. You can even go buy a cheapo 9600gt and run it as a second card if your current card can't do it alone.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well then, it's a good gosh darn thing that faster cards come out quite frequently. Isn't that just darling?

That means absolutely jack in regard to buying a card today.

You don't generally pay for your videocards though, do you Keys?

It means a lot for buying a card. Ever hear of step-up? Also you're neglecting to grasp the fact that everything from an 8800gt to the yet to be released GTX295 can do physx now, and it is useful as much as 32bit color, T&L, AA, AF etc was useful when they were introduced way back when. Just as BenSkywalker alluded to. Remember when AA first came out? How slow was it at first? What type of hardware did it require to enable and still be playable?

Nvidia simply jumped on hardware accelerated Physx rather than letting it die off. They clearly saw something worth the price of admission. I seem to remember a little company like 3dfx who didn't want to do 32bit color, then it became standard and they had to revamp their cards to do it. Then i remember T&L wasn't a big deal, 3dfx said it was too slow but the GeForce outsold the competing Voodoo cards because it had these features as standard. Nvidia has a history of being first or at the least a very vocal supporter to a great many things that we take for granted in PC graphics today.

It's unlikely that Havok will move to hardware acceleration on a large scale if at all, and who knows about DX11, that's not even finalized yet. In my mind, I do not wish to always wait for what could possibly be coming up in the future. Physx is here now and it does what Havok cannot.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
The smart thing was NOT to pass on it.

Hey, I know a great type of poker game that you can make a lot of money playing. Gather up all your cash and I'll sell you chips, and then I'll explain the rules as we play.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

32 bit color, hardware T&L, pixel and vertex shaders- all horrible, horrible things that have been pushed on to innocent gamers by companies who were bragging up technology that games didn't support. Obviously, they all crashed and burned horribly and luckily we don't have to see any of them in games today.

But all of those things were supported by platform open standards, namely OpenGL and Direct3D. PhysX is currently more akin to Glide and Truform; only one vendor pushes it and there are no open standards for it.

Where are Glide and Truform today?

Same thing will happen with hardware accelerated physics, just you wait and see.

That isn't under debate at all. As Snowman says, the only question is whether this will become the new Glide.

If Havok and/or DirectX implement a hardware accelerated standard that works with all vendors then PhysX is almost certainly going to die unless it?s markedly superior in some way. No ISV is going to target an API for a single vendor when they could do the equivalent with another API and target multiple vendors.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

GTX295 can do physx now, and it is useful as much as 32bit color, T&L, AA, AF etc was useful when they were introduced way back when.

No it isn?t; not even close. T&L was showing automatic benefits in OpenGL titles while the likes of 32 bit color, AA and AF could be forced into existing applications at the driver level.

This is not even remotely analogous to PhysX which requires applications to be written from the ground up to take advantage of it, and it does absolutely nothing for legacy applications.

I seem to remember a little company like 3dfx who didn't want to do 32bit color, then it became standard and they had to revamp their cards to do it. Then i remember T&L wasn't a big deal, 3dfx said it was too slow but the GeForce outsold the competing Voodoo cards because it had these features as standard.

This comparison is not even close to being accurate. Again 32 bit color and T&L were part of open standards (OpenGL & Direct3D) and required hardware support, so a vendor physically couldn?t do them if their hardware didn?t support it.

Neither apply to PhysX; it?s neither an open standard nor does it require specific hardware support currently lacking on other vendors. All you need is a specific shader level and any GPU can accelerate physics. The issue now is that nVidia is the only one pushing the PhysX API when other APIs like Havoc could potentially perform the same task and also work with multiple vendors.

It's unlikely that Havok will move to hardware acceleration on a large scale if at all,

You would know this how? You?re simply speculating just like you?re speculating that PhysX will take off.

If Intel and ATi both get behind hardware Havok and it works with multiple vendors then it has a very good chance of defeating PhysX. Again this is speculation but I?m certainly not going to base hardware purchases on things that haven?t happened yet.

In my mind, I do not wish to always wait for what could possibly be coming up in the future. Physx is here now and it does what Havok cannot.

But that?s exactly what you?re doing by pushing PhysX ? you?re buying now based on the future.

PhysX is not ?here now?. If it is then show us a list of shipping games that support hardware acceleration on nVidia?s cards in a substantial portion of gameplay content. No demos, trailers, tech demos or announcements.

If you can?t provide such a list then PhysX is obviously not here now.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well then, it's a good gosh darn thing that faster cards come out quite frequently. Isn't that just darling?

That means absolutely jack in regard to buying a card today.

You don't generally pay for your videocards though, do you Keys?

But you said "going forward".

"And going forward it is likely that newer games will need even faster cards to make PhysX support useful."

This was answered. Then you respond with the above. Dredd just asked you to look at PhysX benchmarks around the net using a 9800GTX and even 8800GT's. They did very well. And that is not even "today", those cards were released a long while ago. You can see 9800GTX benchmarks in the stickied PhysX thread in this very forum.

No, I haven't purchased a graphics card since right before the focus group. The last two GPU's I purchased right before the group, was an 8800GTS512 and an 8600GT. But why did you ask? You knew that I didn't, didn't you?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

Have you been gaming long enough to remember GLQuake BFG10K?

At the time, the only people who could run it were those with 3DFX cards,

That?s not true as there were OpenGL workstation cards that could run it too.

I can't even believe you'd toss that out there. Somehow I don't think Carmack quite had the workstation market in mind when he made GLQuake BFG10K.

I might reconsider if you could use Google and find a quote of any game developer ever saying they coded anything to get in on the workstation market.

Not to mention, IIRC, workstation cards of the time could barely run GLQuake.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Same with a lot of titles back then. Developers want to advance their product, not be limited by the feeble amounts of physics processing they can get from the CPU.

So again I'll ask, where are the games? You keep telling us what developers want and keep marketing PhysX, but you can't provide a single list of substance to back your claims.

I think we've all seen the list of games currently in development, and we've all seen the press releases of the companies like EA, THQ, and 2KGames adopting PhysX as their standard.

Here's a partial list of titles existing and upcoming

Here's another

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one BFG, like we did on whether CRTs and 10 year old games are still relevant.

For me, I'm all for new tech, and am playing with some that has basically redefined PC gaming right now. Stay tuned.

 

[Qbah]

As I wrote before, I don't think paying more for a GTX card cause it runs PhysX is worth it. I get enough with the HD series And that's what I did (as I never considered PhysX when purchasing my card, the Radeons were so much cheaper back then!). However... Let's just be realistic, who can't cough up 20-30$ more if they like what PhysX shows? If only to play those few selected games. Everything else runs pretty much the same way on both cards...

Will I recommend a GeForce cause it runs PhysX? No. I'm not impressed. I can recommend it if it's cheaper.
If you like PhysX in Mirror's Edge for example and don't mind spending some more (3-4 beers? ) then go ahead and do.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Qbah
As I wrote before, I don't think paying more for a GTX card cause it runs PhysX is worth it. I get enough with the HD series And that's what I did (as I never considered PhysX when purchasing my card, the Radeons were so much cheaper back then!). However... Let's just be realistic, who can't cough up 20-30$ more if they like what PhysX shows? If only to play those few selected games. Everything else runs pretty much the same way on both cards...

Will I recommend a GeForce cause it runs PhysX? No. I'm not impressed. I can recommend it if it's cheaper.
If you like PhysX in Mirror's Edge for example and don't mind spending some more (3-4 beers? ) then go ahead and do.

It's not "just" PhysX. The GTX260's perform better most of the time as well. At least since Big Bang/II drivers. AMD tried to counter with 8.12's, and did boost their performance quite a bit, but not quite enough. Just brought it up to par with the 192 shader 260. Kudos to both camps for squeezing out the extra "OOMPH" from these GPU's though.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Hey Ben, long time no see.

Hey Snowman, how's it going?

Anyway, I'm fairly sure everyone here understands that hardware accelerated physics is here to stay, but none of us can predict whether or not PhysX will end up like Glide.

I honestly think nVidia in their wildest dreams couldn't hope PhysX will turn out as well as Glide did for 3Dfx.

But all of those things were supported by platform open standards, namely OpenGL and Direct3D.

Really? How many PS2.0 games were hitting when the R9700Pro launched? Considering it wasn't a standard for a while after that, I'd say it took some time. 32bit color couldn't be forced on in the overwhelming majority of games back when parts first started taking advantage of it.

Glide isn't going to help your end of the discussion. When it remained the only viable game in town it utterly dominated the gaming market. Even the original GLQuake was designed as a wrapper aimed at Glide. When a viable replacement for Glide came about and we no longer needed a proprietary API it was a good thing. The difference this time is that nV will let other IHVs implement PhysX if they want to.

As Snowman says, the only question is whether this will become the new Glide.

So the question is if nVidia will completely and utterly dominate the gaming market for the next several years before someone else wisens up? That is what you guys are putting forth as the downside to PhysX

If PhysX ends up like Glide ATi is dead- full stop.

 

[Pantalaimon]

For all the PhysX cheer leading that's going on here, I honestly do not see Microsoft standing on the sideline letting a third party have some proprietary physics acceleration become a standard for any long time.

From what I've seen Microsoft is quite serious and protective with their game console, and via that, the Windows OS and its DirectX API. So I don't think that Microsoft would happily go along with PhysX as an industry standard, let some third party be in the lead when it comes to technical standards and pay for its use on Microsoft's own gaming platform.

I believe they will instead implement their own implementation of physics into part of the DirectX API. Oh, NVDIA might enjoy some marginal benefits at first but once Microsoft puts physics into DirectX those benefits will go away. Someone mentioned Glide. How many games uses Glide nowadays once DirectX became the standard?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon
For all the PhysX cheer leading that's going on here, I honestly do not see Microsoft standing on the sideline letting a third party have some proprietary physics acceleration become a standard for any long time.

From what I've seen Microsoft is quite serious and protective with their game console, and via that, the Windows OS and its DirectX API. So I don't think that Microsoft would happily go along with PhysX as an industry standard, let some third party be in the lead when it comes to technical standards and pay for its use on Microsoft's own gaming platform.

I believe they will instead implement their own implementation of physics into part of the DirectX API. Oh, NVDIA might enjoy some marginal benefits at first but once Microsoft puts physics into DirectX those benefits will go away. Someone mentioned Glide. How many games uses Glide nowadays once DirectX became the standard?

Do you think MS would have this physics API running on the CPU or the GPU for their WHQL cert?

 

[BenSkywalker]

From what I've seen Microsoft is quite serious and protective with their game console, and via that, the Windows OS and its DirectX API.

That is what drives the biggest problem for MS atm. Do you want to protect your console OR DirectX? Obviously they got slaughtered this generation by Nintendo, but right now they have an edge over Sony in marketshare by a decent margin and I'm sure they would like to protect that. Due to the hardware choices MS made they are at a decided disadvantage for handling physics calculations compared to the PS3. On the console front- they can not win a battle against Sony for having the most impressive physics this generation. On the PC side, I'm sure that MS could easily hand down an 'open' standard physics library for DirectX at will, they may be able to bury the capabilities and performance of PhysX too. But at what cost to themselves? Create a development environment that limits PC ports so that they can only be reasonably ported to the PS3? Is that a situation MS would want to encourage?

Someone mentioned Glide. How many games uses Glide nowadays once DirectX became the standard?

List off all of 3Dfx's top competitors when Glide was the only viable API. I'll help you out, they all died off.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

From what I've seen Microsoft is quite serious and protective with their game console, and via that, the Windows OS and its DirectX API.

That is what drives the biggest problem for MS atm. Do you want to protect your console OR DirectX? Obviously they got slaughtered this generation by Nintendo, but right now they have an edge over Sony in marketshare by a decent margin and I'm sure they would like to protect that. Due to the hardware choices MS made they are at a decided disadvantage for handling physics calculations compared to the PS3. On the console front- they can not win a battle against Sony for having the most impressive physics this generation. On the PC side, I'm sure that MS could easily hand down an 'open' standard physics library for DirectX at will, they may be able to bury the capabilities and performance of PhysX too. But at what cost to themselves? Create a development environment that limits PC ports so that they can only be reasonably ported to the PS3? Is that a situation MS would want to encourage?

Someone mentioned Glide. How many games uses Glide nowadays once DirectX became the standard?

List off all of 3Dfx's top competitors when Glide was the only viable API. I'll help you out, they all died off.

Nintendo only leads in hardware sales, the 360 sells more games and more game sales = better revenue. It's attributed to XboxLive which is head and shoulders above anything Nintendo could ever come up with.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

GTX295 can do physx now, and it is useful as much as 32bit color, T&L, AA, AF etc was useful when they were introduced way back when.

No it isn?t; not even close. T&L was showing automatic benefits in OpenGL titles while the likes of 32 bit color, AA and AF could be forced into existing applications at the driver level.

This is not even remotely analogous to PhysX which requires applications to be written from the ground up to take advantage of it, and it does absolutely nothing for legacy applications.

I seem to remember a little company like 3dfx who didn't want to do 32bit color, then it became standard and they had to revamp their cards to do it. Then i remember T&L wasn't a big deal, 3dfx said it was too slow but the GeForce outsold the competing Voodoo cards because it had these features as standard.

This comparison is not even close to being accurate. Again 32 bit color and T&L were part of open standards (OpenGL & Direct3D) and required hardware support, so a vendor physically couldn?t do them if their hardware didn?t support it.

Neither apply to PhysX; it?s neither an open standard nor does it require specific hardware support currently lacking on other vendors. All you need is a specific shader level and any GPU can accelerate physics. The issue now is that nVidia is the only one pushing the PhysX API when other APIs like Havoc could potentially perform the same task and also work with multiple vendors.

It's unlikely that Havok will move to hardware acceleration on a large scale if at all,

You would know this how? You?re simply speculating just like you?re speculating that PhysX will take off.

If Intel and ATi both get behind hardware Havok and it works with multiple vendors then it has a very good chance of defeating PhysX. Again this is speculation but I?m certainly not going to base hardware purchases on things that haven?t happened yet.

In my mind, I do not wish to always wait for what could possibly be coming up in the future. Physx is here now and it does what Havok cannot.

But that?s exactly what you?re doing by pushing PhysX ? you?re buying now based on the future.

PhysX is not ?here now?. If it is then show us a list of shipping games that support hardware acceleration on nVidia?s cards in a substantial portion of gameplay content. No demos, trailers, tech demos or announcements.

If you can?t provide such a list then PhysX is obviously not here now.

Nice way to spin everything to fit your mindset, do you work for the LA times or the NY Times by chance? :laugh:

Intel hasn't even made a peep about Havok and ATI supporting it? From what I understand Intel is working on an IGP that would be in competition with ATI and Nvidia's integrated solutions. Besides, last I heard Intel seems to think everything should run on the CPU using multiple cores and HT. *shrug* So again I think it's unlikely that Havok will become hardware accelerated.

Seriously, Physx is the future of gaming whether you like it or not. Deal with it. Whether Nvidia controls it or not is 100% IRRELEVANT, they just happen to be the first to put it out to the mainstream.

nRollo has put out a nice list of games that you ignored. That's not my fault, you ask for games then complain about the ones he lists off. It's ridiculous.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Qbah
As I wrote before, I don't think paying more for a GTX card cause it runs PhysX is worth it. I get enough with the HD series And that's what I did (as I never considered PhysX when purchasing my card, the Radeons were so much cheaper back then!). However... Let's just be realistic, who can't cough up 20-30$ more if they like what PhysX shows? If only to play those few selected games. Everything else runs pretty much the same way on both cards...

Will I recommend a GeForce cause it runs PhysX? No. I'm not impressed. I can recommend it if it's cheaper.
If you like PhysX in Mirror's Edge for example and don't mind spending some more (3-4 beers? ) then go ahead and do.

It's not "just" PhysX. The GTX260's perform better most of the time as well. At least since Big Bang/II drivers. AMD tried to counter with 8.12's, and did boost their performance quite a bit, but not quite enough. Just brought it up to par with the 192 shader 260. Kudos to both camps for squeezing out the extra "OOMPH" from these GPU's though.

That's true as well, and for those of you saying there's no games. nRollo gave a hefty list which you absolutely refuse to even look at which is obvious from your posting. I'm repeating myself here but Physx is the future of gaming. Whether it's controlled by Nvidia or not is irrelevant, Physics on the GPU is going to be the next thing going forward. It's available today in a variety of titles and there's more on the way. This argument is getting ridiculous. Think about the consoles, when you buy a console at release and there's no games that use it's potential power don't you say to everyone in justification of the purchase "but next year we get this game and that game and then this game with woopdy do graphics and all"?

Of course you do so by arguing that buying a GTX260/280 to have a card that is faster than a single 4870 yet also being able to use physx as a bonus is being silly.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Seriously, Physx is the future of gaming whether you like it or not.

PhysX could very easily be stopped if MS or ATi decided against being short sighted and came out with an alternative. It is hard to know how seriously they are taking it as of course they need to downplay it atm as they have nothing to offer as an alternative.

Nintendo only leads in hardware sales, the 360 sells more games and more game sales = better revenue. It's attributed to XboxLive which is head and shoulders above anything Nintendo could ever come up with.

You may want to check sources other then 360pwnzjoo.com. Also, read up on the industry and learn a little about the business model, check out inverse revenue streams due to hardware failures, check out the margins console makers have on first versus third parties, maybe even look at earnings reports of the two publicly traded companies you are talking about. Nintendo is uttterly, profroundly, totally destroying MS in terms of revenue from consoles- far moreso then their marketshare would indicate. I own all three of the consoles btw, Live is a nice gimmick- but I think Fit is going to have a far larger impact on revenue streams then Live at the end of this generation.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

From what I've seen Microsoft is quite serious and protective with their game console, and via that, the Windows OS and its DirectX API.

That is what drives the biggest problem for MS atm. Do you want to protect your console OR DirectX? Obviously they got slaughtered this generation by Nintendo, but right now they have an edge over Sony in marketshare by a decent margin and I'm sure they would like to protect that. Due to the hardware choices MS made they are at a decided disadvantage for handling physics calculations compared to the PS3. On the console front- they can not win a battle against Sony for having the most impressive physics this generation. On the PC side, I'm sure that MS could easily hand down an 'open' standard physics library for DirectX at will, they may be able to bury the capabilities and performance of PhysX too. But at what cost to themselves? Create a development environment that limits PC ports so that they can only be reasonably ported to the PS3? Is that a situation MS would want to encourage?

MS is used to being the one putting pressure on their suppliers, not the other way around. If they let NVDIA run away with PhysX now, they will create a situation where they are dependent on only one grahics card supplier when they design the successor to XBOX360, and I am quite sure that MS has that already on the drawing board at some stage.

In a situation where PhysX is an industry standard MS would have to select a graphics chip supplier that has PhysX when designing the next generation console, and unless AMD capitulates and license PhysX from NVIDIA, there would be only one viable supplier on the market, which is NVIDIA.

In a market like that, the supplier has all the power and can dictate the price to MS and their other customers. Just remember back to this summer when a GTX260 was almost $400 and a GTX280 was over $600 before AMD came out with their 4800 series. So NVIDIA has a history of pricing their products sky high when there's no competition.

No rational consumers, let alone companies want to be in a market where there's only one viable supplier in the market. You want competition for your business. If you're a small company you will have learn to live with having less power than your supplier and pay exorbitant prices, but when you are as big as MS, or Nokia, or some other really large companies, you will do everything you can to make yourself not dependent, which means either to design out that particular part or feature, or in this case it would most likely mean creating yourself a competing standard to PhysX and make the standard owned by the supplier irrelevant. Which company do you think has a better chance of pushing a standard for a physics API even if MS comes late to the table?

As an example take a look at the mobile phone OS market. There used to be Windows Mobile and Symbian. Nokia's phones have used Symbian exclusively. Now Google came out with Android, and what happened? Nokia went an bought complete control of Symbian which it used to own only partly with Sony Ericsson and I think some other smaller players. Why do you think they did that?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Seriously, Physx is the future of gaming whether you like it or not.

PhysX could very easily be stopped if MS or ATi decided against being short sighted and came out with an alternative. It is hard to know how seriously they are taking it as of course they need to downplay it atm as they have nothing to offer as an alternative.

Nintendo only leads in hardware sales, the 360 sells more games and more game sales = better revenue. It's attributed to XboxLive which is head and shoulders above anything Nintendo could ever come up with.

You may want to check sources other then 360pwnzjoo.com. Also, read up on the industry and learn a little about the business model, check out inverse revenue streams due to hardware failures, check out the margins console makers have on first versus third parties, maybe even look at earnings reports of the two publicly traded companies you are talking about. Nintendo is uttterly, profroundly, totally destroying MS in terms of revenue from consoles- far moreso then their marketshare would indicate. I own all three of the consoles btw, Live is a nice gimmick- but I think Fit is going to have a far larger impact on revenue streams then Live at the end of this generation.

MS makes a percentage of every game sold from all 3rd parties, all console manufacturers do. Xbox has sold more games than the Wii has overall, mostly because of the online capabilities. The Wii's online gaming won't catch on in the same way as Live, it's not marketed the same way. The Wii isn't marketed to the gamer who is into competition, that's not their target demographic. Shooters, and the like aren't a mainstay of the Wii which are the big sellers these days. I'd like to see a few new platformers myself as I'm not a big Online fan either way.

Anyhow, if you look ahead to the future there's a big question mark over Nintendo as to whether that can compete with Sony and MS in a few key areas. Network integration and media functionality. Streaming HD quality video from a 360 or PS3 is quite easy, integrating with your home network. Movies on demand and other functions like that. They make both of these consoles more attractive to different potential customers. I know many people who have purchased a PS3 as a Blu-Ray player and media box to stream from their PC to their TV. These people then go out and say "hey are there any good games" then they grab a few. This is one area that Nintendo can't get into with the hardware they currently have. It will only get worse as time goes on and VoD becomes more popular, HDTVs become more standard etc.

Time will tell, but I know for a fact that the 360 sells more software.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Pantalaimon-

You don't address the catch-22 that MS is in right now, that is what I was interested in. Hamstring the 360 to help the PC side or vice versa? I am not that one dictating the terms of the current situation, but it is the reality they face. Which way do you think they are better off going? Prop up the PC side now, give Sony a chance to reclaim the second spot and lose potential mindshare in the console market hence negating some of the advantages they have, or doing maintaining their current inaction and allowing nV to take control of PC physics until they are in a position to leverage their technologies better(when they launch their next generation of hardware). I'm not saying anything in particular will happen, just looking at the situation for what it is.

cmd

MS makes a percentage of every game sold from all 3rd parties, all console manufacturers do.

And Nintendo sells millions upon millions of first party games. Check out the differences in revenue between first and third party- Nintendo can sell 1/4 the total amount of games MS does and still have a larger revenue stream for the Wii alone.

Shooters, and the like aren't a mainstay of the Wii which are the big sellers these days.

Yeah, you might want to check out the year end NPD numbers on that one. I'll tell you one thing, the biggest 'game' this year is an exercise title, not a shooter. That is just reality.

They make both of these consoles more attractive to different potential customers.

Core versus non core. Read Gamasutra's article about the year in gaming for 2008, it is painfully obvious at this point that core gamers are becoming a niche market. Keep in mind, I am a core gamer, very much so, but that doesn't change marketplace realities. Casual gamers are taking over the bulk of gaming revenue, and they aren't the people buying PS3s and 360s(both of which I own).

Ending this topic up, Nintendo obliterates MS in sales, and shooters, well- they don't sell very well at all.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Qbah
As I wrote before, I don't think paying more for a GTX card cause it runs PhysX is worth it. I get enough with the HD series And that's what I did (as I never considered PhysX when purchasing my card, the Radeons were so much cheaper back then!). However... Let's just be realistic, who can't cough up 20-30$ more if they like what PhysX shows? If only to play those few selected games. Everything else runs pretty much the same way on both cards...

Will I recommend a GeForce cause it runs PhysX? No. I'm not impressed. I can recommend it if it's cheaper.
If you like PhysX in Mirror's Edge for example and don't mind spending some more (3-4 beers? ) then go ahead and do.

It's not "just" PhysX. The GTX260's perform better most of the time as well. At least since Big Bang/II drivers. AMD tried to counter with 8.12's, and did boost their performance quite a bit, but not quite enough. Just brought it up to par with the 192 shader 260. Kudos to both camps for squeezing out the extra "OOMPH" from these GPU's though.

That's true as well, and for those of you saying there's no games. nRollo gave a hefty list which you absolutely refuse to even look at which is obvious from your posting. I'm repeating myself here but Physx is the future of gaming. Whether it's controlled by Nvidia or not is irrelevant, Physics on the GPU is going to be the next thing going forward. It's available today in a variety of titles and there's more on the way. This argument is getting ridiculous. Think about the consoles, when you buy a console at release and there's no games that use it's potential power don't you say to everyone in justification of the purchase "but next year we get this game and that game and then this game with woopdy do graphics and all"?

Of course you do so by arguing that buying a GTX260/280 to have a card that is faster than a single 4870 yet also being able to use physx as a bonus is being silly.

Physx is fine as a free bonus. I did not factor it at all when deciding on what card to get, and still wouldn't today. Saying "Physx is the future of gaming." is nothing more then looking into a crystal ball. I agree hardware accelerated physics will be big. Physx may or may not be big in the future. When I buy my next upgrade, I may decide I need Physx, but as of today I still do not feel it is worth much more then DX10.1. It's fine that it's there, but I put exactly zero wieght into it as factoring into my purchasing decision at this time.

 

[GaiaHunter]

No one could add TnL to their graphics card after the card was done.

Voodoo 5500 and Kyro II didn't do TnL and there was no way to enable it via software.

Physics, be it PhysiX, Havoc or "crapthatmakestuffmoveinarealisticway" can be added via software.

Whean Ageia came with their physics accelerator both nVidia and ATI came out and showed that they could use their cards to do it.

So ATI cards like the 4850 that the op was asking about can do physics acceleration.

Also they can do physX if ATI buys a license from nVidia.

So its not like in the future owners of 9800GTX+ and GTX260/280 will play games with acceleration and owners of the 4850/4870 wont.