since this thread is all about fud and doesn't really have any purpose...
ati has better image quality and better driver support. their drivers are also more reliable and they appreciate their customers more. they dont rebadge old video cards as newer ones (8800 -> 9800 -> gtx250) by doing this nvidia is tricking all of you, and your friends, and your family. don't buy nvidia. they're gunna get squashed by intel like chrysler did by... the world
ati has better image quality and better driver support. their drivers are also more reliable and they appreciate their customers more. they dont rebadge old video cards as newer ones (8800 -> 9800 -> gtx250) by doing this nvidia is tricking all of you, and your friends, and your family. don't buy nvidia. they're gunna get squashed by intel like chrysler did by... the world
Raduque
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2004
- 13,140
- 138
- 106
Physix? Oh lookit, the crate collapses exactly like a crate would in real life if I smacked it with a crowbar a few times, yay!
Cryostasis is currently the neatest implementation of Physix, it uses it to model individual flakes of snow that blow across the screen. Looks cool, but does it add anything? Nah. And until physix actually ADDS to the gameplay (IE: if you turn off the physics effects you lose something substantially important to the game) it's not going to be THAT important.
Cryostasis is currently the neatest implementation of Physix, it uses it to model individual flakes of snow that blow across the screen. Looks cool, but does it add anything? Nah. And until physix actually ADDS to the gameplay (IE: if you turn off the physics effects you lose something substantially important to the game) it's not going to be THAT important.
well the thread is allowed to live, the article is pretty much bs. we all know not everyone loves physx so the title is misleading and a lie. so im' just playing alone in case you didn't get it...
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
The title is misleading and a lie? Don't you think you're pushing it a little perhaps? When I read it I don't perceive it like absolute truth, but more like an opinion. Whe most of us including myself say things like "in fact" we pretty much all know that it's still just an opinion, we're simply using those methods of expressing our opinions with inappropriate wording.
And, if not an opinion, it still seems more like a sarcasm line than anything else, at least to me, in the end it's a question of personal perception. I wouldn't just go as far as saying that the thread's title is misleading and a lie... that's certainly inappropriate. Just... you know, take it cool and go with the flow.
I just love the natural reaction of people on the internet to dislike new technology.
It is such a predictable pattern.
I hate 95
I hate 98
I hate XP
I hate Vista
I hate PhysX
I am sure there were idiots who said
I hate FSAA
I hate anistrophic filtering
I hate texturing
I hate shaders
I hate DX 9
I hate DX 10
This is a technology that adds visual complexity to your screen and it is something to be disliked. Yes lets all run around and play the original battlefield on the Atari. Wouldnt want any of that advanced graphics technology to get in the way of my wire mesh.
It is such a predictable pattern.
I hate 95
I hate 98
I hate XP
I hate Vista
I hate PhysX
I am sure there were idiots who said
I hate FSAA
I hate anistrophic filtering
I hate texturing
I hate shaders
I hate DX 9
I hate DX 10
This is a technology that adds visual complexity to your screen and it is something to be disliked. Yes lets all run around and play the original battlefield on the Atari. Wouldnt want any of that advanced graphics technology to get in the way of my wire mesh.
Yes. AMD is going to rely on Havok apparently. So in other words rely on their biggest competitor Intel to make it happen.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Fair enough, when I spend extra for an Nvidia card that offers similar or slightly better performance that its comparatively cheaper ATI counterpart, when and where will I notice this "additional visual complexity"?
I own two HD 4850's, so I suppose I should take this opportunity to apologise to everyone for holding up advances in visual display: sorry folks, clearly it was all my fault.
I made no mention of having to buy the technology. I am only pointing out the typical kneejerk reaction of people on the internet to dislike an advancement in gaming experience and technology in general.
So many luddites in the tech community it is amusing.
I own a 4850 as well so I wont see it either. But that doesnt mean I dont appreciate it.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Is there an open standard?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Did you hate Glide back in 1996 as well?
How about DirectX?
Golgatha
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2003
- 12,400
- 1,076
- 126
Actually, for the most part I like everything you posted. I even like PhysX if nVidia would make it an open standard, would start producing PhysX add-in cards again, or figure out a way to make Vista use an installed nVidia card for purely PhysX (which is pretty much an add-in PhysX card at that point) calculations.
nVidia wants to make it proprietary with the dream of forcing customers to buy their cards, just like keeping SLI a feature to their motherboards only (X58 doesn't count because Intel had to play hardball to get that license). ATI seems to care more about growing the entire marketplace and giving customers choice than nVidia does, and I believe it's starting to show in their profits (or current lack thereof).
Well to be fair without an open standard or it being implemented in directX this is all we have. ATI is using havok via Stream their version of CUDA. So they are in the same boat.
But afaik Nvidia offers it free to anybody. So ATI could offer PhysX on their hardware. If they worked with Nvidia to get their hardware to work with CUDA.
But afaik Nvidia offers it free to anybody. So ATI could offer PhysX on their hardware. If they worked with Nvidia to get their hardware to work with CUDA.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
I did dislike Glide somewhat because it didn't run on my TNT card.
And to that end nobody was commercially using OpenGL in games yet.DirectX? Only hated it for titles that didn't work right with immature drivers.
Open Standard for physics? Well I dunno... Havok seems about as open as it gets right now, and the fact that it works on any platform seems to be a bonus.
Originally posted by: SunnyD
I did dislike Glide somewhat because it didn't run on my TNT card.
DirectX? Only hated it for titles that didn't work right with immature drivers.
Open Standard for physics? Well I dunno... Havok seems about as open as it gets right now, and the fact that it works on any platform seems to be a bonus.
In what way is Havok more open than PhysX?
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: SunnyD
I did dislike Glide somewhat because it didn't run on my TNT card.
DirectX? Only hated it for titles that didn't work right with immature drivers.
Open Standard for physics? Well I dunno... Havok seems about as open as it gets right now, and the fact that it works on any platform seems to be a bonus.
In what way is Havok more open than PhysX?
It's not tied to any particular hardware implementation. (Though I suppose right now you could say it's tied to the CPU I guess...)
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Physx runs on everything BUT AMD graphics cards. It runs on Intel and AMD CPUs, all major consoles, even the iPhone. AMD was offered PhysX and declined. They are the problem currently not the solution.
Lacking Havok support may be why AMD has lost so much marketshare lately. Last quarter NVIDIA had 67% of the market.
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/...rovement-over-q4-2008/
Personally I'm in favor of all Physics implementation in games PhysX\Havok\In-House (like what Valve has done).
It's a shame that some will let their own personal corporate bias cloud their judgment on an advancement in gaming. Luckily people buying video cards and game developers are unfazed by a handful of malcontents.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
AMD lacks Havok support ? In what way ?
You do know that Havok has been able to use GPU acceleration since 2006 ? It was used for about 6 months then it was determined that the GPU of the time were too slow compared to the cpu so they closed that department and focused on the cpu.
Nothing in the Havok SDK is hard to port to the GPU. There just wasn't a reason to. It would be like overclocking a cpu so you could run notepad. Yeah you can do it, but why ? What is the benefit ? There isn't anything being done right now with physics in games that a cpu can't do. In the future that may change, but right now what I hear most developers saying is they are using cpu physics and often not Havok or Physx but their own custom code.
Developers code for the median hardware. Right now very very few people have the extra gpu power, either from sli or powerful cards, to make it worth the effort.
So while people who are crazy about pc hardware may want multiple gpu physics, 10x the resolution and multiple core gaming, it isn't going to happen unless you are willing to buy people some hardware.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Oh snap. You got me. But wait, are we talking the PhysX software stack or the proprietary accelerated CUDA portion of PhysX?
You mean Havok FX? As far as I know it never left the Havok lab, and certainly was never used in any game.
Besides, as the name itself says, it was for effects only, mainly some particles and things.
PhysX can't be compared to that, because it's a complete physics solution for the PPU/GPU, not just some eyecandy.
Cellfactor was an excellent example of that... it used tons of rigidbody collisions that a CPU (and as such Havok FX) could never handle.
AndroidVageta
Banned
- Mar 22, 2008
- 2,421
- 0
- 0
I don't think that CPU's are anywhere near powerful enough to handle advanced physics by themselves. Have you tried playing Mirror's Edge or the Cryostasis tech demo WITHOUT some sort of Physx accelerating hardware? Single number FPS...
I also think, that as far as ATi is concerned they should atleast enable Physx on their cards...I mean, they obviously can do it since someone did on the HD3870 like a year ago or what ever...I just think its AMD's way of being stubborn. I know that there are no games that use Physx in an actual implementing way...but the Physx in Mirror's Edge does enhance the game I think.
I own a Crossfire rig but I'll be damned if you don't find a Physx PPU inside...got it for only $20 too.
I also think, that as far as ATi is concerned they should atleast enable Physx on their cards...I mean, they obviously can do it since someone did on the HD3870 like a year ago or what ever...I just think its AMD's way of being stubborn. I know that there are no games that use Physx in an actual implementing way...but the Physx in Mirror's Edge does enhance the game I think.
I own a Crossfire rig but I'll be damned if you don't find a Physx PPU inside...got it for only $20 too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter