oh and don't forget that just because there'll be two games out that use PhysX that everybody will like them. Try and convince someone that only plays RTS games of the beauties of PhysX in a platformer and a shooter, see if you'll make him change his video card for that
Originally posted by: Zap
What's nice is that you can have near (or so I hear) the performance without needing an SLI motherboard, more powerful power supply and even an ATX case.
LOL, just in the part I quoted, there are THREE things wrong. Well known that Charlie has an axe to grind. Funny thing is that some people believe everything he writes. C'mon people! Have some skepticism! TheInq is like one part Tom's Hardware, one part The Onion and a dash of Fox News. Sometimes some good information, oftentimes entertaining to read, but don't believe everything they say.
I am curious as to why you put Fox News in your analogy. What has Fox News reported that you do not believe?
That's something that can be easily asked through PM, instead of taking this thread even further off track than it's already gotten.
- AmberClad
BFG-
I understand if you can't link to your own site I guess, but if you want to put together some FRAPs videos of a modern game at 4XMSAA and 8X MSAA I might be able to figure out a way to host them for you.
I hoenstly haven't noticed a ton of difference in 4X and 8X AA for the most part, but I'd be happy to help with your proof if you supply it.
I understand if you can't link to your own site I guess, but if you want to put together some FRAPs videos of a modern game at 4XMSAA and 8X MSAA I might be able to figure out a way to host them for you.
I hoenstly haven't noticed a ton of difference in 4X and 8X AA for the most part, but I'd be happy to help with your proof if you supply it.
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
The AA debate is kind of pointless. NVIDIA cards run 8XAA just fine and in several cases even superior to ATI.
ATI cards do not run PhysX at all.
If you don't like PhysX, well maybe new technology and high end gaming is not for you. Clearly the Sims sells well without such advancements and it's not for everyone. Although I think you would be wasting your money on any video card over $60 if you did not care about such things.
If you can truly see a difference between 4xAA and 8xAA and yet can not see what PhysX brings to the table....I truly believe you have others issues at play.
ATI cards do not run PhysX at all.
If you don't like PhysX, well maybe new technology and high end gaming is not for you. Clearly the Sims sells well without such advancements and it's not for everyone. Although I think you would be wasting your money on any video card over $60 if you did not care about such things.
If you can truly see a difference between 4xAA and 8xAA and yet can not see what PhysX brings to the table....I truly believe you have others issues at play.
Again, this is your opinion only. I think you lack perspective in stating that the 8800GT was more important than the 4850 by ignoring the facts of the initial and post-release pricing difference between the two. But that's why it's called an "opinion".
When given the choice between a 3870 and 8800GT, I bought the 8800GT. The 3870 I picked up recently for my HTPC because it has HDMI w/audio. My wife picked me up an LG HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/DVD burner drive as a Christmas present and it'll be going into that PC. Hence the desire for a card with HDMI w/audio. Satisfied?
How can it possibly be of tangible benefit to anyone if they can't play it? That's like saying a possible future salary raise is a benefit. You can't spend it now. You have to wait until it hits your paycheck. The same goes for PhysX in these titles you keep mentioning.
Once again, opinion only distorts your view of the facts and ultimately results in your lack of perspective.
Fact: 8800GT was 2-4x faster than what you would've upgraded from in the same price range (X1800, 7900GT etc).
Fact: 8800GT was almost as fast as the high-end part, but sold for a fraction ($230-300 compared to 500-600).
Fact: The 4850 is maybe 15-20% faster than the 8800GT which could be had for almost 1/2 the price.
Fact: The 4850 cannot compete with high-end performance despite its lower price.
Simple question, and try to answer truthfully, which upgrade resulted in the biggest performance gain: X1800/X1900 to 8800GT or 8800GT to 4850?
The only significance RV770 had was making ATI competitive again and to a lesser degree, forcing Nvidia to lower their prices. Otherwise, it offered nothing significant in the way of performance improvements or price: performance economies.
Is this a joke? Own a house? Have a mortgage? Taken a significant loan? What do you think they're basing your credit on? How your hair smells?
So I guess all of these previews about the GTX 295 are also just proposed hardware and proposed benchmarks and proposed future benefits just because they aren't available today and we can't play with it?
Yes we do. Mirror's Edge shows very clearly the difference between PhysX and no PhysX. Cryostasis does as well since once again, you will not find any effects like that in any game because there has been no game to-date that comes even close.
wasn't there a G80 based card between the x1900 and the 8800gt?
and i guess Duke Nukem Forever is a real game because you saw some pictures of it, right? until it's officially out it's only rumor, or at least that's how i see it
and what if i(or some other guy) don't like Mirror's Edge or Cryostasis? what then?
where were we? at the GTX295 vs 4870X2?
the GTX295 looks like a step up from the 4870X2 but how many will buy it? aside from those that need to be on the wallet cutting edge and those that have step-up and money to burn?
Yes, but it cost significantly more and if he or anyone else already had it, there wasn't much reason to get an 8800GT. The 8800GT however brought that incredible level of performance to the mainstream unlike any card before or after.
Ya I'd say there's a pretty clear distinction between obscure vaporware that's been rumored for almost a decade compared to demo'd products a few weeks away from launch from reliable and consistent firms.
Then you don't like it, but that will not change the fact that the games are significantly better with PhysX than without.
the 4850/4870 lowered the prices quite nicely when they appeared; how did we get here anyway? talk about off topic
as to the whole PhysX thing, yes, it looks better with all that extra fluff, is it better than dx10.1 support? yes it is, but it'll take a whole lot more than two games to make someone change their video card just for it and until that happens it's still in the "gimmick" category for me. People will still buy what's the cheapest on the market, when they'll accept to pay say $20 more for an nvidia card of similar performance just because it has PhysX, that's when i'll say that PhysX counts. For instance, take my example, i bought a 3850 because i've found a great deal in my country, the closest nv card at that price was the 8600gts, would you take the 8600gts instead because it has PhysX support?
I don't know why you guys are talking about the 4850 and Duke Nukem Forever.
I've gotta say that this card is not such a big deal. There are too many downsides to having a dual-gpu setup.
The real big news will be when AMD/NV release a brand new GPU.
I've gotta say that this card is not such a big deal. There are too many downsides to having a dual-gpu setup.
The real big news will be when AMD/NV release a brand new GPU.
Whatever, Chizow. You've taken this argument WAY off the thread title. Have fun playing your "future" titles today.
Oh wait, you can't.
Oh wait, you can't.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I don't know why you guys are talking about the 4850 and Duke Nukem Forever.
I've gotta say that this card is not such a big deal. There are too many downsides to having a dual-gpu setup.
The real big news will be when AMD/NV release a brand new GPU.
Well if you want the top single GPU you can go with the 280, and if you want to top card altogether you can go with the 295. Options are good.
But I agree, the next gen is what is exciting. I'm done upgrading for a while though, as my 2nd 280 is supposed to get here today.
GTX295 being slaughtered by the 4870X2 in Warhead at 1920 x 1200 8xAA Gamer:
GTX295:
min 10
avg 17
max 49
4870X2:
min 17
avg 24.3
max 60
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...0035scDZaZIrf2_6_2.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
GTX295:
min 10
avg 17
max 49
4870X2:
min 17
avg 24.3
max 60
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...0035scDZaZIrf2_6_2.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,700
- 2,935
- 126
Actually I consider both insignificant, nothing more than marketing tools at this time. 8xMSAA is not a marketing tool when I can run it in 99% of 3D games ever released and it provides tangible benefits over 4xMSAA in real games.
As for nVidia parts, can they run the DX 10.1 paths in Clear Sky and Far Cry 2?
Where? Show me. Please provide a list of PhysX games that meet the following criteria:
- Are full games released to the public (so no tech demos, synthetic benchmarks, trailers, demos, screen savers, or up-coming titles).
- Provide hardware accelerated physics on the GPU.
- Enhance the gameplay with significant physics content throughout the entire game (so UT3?s five maps don?t count).
- Cannot have the same physics done on the CPU, or provide an exorbitant performance hit for doing so.
No-body?s arguing that at all. What is being argued is that the amount of hardware PhysX titles that meet the four points above is a drop in the ocean compared to 99% of 3D games out there that can benefit from 8xMSAA without any developer effort whatsoever.
No you took the discussion in that direction when you offered up that "last card FYI" as if it were proof you were nonpartisan or something. I guess "last card", right after that 3870, 4850, X1800, etc....
As for future titles, first one is only two weeks away, but you can experience PhysX, or lack of today.
Let us know how it runs on your 8800GT.Cryostasis Demo
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,700
- 2,935
- 126
No need - I've already posted links backing my claims. Here?s a summary:
http://episteme.arstechnica.co...002061831#456002061831
http://techreport.com/articles.x/11211/8
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/3/3
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...n-hd4850_19.html#sect0
Note that the B3D one even shows the benefit of 16xQ over 8xQ, though I personally find that mode a bit hit-or-miss depending on the scene content. It?s an odd one, that?s for sure.
MSAA has nothing to do with what you said, you were comparing the relevance of PhysX to DX10.1 when its not even close. DX10.1 is meaningless even in a best case scenario as it literally adds nothing over DX10. PhysX on the other hand is clearly the next big thing for PC gaming.
Nope, no need for DX10.1 path, as Nvidia, Ben and a few tech sites hinted at months ago, Nvidia DX10 parts support the only worthwhile DX10.1 features.
"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."
Given DX10.1 for ATI parts runs like a pig and still hasn't been fixed, its safe to say Nvidia runs DX10.1 better than ATI does.
I never claimed they were available now, I simply showed how much faster PhysX adoption was compared to DX10.1. No one ever said we'd have PhysX overnight due to development cycles but I think its pretty clear at this point its going to be a major factor going forward. Epic with UE3.0, GameBryo and the recent announcements by 2K and EA and just today THQ announced they were signing on for PhysX. In 2 weeks we'll get the first PhysX title that satisfies all 4 criteria. One month after that we'll have the second with Cryostasis.
Mirror's Edge Side-By-Side
I'm sure you've seen this already. Its already out on the PS3 and Xbox360...so I'd say its a pretty safe bet its out of tech demo status.....
Cryostasis Downloadable Demo
Can run the demo yourself and see just how painful the experience is without GPU acceleration. Don't need an NV card to download and run it. Launch date is said to be Feb 9th 2009.
Well of course if you're referring to current compatibility rates of course MSAA has the edge, but in terms of overall significance there's no doubt PhysX offers the most benefit. Also, you may want to strike point 4 since AA has always been one of the greatest performance killers, especially beyond 4x.
I hope Windows 7 allows 2 video drivers to run at the same time...then someone can get a cheap Geforce 8/9 card to do PhysX and run whatever other card for rendering. I think you can do this in XP but not in Vista.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,700
- 2,935
- 126
Actually they are given they?re nothing more than marketing tools at this time.
If it's meaningless then why did the devs bother implementing the path? Why are EA and Blizzard (et al) signing up for it?
It could well be, or it might well flop. Any inference either way at this time is nothing more than speculation, despite your assertions otherwise.
What about Clear Sky?
And that is the whole point: they aren?t available now. That?s the point that appears to escape you.
If you?re promoting PhysX on the basis of upcoming titles then you must also do the same for DX 10.1 given EA, Blizzard and others have promised to support it.
But neither are released yet.
So that?s one game you can add to your list. Would you care to finish the list so we can see just how big ?the next big thing? currently is?
That's a demo for a game not even out yet. Again if you?re talking about future titles, you must also consider DX 10.1 in the same manner.
The ?edge?? LMAO.
Thousands of titles going back over ten years to GLQuake compared to what, five PhysX games that currently meet all four points?
Way to totally miss the context of point four. The point was to ensure you didn?t come up with games having an ?advantage? when the CPU is just as capable of rendering identical physics as the GPU, without a large performance hit. Or are you really trying to suggest the CPU could render 8xMSAA with the same viability as a GPU?
I've heard that will be the case and it'll be great if true, but I still think the best avenue would be for ATI to support PhysX.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
All I gatta say that it's actually a good thing that everyone is fighting because of the GPU Wars we are having. When is the last time we've had a great GPU War like this? Not for a while. In the end, we all benefit from this. I'm just waiting for the next single gpu cards so I can upgrade. I'm not a fan of multiple gpu options.
Ok, so one markets no tangible gain, while the other markets incredible visuals and eye-candy. Are they equal? No, they're not.
Well the tin foil hat peanut gallery would claim devs like Ubi bother because they're trying to sabotage ATI parts, but that's a good question as DX10.1 offers absolutely nothing over DX10.
Actually all market indicators show its clearly the next big thing. The only thing holding it back will be cross-platform development and whether or not devs are willing to put in the extra work for just the PC.
What about it? Its my 1.0 out of the 1.1 (Assassin's Creed being the other 0.1)
No the point doesn't escape me, as I've once again never claimed they were available today. My point is that PhysX has progressed faster than DX10.1 in a shorter amount of time and we'll finally see the results of that development in a few weeks time. Oh, and we'll actually be able to notice the differences, unlike DX10.1.
So once again, what exactly are we promoting? Sunken tires? Half-Rocks? IQ anomalies? Unplayable stuttering? There's nothing DX10.1 provides over DX10. The difference between PhysX and no PhysX is extreme.
And in 2 weeks you'll say its only 1 title? And a month after that only 2 titles? Its a foregone conclusion these titles will launch with PhysX and that they provide more tangible benefit with PhysX than the incremental differences provided by DX10, DX10.1 or 8xMSAA.
I never claimed to have a list, I just listed 2 titles releasing within 6 weeks that satisfy your contrived list. But again, I'm sure in 6 weeks you'll dimiss those 2 titles and demand another list.
OK, list a single game where MSAA adds any additional eye-candy besides the removal of jaggies? Even in its most basic form PhysX provides more in the way of IQ and eye-candy than MSAA would in any of those thousands of titles.
No I thought you were referring to the performance hit when PhysX is enabled in UT3 compared to no PhysX at all, since its a point you've brought up before. But again, you're welcome to run the demos and see if your CPU can keep up with the GPU. It can't btw, there's nothing magic about it. If a CPU could manage it, we would've had these effects years ago.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 30,423
- 8,090
- 136
@chizow: So your argument for PhysX is 'well its better than dx10.1'
Yep I'll give you that.
Still not excited though.
Yep I'll give you that.
Still not excited though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter