hypothetical: nvidia in a console -> more physX titles?

[NIGELG]

The only reason why people try and uses thethis "distinctions"...is due to ignorance.
I have now made it clear for you that there is NO such distinction".

Will you accept the facts...or should the false FUD be allowed to live (even if it is invalid, flawed and false)...or should we only use facts...not fazzy warm FUD in debates?

You can now either:

Accept the facts
Deny the facts (really?)
Disprove my statements.

Which door do you choose?

Lol....the site physxinfo.com makes this distinction all the time.There is even a table with a checkbox for ''GPU accelerated '' games.

http://physxinfo.com/

I suppose you know more than them too.......

 

[Silverforce11]

And here is came...the pipedream of DirectX physics...:whiste:

You mean something that will be widely used in games as opposed to a few titles a year? Isn't that better?

You don't want better?

 

[toyota]

That is false.
I take it you have never used PhysX yourself and thus are speaking form general ignorance....but you are mistaken, but I'll bite:

Name the effects only capable of running via GPU-physX (and not CPU-physX?

you are the poster child for ignorance in this thread. if you are truly that damn clueless about physx after all this time then how can anyone help you?

 

[Keysplayr]

No...it is better to have nothing than to have crap.GPU PhysX in its present form and looks and performance is crap.

Which is why it has not taken off.

OMG, LOL. Hardly dude. PhysX is improving/evolving all the time. Now 3.0 is working it's way through devs. It isn't going away. AMD users have to hack with an add in NV card to use it (and they do, a lot ) , or they do without or let the CPU run it at low settings.
Blame your company for not licensing and expediting the adoption of PhysX across both Nvidia and AMD platforms. They were offered, they refused. They still can today, nothing stopping them but pride. (I know, what pride) shrugs.

 

[NIGELG]

OMG, LOL. Hardly dude. PhysX is improving/evolving all the time. Now 3.0 is working it's way through devs. It isn't going away. AMD users have to hack with an add in NV card to use it (and they do, a lot ) , or they do without or let the CPU run it at low settings.
Blame your company for not licensing and expediting the adoption of PhysX across both Nvidia and AMD platforms. They were offered, they refused. They still can today, nothing stopping them but pride. (I know, what pride) shrugs.

Why do you respond to me with such ridiculous false statements??

Unlike you I have no affiliation with any company.What is with you and this ''blame your company '' crap,Mr Nvidia Focus Group Member?

Get this through your head.I have no affiliation with any company...The same cannot be said for you.

Maybe a lot of them hack because they can.I have never done the hack because I don't think it's worth it to me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Lol....the site physxinfo.com makes this distinction all the time.There is even a table with a checkbox for ''GPU accelerated '' games.

http://physxinfo.com/

I suppose you know more than them too.......

So you can name the effects available only in GPU-physx?
No?

Figured.

Wake me up when you actually have spendt time in the SDK...because it makes no such destinction.
The only reason why some effects gets locked to the GPU-pipe...is due to performance.
All effect can be done on the GPU or CPU...it's the performance advantage (on the GPU) that makes certain developers (Not NVIDIA or the PhysX API) lockk down certain feature as "GPU only".

It's not rocket science.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You mean something that will be widely used in games as opposed to a few titles a year? Isn't that better?

You don't want better?

No, physics is a different beast than graphics.
Hence why only one vendor has pulled of a solution that works in the real world.

That you suggest a physics-API tacked onto DirectX show you don't really know a lot about physics API's...or DirectX.

Try looking at the path of the code...and you will figure out why a physics API in DX is a pipedream.

 

[Lonbjerg]

you are the poster child for ignorance in this thread. if you are truly that damn clueless about physx after all this time then how can anyone help you?

I'm not sure what this post is supposed to mean?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Is it possible for you to grasp that we are talking about GPU hardware accelerated physX here and not the ones done on the CPU?

perhaps you should heed your own words? :whiste:

Why do you respond to me with such ridiculous false statements??

Unlike you I have no affiliation with any company.What is with you and this ''blame your company '' crap,Mr Nvidia Focus Group Member?

Get this through your head.I have no affiliation with any company...The same cannot be said for you.

Maybe a lot of them hack because they can.I have never done the hack because I don't think it's worth it to me.

 

[3DVagabond]

Listen everyone, the reason we have so much thread derailing going on and a complete refusal to comment on topic, is because no nVidia GPU's in next gen consoles has hurt some members epeans so bad they just can't allow this conversation to occur.

 

[NIGELG]

So you can name the effects available only in GPU-physx?
No?

Figured.

Wake me up when you actually have spendt time in the SDK...because it makes no such destinction.
The only reason why some effects gets locked to the GPU-pipe...is due to performance.
All effect can be done on the GPU or CPU...it's the performance advantage (on the GPU) that makes certain developers (Not NVIDIA or the PhysX API) lockk down certain feature as "GPU only".

It's not rocket science.

Like I said you are being semantic.

Even if there is no technical difference there is a performance difference.Which is why Physxinfo.com ,whom I certainly think know a lot more than some random forum poster like you, uses the distinction.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why do you respond to me with such ridiculous false statements??

Unlike you I have no affiliation with any company.What is with you and this ''blame your company '' crap,Mr Nvidia Focus Group Member?

Get this through your head.I have no affiliation with any company...The same cannot be said for you.

Maybe a lot of them hack because they can.I have never done the hack because I don't think it's worth it to me.

Woah. Touchy subject eh? What I "meant" was your favored company. Not that you worked for them. I have no proof of any such thing. So, my bad and sorry you misunderstood.

And they don't hack because they can. They hack because they want the PhysX. If they didn't care, they wouldn't hack. Don't let them tell you anything different. Oh wait, you ARE "them".
Seriously though, you know what I mean.

 

[NIGELG]

Woah. Touchy subject eh? What I "meant" was your favored company. Not that you worked for them. I have no proof of any such thing. So, my bad and sorry you misunderstood.

And they don't hack because they can. They hack because they want the PhysX. If they didn't care, they wouldn't hack. Don't let them tell you anything different. Oh wait, you ARE "them".
Seriously though, you know what I mean.

Well maybe if my failure of a 8800 gts had lasted I would have tried the hack it but I doubt it.

I've seen gpu PHYSx in action on other people's rigs in Mafia 2,Cyostasis,Batman, etc....colour me unimpressed.And that's not opposing for opposing sake.It looks awful to me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Like I said you are being semantic.

Even if there is no technical difference there is a performance difference.Which is why Physxinfo.com ,whom I certainly think know a lot more than some random forum poster like you, uses the distinction.

So a little PhysX (CPU is okay)...but use more (so only GPU's can deliver the performance)...and it's a bad, ugly and (according to the red team) unwanted thing?

:whiste:

LOL

Lesson learned from the red team:

Don't use to much realism...it's ugly *ROFL*

 

[Keysplayr]

I can assure you, Nigel. If AMD had licensed PhysX back when like they could have
and was a proponent in the advancement of PhysX instead of a technology stifler,
you and I wouldn't be talking about whether PhysX
is relevant. We'd be arguing over which company's GPUs runs it better. Dont even for a second try to make anyone believe this isnt the case.
Then you'd be aching for PhysX across consoles.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I can assure you, Nigel. If AMD had licensed PhysX back when like they could have
and was a proponent in the advancement of PhysX instead of a technology stifler,
you and I wouldn't be talking about whether PhysX
is relevant. We'd be arguing over which company's GPUs runs it better. Dont even for a second try to make anyone believe this isnt the case.
Then you'd be aching for PhysX across consoles.

AMD would have been very weary doing such a deal..it would hit their own GPGPU dreams.

Just like this:
"Why can't we code in CUDA for AMD GPU's? You run PhysX via CUDA on your (AMD) GPU's, why do we need to code in OpenCL or Direct Compute, we already code out GPGPU in CUDA?"

It's CUDA AMD fears...not so much PhysX

 

[SirPauly]

Can understand why nVidia uses Cuda for GPU PhysX but as a gamer, ideally, would like to see nVidia also use OpenCL, so many more gamers may enjoy GPU Physics if they choose.

nVidia is very bullish about Cuda and what it has done for the company -- don't see anything changing in the short or near term -- few years.

A lot of strong negative views but nVidia did say that the lack of content was their choice in the short term and did spend resources on SDK 3.0 -- to improve the tool sets -- there are three titles in a short span -- BorderLands 2, PlanetSide 2 and Hawken --- Ideally, would like to see between 6-12 titles a year. Will see what the future holds with content moving forward.

 

[krumme]

What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?

Real world: nvidia not in a console -> less physX titles

What is the purpose of the hypothetical question? - i dont see it, what good discussion is to come from it?

What are you looking for? physx is nothing today but another marketing gimmic used to get higher price for the same performance. Its the same as AMD vision talk, nothing but bs.

(edit: cuda is a thing today for the professional market, but my guess Intel avx is going to take much of the market in the long run, killing of the gpgpu advantage also)

 

[NIGELG]

So a little PhysX (CPU is okay)...but use more (so only GPU's can deliver the performance)...and it's a bad, ugly and (according to the red team) unwanted thing?

:whiste:

LOL

Lesson learned from the red team:

Don't use to much realism...it's ugly *ROFL*

Don't ask me...ask why that website uses the differentiation that you say doesn't exist.

And also ask why isn't GPU physX used in a lot more games instead of being snide,condescending and downright childish and arrogant.

 

[SirPauly]

I can assure you, Nigel. If AMD had licensed PhysX back when like they could have
and was a proponent in the advancement of PhysX instead of a technology stifler,
you and I wouldn't be talking about whether PhysX
is relevant. We'd be arguing over which company's GPUs runs it better. Dont even for a second try to make anyone believe this isnt the case.
Then you'd be aching for PhysX across consoles.

AMD obviously feels PhysX holds some promise based on they had quiet talks with nVidia, according to Richard Huddy! What's not to like really from a Physic and tool stand-point?

Speculation:

The key though, also believe AMD doesn't like Cuda -- and believe the quiet talks were about trying to port PhysX to OpenCL -- similar to what AMD did with Intel's Havok ported to OpenCL.

 

[NIGELG]

I can assure you, Nigel. If AMD had licensed PhysX back when like they could have
and was a proponent in the advancement of PhysX instead of a technology stifler,
you and I wouldn't be talking about whether PhysX
is relevant. We'd be arguing over which company's GPUs runs it better. Dont even for a second try to make anyone believe this isnt the case.
Then you'd be aching for PhysX across consoles.

If,if,if....if AMD had something as ugly as what I see in those games I would say the same.

Ugly is ugly no matter who produces it.

When HARDWARE ACCELARATED physics looks proper it will take off.4 games a year is not taking off.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Don't ask me...ask why that website uses the differentiation that you say doesn't exist.

And also ask why isn't GPU physX used in a lot more games instead of being snide,condescending and downright childish and arrogant.

Let me make this simple.

Does the SDK or a 3rd party website dictate was is and isn't facts about the PhysX API?

 

[Lonbjerg]

AMD obviously feels PhysX holds some promise based on they had quiet talks with nVidia, according to Richard Huddy! What's not to like really from a Physic and tool stand-point?

Speculation:

The key though, also believe AMD doesn't like Cuda -- and believe the quiet talks were about trying to port PhysX to OpenCL -- similar to what AMD did with Intel's Havok ported to OpenCL.

CUDA is the problem for AMD.
CUDA even found it way into games not using PhysX.

As much as people want to equate CUDA = OpenCL = DirectCompute...the reality isn't so.

CUDA is much more "mature" and have a better "ecosystem" that both OpenCL and Direct Compute....would AMD lock themselfes to CUDA (and NVIDIA's mercy)?

Nope.

But it also seems Intel is the "Kaizer Soze"...hiding in the background.

Intel killed both AMD's and NVIDIA's dabble with Havok....when they aquried Havok and killed off HavokFX (to return on a later date when Larrabbe is ready?).

NVIDIA was smart...and got AGEIA.

AMD got...well...nothing.
But they sure talk alot about when they need the PR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWL1Ikdqd9Q

I guess the red camp thinks AMD should drop all GPU physics...after that demo..is the best AMD can do...a demo...after...what...6-7 years of talk?

 

[SirPauly]

If some feel PhysX is crap or just marketing, well, it's fine -- there is an off setting after all.

The key to me about PhysX is nVidia may believe it was worth the resources for their customers. nVidia has the hardware and nothing is worse to me than having the hardware with no software -- could be one of the reasons why nVidia is proactive! If nVidia doesn't innovate -- they get crushed, imho! Talk about pressure!

 

[NIGELG]

Let me make this simple.

Does the SDK or a 3rd party website dictate was is and isn't facts about the PhysX API?

Let me make this simple.....does a random forum poster with a bias toward the green team dictate what are the facts or a third party website dedicated to the subject?

You act too much like a know it all .....