They already are crushing them in the CPU business. Once Intel gets larry up and running they will do the same on the GPU front. So what you are essentially saying is AMD hopes to get enough pity from Intel by signing on to Havok so they wont be crushed?
Doubtful. Intel will want to get AMD out of the way on the GPU front so they can tackle Nvidia.
Exactly my point of the post of mine you quoted. I am a gamer, I enjoy plaing many different types of games on my computer, yet from what I've seen of Physx, I just do not feel that I am missing out on anything, as it is right now. Will Physx be a must-have down the road? It may be. Right now it's very underwhelming. If I had a card that supported it I'd use it if the performance was acceptable and it was there, but in no way would I factor it into my purchasing decision yet. If I really wanted it, I could buy a new card today... but from what I've seen and experienced with it I wouldn't waste my time.
Feel free to continue though, Wreckage. Keep telling me how my opinion of what is important to me is wrong. Keep trying to convince us that so far Physx isn't underwhelming. So far Physx hasn't been able to convince us by itself.
Samsung and LG did not make only HD-DVD players. They made combo players. If I wanted to buy Samsung or LG HD-DVD players, there wasn't one. It's a non-option for those who want only an HD-DVD player and did not need/want blu ray and don't want to pay for something they didn't need.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
I feel that what you're saying is important to you, was maybe just invented? Because all you folks in here saying they do not want PhysX or it underwhelms me is really kind of full of it. I remember when 3dc came out. It did hardly anything, but everyone swore by it saying you have to have this it is the coolest thing. Direct X 10.1 as well. It's the coolest most significant feature imaginable right now. What?
When it DOES work correctly, yes it does speed up games, but that's it.
Would you rather have faster games, or more immersive games? Both playable framerates mind you. There is no harm, and no shame stating that you think PhysX is a very cool thing. Because it is. Hell guys, if 1 level higher of AA thrills you and creates quite a stir, I don't see how PhysX can't get anyone, and I mean anyone excited about it. You can't really just sit there and say otherwise and expect me not to crack a smile. Because I do when I read your posts and see how really unbelievable they are for enthusiast gamers. Surreal actually.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
I don't see a difference dude. Either they can play HD-DVD's or they cannot. End of story.
And to say consumers were not interested in combo players is beyond hysterical. Why wouldn't they? That would be the first type of unit I know "I" would look for during that war. This way, when one collapses, I don't have the unfortunate situation of saying, "Ah crap, i should have bought the Blu-Ray player instead."
PA - Lease.
And I think we can move now from this metaphorical conversation back on topic.
Uhhh, you think that because Intel allows AMD to work on Havok, Intel isn't going to compete against AMD CPUs anymore?
I think it has no effect.
AMD's CPUs are all but crushed by Intel already.
In fact, it seems almost like Intel needed a new challenge, so they're taking on nVidia now.
The GPUs would do fine, regardless of whether it's PhysX or Havok powering the physics.
nVidia was going to let ATi make their own implementation with the API of choice. ATi could do a very lowlevel optimized PhysX driver for their hardware, much like how nVidia did it with Cuda.
And you think Havok with its ties to Intel would give ATi a better deal than that? I doubt it.
PhysX is cool (not must have form the games that have come out so far but that could change)...but HAVING to buy an nVidia card to be able to run it is NOT cool (I want to have a choice). Imagine if you could only run something like AA on either ATI or nV cards? That would not be cool.
Haven't we heard this many times before though?
Like with DX10 and Crysis for example... "Oh, you can barely tell the difference with DX9, and it's slower anyway... besides you need to get Vista".
Or with DX8 vs DX9, or SM2.0 vs SM3.0....
Basically everytime some new technology popped up.
No, most technologies aren't going to take the world by storm... But if you look back... I think DX10 and Vista/Windows 7 are now pretty accepted, and most people who have DX10 will run Crysis in DX10 mode, even though DX9 may look *almost* as good and get higher framerates.
Just like I think most people with an nVidia card will enable PhysX effects in games like Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis, just because it makes it look that bit cooler and more realistic.
In a few years we may all have hardware that supports it, and we'll just laugh at these silly discussions... "Wow, did anyone ever think that DX10/PhysX would NOT be cool in games?"
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
More than that, I think ATI knew their architecture and had known it wouldn't have a prayer competing with even a G80 when it came to running PhysX on it's GPU's. No matter how well or how much time they put into using the best API they could possibly get on their almost impossible to code for architecture.
Would it run it? Of course! Better than any CPU could thats for certain. I think ATI made the ONLY move they could make when they chose Intel's Havok.
There once was such a time, grasshopper...
ATi was the first with MSAA on the Radeon 9500/9700 series. nVidia only had the GeForce4, which only supported SSAA, which was too slow to actually use.
People rushed to buy the Radeon 9500/9700 simply because it was better.
I never said that Physx (the technology) was anything but very promising and very cool tech. I think hardware accelerated physics will be as common as any modern feature eventurally. Will it be Physx? Will it be something else? Will there be more than one? I don't know. I've never once said that the Physx tech is garbage or anything of the sort. What I have said, and will say again here, is that the way it has been implemented in games thus far, from what I have seen and experienced it do so far is NOT impressive to me. Not by a long shot.
I'd like for you to find some place where I said DX10.1 is a must have. At most I've compared Physx to it. Both are not used by more than a handful of games and both are exclusive. The only time I've used DX10.1 in discussion is to point out that both camps have a handful of unique features... some people have a tendancy to point out Nvidia's unique features (like Physx) while completely ignoring the fact that AMD has few unique things as well.
Let me say it plainly... I think the technology is very cool. I think it's great that Nvidia is thinking beyond the "how many polygons can we push" "how much fill rate can we achieve" mentality and looking at other improvements to their hardware. But then I watch something like the Cryostasis video you asked me to watch and am underwhelmed by how this technology is put to use.
I'd like for you to find some place where I said DX10.1 is a must have. At most I've compared Physx to it. Both are not used by more than a handful of games and both are exclusive. The only time I've used DX10.1 in discussion is to point out that both camps have a handful of unique features... some people have a tendancy to point out Nvidia's unique features (like Physx) while completely ignoring the fact that AMD has few unique things as well.
Let me say it plainly... I think the technology is very cool. I think it's great that Nvidia is thinking beyond the "how many polygons can we push" "how much fill rate can we achieve" mentality and looking at other improvements to their hardware. But then I watch something like the Cryostasis video you asked me to watch and am underwhelmed by how this technology is put to use.
Yea, nVidia probably knew that too, being as inviting as they were. As if they were trying to lure ATi into the trap.
You can see it now with Folding@Home. ATi has been at it for years... nVidia recently made their first Cuda-based client for Folding@Home, and it completely blows ATi away. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first OpenCL software emerges.
And how ironic it would be if Havok would run better on nVidia GPUs than on ATi's.
How long ago did Physx launch though? Is it still new? It's been on the market for a while now (more than 2 years, right?) and how many games support it?
When the C2D launched even AMD fan boys had to have a rig powered by it. How long did it take for hardware T&L to make any card without that obsolete? How long did it take for DX9 to completely make DX8 obsolete? Some techs take longer than others to really take off. How long has Physx been around now?
There's a good reason for that. Havok has been around longer than Physx.
Doesn't mean anyone else should adopt those standards. Hence the low number of games using GPU-accelerated physx.
I've heard that one before too. Except that Intel has no appropriate HW to compete with AMD's gpu's in physics accelerations, and in fact Intel has no gpu-accelerated physics implementation at all.
So you make time to create one for that purpose, instead of doing a rush-job implementation so you can put another checkbox on your marketing slides.
Well, you're not like the majority of consumers then. Because, as I said, the combo players, Samsung or LG, were never bestsellers. They cost almost as much as buying separate HD-DVD player and blu ray player combined. It was so close that if one is so concerned about picking the wrong format, one might as well just buy separate players.
Depends... nVidia's GPU acceleration was only added earlier this year. Before that, it was a completely different story, with only the elusive PPU accelerating it.
After nVidia announced GPU acceleration, the amount of titles using PhysX quickly increased, and the titles using Havok decreased.
So it is likely that PhysX is going to overtake Havok eventually. Havok has been around longer, so there are more games using it currently, but it seems that there are more games in development with PhysX support now.
True. But I remember when I first heard the sound and music coming from the PC running the Wing Commander game, I wanted to go and buy a Soundblaster sound card immediately. Physics effects, on the other hand, doesn't come even close to making an impression like that on me.
Yea, but many developers don't like paying for Havok. Especially smaller developers.
Look at a game like I-Fluid. That would never have been possible with Havok because a small game studio like that could never afford Havok.
That's still more games than using any other kind of physics acceleration.
Not yet... Then again, ATi doesn't have any gpu-accelerated physics yet either.
I wouldn't be surprised if the accelerated version of Havok is relased at the same time as Larrabee, sometime next year.
And believe me, Larrabee is going to do VERY well in physics.
If you think Cuda is a rush-job, we're done talking.
Yea well... maybe the difference is that PCs completely sucked, where other computers had sound for ages, and games already had quite advanced sound systems by the time the first PC was able to make a noise different than just beeps.
Physics is only just beginning, and it takes time for the technology to mature. Game developers don't just 'switch on' physics effects. They need to learn how to mold the basic calculations from the API into effects and interactions in their game engines, and then the artists need to design levels where these physics effects can be applied etc. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Did AMD stop selling CPUs? Did Intel stop work on Larrabee?
AMD is cutting off their nose to spite their face and it will cost them I'm sure.
Since we are talking about GPU physics, who cares about Havok. That's a discussion for the "CPU" forum. Until at least one game is released using Havok on the GPU it's all smoke and mirrors.
You HAVE to buy windows to get DirectX. How come that does not bother you?
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter