This is the myth right there, because nvidia implements some features unique to their cards that are very limited in scope and only work with a small number of titles, they are suddenly innovative and trying harder ?
What happened to the innovation being in producing powerful GPUs and video cards. Just straight up raw horsepower. Being the leader in delivering higher performing parts ?
This constant reference to 'innovation' because of things like physx and 3dvision is getting tired and old.
Right now the innovation is coming from ATI. They're delivering higher performing parts to market faster than nvidia. They are making better technology available to the end-user sooner than nvidia.
Higher framerates give a better experience than useless stuff like physx. You can continue to say well what is the difference between 200 and 100fps and I agree, nothing. But when we are talking about games that are visually stunning, higher framerates are everything, because it's the difference between playing the game and a stuttering slideshow.
If we are talking about increasing resolutions to higher and higher levels, which arguably makes a big visual impact, we need raw performance, not junk like physx.
And for perspective, my system gets about 80-90fps without physx in Mafia 2 and gets as low as 25 to as high as 50 with physx on. It makes the game unplayable in certain areas, so it really does matter. If it was actually delivering a significant visual improvement I wouldn't find it so unreasonable, but it gives such a small addition that a 50% framerate cut is laughable.
When a developer wants to again push the envelope in real tangible visual improvement, the way a game like Crysis did. It's not physx that will do it, it's raw GPU horsepower and the ability to deliver those visuals at a playable framerate.
ATI is currently faster to market, there's no question about that. But Nvidia currently has the fastest GPU. Even when HD68xx comes out, it's not like Nvidia cards will suddenly become slow, they just won't be the fastest until they refresh. So if you count having a fast GPU as innovation. Then both companies innovate.
But if you want something outside of just raw speed, then Nvidia provides more innovation than ATI does, because besides Eyefinity, there not really much else for ATI.
It very true that Physx has a small number of titles (I think 3d can be used with almost any title?), but what about raw speed above a certain level? It obviously important to you. But besides a few titles at high resolutions (over 19x12) what midrange card (GTX460 and above) isn't playable (I know subjective, but then so is saying physx, 3d or multiple monitors aren't necessary or suck)? The number of titles that need more than a GTX460 at mainstream resolutions is probably EVEN smaller than the titles that use Physx. I'm talking about quantity of games not quality.
So ATI is innovating for this small uber performancing demanding crowd. But so does Nvidia, maybe not as fast as you would like currently, but they are. But Nvidia is also innovating for people that would like maybe something besides just raw speed. Why is this bad?
To increase resolutions so they have a big impact. You need an expensive monitor. I would argue that people that have these monitors already have cards that can drive them with current titles. Do you for see any title within the next upgrade cycle that are more demanding than Metro 2033 or Crysis? If not or not many, then I would argue a faster card is just as useless as you claim physx to be. Not for all, but for many.
You claim to not want to do tweaking to run physx well. That's fine and up to you. But if you plan on getting the fastest ATI cards and Crossfiring them. Are you going to bitch about crossfire too then? Because currently it does require some tweaking to get to work optimally. Until the latest drivers, it was pretty much broken for the last couple of month for several games.
Regarding what developers want... Name some PC games that required raw horsepower to give tangible visual improvement after Crysis (a game thats several years old)? Not many, besides Star Craft 2 most notworthy games are console ports now. Developers develop for console first and then port it over to the PC with little or no modification (unless of course some video card vendor pays for it). Crysis 2 may change that. But that's not until next year when NI and Fermi 2 should be coming out.
So is it bad to have more speed than you need? Of course not. You buy the card knowing your spending the funds on something you don't really need right now or might not ever need. But then you could say the same about physx, 3d, eyefinity etc etc. It's built into the cost of the card. Already paid for, if you don't use it fine, but it's there in case you do.
Facebook
Twitter