PhysX and X-RAM

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: kirilus
I was thinking the same way (No!) but wanted to get the general opinion of the community which seems quite uniform.

Well, given the price and the fact that such products are being made and sold - what is the value of such cards? Does PhysX technology has any use in areas other than gaming?

none
which is why its dead in the water.
more and more faster cores on our cpus. perhaps a gpu that can also do physics.
theres no need.
and physics is overrated. they have yet to show me a game that needs accelerated physics to be fun. stacking boxes and stuff has been around since half life 1 breaking stuff isn't that great either.
so no killer game play app found.

i'll take whatever physics a multicore cpu can give me, no rush. how much physics do you need. pong or arkanoid did ok with simple game play physics. how could you improve on it with a physx?

so far mostly physx has shown an ability to render a fluttery flag, some blood that looks like a pile of marbles, and some tornado stuff. bah i could care less.

You must have loved Software acceleration back in the day, I bet you were the last person to buy a dedicated video card. Infact I think you're running on integrated graphics as we speak!

i had 3dfx v1 and v2.
3d gaming was fundamental to immersion in game play. frankly it was required to get a decent framerate at a decent resolution. it was hardly the same as a physx card. graphics is the basic interface to your computer after all. the difference between it and 3d decelerators like stealth3d cards was non trivial. it was superbly functional compared to its few competitors which were useless. 3d graphics were something really special back then, entering the new world of cgi in films and 3d games, where the future was supposed to be all 3d and vr. there was a real desire for it. better flag simulation from physx is hardly similar really. back then the computer was feature bare. we had a soundcard perhaps. the experience could really really be improved. the jump in experience from non 3dfx to 3dfx was incredible. now with 3d sound, surround speakers cheap, 3d graphics cheap, multicore cpu cheap, the experience is fundamentally rich. improving on the experience isn't like it was back then when gamers were starving for improvement. now gamers are spoiled with hardware power. thus offering a physx card isnt all that attractive.

No it's not, it's not feature rich at all. Visually speaking and auditorily speaking games are pretty good, but soon as you ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME it turns to shit. No matter how nice the textures are, no matter how pretty the effects are, no matter how good the sound is, unless I can get a realistic response for a given action, all immersion is lost.

In Farcry if I shoot at the tires, it does nothing, shooting at "the tires" in the same spot enough times regardless of proximity to something explosive, the car WILL explode. If I shoot my gun at the docks, regardless of how many times I shoot it, it will NOT be damaged. If I shoot a grenade into a building, no matter how many times I do this, the building will NOT collapse.

Crysis added a lot of cool features but because they're done on the CPU, they're extremely primitive models of what ACTUALLY should be happening. A house isn't built with 10 pieces of wood, and two tin roofs. If I launch a rocket launcher into a concrete wall, I should expect to see millions of pieces flying out. When I destroy something, I don't want it to be damaged in the exact same way each and every time, I want the damage to be variable and different, to be affected by the angle and distance I launched my attack. In BF2 when you blow up the bridge, it blows up in the exact same way each and every time and that's because to do a realistic bridge collapse would require immense amounts of CPU processing power, but with a PPU, slowly evolving, this could've become a reality. If I launch a rocket into a tower in BF2, absolutely NOTHING is done to the tower except a "burn" mark or black powder mark is left behind.

When I play a game I'm looking for immersion, to be honest I am far more immersed in a game with lots of interactivity than a game with pretty textures. For the first 10 or 20 minutes when I play a new game, the textures really pop out and are quite stunning. But after a short time playing the game, I get used to it and then I start to see the flaws, Oblivion looks gorgeous but to say that it looks realistic with how the grass is rendered and how it flows in the wind would be a downright lie.

Do you understand why we need a PPU? The PPU could add so much to a video game, so much replay value and add new elements of gameplay untapped because of our slow CPUs simply cannot handle the task.

well the thing is, you can't have a player blowing up all the level objectives. the entire gaming experience IS a simplified version of life like it or not. you cannot account for wind speed and rely on a spotter when you snipe in games for instance, instead you leap around using an awp like in cs. total freedom to blow up things really doesn't make a game any better. honestly people don't care that much about the minutia of realistic response, else mario or doom would never have become popular. if we are talking realism in cs one shot to the leg should have you bleeding to death and crawling on the floor barely able to shoot for instance. you can model that even without a ppu

and of course a rocket blowing up a tower isnt' possible in tf2. game play relies on certain elements not being destructable. its about game play, not reality.

and frankly we weren't really talking about how cynical and bored we are of video game graphics and how nothing impresses us anymore. thats fine, it happens as you get older in general. honestly you are expecting a level of graphical rendernig the cpu/gpu couldn't put out anyways and are just assuming a ppu would magically toss us a few generations ahead in graphics. i don't think its really like that. give the video card more and more detail to render and it'll slow to a crawl. everything has to move together on this.

Go watch some demos on UT3 or Cell factor. You probably have already and so you'll get my point that a lot of things can't be quickly or easily done unless you've got a dedicated physics processing unit.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I grabbed my sound card (with X-RAM) when it had a rebate, making it roughly the same price as the X-Fi XtremeMusic (no X-RAM). There were a few compatibility issues with some games, but most things ran fine.

Just to test, I swapped it out for an X-Fi XtremeMusic about 6-9 months ago to see if there actually was an improvement. I did notice a 1-2 FPS increase on average in a few select games (Battlefield 2, Doom 3; if I remember correctly) but that's about it. I won't say that it's complete garbage, but I would never pay an extra cent for it.

Basically, it's just another gimmick to give people a reason to spend money. I kept the full "name" of the card in my signature because I get PMs from time to time asking if it's worth it or not, not because I think it makes my computer ub3r l33t. It does have some cool red LED on it... I guess...

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: kirilus
I was thinking the same way (No!) but wanted to get the general opinion of the community which seems quite uniform.

Well, given the price and the fact that such products are being made and sold - what is the value of such cards? Does PhysX technology has any use in areas other than gaming?

none
which is why its dead in the water.
more and more faster cores on our cpus. perhaps a gpu that can also do physics.
theres no need.
and physics is overrated. they have yet to show me a game that needs accelerated physics to be fun. stacking boxes and stuff has been around since half life 1 breaking stuff isn't that great either.
so no killer game play app found.

i'll take whatever physics a multicore cpu can give me, no rush. how much physics do you need. pong or arkanoid did ok with simple game play physics. how could you improve on it with a physx?

so far mostly physx has shown an ability to render a fluttery flag, some blood that looks like a pile of marbles, and some tornado stuff. bah i could care less.

You must have loved Software acceleration back in the day, I bet you were the last person to buy a dedicated video card. Infact I think you're running on integrated graphics as we speak!

i had 3dfx v1 and v2.
3d gaming was fundamental to immersion in game play. frankly it was required to get a decent framerate at a decent resolution. it was hardly the same as a physx card. graphics is the basic interface to your computer after all. the difference between it and 3d decelerators like stealth3d cards was non trivial. it was superbly functional compared to its few competitors which were useless. 3d graphics were something really special back then, entering the new world of cgi in films and 3d games, where the future was supposed to be all 3d and vr. there was a real desire for it. better flag simulation from physx is hardly similar really. back then the computer was feature bare. we had a soundcard perhaps. the experience could really really be improved. the jump in experience from non 3dfx to 3dfx was incredible. now with 3d sound, surround speakers cheap, 3d graphics cheap, multicore cpu cheap, the experience is fundamentally rich. improving on the experience isn't like it was back then when gamers were starving for improvement. now gamers are spoiled with hardware power. thus offering a physx card isnt all that attractive.

No it's not, it's not feature rich at all. Visually speaking and auditorily speaking games are pretty good, but soon as you ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME it turns to shit. No matter how nice the textures are, no matter how pretty the effects are, no matter how good the sound is, unless I can get a realistic response for a given action, all immersion is lost.

In Farcry if I shoot at the tires, it does nothing, shooting at "the tires" in the same spot enough times regardless of proximity to something explosive, the car WILL explode. If I shoot my gun at the docks, regardless of how many times I shoot it, it will NOT be damaged. If I shoot a grenade into a building, no matter how many times I do this, the building will NOT collapse.

Crysis added a lot of cool features but because they're done on the CPU, they're extremely primitive models of what ACTUALLY should be happening. A house isn't built with 10 pieces of wood, and two tin roofs. If I launch a rocket launcher into a concrete wall, I should expect to see millions of pieces flying out. When I destroy something, I don't want it to be damaged in the exact same way each and every time, I want the damage to be variable and different, to be affected by the angle and distance I launched my attack. In BF2 when you blow up the bridge, it blows up in the exact same way each and every time and that's because to do a realistic bridge collapse would require immense amounts of CPU processing power, but with a PPU, slowly evolving, this could've become a reality. If I launch a rocket into a tower in BF2, absolutely NOTHING is done to the tower except a "burn" mark or black powder mark is left behind.

When I play a game I'm looking for immersion, to be honest I am far more immersed in a game with lots of interactivity than a game with pretty textures. For the first 10 or 20 minutes when I play a new game, the textures really pop out and are quite stunning. But after a short time playing the game, I get used to it and then I start to see the flaws, Oblivion looks gorgeous but to say that it looks realistic with how the grass is rendered and how it flows in the wind would be a downright lie.

Do you understand why we need a PPU? The PPU could add so much to a video game, so much replay value and add new elements of gameplay untapped because of our slow CPUs simply cannot handle the task.

well the thing is, you can't have a player blowing up all the level objectives. the entire gaming experience IS a simplified version of life like it or not. you cannot account for wind speed and rely on a spotter when you snipe in games for instance, instead you leap around using an awp like in cs. total freedom to blow up things really doesn't make a game any better. honestly people don't care that much about the minutia of realistic response, else mario or doom would never have become popular. if we are talking realism in cs one shot to the leg should have you bleeding to death and crawling on the floor barely able to shoot for instance. you can model that even without a ppu

and of course a rocket blowing up a tower isnt' possible in tf2. game play relies on certain elements not being destructable. its about game play, not reality.

and frankly we weren't really talking about how cynical and bored we are of video game graphics and how nothing impresses us anymore. thats fine, it happens as you get older in general. honestly you are expecting a level of graphical rendernig the cpu/gpu couldn't put out anyways and are just assuming a ppu would magically toss us a few generations ahead in graphics. i don't think its really like that. give the video card more and more detail to render and it'll slow to a crawl. everything has to move together on this.

Go watch some demos on UT3 or Cell factor. You probably have already and so you'll get my point that a lot of things can't be quickly or easily done unless you've got a dedicated physics processing unit.

nothing i've seen is a must for game play. stacking boxes and tossing around debris is no killer app just because you have a bit more especially if it costs money that is better spent on a nicer gpu/cpu.


btw cell factor is a joke
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1056037

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: kirilus
I was thinking the same way (No!) but wanted to get the general opinion of the community which seems quite uniform.

Well, given the price and the fact that such products are being made and sold - what is the value of such cards? Does PhysX technology has any use in areas other than gaming?

none
which is why its dead in the water.
more and more faster cores on our cpus. perhaps a gpu that can also do physics.
theres no need.
and physics is overrated. they have yet to show me a game that needs accelerated physics to be fun. stacking boxes and stuff has been around since half life 1 breaking stuff isn't that great either.
so no killer game play app found.

i'll take whatever physics a multicore cpu can give me, no rush. how much physics do you need. pong or arkanoid did ok with simple game play physics. how could you improve on it with a physx?

so far mostly physx has shown an ability to render a fluttery flag, some blood that looks like a pile of marbles, and some tornado stuff. bah i could care less.

You must have loved Software acceleration back in the day, I bet you were the last person to buy a dedicated video card. Infact I think you're running on integrated graphics as we speak!

i had 3dfx v1 and v2.
3d gaming was fundamental to immersion in game play. frankly it was required to get a decent framerate at a decent resolution. it was hardly the same as a physx card. graphics is the basic interface to your computer after all. the difference between it and 3d decelerators like stealth3d cards was non trivial. it was superbly functional compared to its few competitors which were useless. 3d graphics were something really special back then, entering the new world of cgi in films and 3d games, where the future was supposed to be all 3d and vr. there was a real desire for it. better flag simulation from physx is hardly similar really. back then the computer was feature bare. we had a soundcard perhaps. the experience could really really be improved. the jump in experience from non 3dfx to 3dfx was incredible. now with 3d sound, surround speakers cheap, 3d graphics cheap, multicore cpu cheap, the experience is fundamentally rich. improving on the experience isn't like it was back then when gamers were starving for improvement. now gamers are spoiled with hardware power. thus offering a physx card isnt all that attractive.

No it's not, it's not feature rich at all. Visually speaking and auditorily speaking games are pretty good, but soon as you ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME it turns to shit. No matter how nice the textures are, no matter how pretty the effects are, no matter how good the sound is, unless I can get a realistic response for a given action, all immersion is lost.

In Farcry if I shoot at the tires, it does nothing, shooting at "the tires" in the same spot enough times regardless of proximity to something explosive, the car WILL explode. If I shoot my gun at the docks, regardless of how many times I shoot it, it will NOT be damaged. If I shoot a grenade into a building, no matter how many times I do this, the building will NOT collapse.

Crysis added a lot of cool features but because they're done on the CPU, they're extremely primitive models of what ACTUALLY should be happening. A house isn't built with 10 pieces of wood, and two tin roofs. If I launch a rocket launcher into a concrete wall, I should expect to see millions of pieces flying out. When I destroy something, I don't want it to be damaged in the exact same way each and every time, I want the damage to be variable and different, to be affected by the angle and distance I launched my attack. In BF2 when you blow up the bridge, it blows up in the exact same way each and every time and that's because to do a realistic bridge collapse would require immense amounts of CPU processing power, but with a PPU, slowly evolving, this could've become a reality. If I launch a rocket into a tower in BF2, absolutely NOTHING is done to the tower except a "burn" mark or black powder mark is left behind.

When I play a game I'm looking for immersion, to be honest I am far more immersed in a game with lots of interactivity than a game with pretty textures. For the first 10 or 20 minutes when I play a new game, the textures really pop out and are quite stunning. But after a short time playing the game, I get used to it and then I start to see the flaws, Oblivion looks gorgeous but to say that it looks realistic with how the grass is rendered and how it flows in the wind would be a downright lie.

Do you understand why we need a PPU? The PPU could add so much to a video game, so much replay value and add new elements of gameplay untapped because of our slow CPUs simply cannot handle the task.

well the thing is, you can't have a player blowing up all the level objectives. the entire gaming experience IS a simplified version of life like it or not. you cannot account for wind speed and rely on a spotter when you snipe in games for instance, instead you leap around using an awp like in cs. total freedom to blow up things really doesn't make a game any better. honestly people don't care that much about the minutia of realistic response, else mario or doom would never have become popular. if we are talking realism in cs one shot to the leg should have you bleeding to death and crawling on the floor barely able to shoot for instance. you can model that even without a ppu

and of course a rocket blowing up a tower isnt' possible in tf2. game play relies on certain elements not being destructable. its about game play, not reality.

and frankly we weren't really talking about how cynical and bored we are of video game graphics and how nothing impresses us anymore. thats fine, it happens as you get older in general. honestly you are expecting a level of graphical rendernig the cpu/gpu couldn't put out anyways and are just assuming a ppu would magically toss us a few generations ahead in graphics. i don't think its really like that. give the video card more and more detail to render and it'll slow to a crawl. everything has to move together on this.

Go watch some demos on UT3 or Cell factor. You probably have already and so you'll get my point that a lot of things can't be quickly or easily done unless you've got a dedicated physics processing unit.

nothing i've seen is a must for game play. stacking boxes and tossing around debris is no killer app just because you have a bit more especially if it costs money that is better spent on a nicer gpu/cpu.


btw cell factor is a joke
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1056037

Cell factor was just the tip of the iceberg. Personally I consider cell factor and Unreal 3 to be like GL quake, others disagree. I think the problem is that people just can't see the potential from the PPU.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: n7
Absolutely.

I strongly urge everyone here to buy those cards for uber performance! :laugh:


>_>

Here is a link for really cheap ones, too!
www.fakesite.com/?referral=give+roguestar+commissions+plzthx

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: kirilus
Ageia and Creative Labs

Each card is about $100... are they worth it?

PhysX is the most overhyped nonsense since the RAM doubler/optimizers back in the 1990's.

Why?

There are virtually no games that support PhysX, there is currently no indication of this changing, and also, what this promises programmers can do themselves, especially these days with multiple cores.

And the biggest joke about PhysX was trying to sell it on the fact that if allows cloth to react to wind or allows more particles when exploding barrels. It tried to make you believe that without it you won't get realistic effects in games. The answer to this is what a load of bull.

Take RTCW for example from 2002, as if by magic the curtains moved due to the wind and no PhysX in sight. Must be magic right? Nah, the programmers implemented the physics and did so without needing extra hardware in the days when the Pentium 4 2.2GHz was the best of the crop.

Nvidia didn't buy Ageia because they posed a threat of any sort. They bought them because it's easier to buy in some technology/API than develop your own. This way Nvidia, should they want to, can be one step ahead of AMD when it comes to physics in games. It's always nice to have a head start in business as time really is money. Also, it's sometimes best to clear the industry of any potential bounties hence stop your competition from potentially buying anything that could give them a leap forward of any kind. Nvidia thought, aha, right then, and killed two birds with one stone. It wasn't even an expensive purchase which underlines the smart thinking aspect within Nvidia itself.

The bottom line is you don't need PhysX or whatever Nvidia comes out with to do physics in games. It's just one of several ways to go about it. Until using PhysX shows benefits to game developers this won't change.

I wouldn't be at all surprised with game developers resisting to use PhysX in future games having already developed prior physics code which they can just expand on and improve instead of using something that forces an entire redo of code.

As for the Killer NIC. Yet another joke and half developed to bring in naive consumers thinking their gaming will improve. Anyone with even moderate networking knowledge will tell you that QoS can start at the NIC level but it most definitely does not end there.

But that's life. You get these types of companies that crop out claiming to do magic and claim to have a product even the likes of Intel, Sun, IBM etc. engineers couldn't invent. One could say they're idiots but it's rather them being smart and knowing that the vast bulk of consumers are simply naive or ill informed hence would probably buy what you're attempting to sell quite easily. Kudos to their thinking, but don't be a believer. Pigs could not fly and never will fly, lots of things in the IT Industry are exactly the same.

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: n7
Absolutely.

I strongly urge everyone here to buy those cards for uber performance! :laugh:


>_>

Here is a link for really cheap ones, too!
www.fakesite.com/?referral=give+roguestar+commissions+plzthx

omgwtfbbq, i got 100 points!

 

[tigersty1e]

I can't comment on the PPU because I don't have one nor have I seen the performance increase with it... but a lot of the internet is just a rehash of what other people say.. especially on this site.

A lot of people will say that PhysX is a load of crap without ever reading an article or doing any research on their own. They just read threads like this and then when someone asks again in a few weeks, they chime in without any real knowledge and say it's crap.

PhysX probably is crap, but the point is to do your own research and not ask people on this site. Go to the gaming forum and you'll see that everyone banded together to make Dues Ex the best video game ever made.... just as an example.


As far as the X-ram.. go to Creative's site and see the list of titles that support X-Ram. Not every game supports X-ram just as not every game supports EAX. But I got the x-Ram not because of the increase of "performance", but the increase in sound settings....

If BF2, the X-ram gives you 128 sounds with the ultra-high setting.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: GFORCE100

Originally posted by: kirilus
Ageia and Creative Labs

Each card is about $100... are they worth it?

PhysX is the most overhyped nonsense since the RAM doubler/optimizers back in the 1990's.

Why?

There are virtually no games that support PhysX, there is currently no indication of this changing, and also, what this promises programmers can do themselves, especially these days with multiple cores.

And the biggest joke about PhysX was trying to sell it on the fact that if allows cloth to react to wind or allows more particles when exploding barrels. It tried to make you believe that without it you won't get realistic effects in games. The answer to this is what a load of bull.

Take RTCW for example from 2002, as if by magic the curtains moved due to the wind and no PhysX in sight. Must be magic right? Nah, the programmers implemented the physics and did so without needing extra hardware in the days when the Pentium 4 2.2GHz was the best of the crop.

Nvidia didn't buy Ageia because they posed a threat of any sort. They bought them because it's easier to buy in some technology/API than develop your own. This way Nvidia, should they want to, can be one step ahead of AMD when it comes to physics in games. It's always nice to have a head start in business as time really is money. Also, it's sometimes best to clear the industry of any potential bounties hence stop your competition from potentially buying anything that could give them a leap forward of any kind. Nvidia thought, aha, right then, and killed two birds with one stone. It wasn't even an expensive purchase which underlines the smart thinking aspect within Nvidia itself.

The bottom line is you don't need PhysX or whatever Nvidia comes out with to do physics in games. It's just one of several ways to go about it. Until using PhysX shows benefits to game developers this won't change.

I wouldn't be at all surprised with game developers resisting to use PhysX in future games having already developed prior physics code which they can just expand on and improve instead of using something that forces an entire redo of code.

As for the Killer NIC. Yet another joke and half developed to bring in naive consumers thinking their gaming will improve. Anyone with even moderate networking knowledge will tell you that QoS can start at the NIC level but it most definitely does not end there.

But that's life. You get these types of companies that crop out claiming to do magic and claim to have a product even the likes of Intel, Sun, IBM etc. engineers couldn't invent. One could say they're idiots but it's rather them being smart and knowing that the vast bulk of consumers are simply naive or ill informed hence would probably buy what you're attempting to sell quite easily. Kudos to their thinking, but don't be a believer. Pigs could not fly and never will fly, lots of things in the IT Industry are exactly the same.

You are absolutely clueless. If your fear is that these hardware companies are out to make nonsense products to take away your hard earned dollars while offering sub par performance, features and creating more landfill, your fears can be put to rest. For what you need to fear is not the hardware companies trying to get you to buy a new add-in card but the companies that use their programmers and developers like slaves while pushing out a subpar product that is reminiscent of russia's totalitarian society. Anyone ring a bell? Yes? No? If not, I give you: Electronic Arts

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: GFORCE100

Originally posted by: kirilus
Ageia and Creative Labs

Each card is about $100... are they worth it?

PhysX is the most overhyped nonsense since the RAM doubler/optimizers back in the 1990's.

Why?

There are virtually no games that support PhysX, there is currently no indication of this changing, and also, what this promises programmers can do themselves, especially these days with multiple cores.

And the biggest joke about PhysX was trying to sell it on the fact that if allows cloth to react to wind or allows more particles when exploding barrels. It tried to make you believe that without it you won't get realistic effects in games. The answer to this is what a load of bull.

Take RTCW for example from 2002, as if by magic the curtains moved due to the wind and no PhysX in sight. Must be magic right? Nah, the programmers implemented the physics and did so without needing extra hardware in the days when the Pentium 4 2.2GHz was the best of the crop.

Nvidia didn't buy Ageia because they posed a threat of any sort. They bought them because it's easier to buy in some technology/API than develop your own. This way Nvidia, should they want to, can be one step ahead of AMD when it comes to physics in games. It's always nice to have a head start in business as time really is money. Also, it's sometimes best to clear the industry of any potential bounties hence stop your competition from potentially buying anything that could give them a leap forward of any kind. Nvidia thought, aha, right then, and killed two birds with one stone. It wasn't even an expensive purchase which underlines the smart thinking aspect within Nvidia itself.

The bottom line is you don't need PhysX or whatever Nvidia comes out with to do physics in games. It's just one of several ways to go about it. Until using PhysX shows benefits to game developers this won't change.

I wouldn't be at all surprised with game developers resisting to use PhysX in future games having already developed prior physics code which they can just expand on and improve instead of using something that forces an entire redo of code.

As for the Killer NIC. Yet another joke and half developed to bring in naive consumers thinking their gaming will improve. Anyone with even moderate networking knowledge will tell you that QoS can start at the NIC level but it most definitely does not end there.

But that's life. You get these types of companies that crop out claiming to do magic and claim to have a product even the likes of Intel, Sun, IBM etc. engineers couldn't invent. One could say they're idiots but it's rather them being smart and knowing that the vast bulk of consumers are simply naive or ill informed hence would probably buy what you're attempting to sell quite easily. Kudos to their thinking, but don't be a believer. Pigs could not fly and never will fly, lots of things in the IT Industry are exactly the same.

You are absolutely clueless. If your fear is that these hardware companies are out to make nonsense products to take away your hard earned dollars while offering sub par performance, features and creating more landfill, your fears can be put to rest. For what you need to fear is not the hardware companies trying to get you to buy a new add-in card but the companies that use their programmers and developers like slaves while pushing out a subpar product that is reminiscent of russia's totalitarian society. Anyone ring a bell? Yes? No? If not, I give you: Electronic Arts

I'm not too sure what you're trying to point out there except for cheap labour being made into slaves by the big guys.

Whether it's a company making toothpaste or making PC hardware, the name of the game is to make money. There's no saying that states it has to be done morally as if there was such statement then many marketing guys would have already been hanged to put it bluntly. As long as the public buys into the product, that's all that matters.

No one forces programmers/developers, even cleaners to work at EA and I'll say more, if a programmer is truly good at what they do then a) they have the power to negotiate very good pay and b) should the company not give in, they can just go onto company B, C, D etc. as good programmers are paid handsomely in this world. Should this not be their style then programmers can setup their own shop and start their own business. The fact that the US dollar is very weak right now isn't EA's fault but rather the US's goverment. If you're a US programmer and want to earn more then work in euroland or if you're really good, make it known to your employer as if they know your worth, they will surely increase your pay only to keep on the team.

 

[0roo0roo]

sure if you are the top .5% of programmers. the rest of the folk needed to get your product out are i guess cattle and are treated as such. they could rape people during the bubble, what do you think they can do now?

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Here is a link for really cheap ones, too!
www.fakesite.com/?referral=give+roguestar+commissions+plzthx

OMG that site roxors! I hear it has a 9.8/10 ratings!

 

[Roguestar]

u 2 can get major extreme gamer performance win points with this:
www.fakesite.com/?pyramidscheme=roguestar+zap+profit

 

[MobiusPizza]

I've got X-Ram with my Auzentech
I like the soundcard
But I wouldn't have pay a premium for the X-Ram if options are available.