You're right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with free realism. There's nothing wrong with PhysX. There's nothing wrong with great games. Heck there's not even anything wrong with a realistic, great PhysX game! It just seems that people are coming up with PhysX + Game = Great game. And that is wrong.
so for you a 9400GS is made for those that want high end gaming because it's not integrated graphics? why take it to such extremes?
Really? HL2 was a great game and yet, somehow it was still great despite the fact that it had no PhysX. And I highly doubt it would run well at high-res with full eye candy on a "cheap computer with integrated graphics".
As I just stated in my previous post, PhysX can add to a great game, but it can't make a game great all by itself.
He ment hardware accelerated PhysX.
Even if you don't count the Wii there's still 44 million PS3/360 owners and then plus how many million ATi GPU owners that can't run hardware accelerated PhysX.
Also the cryostasis tech demo clearly shows that you need some serious power to run PhysX. Only 34FPS Avg on C216 @ 16x12 without any AA. Mirrors Edge looks to run a lot better though.
Oi, I didn't mention the xbox 360/ps3 to start a negative discussion. It was an honest remark, I just think that the physx we would really like to see, won't be here, untill next-gen consoles, because current gen consoles can't run physx like a gtx260 can, heck, they don't even come close...
Even some next-gen consoles might not run GPU PhysX. Remember ATi currently makes the GPU for both the Wii and the 360.
Also there was a rumor than intel wanted MS to use larrabee in their next console. We might just see Havok GPU physic on MS and Nintendo's next consoles.
http://www.totalvideogames.com...en-Consoles-13095.html
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-within-next-gen-xbox/
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Theres a slight misconception here I believe. What makes you think that PhysX cant be hardware accelerated in those consoles? Unlike Havok which is CPU only, PhysX can be run on the CPU OR the GPU. Not to mention the fact that ATi were given the option to license such technology from nVIDIA. Since most consoles have multi core CPUs nowadays, supporting PhysX shouldn't be a problem.
The only possible problem here might be that PhysX could run slower on CPUs because of the lack of performance optimizations (since nVIDIA is trying to get the whole "GPU is better than CPU" point across).
The GPUs on all the current consoles are just to old. Even now they can just about run titles at 720P. What makes you believe they can run GPU PhysX?
Even Intel's latest i7 cpu can't handle the extra work ( 11FPS ), so how is a outdated console CPU going to do this?
http://firingsquad.com/hardwar..._performance/page4.asp
PhysX is already supported on all 3 consoles. They don't need CUDA, as their "software" implementation is already running on specialized hardware like Cell and Xenos.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
The gameplay on Wii is for kids...really. I'd never be caught dead playing that horrible piece of crap.
Look at games sales, they're pitiful. The system sells, people buy one game and realize they wasted their money and then they buy a 360 and buy 3 games.
The point is, Physx opened up the door for console support without any proprietary hardware from Nvidia. Also, I fail to see how having an NV GPU in a new console would make it expensive. I don't consider the PS3 expensive at $399 right now and it's the most expensive console available.
I like the idea of physx, but it's not going to make me feel like I'm missing out not to have it. If it's there cool and I'd like to see what can be done with it. If it isn't. oh well. I'd rather have it than not because it seems that games have become stagnant lately as far as what things the developers can do with them. How many games are simple FPS games these days? Too many
What do you mean, PhysX is allready suppoerted on all 3 consoles? Can the consoles run physx, and accelerate it like a 8x00 series nvidia GPU can? Or do you mean they can run PhysX on the CPU, like any x86 CPU can?
I'm not sure if I get it, because only 8x00 or better gpu's support cuda and/or physx. How is a xbox 360 or ps3 going to run that? Also, even if it somehow could, taking away gpu power to run physx won't do the console's eyecandy a whole lot of good, because I doubt many cycles of the gpu's are being left unused, unlike the GPU's in PC's, which often do have unused cycles.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Well thats another problem all together. But the point is that PhysX is available to anyone, without the need for nVIDIA specific hardware.
No current consoles can currently handle hardware accelerated PhysX. Show me one title that runs on the 360's or PS3's GPU.
PhysX cards didn't sell that well, so I doubt there are many that still have them. Even so they run like crap. In the example a single 8800GT ran better without the card, but yet that same 8800GT isn't even enough to run the cryostasis tech demo.
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...sx_performance_update/
http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._performance/page4.asp
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
So we are to believe that there will never be new consoles after the PS3 or 360? Please...that's like saying there won't be anything after the i7, or the GTX280.
The point of it is, Physx CAN run on hardware that is not branded Nvidia. End of story here. It doesn't even matter if it's slow, it can be done. The door is open today.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
This is exactly my point.
This is a rather moot point. No console game yet has been developed from scratch with PhysX in mind. Sure GPUs are outdated, but doesn't mean PhysX will run on them either. CPUs like cell have untouched potential and open doors for more possibilities. Just look at the console version of GTAIV and the PC version. How do you think its possible to run GTAIV with a console that is roughly equal to a 2005ish hardware specs.
When console games are developed, they have a specific hardware limitation set out by the console its been developed on and i.e set a limitation on the graphical side of the game. Developers take advantage of all the available resources provided by the console. So until developers themselves say PhysX cant be supported because the current console hardware is too slow, your point is moot.
I said clearly that NO CURRENT console supports GPU PhysX, and that even now they struggle to run 720P. Will the PS4 support Nvidia PhysX who knows. Personally I don't see Nintendo or MS consoles going with Nvidia GPUs for their next consoles
GPU PhysX currently ONLY runs on Nvidia cards. Even now the GTX280 is barely able to handle it for some titles.
GTX280
UT3 16x12 no AA or AF 41.9FPS
Cryostasis 16x12 no AA or AF 38.4FPS
If the game runs like a slideshow then it's okay, because it's running GPU PhysX. What kind of point is that?
Did you know that COD4 on 360 and PS3 only run at 1024x600? You think they can handle GPU PhysX, okay sure.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
That isn't the point and it's ok if you're blinded by your 4870 in your box there. Whatever.
Look dude, you're not fooling anyone and you're totally misconstruing our posts and putting YOUR spin on them. Stop it, please. What we're saying is Physix is the only mainstream physics API that can work on any hardware given the proper code and is available TODAY. Yes even your 4870 could use it. How you say? Well, simply requiring ATI to write the proper back-end into the drivers and use those stream processors that go totally unused in games.
Nintendo used ATi for their last 2 consoles, and don't need high end graphics.
Microsoft had problems with Nvidia on the original xbox, because they didn't want to cut prices on the hardware.
I could be wrong, but I don't see either companies going with nvidia for their next consoles.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Yea in the next console generation I don't see Nvidia in any console unless they make some deal with Sony but they usually do their own thing anyways.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter