THQ chooses Nvidia's PhysX technology for better gaming

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

I'm not sure if I get it, because only 8x00 or better gpu's support cuda and/or physx.

I guess you are forgetting about the PhysX card. Yes all 3 consoles can run PhysX. No not as well as a NVIDIA card but then again they don't run much higher than 720p with no AA on consoles.

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

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.

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

So i take it you are working for both companies and know their strategies clearly?

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.

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.

Whatever clearely you know everything :roll:

The current leader in PC graphics will undoubtedly be a player in the next round of consoles.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
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.

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.

Whatever clearely you know everything :roll:

The current leader in PC graphics will undoubtedly be a player in the next round of consoles.

Originally the PS3 wasn't even supposed to have a nvidia GPU it was a last minute call by Sony. :roll:

 

[Wreckage]

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261/5

Our brush with the ForceWare 177.79 driver release has shown that a sub-$150 graphics card can handle PhysX effects quite well

PhysX runs just fine on a 8800GT. Don't let SSchev's sour grapes fool anyone.


Here's a list of PhysX games including several for the PS3/360/Wii
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

 

[geokilla]

I'm not going to argue with you guys on how Physics work and stuff. However, this news can't be good for ATI and Havoc can it? Maybe it's time for all of us to make the switch to NVIDIA GPUs. More and more game publishers and them seem to choose PhsyX over Havoc physx.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Even if ATI adds GPU accelerated physics, it'll be through Havok and not PhysX. So basically, most developers will continue using the CPU for physics until it's incorporated into DirectX.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
How will this work on a xbox 360? Maybe THAT right there is physx biggest problem, games don't get developed for the PC, but for the consoles. AFAIK those consoles don't have cuda capable videocards, so console versions of the game simply can't have stunning physics effects. Mirror's Edge is getting 'tweaked' for it, but thats all extra cost, even though they can't sell the PC for more money.

Seriously...these days consoles dictate a lot of what gets to the PC so it'll be interesting to see the adoption of PhysX in console games...if it can be done.

Future of console gaming?
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o130/yh125d/045.jpg
yes I did this myself

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261/5

Our brush with the ForceWare 177.79 driver release has shown that a sub-$150 graphics card can handle PhysX effects quite well

PhysX runs just fine on a 8800GT. Don't let SSchev's sour grapes fool anyone.


Here's a list of PhysX games including several for the PS3/360/Wii
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

Sure GPU PhysX is fine on a 8800GT if you don't need AA and AF. Or if you like the Cryostasis running at whole 21.1FPS.

By the way non of those titles run GPU PhysX on any console out today. Do you want me to list all the Havok titles that run on those consoles also? I can play the same game buddy.

http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/29/73/

 

[MarcVenice]

All of you should take a deep breath, and rethink this.

No-one here is against physx, some of us are just skeptical about it. What is so hard to understand about most if not all games being developed with consoles in mind, and consoles not having 8x00 serie's videocards or a ppu? How are you going to explain physx in console titles, that will ultimately be ported to the pc, when those same consoles simply can't run physx, because they lack the power to do so. One prime example is mirror's edge, developed for the consoles, ported to the PC, with extra physx added to it. Why didn't the consoles have those physx if they can run it just the same? They can't, because they lack the horsepower to do so. Physx requires massive amounts of parallel processing, even the cell processor doesn't come close to all the stream processors even midrange nvidia cards have.

So, if you took a deep breath, you know that me, nor anyone else is against physx, we just doubt how it's going to find it's way to the PC, when games are clearly being developed for platforms, that do not have the paralell processing power of a PC. Sure, they can add physx during the port, like with Mirror's Edge, which is great ( if it's free, why not huh ) but I'm still going to wait and see what happens, because adding physx is in no way free for any developer. And, if it's added during a port, and not when the game is being developed from the ground up, it's going to be eye-candy stuff, and not gameplay altering physx (which is my gripe, but that's a whole other discussion).

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
we just doubt how it's going to find it's way to the PC

I'm guessing that you have missed the multiple game studio announcements that have been posted about PhysX. I'm guessing you have not even looked at the list of games that use PhysX already or the discussion of upcoming games.

And yes, I do think that several people have an agenda of their own and don't like PhysX because of that agenda.

 

[dadach]

one thing you must understand...all most of these guys see is rollos and keys signatures where it says FREE GFX cards for something they write on forums...can you really blame for trying so hard to get in that grp?...i dont, so i dont take them too seriously

as far as physx goes, bring it on already...and not in slideshow version...just the fact that something can be done, doesnt always mean it can be done well or efficient...the gaming world is still waiting

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
we just doubt how it's going to find it's way to the PC

I'm guessing that you have missed the multiple game studio announcements that have been posted about PhysX. I'm guessing you have not even looked at the list of games that use PhysX already or the discussion of upcoming games.

And yes, I do think that several people have an agenda of their own and don't like PhysX because of that agenda.

I don't think you get it, I've read all of those, I've played all of those games, I've talked to developers, and more. I review games, remember, I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do. Studio's using physx doesn't necesarily mean GPU accelerated physx. Which is the problem, we've seen physx and havok in plenty of games, but not on a scale like we see physx in those few special maps UT3 has, or the tech demo's nvidia gives us.

So, take another deep breath, and try to wrap your mind about this. Games are developed for consoles, consoles can't run gpu or ppu accelerated physx, thus games made for the consoles won't have physx that take advantage of nvidia's gpu's, through cuda. Since most games are developed for the consoles, PC's games won't see many physx that nvidia gpu owners can take advantage of.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig
No, it's just apparent that for some people, shiny things hold great appeal. Personally, I'll take an engaging storyline over a realistically flapping flag. But to each his own.

So then you can run games just fine on a cheap computer with integrated graphics. Once again high end gaming in not for you.

You don't need a resolution above say 640x480 or AA/AF, advance textures, shadows, etc. As these are just "shiny things".

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.

Do you remember what your position was on the shiny pipe debacle for the original Far Cry?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig
No, it's just apparent that for some people, shiny things hold great appeal. Personally, I'll take an engaging storyline over a realistically flapping flag. But to each his own.

So then you can run games just fine on a cheap computer with integrated graphics. Once again high end gaming in not for you.

You don't need a resolution above say 640x480 or AA/AF, advance textures, shadows, etc. As these are just "shiny things".

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.

Do you remember what your position was on the shiny pipe debacle for the original Far Cry?

DX9 was a universal standard. At the time, NV was trying to force their inferior "C for graphics" onto the world, probably because they knew their dustbuster 5800FX sucked at running full DX9 code (which it couldn't even run for quite some time after launch).

PhysX is once again a proprietary standard created by NV, not MS. Most people thought DX9 was a very important feature. It seems like most people are either on the fence or think that PhysX is not all that important in its current form.

 

[nemesismk2]

I have yet to be convinced that PhysX is all that important so I am on the fence.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice


I don't think you get it, I've read all of those, I've played all of those games,

You played every game on the PhysX list?

I've talked to developers, and more. I review games, remember,

For something other than Appopin's website I hope.

I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do.

:roll:

Studio's using physx doesn't necesarily mean GPU accelerated physx.

So?

Which is the problem, we've seen physx and havok in plenty of games, but not on a scale like we see physx in those few special maps UT3 has, or the tech demo's nvidia gives us.

PhysX for the GPU just started rolling a few months ago. We don't even see DX10 used that much and it's been available longer. If all your rants against PhysX are merely your impatience you truly need to relax and not get so worked up.

So, take another deep breath, and try to wrap your mind about this. Games are developed for consoles,

You see now you voided out your "I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do." I play plenty of games that either start out on the PC or never see a console. You really should do some research.

consoles can't run gpu or ppu accelerated physx, thus games made for the consoles won't have physx that take advantage of nvidia's gpu's, through cuda. Since most games are developed for the consoles, PC's games won't see many physx that nvidia gpu owners can take advantage of.

PC gaming is not dead. Consoles don't dictate as much as you think. Otherwise no one would need more than a $60 video card as that would be plenty to run any console game like a console.

Either way as much as it clearly bothers you multiple studios have made announcements supporting PhysX and several games are out and more are on the way using it.

I'm sure you will show up in every thread that covers these announcements to voice your..... whatever it is you are trying to do.

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice


I don't think you get it, I've read all of those, I've played all of those games,
You played every game on the PhysX list?

Almost

I've talked to developers, and more. I review games, remember,
For something other than Appopin's website I hope.

Yes

I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do.
:roll:

:roll:

Studio's using physx doesn't necesarily mean GPU accelerated physx.
So?

So, is that not the whole point of this post? What other value holds this news otherwise, physx or havok aren't anything spectacular besides some ragdoll effects, they only become newsworthy when it gets gpu accelerated.

Which is the problem, we've seen physx and havok in plenty of games, but not on a scale like we see physx in those few special maps UT3 has, or the tech demo's nvidia gives us.
PhysX for the GPU just started rolling a few months ago. We don't even see DX10 used that much and it's been available longer. If all your rants against PhysX are merely your impatience you truly need to relax and not get so worked up.

Who is ranting?

So, take another deep breath, and try to wrap your mind about this. Games are developed for consoles,
You see now you voided out your "I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do." I play plenty of games that either start out on the PC or never see a console. You really should do some research.

You're making wrong assumptions. I said games being developed for consoles, i didn't say all of them are developed for the console. I do know the majority is though, and games for PC only are often made with console ports in the back of the minds of the developers.

consoles can't run gpu or ppu accelerated physx, thus games made for the consoles won't have physx that take advantage of nvidia's gpu's, through cuda. Since most games are developed for the consoles, PC's games won't see many physx that nvidia gpu owners can take advantage of.
PC gaming is not dead. Consoles don't dictate as much as you think. Otherwise no one would need more than a $60 video card as that would be plenty to run any console game like a console.

PC gaming is not dead, yet. But PC exclusives and/or developers using PC's current gen hardware to their fullest is a dieing mentality. Sadly. UT4 engine is being designed for consoles, so is the new crytek engine. Consoles are easier to develop for, and turn more profits. That's just the way it is.

Either way as much as it clearly bothers you multiple studios have made announcements supporting PhysX and several games are out and more are on the way using it.

I'm sure you will show up in every thread that covers these announcements to voice your..... whatever it is you are trying to do.

It doesn't bother me at all, I just don't get the hype around it. I think you just admitted this isn't about gpu accelerated physx. So, why should ANYBODY care these deals have been signed, if it's something we've been seeing for years now?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
So i take it you are working for both companies and know their strategies clearly?

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.

I'm quite sure the consoles will base their decisions on whichever parts better position them for the future, not based on the past. Also you seem to be forgetting ATI GPUs in the XBox360 largely contributed to the most catostrophic and widespread system failures in the history of consoles/PC hardware with the RROD debacle. I know you're going to bring up NV mobile GPUs so I'll preemptively add 1 billion+ > 200 million.

Like I hinted earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Nvidia GPU acting as a PPU in future consoles. Wouldn't be too expensive if you added something like a 9600GSO, which were being sold for $30 AR, and enough to handle PhysX calculations when paired with a GPU.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29
Seriously...these days consoles dictate a lot of what gets to the PC so it'll be interesting to see the adoption of PhysX in console games...if it can be done.

It's already been done.

PhysX hardware acceleration has been done on a console? Which one and are you sure it's hardware acceleration using the GPU or just the CPU?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
All of you should take a deep breath, and rethink this.

No-one here is against physx, some of us are just skeptical about it.

Actually from your comments here and in previous threads, that's highly questionable. Looks like you're pushing AMD's agenda, against physx but not physics.... So now that your earlier claims have been corrected and its been shown that PhysX is widely adopted on both the PC and consoles, you've shifted your focus to accelerated vs. CPU PhysX? Hardware physics is here for good folks, it doesn't much matter what brand, highly parallel processors (GPUs) make effects never possible before, possible.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I don't think you get it, I've read all of those, I've played all of those games, I've talked to developers, and more. I review games, remember, I dare say I know twice as much about games as you do. Studio's using physx doesn't necesarily mean GPU accelerated physx. Which is the problem, we've seen physx and havok in plenty of games, but not on a scale like we see physx in those few special maps UT3 has, or the tech demo's nvidia gives us.

So, take another deep breath, and try to wrap your mind about this. Games are developed for consoles, consoles can't run gpu or ppu accelerated physx, thus games made for the consoles won't have physx that take advantage of nvidia's gpu's, through cuda. Since most games are developed for the consoles, PC's games won't see many physx that nvidia gpu owners can take advantage of.

How can you claim this knowing Mirror's Edge falls directly in this vein? Its a console port, with additional GPU accelerated PhysX effects which were directly cited as the reason it was delayed. So yes, there will need to be additional PhysX effects added for the PC because consoles will not be able to run them, however, the PhysX SDK offers seamless integration of additional effects since it is the same toolset.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29
Seriously...these days consoles dictate a lot of what gets to the PC so it'll be interesting to see the adoption of PhysX in console games...if it can be done.

It's already been done.

PhysX hardware acceleration has been done on a console? Which one and are you sure it's hardware acceleration using the GPU or just the CPU?

You didn't make that distinction, like many others in this thread you probably didn't know PhysX has a software back-end, not just hardware (PPU and GPU) and has already been used for software physics in numerous PC and console titles.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Studio's using physx doesn't necesarily mean GPU accelerated physx.

So?

So everytime the word PhysX is thrown around it doesn't mean there's going to be GPU or PPU PhysX.

Which is the problem, we've seen physx and havok in plenty of games, but not on a scale like we see physx in those few special maps UT3 has, or the tech demo's nvidia gives us.

PhysX for the GPU just started rolling a few months ago. We don't even see DX10 used that much and it's been available longer. If all your rants against PhysX are merely your impatience you truly need to relax and not get so worked up.

The reason we don't see that many DX10 titles is because consoles and XP owners can't support it. Again consoles are setting the pace for PC gaming right now. There are a lot more consoles exclusive titles, which will never make it to the PC.

consoles can't run gpu or ppu accelerated physx, thus games made for the consoles won't have physx that take advantage of nvidia's gpu's, through cuda. Since most games are developed for the consoles, PC's games won't see many physx that nvidia gpu owners can take advantage of.

PC gaming is not dead. Consoles don't dictate as much as you think. Otherwise no one would need more than a $60 video card as that would be plenty to run any console game like a console.

Either way as much as it clearly bothers you multiple studios have made announcements supporting PhysX and several games are out and more are on the way using it.

I'm sure you will show up in every thread that covers these announcements to voice your..... whatever it is you are trying to do.

There's a lot more games coming out for consoles than there are for PC these day, and why shouldn't there be with consoles only costing $200? PC gamers want more out of their games ( higher resolutions, AA, AF, no texture pop in, higher textures, ...... ) and it does come at a cost. If you don't max settings a cheap 4670 for $55 will do just fine.

Again just because a studio says their going to be using PhysX doesn't mean their titles will use GPU or PPU PhysX.

 

[nosfe]

have you guys tried some of those games that come with PhysX? i've played some but i've not seen any noteworthy physics effects in any of them, the only reason i've noticed that it was a PhysX title was because i had to install PhysX to be able to run the game. It was kind of how Diablo3 is with its "amazing" havok physics

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
So i take it you are working for both companies and know their strategies clearly?

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.

I'm quite sure the consoles will base their decisions on whichever parts better position them for the future, not based on the past. Also you seem to be forgetting ATI GPUs in the XBox360 largely contributed to the most catostrophic and widespread system failures in the history of consoles/PC hardware with the RROD debacle. I know you're going to bring up NV mobile GPUs so I'll preemptively add 1 billion+ > 200 million.

Like I hinted earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Nvidia GPU acting as a PPU in future consoles. Wouldn't be too expensive if you added something like a 9600GSO, which were being sold for $30 AR, and enough to handle PhysX calculations when paired with a GPU.

Foxconn makes the consoles for the 360 not ATi. ATi designed the GPUs for the 360, and has nothing to do with how the GPU gets attached to the board. Either way MS is at fault because they rushed to get the console out ( Nvidia had a part in this ). I guess you can also blame ATi, because the 360 scratches DVDs?

I figured someone like yourself would bring this up, but you FAILED SO BAD.

As I hinted earlier Intel is trying to make it's way into the next 360. If sony doesn't need to last minute change their mind on GPU power, there might not be a Nvidia GPU in any next gen consoles.

Nintendo more than likely will stay with ATi.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: chizow

Actually from your comments here and in previous threads, that's highly questionable.

I have to agree. Based on his comments in many other threads, his agenda is clear.

I won't feed his trolling anymore.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Foxconn makes the consoles for the 360 not ATi. ATi designed the GPUs for the 360, and has nothing to do with how the GPU gets attached to the board. Either way MS is at fault because they rushed to get the console out ( Nvidia had a part in this ). I guess you can also blame ATi, because the 360 scratches DVDs?

I figured someone like yourself would bring this up, but you FAILED SO BAD.

As I hinted earlier Intel is trying to make it's way into the next 360. If sony doesn't need to last minute change their mind on GPU power, their might not be a Nvidia GPU in any next gen consoles.

Nintendo more than likely will stay with ATi.

Yes I'm sure you figured someone would mention it, yet you chose to ignore the single biggest debacle in consumer electronics history.

Some light reading for the revisionists out there:

Dean Takashi's famous 360 RROD article

So what exactly was wrong with the machines? As time would reveal, there was no single reason for the failures, though many of the problems could be blamed on the ATI graphics chip, which could overheat so much it warped the motherboard. This put stress on bad solder joints, causing them to fail early in the machine?s life.

8bit Joystick, Inside Truth about RROD

The main design flaw was the excessive heat on the GPU warping the mother board around it. This would stress the solder joints on the GPU and any bad joints would then fail in early life.

AT's recent Jasper article

Many suspected that it was the lead-free solder balls between the CPU and/or GPU and the motherboard losing contact. The clamps that Microsoft used to attach the heatsinks to the CPU and GPU put a lot of pressure on the chips; it's possible that the combination of the lead-free solder, a lot of heat from the GPU, inadequate cooling and the heatsink clamps resulted in the RRoD.

Did they FAIL SO BAD too? Oh and Flextronics and Wistron made the 360s, not whoever you decided to make up, not that it matters much.