THQ chooses Nvidia's PhysX technology for better gaming

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: chizow
Look at the close-up that you linked....its quite clear the majority of that heatsink is just housing for the 160mm fan.

Look at the cutout for where the fan goes, those look like circular fins. There are also fins in the exhaust portion. Heatpipes alone do not provide adequate cooling...in fact they provide almost none...they're there to move the heat to a more efficient cooling surface which would be the fins.

Originally posted by: chizow
But since we have the professor here, maybe you can explain to Thilan a heatsink dominated by a 160mm fan is not going to provide the full surface area for heat dissipation.

Here's a link to power consumption numbers (these are the original revisions of the consoles I think):
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm

The PS3 consumes similar (actually a bit more) power to a 360. If you're asserting that the PS3 cooler is actually not that substantial, then the PS3 would suffer from overheating and reliability issues as well. In fact in newer revisions of the PS3...some cooling capacity was actually taken away as it didn't need it...compare this to the 360 where cooling capacity had to be added even with the die shrinks...showing that the cooler MS decided to use was inadequate from the beginning.

Also, there are plenty of power consumption numbers for the 360, I've already provided some in this thread.

I said separately for the GPU and CPU.

I've read the entire article, I guess you didn't read the whole thing or didn't fully understand it:

Microsoft does not design GPUs. ATI does. ATI designed a GPU for Microsoft that spec'd for high lead eutectics (<--***THIS IS FALSE***), so again, it falls back on ATI's faulty fireball of a design. You can say it was Microsoft's fault for using eutectic bumps but again, ATI designs GPUs, Microsoft does not. Expecting Microsoft to respin a piece of silicon they didn't design in the first place is a bit of a joke.

Did you read the part I quoted? Here I'll quote it again since you seem to not understand who was responsible for the high lead eutectics:

"Although ATI made the switch to eutectic bumps with its GPUs in 2005, Microsoft was in charge of manufacturing the Xenos GPU and it was still built with high-lead bumps, just like the failed NVIDIA GPUs."

That can't be very difficult to understand. So if it was ATIs call they would have used eutectic bumps but Microsoft in all their wisdom decided to use the high lead bumps...so whose fault is that?

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Thilan,

I wouldn't waste your time. I have already seen several the NV marketers say they would take the opinion of a user over scientific laws. In fact, I think you recall that thread. Clearly, most of these guys don't even understand heat output, heat transfer and heat dissipation, otherwise they would not babel in ignorance over the subject.

Yeah that was pretty funny actually...it was like a kid covering their ears and yelling "la la la la la la la" just because they didn't want to believe you.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Doesn't matter, hotter = hotter regardless of where the heat goes :roll:

Of course it's better that your 280 runs cooler (and I have to say some of the NV cards have very nice cooling solutions)...that just means it has either a better designed cooler or one card is set up for silence rather than ultimate cooling performance.

BUT as ArchAngel said there's a difference between the temperature of the card and the actual heat output. What he was referring to was where someone said their room is heated more by a 4870x2 (or was it 4870 x3...I can't remember) than a GTX 260 SLI (or tri-SLI...again I can't remember)...which is false as there were links that showed a GTX260 consumed more power at load, which is all dumped into the case/room as heat.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I'm glad an opinion makes you so vile and works you up so feverishly. I mean wow...good job.

You called the system a piece of crap and you said it was marketed for kids. Both accounts are very, very wrong and show you have no understanding of the Wii's purpose at all. You probably haven't even played it, have you? Whichever the case, your lack of respect and understanding for the Wii in the marketplace does make me sick.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
The gameplay on Wii is for kids...really. I'd never be caught dead playing that horrible piece of crap.

Seriously, the Wii was NOT marketed to gamers. It's marketed to kids and non-gamers.

What does it matter whom the console is marketed to? There are still games worth playing on the Wii for your so-called "gamers" (I'll get back to your view of a gamer in bit). Here's just a sample: Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, No More Heroes, Resident Evil 4 (the definitive version of one of the greatest games ever made), Tiger Woods 09, and etc. There are also many great games marketed to "non-gamers", including: Wii Sports, Boom Blox, World of Goo, De Blob, Mario Kart Wii, and etc. Finally, there are third party games which offer a unique experience on the Wii compared to the 360 and PS3, such as: Shaun White: Road Trip, NFL Madden 09, Call of Duty: World at War, Skate It.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
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.

Those who wouldn't play GTA, Quake Wars, Half-Life, Halo, and just about every other game that has been really popular in the last year or two. There is a very high percentage of gamers, the ones who are building PCs for gaming who would rather have a 360 or a PS3 than a Wii. I am one of those people.

it doesn't have any of the games I want like Gears of War 2, GTA, Metal Gear Solid, Fallout 3, or Left 4 dead etc.

LOLOLOL. Since when do you qualify as a high percentage? For people with a gaming PC, the Wii is the ultimate complimentary system. Most of the good and decent games on the PS3 and 360 are either on the PC or will eventually find their way over. And stop spreading lies: Software on the Wii sells just as well as software on the 360. There is not a huge disparity in attach rate that you seem to claim. At this point in time, I own more Wii games than I ever have after two years time for any other console, PC included. The games I own have also been popular. You won't be able to play the majority of the games I listed above (Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, etc) on any other gaming platform, so whatever point you're trying to make is invalid simply because you have some kind of jaded notion of gaming (which I will get to).

You can like certain games, but to dislike other games and use that as justification for calling the Wii "crappy" and "for kids" is sickening. Your opinions and preferences are justification for spreading false information.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You have to understand, the Wii by my standards is old technology.

Your standards are absurd. By a lot of people's standards, the 360 is old technology. Does this mean anything? No. The 360 and Wii both use their technology very well, which is all that matters. Oh, and let's not forget to mention the Wii's controller technology has never been implemented in gaming before, so I don't see how you can call it old.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It doesn't use my TV's native HD resolution,

Neither does most TV programming. Who cares?

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It's online play is a joke.

It's free and it gets better all the time. Oh yeh, it's free. Free.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
So I don't want it and it is my firm opinion that waving my arms around for some "virtual sports" game is a pathetic way to spend time. If I want to play a game I'll sit down, grab a drink and relax. If I want to be active, I'll go out and play football or something.

From my perspective, games should always move forward graphically. If a game released today could be done 5 years ago I wonder what the point is. That's how I am. That's why I think Physx is a good idea. It offers visual immersion that you don't have with any other API at the current time. Havok sure, but since Physx is GPU accelerated it offers the ability to do more than Havok. I don't think physx is necessary for a good game, but then I still think The Legend of Zelda is a good game with 2D sprites.

Your opinion? Keep it to yourself, because from what you've explained it's horribly flawed. You do not have to wave your arms around. That is not what Wii games do. The "virtual sports" Wii Sports is all about controlled motion and timing. It is like any other game, but with a much deeper feel. But not all games are like Wii Sports. Some of the best don't even need these motions. Seriously, go play the fucking games instead of forming opinions based on commercials or some post you read on a message board.

Oh and guess what. You are not the only person who plays games, so get over yourself. The Wii is attacking the market from an entirely different stance. This is Nintendo's way of staying afloat. How successful would they have been if they tried to compete directly with the PS3 and 360? Not very much so. Just look at the PS3: It's sales are very weak when compared to the 360 and Wii. But Nintendo's philosophy was to get more people involved, which is a good thing. The Wii isn't about kids, at all. This notion is completely unwarranted and is proof you just buy into the hype (anti-hype, in this case) of the Wii from other "hardcore" gamers. The PS2, PS3, and 360 all have games targetting kids just like the Wii. Hell, most of the games are made for that purpose.

Your notion of gaming is also narrow-sighted. Video games are not about graphics. They are not about physics. They are not about simulation. They are about being fun, and I feel great pity when you try to determine what fun is before actually trying it. And this was what I was alluding to above: Stop trying to make your opinion of fun the de jure standard. You shouldn't bash, troll, flame, anything you haven't tried or don't understand, as it seems like you're doing by thinking Wii games are about "waving your arms" or saying the console is crap. This is like me saying "soccer (or basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc) is crap" because it "isn't for me." There is just no logic if I were to conclude that soccer is crap just because I don't have fun with it or because I haven't been conditioned by social interactions to enjoy soccer as much as football or basketball.

 

[MegaWorks]

cusideabelincoln fantastic reply! It was really fun to read. :laugh:

 

[Wreckage]

The console debate may work better over here
http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...tid=79&flcache=4602800

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Look at the cutout for where the fan goes, those look like circular fins. There are also fins in the exhaust portion. Heatpipes alone do not provide adequate cooling...in fact they provide almost none...they're there to move the heat to a more efficient cooling surface which would be the fins.

And I never contested that, however it is obvious that pointing at the size of a heatsink and ignoring a fan that constitutes the majority of its volume is clearly a flawed observation.

The PS3 consumes similar (actually a bit more) power to a 360. If you're asserting that the PS3 cooler is actually not that substantial, then the PS3 would suffer from overheating and reliability issues as well.

I never claimed anything about the PS3 cooler actually, it may be more efficient at dissipating heat than the 360 but that doesn't change the general concensus the excessively hot ATI GPU was the cause of RROD.

I said separately for the GPU and CPU.

If you look at the differences between revisions you can get an idea of how much impact die reductions impacted power draw.

Did you read the part I quoted? Here I'll quote it again since you seem to not understand who was responsible for the high lead eutectics:

"Although ATI made the switch to eutectic bumps with its GPUs in 2005, Microsoft was in charge of manufacturing the Xenos GPU and it was still built with high-lead bumps, just like the failed NVIDIA GPUs."

That can't be very difficult to understand. So if it was ATIs call they would have used eutectic bumps but Microsoft in all their wisdom decided to use the high lead bumps...so whose fault is that?

Once again, its completely illogical to assume Microsoft made any decision on any of the design aspects of the GPU including the type of solder. I'll quote AT again:

It would also mean that in order to solve the problem Microsoft would have to switch to eutectic bumps, similar to what ATI did back in 2005, which would require fairly major changes to the GPU in order to fix. ATI's eutectic designs actually required an additional metal layer, meaning a new spin of the silicon, something that would have to be reserved for a fairly major GPU change.

Now read that again slowly and try to understand what it is saying. Its saying ATI designed a chip that required high-lead bumps. It is also saying that in order to fix the GPU so that it used low-lead bumps, it would require an additional metal layer and a new spin of the silicon, as that was how ATI brought their own chips to spec for low-lead bumps. Now once again, Microsoft does not design GPUs, ATI does. Say it with me again. Microsoft does not design GPUs, ATI does. If Microsoft, in all their wisdom, could engineer a GPU why would they pay ATI for their lil fireball of a design to begin with?

Yeah that was pretty funny actually...it was like a kid covering their ears and yelling "la la la la la la la" just because they didn't want to believe you.

Again, what thread was that? This one? The one I correctly pointed out the CF config would in fact generate more heat at idle based on your own link. I think even the professor agreed there.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: chizow
And I never contested that, however it is obvious that pointing at the size of a heatsink and ignoring a fan that constitutes the majority of its volume is clearly a flawed observation.

Look at the pic, considering the thickness of the fan at most the fan is 1/3 of the volume...that's not a "majority". And as I said the PS3 consumes more power so just from that, the cooler has to be more substantial (and judging from the pics it is).

I never claimed anything about the PS3 cooler actually, it may be more efficient at dissipating heat than the 360 but that doesn't change the general concensus the excessively hot ATI GPU was the cause of RROD.

You did actually say something about the PS3 cooler (you said the majority of it is the fan, implying that it doesn't need to cool much which is false as the PS3 consumes more power). None of us can prove without any doubt the "excessively hot GPU" claim either way because we don't know how much power the Xenos consumes (see below about shrinks). You say that it's a hot running GPU but that can be due to inadequate cooling. I won't argue that it ran hot but I don't think it ran "excessively" hot...at least not excessive enough that it couldn't be cooled by a suitable heatsink (and no it wouldn't have required a complete redesign of the casing...more active cooling could have been fitted if it was designed properly but wasn't).

If you look at the differences between revisions you can get an idea of how much impact die reductions impacted power draw.

Power consumption differences aren't only accounted for by shrinks. Using different components can also lead to power savings (this happened with the PS3 AFAIK).

Once again, its completely illogical to assume Microsoft made any decision on any of the design aspects of the GPU including the type of solder. I'll quote AT again:

Now read that again slowly and try to understand what it is saying. Its saying ATI designed a chip that required high-lead bumps.

I see what you're saying but if ATI switched to eutectic bumps earlier it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that they would prescribe high lead bumps for the Xenos...why would they change from a design they have experience with and which works to one which could have problems especially in a console environment where the high-lead bumps would be more vulnerable? Also the article still says Microsoft was in charge of manufacturing so why wouldn't they have a say in how the GPU was packaged (ie. not the GPU itself but how the die is mounted on the packaging)?

Again, what thread was that? This one? The one I correctly pointed out the CF config would in fact generate more heat at idle based on your own link. I think even the professor agreed there.

I said "at load". You didn't need to correctly point out anything...I never said at idle. And I wasn't thinking of you when I said "covered their ears".

 

[SSChevy2001]

@thilan29 & chizow

Guys simply look at the fan shroud and you'll both see there's very limited cooling going to the GPU. Also again the CPU temp sensor controls the voltage going to BOTH exhaust fans, so even if the GPU needs more cooling, it's not going to get.

What MS did was add to the existing HS and they moved some of the GPU heat in front of the CPU I guess to trigger the CPU temp sensor.

Personally sony did a much better job on their cooling system.

@cmdrdredd

You have a 4870 still, so if you want test my settings with your card.
550 core 200 memory 1.083v

Also what's wrong with saving some money?

 

[chizow]

I've made my points so there's really no reason to continue. History will be the judge and I think its pretty clear what the general concensus is with re: Xbox RROD.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: akugami
http://xbox360.qj.net/Ben-Heck...model/pg/49/aid/112801

Thanks for the link, although it doesn't dispute anything I said and actually contradicts what you wrote:

Originally posted by: akugami
A surface scan of the HSF was registered maxing out at 150F for earlier Xbox's while on the Falcon revision it was at 110F, meaning the new HSF was doing a much better job of keeping things cooled.

That's very different from what the article is saying, especially since the CPU cooler changed very little. Its obvious that the reduction in temperature, for the CPU only, was a direct result of the CPU die shrink only and your link confirms it:

But as for peak heat levels, he found that the GPU still shoots up to as high as 140 degrees Fahrenheit, while the CPU is cooler, peaking at 110 degrees Fahrenheit.

Um...the Zephyr with the weaker HSF was shooting to 150F if you actually read the article and the Falcon with the better HSF and the same GPU chipset at the same process was only shooting to 110F. A difference of 40F. So...beefier HSF on the same GPU results in better heat dissipation meaning less stress on the solder joints and board. Read the article. This argues against MS putting in an inadequate cooling solution in the first place in their rush to get the Xbox 360 out.

Chizow, I'm not going into the long quoting game, this conversation is getting too long as it is.

That's probably in your best interest.

The reason I'm doing so is because you refuse to even consider alternative arguments and anyone who is the least against your ideas is spewing "tin foil hat conspiracies." While I have nothing against PhysX, I am arguing caution rather than the fanboy enthusiasm some are spewing. The fact that you don't even truly consider my arguments and dismiss them offhand means you have closed your mind to any arguments that PhysX may fail.

Originally posted by: akugami
Oh, and if it hasn't been mentioned. There is no financial or competitive reason for ATI to adopt PhysX in any way shape or form as it currently stands. ATI would actually be at the mercy of their main competitor, nVidia, as nVidia can hold off on new revisions to PhysX and not release it to ATI until the last minute. Much like how MS kept some API's proprietary or at least held in secret some API calls that it used for its own software but did not release to others.

Along with similar comments re: Nvidia forcing PhysX to run slower on ATI hardware and PhysX being incompatible with other standards, I'd say the comments were warranted.

You seem to be the one that is championing PhysX to the point where you can't envision it failing. I'm being realistic in saying that there is indeed a possibility of it failing. Heck, it was impossible to envision IBM leaving the PC market much less losing its market dominance. Look at where it is now. And PhysX is nowhere near dominating the market as IBM once did until the IBM compatibles came out.

Actually all market indicators show PhysX/hardware physics will not fail, so no I can't see it failing especially with the absence of any competing standard. Your IBM example doesn't make sense because the platform they were pushing, the x86 PC, has in fact become the standard.

Again, it was once impossible to envision IBM failing or even exiting out of the PC market. You fail to address that point and instead come out with the "x86 PC is still around" comment. IBM was once king of the hill in the PC market. While the market itself is still around, IBM is no longer a player in that market. Instead you throw a side argument in there.

Much like PhysX is currently the biggest player in the physics acceleration market (and again, nowhere near the domination that IBM once had), it is not impossible to envision it being overtaken. If you can't see the logic in that, then so be it. Just call it a tin foil hat conspiracy, fud, whatever.

PhysX is middleware that facilitates physics acceleration much like IBM was once a maker of x86 PC's. PhysX may fail and physics acceleration will still be around. IBM failed in the PC market. While the PC market may live, it doesn't change the fact that IBM failed. So if PhysX succeeds, great for it. But PhysX can still fail while physics acceleration succeeds.

My last comments in this thread. Done with it because, again, I don't want to argue in circles and restate my arguments over and over to a closed mind.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: zebrax2

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

And saving 45w? big deal...if 45w is make it or break it to your budget then maybe you should ask the government for a bailout or just stop buying hardware.

whats is the problem with saving 45w? the card is idle, do you want your card to suck up so much power when clearly it does not need it when you are not using it?

People put too much emphasis on saving a few watts here and there. Really when you add it up how much difference does it really make?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: akugami
Um...the Zephyr with the weaker HSF was shooting to 150F if you actually read the article and the Falcon with the better HSF and the same GPU chipset at the same process was only shooting to 110F. A difference of 40F. So...beefier HSF on the same GPU results in better heat dissipation meaning less stress on the solder joints and board. Read the article. This argues against MS putting in an inadequate cooling solution in the first place in their rush to get the Xbox 360 out.

You clearly do not understand what you linked.

Zephyr = both CPU and GPU ~150F.
Falcon = CPU 110F, GPU 140F.

That directly contradicts what you said earlier. Read it again.

The reason I'm doing so is because you refuse to even consider alternative arguments and anyone who is the least against your ideas is spewing "tin foil hat conspiracies." While I have nothing against PhysX, I am arguing caution rather than the fanboy enthusiasm some are spewing. The fact that you don't even truly consider my arguments and dismiss them offhand means you have closed your mind to any arguments that PhysX may fail.

Its really, really hard to take your arguments seriously when you try to perpetuate misconceptions about PhysX's compatibility with other APIs and standards and say Nvidia will purposefully cripple their software and SDK to run slower on AMD hardware in the face of evidence and general common sense to the contrary.

Again, it was once impossible to envision IBM failing or even exiting out of the PC market. You fail to address that point and instead come out with the "x86 PC is still around" comment. *snip*

No I pointed out the flaw in your argument as the standard IBM was pushing did prevail. If you said Nvidia would fall out of the market and PhysX would remain, your point would make sense but that's looking rather unlikely at this point. I'm confident hardware physics will continue and as such, PhysX will as well because again, developers will still need a front-end SDK beyond what DX11 or OpenCL provides.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I'm glad an opinion makes you so vile and works you up so feverishly. I mean wow...good job.

You called the system a piece of crap and you said it was marketed for kids. Both accounts are very, very wrong and show you have no understanding of the Wii's purpose at all. You probably haven't even played it, have you? Whichever the case, your lack of respect and understanding for the Wii in the marketplace does make me sick.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
The gameplay on Wii is for kids...really. I'd never be caught dead playing that horrible piece of crap.

Seriously, the Wii was NOT marketed to gamers. It's marketed to kids and non-gamers.

What does it matter whom the console is marketed to? There are still games worth playing on the Wii for your so-called "gamers" (I'll get back to your view of a gamer in bit). Here's just a sample: Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, No More Heroes, Resident Evil 4 (the definitive version of one of the greatest games ever made), Tiger Woods 09, and etc. There are also many great games marketed to "non-gamers", including: Wii Sports, Boom Blox, World of Goo, De Blob, Mario Kart Wii, and etc. Finally, there are third party games which offer a unique experience on the Wii compared to the 360 and PS3, such as: Shaun White: Road Trip, NFL Madden 09, Call of Duty: World at War, Skate It.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
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.

Those who wouldn't play GTA, Quake Wars, Half-Life, Halo, and just about every other game that has been really popular in the last year or two. There is a very high percentage of gamers, the ones who are building PCs for gaming who would rather have a 360 or a PS3 than a Wii. I am one of those people.

it doesn't have any of the games I want like Gears of War 2, GTA, Metal Gear Solid, Fallout 3, or Left 4 dead etc.

LOLOLOL. Since when do you qualify as a high percentage? For people with a gaming PC, the Wii is the ultimate complimentary system. Most of the good and decent games on the PS3 and 360 are either on the PC or will eventually find their way over. And stop spreading lies: Software on the Wii sells just as well as software on the 360. There is not a huge disparity in attach rate that you seem to claim. At this point in time, I own more Wii games than I ever have after two years time for any other console, PC included. The games I own have also been popular. You won't be able to play the majority of the games I listed above (Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, etc) on any other gaming platform, so whatever point you're trying to make is invalid simply because you have some kind of jaded notion of gaming (which I will get to).

You can like certain games, but to dislike other games and use that as justification for calling the Wii "crappy" and "for kids" is sickening. Your opinions and preferences are justification for spreading false information.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You have to understand, the Wii by my standards is old technology.

Your standards are absurd. By a lot of people's standards, the 360 is old technology. Does this mean anything? No. The 360 and Wii both use their technology very well, which is all that matters. Oh, and let's not forget to mention the Wii's controller technology has never been implemented in gaming before, so I don't see how you can call it old.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It doesn't use my TV's native HD resolution,

Neither does most TV programming. Who cares?

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It's online play is a joke.

It's free and it gets better all the time. Oh yeh, it's free. Free.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
So I don't want it and it is my firm opinion that waving my arms around for some "virtual sports" game is a pathetic way to spend time. If I want to play a game I'll sit down, grab a drink and relax. If I want to be active, I'll go out and play football or something.

From my perspective, games should always move forward graphically. If a game released today could be done 5 years ago I wonder what the point is. That's how I am. That's why I think Physx is a good idea. It offers visual immersion that you don't have with any other API at the current time. Havok sure, but since Physx is GPU accelerated it offers the ability to do more than Havok. I don't think physx is necessary for a good game, but then I still think The Legend of Zelda is a good game with 2D sprites.

Your opinion? Keep it to yourself, because from what you've explained it's horribly flawed. You do not have to wave your arms around. That is not what Wii games do. The "virtual sports" Wii Sports is all about controlled motion and timing. It is like any other game, but with a much deeper feel. But not all games are like Wii Sports. Some of the best don't even need these motions. Seriously, go play the fucking games instead of forming opinions based on commercials or some post you read on a message board.

Oh and guess what. You are not the only person who plays games, so get over yourself. The Wii is attacking the market from an entirely different stance. This is Nintendo's way of staying afloat. How successful would they have been if they tried to compete directly with the PS3 and 360? Not very much so. Just look at the PS3: It's sales are very weak when compared to the 360 and Wii. But Nintendo's philosophy was to get more people involved, which is a good thing. The Wii isn't about kids, at all. This notion is completely unwarranted and is proof you just buy into the hype (anti-hype, in this case) of the Wii from other "hardcore" gamers. The PS2, PS3, and 360 all have games targetting kids just like the Wii. Hell, most of the games are made for that purpose.

Your notion of gaming is also narrow-sighted. Video games are not about graphics. They are not about physics. They are not about simulation. They are about being fun, and I feel great pity when you try to determine what fun is before actually trying it. And this was what I was alluding to above: Stop trying to make your opinion of fun the de jure standard. You shouldn't bash, troll, flame, anything you haven't tried or don't understand, as it seems like you're doing by thinking Wii games are about "waving your arms" or saying the console is crap. This is like me saying "soccer (or basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc) is crap" because it "isn't for me." There is just no logic if I were to conclude that soccer is crap just because I don't have fun with it or because I haven't been conditioned by social interactions to enjoy soccer as much as football or basketball.

If you want cartoons running around and like to wiggle your "wiimote" be my guest but leave me the hell out of it. It's pathetic, a waste of space and time, and YES the game sales are terrible. Check the past few months...they can't even get that new music game to sell.

You obviously haven't been in the retail industry the past few years and have seen the trends. The Wii sold on a gimmick, I work part time at gamestop and always see people walking in asking "when are some good games coming to the Wii" seriously, you think I'm joking probably. Those people play Wow or some other PC game and use the consoles as their secondary thing. Most people who have purchased a Wii at my store have mentioned some regrets unless they have very young children. They always ask me why the games look old, why the remote doesn't work right half the time, and when they will get some blockbuster titles. They can't get L4D, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, GTA, etc. Those are games that the so called "hardcore gamers" play. Those are the people who buy more than a couple games a year. They make up a larger percentage of the gaming community than the demographic that the Wii is marketed to. Most people who like the Wii only have 1 or 2 games and refuse to buy multiple titles for a system. They typically won't go out buying 5-10 games every couple months.

In the context of Physx technology, the future consoles will no doubt have much more horsepower and allow them to produce these effects. Graphics mean a great deal to the general public. If the game doesn't look good many people will be turned off by it. It's how it is today. I have absolutely no doubt that Physx will be in the future of most of the top selling titles to come in the next few years. Maybe not directly from Nvidia but they have the best foot in the door right now as compared to any other alternative.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The console debate may work better over here
http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...tid=79&flcache=4602800

+1.

 

[zebrax2]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

People put too much emphasis on saving a few watts here and there. Really when you add it up how much difference does it really make?

i live in a 3rd world country. currently im in college and my daily pocket money is around 2$ and half of that i spend on food. not every one is as well of as you. also there is another benefit gained by lowering the power consumption, that is less heat. anyway we are swaying out of topic so i will stop the discussion here

 

[BenSkywalker]

To the general notion that consoles aren't capable of using the type of physics that a PPU or GPU is capable of running a simplified summation. Cell is closer to the Ageia PPU then ATi and nV GPUs are to each other in terms of architecture, execution units and capabilities. Pointing out the PS3 doesn't have a PPU completely ignores what Cell is, it isn't a lot like a PPU, it is very close to being identical to one- slight differences in memory interface between execution units and Cell having one general purpose functional unit instead of being pure vector/SIMD units is about the only difference.

Of course, if you are sharing development costs for a title that is slotted to be ported to the 360 it is questionable if this will get implemented as the 360 is significantly weaker at pure physics calculations, unfortunately for the evolution of games titles that are PS3 and PC are a rare breed which will hamper improved physics adoption on the PC side of things(doesn't have to be PhysX).

I have to say I am rather shockingly amuse at people lamenting the fact that a graphics card is being used for physics in a non important manner- just for extra visual flair. Is that not why we buy graphics cards in the first place? Also amusing that people are lamenting there isn't enough examples happening at once on screen for it to make too large of an impact. Did we got straight from software rendering to Quad SLI GTX 295s? Of course they aren't going to go from no physics acceleration at all to having fully accurate real world modelling at once. Progress is good to see however, and we can see examples of it happening now. Personally at this point in time I like the direction PhysX is going in mainly because it is the only viable game in town on the PC side. I also am not counting on MS making everything better with DX11- it runs the potential of hurting the 360 platform as their CPU is too weak to compare to Cell or dedicated hardware for physics calculations and given that they are sinking far more into making that platform viable then PC gaming don't be surprised if DX11s level of support for physics acceleration is comparable to DX7's for pixel shaders. Maybe MS will smash one out of the park right away, not saying that won't- just that it would surprise me.

It's pathetic, a waste of space and time, and YES the game sales are terrible. Check the past few months...they can't even get that new music game to sell.

5 of the top 10 games for the month. That is terrible? Could also point out that Wii Fit outsold GTAIV in the US(globally Wii Fit crushed it). Given that the Wii is obliterating the 360 in hardware sales and costs more, and its' game library seems to have more solid selling titles then the 360 which has a few huge hits and not a lot else, you may want to rethink some notions. The typical gamer isn't anywhere near a huge fan of graphics. Hardcore gamers don't care about graphics at all, hardcore tech enthusiasts do tend to though. Top game on the PC, by a HUGE margin, is WoW. It is a good idea to keep in mind marketplace realities when discussing that end of the market. Corridor shooters only appeal to a very small segment of the gaming population.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If you want cartoons running around and like to wiggle your "wiimote" be my guest but leave me the hell out of it. It's pathetic, a waste of space and time, and YES the game sales are terrible. Check the past few months...they can't even get that new music game to sell.

You obviously haven't been in the retail industry the past few years and have seen the trends. The Wii sold on a gimmick, I work part time at gamestop and always see people walking in asking "when are some good games coming to the Wii" seriously, you think I'm joking probably. Those people play Wow or some other PC game and use the consoles as their secondary thing. Most people who have purchased a Wii at my store have mentioned some regrets unless they have very young children. They always ask me why the games look old, why the remote doesn't work right half the time, and when they will get some blockbuster titles. They can't get L4D, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, GTA, etc. Those are games that the so called "hardcore gamers" play. Those are the people who buy more than a couple games a year. They make up a larger percentage of the gaming community than the demographic that the Wii is marketed to. Most people who like the Wii only have 1 or 2 games and refuse to buy multiple titles for a system. They typically won't go out buying 5-10 games every couple months.

In the context of Physx technology, the future consoles will no doubt have much more horsepower and allow them to produce these effects. Graphics mean a great deal to the general public. If the game doesn't look good many people will be turned off by it. It's how it is today. I have absolutely no doubt that Physx will be in the future of most of the top selling titles to come in the next few years. Maybe not directly from Nvidia but they have the best foot in the door right now as compared to any other alternative.

:laugh:

OMFG, you work at Gamestop? Ahahahahaha. I'm sorry, but if you go to any real gaming message board, whether it be a 360, PS3, PC, or Wii board, they will testify to the idiots who work at Gamestop. And apparently it must be true, because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You just live in your own little world, at fucking Gamestop. And Gamestop does not represent, at all, the gaming market. I feel sad there are hundreds of people who might actually listen to your opinions on video games. You obviously just hate the Wii and you have no real justification for it, and that makes you stupid.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If you want cartoons running around and like to wiggle your "wiimote" be my guest but leave me the hell out of it. It's pathetic, a waste of space and time, and YES the game sales are terrible. Check the past few months...they can't even get that new music game to sell.

You obviously haven't been in the retail industry the past few years and have seen the trends. The Wii sold on a gimmick, I work part time at gamestop and always see people walking in asking "when are some good games coming to the Wii" seriously, you think I'm joking probably. Those people play Wow or some other PC game and use the consoles as their secondary thing. Most people who have purchased a Wii at my store have mentioned some regrets unless they have very young children. They always ask me why the games look old, why the remote doesn't work right half the time, and when they will get some blockbuster titles. They can't get L4D, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, GTA, etc. Those are games that the so called "hardcore gamers" play. Those are the people who buy more than a couple games a year. They make up a larger percentage of the gaming community than the demographic that the Wii is marketed to. Most people who like the Wii only have 1 or 2 games and refuse to buy multiple titles for a system. They typically won't go out buying 5-10 games every couple months.

In the context of Physx technology, the future consoles will no doubt have much more horsepower and allow them to produce these effects. Graphics mean a great deal to the general public. If the game doesn't look good many people will be turned off by it. It's how it is today. I have absolutely no doubt that Physx will be in the future of most of the top selling titles to come in the next few years. Maybe not directly from Nvidia but they have the best foot in the door right now as compared to any other alternative.

:laugh:

OMFG, you work at Gamestop? Ahahahahaha. I'm sorry, but if you go to any real gaming message board, whether it be a 360, PS3, PC, or Wii board, they will testify to the idiots who work at Gamestop. And apparently it must be true, because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You just live in your own little world, at fucking Gamestop. And Gamestop does not represent, at all, the gaming market. I feel sad there are hundreds of people who might actually listen to your opinions on video games. You obviously just hate the Wii and you have no real justification for it, and that makes you stupid.

Real gamers shop at game stores. I have customers who used to come dig through our old games looking for one specific title for like a Genesis or something, before we got rid of that all together. It's my part-time job, cause I am a gamer. Try going to gamefaqs.com and see how many people on the 360 and PS3 board call the Wii a gimmick.

The justification for hating the wii is because it is a gimmick, that doesn't work right 90% of the time, and which does not push technology forward.

Your justification for calling me stupid is zero, so by all accounts it would seem that you're the big joke of the day. Now this is way way off topic, but know this...Nvidia will be a player in the console industry being the World's leading PC graphics manufacturer, and the next consoles will support form type of physics API, accelerated.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: zebrax2

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

People put too much emphasis on saving a few watts here and there. Really when you add it up how much difference does it really make?

i live in a 3rd world country. currently im in college and my daily pocket money is around 2$ and half of that i spend on food. not every one is as well of as you. also there is another benefit gained by lowering the power consumption, that is less heat. anyway we are swaying out of topic so i will stop the discussion here

It's not about being well off, if you can afford your electric bill as it is now then you can afford it if you overclock your system and take up a whole 30w more.

 

[Keysplayr]

I just bought the Wii for my son for a Christmas present. I have played it before over at a family members house, and I have to say, it is a blast!! If something you call a gimmick can give such enjoyment playing it, then +1 for gimmicks, cause I had some real fun, and can't wait to set up the Wii here for my son and play some more with him.

Now really guys, this isn't a console thread. Go back and read the thread title, and then change gears.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I just bought the Wii for my son for a Christmas present. I have played it before over at a family members house, and I have to say, it is a blast!! If something you call a gimmick can give such enjoyment playing it, then +1 for gimmicks, cause I had some real fun, and can't wait to set up the Wii here for my son and play some more with him.

Now really guys, this isn't a console thread. Go back and read the thread title, and then change gears.

It's a little thing called opinion, for which I was called stupid. Perhaps it should be noted that opinions are never stupid, and calling someone stupid for having one is a little Hitleresque.

 

[Keysplayr]

Dredd, some folks just don't know how to be social, but instead just take advantage of the fact that the internet insulates them, from you.
Ignore him, and chalk it up to that. IMHO. Oh no, another opinion.