Your Take on PhysX

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Red Storm

And that doesn't have to be PhysX (how can you blame ATI for not wanting to pay nVidia to use PhysX? I certainly don't), it can be Havok or any other engine to come out.

Havok is owned by Intel, which is an even a larger competitor for AMD.

Personally I can't stand how ATI is always lagging behind in technology. It's a prime reason as to why I don't favor their products. Now they are once again dragging down the industry.

Personally I want the latest and greatest when it comes to video cards, NVIDIA has always been out front. I guess someone has to pick the losing horse, I'm just glad I have yet to be in that position.

 

[MarcVenice]

Well Wreckage, it looks like your not a real consumer. I don't have the right word for you, but you don't buy with your wallet. The latest and greatest at the expense of what exactly? Insane prices? So it took AMD a while to catch up to Nvidia, fine with me, I owned Nvidia back then. Wben AMD catched up, I bought AMD, coz it's better bang for buck, at least in Europe. No reason to leave AMD out of the picture, just because Nvidia had better cards a while ago.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
On the other side, you see people who oppose advancement- it seems yourself included- because a particular company decided they didn't want to do it until years later.

I have never been opposed to PhysX so no I'm not included in those opposed to "advancement". In fact I made a thread where I got PhysX to work while running my 8800GT as a dedicated PhysX card with my 4870 doing the rendering. If I was opposed to it I would not have even tried it and most definitely would not have posted about it. I think it's a good start but from what I experienced it's not a must-have and GPU acceleration is only implemented throughout the game in 3(?) major titles. I tried Mirror's Edge with and without PhysX and there weren't any major gameplay differences (admittedly I didn't finish the game as I found it pretty boring) but did add some nice eyecandy sometimes. I was actually looking forward to Cryostasis but apparently the gameplay is not great from reviews I've read.

Why they chose to go with Havok I don't know...maybe since it would be running through OpenCL (is PhysX for sure going to be ported to run through OpenCL?)? I don't care whether it's PhysX or Havok that eventually dominates...I just want to be able to run it well on any card I buy. And IF for example PhysX dominates and is contained in some great games and ATI doesn't make an effort to get PhysX working on their cards THEN I would be inclined to buy an nVidia card. Until then my own buying decision would be based on price/performance and whether my watercooling gear fits on whatever card I buy (which is the major reason why I chose the 4870 over the GTX260).

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Personally I can't stand how ATI is always lagging behind in technology. It's a prime reason as to why I don't favor their products. Now they are once again dragging down the industry.

Are you sure about this?

ATi had its DirectX 9 capable cards (R3x0/R4x0) out first before nVIDIA (while being able to run DX9 apps satisfactory unlike its counterpart). They had implemented a more efficent memory controller (R520) allowing for better scaling with AA and allowing both HDR + AA to work at the same time. They also re-introduced angle independent AF (R5x0), while being on spot with shader intensive games being the future. They were the first to implement DX10.1 and use GDDR5 (RV770). Not only that but ever since the NV30 fiasco, ATi has always been ahead in the process race. Not saying this is a good or bad thing but in terms of technological advancements, ATi is ahead in this area compared to nVIDIA.

The list keeps on going. Both companies have had some pretty big achievements in GPU technology. But by saying that nVIDIA is the company that only innovates while the other drags the industry down is downright ignorant.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Red Storm

And that doesn't have to be PhysX (how can you blame ATI for not wanting to pay nVidia to use PhysX? I certainly don't), it can be Havok or any other engine to come out.

Havok is owned by Intel, which is an even a larger competitor for AMD.

Personally I can't stand how ATI is always lagging behind in technology. It's a prime reason as to why I don't favor their products. Now they are once again dragging down the industry.

Personally I want the latest and greatest when it comes to video cards, NVIDIA has always been out front. I guess someone has to pick the losing horse, I'm just glad I have yet to be in that position.

:roll: whatever man.

lagging behind in technology???:disgust: HD4890 has gddr5, dx10.1, and able to hit 1ghz in the core all of which I would consider MAJOR advancements in technology which your beloved Nvidia cards DO NOT HAVE!!!!


Nvidia has always been out in Front??? How did the G70 compare to R580? lol, Can you say SHADER PROCESSORS. Grab any current game and compare the 2 GPU's which are in direct competition and you'll see that there is no competition. The same could also be said about the X850's being faster than the 6800's minus the ability to do HDR. Hmm how about R300 vs the Geforce FX. HAHAHAHA. So yeah over the past 7 years, ATi and Nvidia have been playing tag you're it with being the current leader.

Dragging down the industry????? how about the backyard bbq going on with G92 fiasco and how many cards we can make with the same friggin GPU ?!!?

I feel as your post was flame bait and it indeed flamed and baited me to respond. Also you blatantly admitted to saying that you would indeed pick the LOSING horse if Nvidia were in such position.

Listen buddy, There is a big difference between being an enthusiast and a fanboy.





**** edit**** you beat me to it Cookie, It took me longer to type mine out lol

 

[LOUISSSSS]

seems like the only people who would really base their buying based on physx are chizow and wreckage. its too bad they have to pay for their own video cards...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Well Wreckage, it looks like your not a real consumer. I don't have the right word for you, but you don't buy with your wallet.

I got a GTX260 for around $200. It has more features than a 4870 and performs as well or better. Throw in better driver support, less heat with a better HSF. Plus, I get to play with PhysX and my Folding@home numbers are through the roof.

So I'm a smart consumer who likes high end gaming with the latest technology.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
seems like the only people who would really base their buying based on physx are chizow and wreckage. its too bad they have to pay for their own video cards...

Yeah, I'm sure they based their purchase on it...

:roll:

Quit baiting people.

 

[VooDooAddict]

PhysX isn't a big concern for me.

CUDA and the acceleration it adds to some of the video tools. Yes, that will influence my next purchase decision. It's not going to be the sole reason, but all other things being equal or near equal. I'm going to go with Nvidia.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Personally I can't stand how ATI is always lagging behind in technology. It's a prime reason as to why I don't favor their products. Now they are once again dragging down the industry.

Are you sure about this?

ATi had its DirectX 9 capable cards (R3x0/R4x0) out first before nVIDIA (while being able to run DX9 apps satisfactory unlike its counterpart). They had implemented a more efficent memory controller (R520) allowing for better scaling with AA and allowing both HDR + AA to work at the same time. They also re-introduced angle independent AF (R5x0), while being on spot with shader intensive games being the future. They were the first to implement DX10.1 and use GDDR5 (RV770). Not only that but ever since the NV30 fiasco, ATi has always been ahead in the process race. Not saying this is a good or bad thing but in terms of technological advancements, ATi is ahead in this area compared to nVIDIA.

The list keeps on going. Both companies have had some pretty big achievements in GPU technology. But by saying that nVIDIA is the company that only innovates while the other drags the industry down is downright ignorant.

QFT.

ATi and nVidia have both contributed advancements to the industry.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
seems like the only people who would really base their buying based on physx are chizow and wreckage. its too bad they have to pay for their own video cards...

Uh right, I guess we all need our reasons to buy video cards other than their ability to play games, luckily enough for me (and anyone else) Nvidia parts have been superior to ATI's in every way with few exceptions over the years. If people based purchasing on performance and quality alone you'd wonder how AMD managed to sell any video cards at all over the last 3 years where Nvidia has clearly dominated.

As for why I care about PhysX, its quite simple. Any game that includes enhanced physics is going to be better than the version without. Effects don't need to be integrated into gameplay to accomplish this, as physics used for eye-candy, animation and behavior significantly add to immersiveness like few other features before it.

Now that Havok has finally caught up and matched PhysX's hardware accelerated feature set, developers can finally implement hardware accelerated effects with reasonable confidence the target audience meets hardware requirements. Neither Havok or PhysX is going anywhere, they'll continue to coexist as middleware with OpenCL or DX11 serving as the "standard" API.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Well Wreckage, it looks like your not a real consumer. I don't have the right word for you, but you don't buy with your wallet.

I got a GTX260 for around $200. It has more features than a 4870 and performs as well or better. Throw in better driver support, less heat with a better HSF. Plus, I get to play with PhysX and my Folding@home numbers are through the roof.

So I'm a smart consumer who likes high end gaming with the latest technology.

Each one to his own likings. You got your GTX because it offers some features you like more, so there is nothing wrong with that.

It's wrong though, to start spiting on the other company's products, just because you got the other card, to say that ATi was always behind, when this is just a big fat and stupid lie. Dx 10.1 is something that Nvidia doesn't have, for example. I know, you'll say that it's not that important, but so is PhysX, whether you admit it or not.

I got the 4870, for example, because where I live the gtx 260 was overpriced ( still is ), but that didn't made me change my opinion about the gtx 260 and start saying crap about it and about the whole Nvidia company. This is why, Wreckege, you are a fanboy, far away from your "smart consumer" image you like to project.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow


As for why I care about PhysX, its quite simple. Any game that includes enhanced physics is going to be better than the version without. Effects don't need to be integrated into gameplay to accomplish this, as physics used for eye-candy, animation and behavior significantly add to immersiveness like few other features before it.

Exactly, just like direct X 10.1 effects are. Any game with those it's better then the game without them.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
Exactly, just like direct X 10.1 effects are. Any game with those it's better then the game without them.

LOL, well I'd love to say that were true in my case, but I've still yet to see what benefit DX10.1 provides over DX10 other than perhaps a slight performance gain at the expense of rendering errors or a skipped rendering pass.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

at the expense of rendering errors or a skipped rendering pass.

Oh my god. Really? Where are those rendering errors?
If you're thinking at the FarCry 2 missing rocks, those are fixed by now. But yet, we, on our inferior ATi card, have some slight effects in Clear Sky, faster H.A.W.K.S on dx 10.1 path and there was something in Assasin's Creed, that Nvidia tried to prevent ( although not proven ).

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
Oh my god. Really? Where are those rendering errors?

Let's see, Assassins Creed, FC2 (was fixed), and apparently STALKER CS now too. I'd say DX10.1 implementation so far has been shoddy at best.

But this is getting OT, feel free to start up a DX10.1 topic where you can explain to all of us what makes DX10.1 so awesome in games.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

and apparently STALKER CS now too. I'd say DX10.1 implementation so far has been shoddy at best.

The Stalker issue is with the DX9 path, not with 10 or 10.1.

 

[error8]

I don't have to start another dx 10.1 thread to show you, that ATi cards have some slight mambo jumbo here and there, just like Nvidia has with PhysX.

You can't prove that the missing army texture is because of the dx10.1 rendering path. It might be or it might not. Maybe Ati is sacrificing image quality to gain performance, just like Wreckage says. But, like I've said in my edited post, there is a slight performance improvement in HAWKS when the engine is using dx 10.1, different AA , if I'm not mistaken, in Clear Sky and Assasins Creed performed faster with AA on dx 10.1 until Ubisoft removed it with the latest patch ( maybe Nvidia threatened to bomb the Ubisoft stables ).

EDIT: Ups, sorry, the Stalker issue is on dx 9 path, so it has nothing to do with dx 10.1.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: error8

You can't prove that the missing army texture is because of the dx10.1 rendering path.

It isn't; like I said above, the issue only happens with the DX9 path, not with 10 or 10.1.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: error8

You can't prove that the missing army texture is because of the dx10.1 rendering path.

It isn't; like I said above, the issue only happens with the DX9 path, not with 10 or 10.1.

Yes you're right, I edited my post.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The Stalker issue is with the DX9 path, not with 10 or 10.1.

Ah I see, I only read the initial post mentioning Enhanced DX10 lighting.

Originally posted by: error8
I don't have to start another dx 10.1 thread to show you, that ATi cards have some slight mambo jumbo here and there, just like Nvidia has with PhysX.

You can't prove that the missing army texture is because of the dx10.1 rendering path. It might be or it might not. Maybe Ati is sacrificing image quality to gain performance, just like Wreckage says. But, like I've said in my edited post, there is a slight performance improvement in HAWKS when the engine is using dx 10.1, different AA , if I'm not mistaken, in Clear Sky and Assasins Creed performed faster with AA on dx 10.1 until Ubisoft removed it with the latest patch ( maybe Nvidia threatened to bomb the Ubisoft stables ).

EDIT: Ups, sorry, the Stalker issue is on dx 9 path, so it has nothing to do with dx 10.1.

LOL again, rendering issues aside, you can't compare hardware accelerated physics and DX10.1 if you can't even tell us what DX10.1 offers over DX10 visually without straining for answers. People complain about how little difference there is from DX9 to DX10....the difference from DX10 to DX10.1 is even less significant.

 

[Wreckage]

It's pretty clear that most ATI owners don't like PhysX and most NVIDIA owners do like it.

Go figure.

At GDC they announced several more companies that will be incorporating PhysX into their game engines. In addition to the several announced prior to that. So for those of us who are into high end gaming it looks like a lot of good stuff is on the way.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

LOL again, rendering issues aside, you can't compare hardware accelerated physics and DX10.1 if you can't even tell us what DX10.1 offers over DX10 visually without straining for answers. People complain about how little difference there is from DX9 to DX10....the difference from DX10 to DX10.1 is even less significant.

But that's exactly it. It doesn't offers much, just like PhysX . Do you want me to link you to the jumping balls dx 10.1 demonstration movie ATI has, to show you the differences? You're right, PhysX has the upper hand on eye candy improvement, but dx 10.1 path is faster on cards and games that use it correctly.

The thing is, that both of them bring some improvements, here and there, that do not count on the overall card's value. For me both PhysX and dx 10.1 are worthless at this time. But it annoys me when you consider ATi cards are inferior just because they don't have the Nvidia's feature.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
It's pretty clear that most ATI owners don't like PhysX and most NVIDIA owners do like it.

Go figure.

At GDC they announced several more companies that will be incorporating PhysX into their game engines. In addition to the several announced prior to that. So for those of us who are into high end gaming it looks like a lot of good stuff is on the way.

I bought my GTX260 OC Black Edition because at the time it was around the same speed as the GTX280. I love how you speak on behave of all card owners, then you call people fanboy? You know that arrogant little attitude of yours is not going to convince people to buy nVidia products.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

So for those of us who are into high end gaming it looks like a lot of good stuff is on the way.

Yeah, this was a list another member was maintaining in his sig showing which games, upcoming and current, support PhysX and to what degree. It looks like there are going to be some good titles implementing it.

That said, I just hope we get better physic implementations in general, not necessarily more debris and that's it. Red Faction Guerilla looks to be a good step in the right direction - even if it still uses CPU cores.