View Single Post
Old 03-24-10, 02:52 PM   #92
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Originally Posted by Razor1 View Post
i7 has a max of 8 threads in parallel, if you think about it a GPU has hundreds of threads in parallel. If those effects hurt a GPU, its going to hurt a CPU even more. In games most games are done this way 1 thread for graphics and game needs, 1 thread for physics needs, and one thread for AI needs. So yeah you can have up to 6 threads for physics, 6 vs hundreds, its quite a big difference . Also hypertheading is nice but doesn't always equate to the same amount of parrallelism as a GPU, so you have factor that in.

The developers have the choice here, not you, or anyone else, its a good thought no doubt but realistically speaking look above, I'm sure developers have looked into it to some degree, since physX is multithread, just needs to be used.

Doesn't that largely depend on what the developers have settled on the minimum configuration that's required to run their game though,as it's in their interest to make their game run on the maximum amount of system configurations possible,in order to potentially increase sales of their game,and i personally haven't seen any game yet released even listing an i7 processor even as their recommended system setup to run a particular game optimally...At least not yet.

The most i've seen as recommended specifications is a Quad core processor with no hyperthreading ablilities being mentioned at all,so we have yet to see exactly just how well would a CPU with 8 threads actually handle it,at least publically,and people should be informed about it and then make a decision if they want a physics card or not.

Unfortunately not much choice there early adopters always have that to take into consideration, specially since Ageia didn't look to viable at first because their delays in hardware and software.

That one would also be nice to know if current Nvidia GPU's can actually outperform the ageia physics processor for physics calculations,and not dropping support without even thinking twice about it,and i don't need to tell you the bad impression that left for those that did buy those physics cards,which weren't that cheap at the time,and everybody called it a gimmick then,and now you're telling me it's supposed to be considered otherwise because Nvidia bought the company?....I don't think so.

If they're so confident that their current GPU's can outperform that ageia physics processor,then prove it in actual benchmarks to show people why they dropped support for it....Put that information out in the open,rather than playing this cloak and dagger crap and just saying it's better to use the GPU for it and that's the end of it.

Sux to be an ATi user, it would be nice I agree, but nV owns what they make, and they are in the business of make money.
Like i said,it's been out for 2 years,there's maybe 10 games using GPU physics right now,and i've seen the differences both with and without GPU physics with some games,and it's not a night and day difference anyhow,at least for now.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote