View Single Post
Old 03-24-10, 03:34 PM   #97
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
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.
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/ar...2009-4-p2.html

They also stated quad core systems showed similiar gains, hyperthreading doesn't give the same performance benefits as a second CPU, so the 8 threads well not that great lets say more like 5 to 6 threads total.

Quote:
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.
Look above hyperthreading is a solution that isn't ideal to the problem

Quote:
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.
A 9600gt does well against the Ageia card, and the 9600gt at launch costed more then $100 less then Ageia top end which both those are fairly competitive.

Quote:
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.
Look around there are benchmarks out there.

Quote:
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.
It takes time we will see in the future, Dx11 games there is only 2 so what, ya still buy the hardware right?
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote