Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 400/500 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-24-10, 12:35 PM   #85
Vardant
 
Vardant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 1,041
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Since when is being an NV Focus Group member a bad thing? There were and still are great people out there, that helped the community and for that, were offered the position. If ATI or NV approached anyone in here, with similar offer, who would turn it down?

And it's not like they are hiding, not anymore that is

There's at least a dozen people, that are working for Intel or ATI/AMD and are posting things aimed to hurt the competition and you don't even know it.

Unless people, that hate PhysX just because it is owned by NV stop posting or come to senses, it's all pointless. Look at XS forums and the thread about Havok in the News section. Doing nothing is considered better than doing anything by some, just because it involves ATI...
Vardant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 12:59 PM   #86
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant View Post
Since when is being an NV Focus Group member a bad thing? There were and still are great people out there, that helped the community and for that, were offered the position. If ATI or NV approached anyone in here, with similar offer, who would turn it down?

And it's not like they are hiding, not anymore that is

There's at least a dozen people, that are working for Intel or ATI/AMD and are posting things aimed to hurt the competition and you don't even know it.

Unless people, that hate PhysX just because it is owned by NV stop posting or come to senses, it's all pointless. Look at XS forums and the thread about Havok in the News section. Doing nothing is considered better than doing anything by some, just because it involves ATI...

Given what we've seen so far from GPU physics,and knowing that in all of those games where it is being used,i had task manager up an running and only see 2~3 CPU threads getting used for the most part,where the other 5 CPU threads are doing jack **** basically(i7+ hyperthreading enabled here),it would be interesting to see the same physics calculations attempted on those 5 CPU threads doing nothing,seeing if it can still handle the load,and then see which is the better solution in overall performance.


What i'm talking about is making an educated decision based on observation and pushing the limits on the hardware i already own,and not simply using a physics API that limits itself to looking for an Nvidia video card in the system,and never allowing the option for the CPU to handle the workload,even if it's a high end one that more than half it's resources aren't being used to begin with.


As it is,some users that bought those Ageia physics cards are already pretty furious that they can't use a card they paid 300$ at the time for,since the latest physX updates don't allow it to be used anymore,and it's a better physics processor than using an Nvidia GPU,since all the physics calculations are supported in actual hardware,not partially using the CPU for some of them.


Or how about Nvidia also not allowing users to have ATI cards for the graphics portion,and using an Nvidia card for the physics calculations....Nope,not allowed either,even though it was in the past,so Nvidia wants to make sure that you buy their hardware exclusively for no real reason except making more money,and shot themselves in the foot in the process,hence why there's so few games using GPU accelerated physics,even after 2 years.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 01:36 PM   #87
NoWayDude
Charlie don't Surf!
 
NoWayDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 866
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Ok, i know this is silly season and all, but could someone on their right mind, explain to me something?

Why would Nvidia/Ati/Intel/AMD, having something that is a proprietary tech, let all of the other guys have this for....free?

Am I mistaken, or is it not the goal of this companies to ... make money?

In regards to Toss3 remarks about the Nvidia forum focus group, can I ask you, what makes some people be over zealous about ATI?

At least with the focus members we know why, what about the ATI ones?

I see more misinformation from ATI fans about Nvidia than from Nvidia focus members about ATI. Shell we believe that this is all for the love of 1 company?

Sorry, I stopped being that naive years ago.
__________________
Beer,helping ugly people getting laid since the dawn of time
My Rig
Gigabyte DS3IS3, C2D Q6600 @ 3400,4096 megs Geil C4 800mhz DDR2,SB Audigy 2, 750W PSU,Palit 460GTX 160 Sata Samsung + 120 Seagate ATA + 80 Sata Seagate, Atapi DVD Rom x16 ,Samsung DVD/RW x12x8
NoWayDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 01:36 PM   #88
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
Given what we've seen so far from GPU physics,and knowing that in all of those games where it is being used,i had task manager up an running and only see 2~3 CPU threads getting used for the most part,where the other 5 CPU threads are doing jack **** basically(i7+ hyperthreading enabled here),it would be interesting to see the same physics calculations attempted on those 5 CPU threads doing nothing,seeing if it can still handle the load,and then see which is the better solution in overall performance.


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.

Quote:
What i'm talking about is making an educated decision based on observation and pushing the limits on the hardware i already own,and not simply using a physics API that limits itself to looking for an Nvidia video card in the system,and never allowing the option for the CPU to handle the workload,even if it's a high end one that more than half it's resources aren't being used to begin with.
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.

Quote:
As it is,some users that bought those Ageia physics cards are already pretty furious that they can't use a card they paid 300$ at the time for,since the latest physX updates don't allow it to be used anymore,and it's a better physics processor than using an Nvidia GPU,since all the physics calculations are supported in actual hardware,not partially using the CPU for some of them.
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.

Quote:
Or how about Nvidia also not allowing users to have ATI cards for the graphics portion,and using an Nvidia card for the physics calculations....Nope,not allowed either,even though it was in the past,so Nvidia wants to make sure that you buy their hardware exclusively for no real reason except making more money,and shot themselves in the foot in the process,hence why there's so few games using GPU accelerated physics,even after 2 years.
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.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 02:08 PM   #89
Iruwen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 186
Thumbs up Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWayDude View Post
Ok, i know this is silly season and all, but could someone on their right mind, explain to me something?

Why would Nvidia/Ati/Intel/AMD, having something that is a proprietary tech, let all of the other guys have this for....free?

Am I mistaken, or is it not the goal of this companies to ... make money?

In regards to Toss3 remarks about the Nvidia forum focus group, can I ask you, what makes some people be over zealous about ATI?

At least with the focus members we know why, what about the ATI ones?

I see more misinformation from ATI fans about Nvidia than from Nvidia focus members about ATI. Shell we believe that this is all for the love of 1 company?

Sorry, I stopped being that naive years ago.
+1
Iruwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 02:32 PM   #90
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
1. Read thre 100s of angry posts from ATi owners that can't use PhysX and see how important it really is.

2. "we even let"? I was unaware you had any authority to speak for this forum Toss3? I thought you were just another forum member like me, what's your association with the forum that speak for it? Or are you just playing make believe mod to sound tough?
I don't mind nvidia focus members being here, but due to their obvious bias towards one company their arguments become very lopsided. jAkUp did an amazing job at marketing nvidia products without ever talking crap about ati. You however seem to have a need to talk crap about them in every post you make.
I never tried to sound like a mod nor did I ever think my comment would be thought as anyone's but my own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWayDude
In regards to Toss3 remarks about the Nvidia forum focus group, can I ask you, what makes some people be over zealous about ATI?
I have no idea, but I guess some people have a need to justify their purchase.

I might add that nvidia hasn't been marketing themselves very well lately and it shows.
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 02:49 PM   #91
SirPauly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
Default Re: I have seen the future....

This was an important data point on the popularity of Physic middleware based on developers.

http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=88

If a title offers more advanced physics using the GPU? Great! If a title offers more advanced physics using the CPU and taking advantage of many cores? Great!

For me with my system -- I'll enjoy whatever the developers choose to use. Personally can't force my idealism to developers or IHV's but can build a flexible system to enjoy the most immersion for me.
SirPauly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 02:52 PM   #92
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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

Old 03-24-10, 03:04 PM   #93
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant View Post
Since when is being an NV Focus Group member a bad thing? There were and still are great people out there, that helped the community and for that, were offered the position. If ATI or NV approached anyone in here, with similar offer, who would turn it down?
I would never take free products in exchange for the right to express my own opinion. If I wanted free hardware I'd start reviewing them thus helping the community instead of doing the opposite.

Quote:
And it's not like they are hiding, not anymore that is

There's at least a dozen people, that are working for Intel or ATI/AMD and are posting things aimed to hurt the competition and you don't even know it.
I've seen AMD employees post on xtremesystems and they've all gotten pretty beat down by others.

Quote:
Unless people, that hate PhysX just because it is owned by NV stop posting or come to senses, it's all pointless. Look at XS forums and the thread about Havok in the News section. Doing nothing is considered better than doing anything by some, just because it involves ATI...
You need to understand that people don't hate PhysX in any way. People just don't like it when they're being lied to. If nvidia were to enable proper multi-core support in their drivers and let ATI users buy an nvidia product to run PhysX most people wouldn't have a problem with it. Right now however it is only being used to hurt gamers that aren't using nvidia GPUs.
PhysX is a glimpse of what the future of gaming holds in store for us and the demos clearly show that.
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 03:09 PM   #94
SirPauly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
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 that 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.





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.




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.

How objective really is it to compare just a single GPU doing rendering and Physics compared to a PPU doing just Physics?

An Ageia PPU is about as powerful as a 9600 GT to me.
SirPauly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 03:16 PM   #95
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
How objective really is it to compare just a single GPU doing rendering and Physics compared to a PPU doing just Physics?

An Ageia PPU is about as powerful as a 9600 GT to me.

I wasn't thinking doing it that way actually,but to rather have a dedicated graphics card in each setup,only one uses an additional Nvidia GPU for physics and the other system uses the ageia physics card to calculate that part of the workload....Make it as fair as possible and see what comes out of it in the end.


If the Dual Nvidia GPU setup still beats the Single Nvidia GPU + Ageia card setup in the games that do have support for GPU physics,then it lends evidence as to why they dropped support for the Ageia physics card.


It's not hard to conduct such a test.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-10, 03:18 PM   #96
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
How objective really is it to compare just a single GPU doing rendering and Physics compared to a PPU doing just Physics?
This is how nvidia markets it and the reason why they don't let ATi users run nvidia cards along with their GPU. They sell it to people who think that one GPU is enough. Nowhere does it say that "to enjoy the full benefits of PhysX nvidia recommends running a second card alongside the 400$ you just purchased" on the box. A gpu+cpu setup is always going to be a better option than just one GPU doing everything.

Quote:
An Ageia PPU is about as powerful as a 9600 GT to me.
Sounds about right.

EDIT: Found a chart comparing Ageia PPU with 9600GT in Mirror's Edge:



Those cpu physx numbers look horrible.

EDIT2: They also recently released their Metro2033 PhysX benchmarks:



This is the first title to properly utilize multi-core support for PhysX! Nvidia seems to be listening to the consumers!
Would have been interesting to see how a dedicated physx card would have affected the performance.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MirrorsEdge_Ageia_PhysxScale.PNG
Views:	140
Size:	60.4 KB
ID:	39845  Click image for larger version

Name:	Metro2033-PhysX.png
Views:	131
Size:	38.4 KB
ID:	39846  
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.