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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-05-10, 11:57 AM   #25
Vardant
 
Vardant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 1,041
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
Steam isn't actually that accurate,as their own games can be run by fairly old hardware anyhow....They haven't released any game that can be really taxing on hardware in a long while,hence why dual core and even single core processors are still used.
Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.
Vardant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 12:01 PM   #26
Xion X2
Registered User
 
Xion X2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.
Posts: 6,701
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant View Post
Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.
+1.

If that really is from steam, then that's probably as accurate as you're going to get from the gaming population.

Steam handles everything.. not just Valve games.
__________________

i7-2700k @ 5.0 GHz
Nvidia GeForce 570 2.5GB Tri-SLI
Asus P67 WS Revolution (Tri-SLI)
OCZ Vertex SSD x 4 (Raid 5)
G.Skill 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz
PC Power & Cooling 950W PSU
Xion X2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 12:04 PM   #27
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant View Post
Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.

Put it this way,ask someone who wants to play games like battlefield bad company,or any of the very latest releases,if the user still thinks a single or even dual core processor would be enough to play it smoothly....I'm betting the answer is no.


The added incentive is that Quad core chips can be bought dirt cheap these days,especially for AMD models,as they sell for less than a midrange video card,never mind a high end one.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 06:14 PM   #28
noko
noko
 
noko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 735
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonPC View Post
He never specifically says if it will be GPU or CPU physx. I'm guessing it will make use of GPU physx but I'm not that impressed with what I see there. Seems like a CPU should be able to do that.

Game is using PhysX, if it is using multithreading on the cpu then it should do OK, if not then I expect a rather cut down version for the rest of us without PhysX
__________________
Gigabit DSL, Q6600 @ 3.4ghz, Mushkin 4gb DDR 800 OCZ 2x2gb , PowerColor HD 5870. 24" Acer LCD, 1TB hd with Vista 64 Home Premium.

Foxconn 780G, Athlon64 X2 5600 @ 3ghz, Mushkin 4gb DDR 800 OCZ 2x2gb , eVga 260 GTX. 17" MagAcer LCD, 120gb Vista 32
noko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 06:19 PM   #29
snowmanwithahat
Snowy
 
snowmanwithahat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 974
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2 View Post
GPU-based PhysX will never take off as long as it's proprietary. With the success of the 4*** and 5*** series, a good amount of the population now owns ATI cards, and developers aren't going to waste their time coding stuff that only 60-70% of the population can leverage or enjoy.
You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?

I don't think they enjoyed a best-in-class card at any point except for the 4870x2 which was easily beaten by the 295 when it came out.

They were behind through the whole last set of cards
__________________
---Gaming Rig---
Q6600 3.4ghz (378x9) - 1.5v
Gigabyte EP45-UD3P
8gb (4x2gb) OCZ Gold DDR2-800 (5-4-4-12)
MSI+ASUS GTX 470 SLI
Dell u3011 IPS Display
HP 22" Auxiliary Monitor
256gb Western Digital Silicon Edge Blue SSD
5x2tb RAID-5 Array
750W PC P&C PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit & Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit

---Gaming Laptop---
ASUS G53JW
Core i7 740QM
16gb DDR3
Nvidia GTX 460m
1tb WD HDD
120gb Corsair SSD

Join the NvNews Folding @ Home Team
snowmanwithahat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 06:31 PM   #30
JasonPC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,103
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

The 4800s took first place in DX10 graphic cards over the 8800s in Steam's Hardware survey. That's pretty successful if you ask me. They may have not had superior performance but the price/performance ratio was good.
JasonPC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 06:31 PM   #31
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowmanwithahat View Post
You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?
Well, it gained them 4% of NV's marketshare, so yeah.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 06:40 PM   #32
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowmanwithahat View Post
You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?

I don't think they enjoyed a best-in-class card at any point except for the 4870x2 which was easily beaten by the 295 when it came out.

They were behind through the whole last set of cards

When the GTX295 came out 6 months later you mean....The HD4870X2 was without any challenge for the second half of 2008,as the GTX295 was only released in early 2009(january i think).


The HD5970 has been out since november 2009(5 months now),and there's still no word on when we'll see a dual Fermi card on retail shelves.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-05-10, 08:25 PM   #33
XMAN52373
Registered User
 
XMAN52373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime View Post
A quad core that can match the 76 Gflops I said above is only $90. NV is just suppressing CPU Physx in order to make their GPU's look better.
Actually, its a give and take thing between CPUs and GPUs. CPUs can handle about half of what is done in PhysX just fine without causing to much of an issue. Its when you get into the area of interactiveness, realism that even a lowly 8600GT can make an i7 920 at 4GHX look mighty puney in comparison because of the way the GPU handles the coding. Maybe you should revisit the PhysX thread you commented in once or twice Ninja and get a reminder over at B3D. I ferget who over there, but someone posted a link to a 16 core PhysX run of a fluid sim that was about on par with a 9600GT. 16 cores to equal 1 GPU for a fluid sim. Somethings are just better left to GPUs for now. And having looked at the PhysX SDK, it is the same one used for consoles which somehow manage to work fine with multi core CPUs. I'm more inclined to believe Devs laziness on this then somehow Nvidia playing with blocking of CPU cores. To code for paralle processing using PhysX takes alot of work. As consoles already do most everything in paralle, they dont think of the added work much, but to get the code to work right on CPUs not designed for that by default takes more work and almost all Devs wont do that unless they are exspecting their game to be a AAA massive seller. IE Metro 2033.
__________________
C2Q6600@3.3
ASUS GTX570
eVGA 780i SLi AR
8GB DDR2 PC8500
Windows 7 U x64
XMAN52373 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 09:00 PM   #34
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XMAN52373 View Post
I ferget who over there, but someone posted a link to a 16 core PhysX run of a fluid sim that was about on par with a 9600GT. 16 cores to equal 1 GPU for a fluid sim. Somethings are just better left to GPUs for now. And having looked at the PhysX SDK, it is the same one used for consoles which somehow manage to work fine with multi core CPUs. I'm more inclined to believe Devs laziness on this then somehow Nvidia playing with blocking of CPU cores..
A: A bench designed on and for a GPU core doesn't run well on a CPU. If it were re-coded to work better on a CPU, it would probably be a closer match. It would still get beat of course, but it might be closer.

B: Its not about benchmarks like "fluid sim" which I'm guessing is fluidmark. Its about what is needed for physics in games. Yeah, a GTX 280 could crush a CPU in random physics benchmark #1, but, is anyone going to use that much power in a game? No. Do they need that much power? No. If they had that much power on every system could they even use it in games? I doubt it. My point was, its to the point where some CPU cores is going to be enough, and certainly in the future with 6-8 cores, you will have enough power on CPU cores.

3: Last time I checked, fluidmark wasn't a game. Last time I checked, no game has any effects even close to similar to what fluidmark has. So then, what does fluidmark have to do with games? Nothing. Its furmark, but for physics.

E: Your final point, is that devs are lazy and that is why physx doesn't use multicore hardly at all, right? So you're saying, devs are lazy, so they spend extra time coding for a feature (physx) that most people won't use, but they won't spend extra time coding for something that most people can use, i.e. multicore support. Is that right?

Edit: Upon further review, the thread you referenced at B3D seems to have everyone arguing against you, and you got banned for it. Not sure you wanted to bring that up in support of yourself...
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 09:21 PM   #35
Rollo
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,719
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime View Post
I thought you comparison was cost? Whats a whole CPU verses a whole GPU? If two socket boards were more common, this would probably be a major issue, NV is just lucky they aren't. In a year or two when more cores are common, there will be no reason for GPU only Physx, although I suspect by then it will be gone or have become open source by demand.
NP- you are just going to have to get used to the idea that NVIDIA didn't spend millions on AGEIA, and Intel didn't spend millions on Havok, so they could help ATi users have GPU accelerated physics effects.

You guys are just going to have to do without.

For example, I'm in the middle of Metro 2033 right now. It kicks ass:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/me...uge/index.html and because I'm using a NVIDIA GTX480 + 8800GT, I can see it like the devs meant, with all the effects turned on. Optomized for 3d Vision, includes PhysX effects.

If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to decide if I could use "advanced" features like "AA" and "AF" that I was using back in GF2 days.

Luckily for me, the upcoming Terminator Salvation will be sporting some killer PhysX effects as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWukRISu8cg

And of course other games are on the way....but for NVIDIA users......
__________________
Rig1:
intel 990X + 2 X EVGA 3GB GTX580 + 3 X Acer GD235Hz
3D Vision Surround

Rig 2:
intel 2500K + NVIDIA GTX590 + Dell 3007 WFPHC

[SIZE="1"]NVIDIA Focus Group Member
[B]NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.[/B][/SIZE]
Rollo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-10, 09:34 PM   #36
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
NP- you are just going to have to get used to the idea that NVIDIA didn't spend millions on AGEIA, and Intel didn't spend millions on Havok, so they could help ATi users have GPU accelerated physics effects.

You guys are just going to have to do without.

For example, I'm in the middle of Metro 2033 right now. It kicks ass:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/me...uge/index.html and because I'm using a NVIDIA GTX480 + 8800GT, I can see it like the devs meant, with all the effects turned on. Optomized for 3d Vision, includes PhysX effects.

If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to decide if I could use "advanced" features like "AA" and "AF" that I was using back in GF2 days.

Luckily for me, the upcoming Terminator Salvation will be sporting some killer PhysX effects as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWukRISu8cg

And of course other games are on the way....but for NVIDIA users......
Couple things here rollo, in metro 2033 you can turn on the advanced physics effect if you have a NV card or not. Probably runs a lot slower, but nonetheless.

Secondly, whats so great in the terminator video there? I see... a bunch of crap flying around, that doesn't interact. I see a smoke effect that could be done on a CPU... hell it could be done on a game from 2004. I see some wavy cloth in front of windows or doors that doesn't serve any purpose and has no reason to be a physics effect, it could be a static animated thing and no one could tell or would care. Kinda looks like a lot of fail to me, I wouldn't showcase anything with that. In fact, I bet I could dig up some non-physx games that have every one of those "advanced effects" in them, if I were so inclined.
Ninja Prime 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 04:27 PM.


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