Physx Games Coming out?

[Vardant]

And so does CPU PhysX...

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Rollo

You mean this STEAM survey, where ATi has 31% of the market and NVIDIA has 62% of the market? Where the Top 20 slots for DX10 cards break down NVIDIA-13, Ati- 5, Intel-2? Where the 48 series you say "took over" really trails the 9800/GTX 200 series they compete against? Where all the 5X series combined have barely sold more than the GTX260 alone?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

You sure you want to point out the STEAM survey Xion? It really makes me happy when you do, pointing out lopsided statistics like the above would probably be trolling if I wasn't correcting your erroroneous info.

Am I missing something here? Allow me to suggest that you look up the definition of "prevalent." To me, 38% of the market who own ATI or Intel is "prevalent" as in "widely existing." It's not the majority (which I never said it was,) but that is certainly "widely existing."

Now, if you think that a developer is going to spend time coding a feature that 38% of the market will never get to experience, then you go on and believe it. However, the fact that you can only pull 15 titles that either exist or are in development using GPU-based PhysX pretty much proves my point. This doesn't even take into account that half of those titles are second-rate and not even worth playing. Or that those that actually are decent implement very, very watered down effects.

In addition, that 31% for ATI will most likely grow given the disappointment that Fermi has turned out to be thus far. Nvidia will own the majority of the enthusiast market for a while to come still, but the growing population of ATI users is too large for developers to just ignore.

[Ninja Prime]

No one cares about your PR spam rollo. Add me to the growing list of people who thought the boards were a lot better off with you banned.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

Looks like you still didn't read, maybe I should have made bold this part.

And if ATI would get off their high horse, so would PhysX based games, but ohwell.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Am I missing something here? Allow me to suggest that you look up the definition of "prevalent." To me, 38% of the market who own ATI or Intel is "prevalent" as in "widely existing." It's not the majority (which I never said it was,) but that is certainly "widely existing."

Now, if you think that a developer is going to spend time coding a feature that 38% of the market will never get to experience, then you go on and believe it. However, the fact that you can only pull 15 titles that either exist or are in development using GPU-based PhysX pretty much proves my point.

And that 31% for ATI will most likely grow given the disappointment that Fermi has turned out to be thus far.

+1

But keep in mind Xion, SM3 games didn't hit store shelves in droves until about the time ATI had support for it. But the reason they hit around that time was because Nvidia gave us SM3 and teh game Devs had 2-3 years to code for it before ATI supported it. Wwhoes to say GPU based physics wont be the same. Granted Nvidia is using and pushing PhysX, but they also already have, in waiting, OCL drivers for GPU based physics for the day that someone decides to do something to compete with PhysX. Ati promised it to us and they still have yet to produce anything save for a single Demo.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Am I missing something here? Allow me to suggest that you look up the definition of "prevalent." To me, 38% of the market who own ATI or Intel is "prevalent" as in "widely existing." It's not the majority (which I never said it was,) but that is certainly "widely existing."

Now, if you think that a developer is going to spend time coding a feature that 38% of the market will never get to experience, then you go on and believe it. However, the fact that you can only pull 15 titles that either exist or are in development using GPU-based PhysX pretty much proves my point.

And that 31% for ATI will most likely grow given the disappointment that Fermi has turned out to be thus far.

Look at the breakdown Xion. Rollo likes to be a PR fanboy but the breakdown tells a different story:

Top card is the 4800 series. 5800 and 5700 series cards have climbed every month while NVs cards above them have pretty much fallen every month. 5800 and 5700 series combined have sold almost as much in 6 months as the GTX 260 has in almost two years. At current rates, 5800 and 5700 series cards will take the top spot on the list in 4-5 months. If you look at the trends, NV is likely to lose ~4-5% marketshare before they even get budget cards out.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

+1

But keep in mind Xion, SM3 games didn't hit store shelves in droves until about the time ATI had support for it. But the reason they hit around that time was because Nvidia gave us SM3 and teh game Devs had 2-3 years to code for it before ATI supported it. Wwhoes to say GPU based physics wont be the same. Granted Nvidia is using and pushing PhysX, but they also already have, in waiting, OCL drivers for GPU based physics for the day that someone decides to do something to compete with PhysX. Ati promised it to us and they still have yet to produce anything save for a single Demo.

It's been a little over 2 years since Nvidia bought out Ageia btw...February 14th 2008 to be exact.


I think that there are larger market forces at work here,as ATI is owned by AMD,which makes CPU's that can accelerate physics,and the same goes for Intel,which owns the Havok API,and they're mainly a CPU company,and both of them want to sell the most expensive CPU's they can make to end users,and Intel just released the i7 980x 6 core/12 thread CPU,and it seems that AMD's next high end CPU(Bulldog),is a native 8 core CPU.



Feels like Nvidia is fighting an uphill battle with regards to GPU accelerated physics,especially if it requires the use of a dedicated card just for the physics calculations,as the graphics workload involved in the latest games,at extreme graphics settings,plus the physics calculations on top,all of that processed by the same GPU,is likely still too much to handle for now...It's a shame that GTX480 reviews didn't show results on games that support GPU physics at high graphics settings,so we can see relative performance with it enabled and disabled.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

It's been a little over 2 years since Nvidia bought out Ageia btw...February 14th 2008 to be exact.


I think that there are larger market forces at work here,as ATI is owned by AMD,which makes CPU's that can accelerate physics,and the same goes for Intel,which owns the Havok API,and they're mainly a CPU company,and both of them want to sell the most expensive CPU's they can make to end users,and Intel just released the i7 980x 6 core/12 thread CPU,and it seems that AMD's next high end CPU(Bulldog),is a native 8 core CPU.



Feels like Nvidia is fighting an uphill battle with regards to GPU accelerated physics,especially if it requires the use of a dedicated card just for the physics calculations,as the graphics workload involved in the latest games,at extreme graphics settings,plus the physics calculations on top,all of that processed by the same GPU,is likely still too much to handle for now...It's a shame that GTX480 reviews didn't show results on games that support GPU physics at high graphics settings,so we can see relative performance with it enabled and disabled.

[H] is going to be doing another Metro 2033 game play review that deals with PhysX settings and how cards handle that.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Now, if you think that a developer is going to spend time coding a feature that 38% of the market will never get to experience, then you go on and believe it. However, the fact that you can only pull 15 titles that either exist or are in development using GPU-based PhysX pretty much proves my point. .

Actually it doesn't prove anything other than in the last year and a half fifteen or so PhysX titles became available.

The fact 15 did proves developers will spend time coding for it, and we don't know how many titles are currently in development.

Still, 15 titles is 15 more than ATi got to market, so I'd say NVIDIA is beating them by a long shot.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Look at the breakdown Xion. Rollo likes to be a PR fanboy but the breakdown tells a different story:

Top card is the 4800 series. 5800 and 5700 series cards have climbed every month while NVs cards above them have pretty much fallen every month. 5800 and 5700 series combined have sold almost as much in 6 months as the GTX 260 has in almost two years. At current rates, 5800 and 5700 series cards will take the top spot on the list in 4-5 months. If you look at the trends, NV is likely to lose ~4-5% marketshare before they even get budget cards out.

1. The 4800 series is not "a card", it's at least three cards. (4850, 4870, 4870X2) You think we can add up three cards from NVIDIA that competed against those three and come up with a higher number? (hint: Just the 9800 series and GTX260s beat the whole 4800 series)
2. JPR tells a different story than you, ATi market share went down last reported quarter, and they had a full line of DX11 cards out!
http://hothardware.com/News/Despite-...ed-in-Q4-2009/
Talk about Epic FAIL- you competitor is selling off last gen DX10 parts, you have your whole line of DX11 parts out AND highly competitive DX10.1 parts, and you lose desktop discrete marketshare. ATi must be getting used to how AMD has felt for a long, long time now. No matter what they do, people won't buy their stuff.
3. I have a "hunch" there won't be anymore "current rates" of sales for 5XXX parts, watch as GTX470/480 parts cut them in half or worse. Your "current trends" are based on a. fallacious data b. a market where they have no competition. That's all gone homey. Time for ATi to go back to their corner in the basement.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

[H] is going to be doing another Metro 2033 game play review that deals with PhysX settings and how cards handle that.

That would be great to see if users on a single GTX480 card,would have to lower graphics quality significantly in order to keep the FPS performance smooth enough to remain playable on a single GPU.


If there's no need to do it,or only lowering it to a relatively small degree,then users don't really have to choose between better graphics quality or better physics effects,as the vast majority of users out there only use a single video card in their systems afterall,not 2 of them,and that would definitely be an advantage to make Gpu PhysX become widely supported between developers.


Let's face it here....10~15 games being supported in the 2+ years Nvidia has owned PhysX isn't exactly making it increadibly popular,at least for the time being.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

1. The 4800 series is not "a card", it's at least three cards. (4850, 4870, 4870X2) You think we can add up three cards from NVIDIA that competed against those three and come up with a higher number? (hint: Just the 9800 series and GTX260s beat the whole 4800 series)
2. JPR tells a different story than you, ATi market share went down last reported quarter, and they had a full line of DX11 cards out!
http://hothardware.com/News/Despite-...ed-in-Q4-2009/
Talk about Epic FAIL- you competitor is selling off last gen DX10 parts, you have your whole line of DX11 parts out AND highly competitive DX10.1 parts, and you lose desktop discrete marketshare. ATi must be getting used to how AMD has felt for a long, long time now. No matter what they do, people won't buy their stuff.
3. I have a "hunch" there won't be anymore "current rates" of sales for 5XXX parts, watch as GTX470/480 parts cut them in half or worse. Your "current trends" are based on a. fallacious data b. a market where they have no competition. That's all gone homey. Time for ATi to go back to their corner in the basement.

So i guess dealing with a full on recession,8 million people in the US alone having lost their jobs and companies flatout going bankrupt and closing down isn't contributing in the least right?....Nvidia's last quarter financial report wasn't exactly stellar you know.