Physx Games Coming out?

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

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.

Funny thing, same thing was being chimed back when SM3 was launched too then when ATI finially added it to their cards, it was OMG look at the detail. Why does this feel like SM3 pt 2 all over again?

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

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.

First, as Metro is one of those system punishing games that pretty much requires two GPUs at high res even without AA, it's pretty obvious you need another card for PhysX.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page6.asp

Second, how many other GPU physics accelerated games are there in the world? Oh yeah - none. So it's wildly popular compared to it's competition. IIRC it took at least a year for there to even be more than ten DX10 games, and that was a MS standard.

Can you name one proprietary ATi standard that has EVER made it into more games than PhysX? (e.g. Tru Form) Didn't think so. Broken promises, no dev relations, same old situation.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

You must be high. When even NV fansites admit a card is a peice of crap, you know its not going to sell. I guess you can hang out in denial all you want though.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Funny thing, same thing was being chimed back when SM3 was launched too then when ATI finially added it to their cards, it was OMG look at the detail. Why does this feel like SM3 pt 2 all over again?

Well to quote steve sellers,one of the CEO's of the late 3Dfx,who played a huge part in starting 3D graphics on the desktop at affordable prices,he mentioned in an interview a long time ago that a new feature is only worth supporting if it can be pulled off while maintaining good FPS performance.


Remember during that time period when gamers and enthusiats were hotly debating between SM 2.0/2.0b and SM 3.0,looking at games being rendered with each version to see if noticable visual differences could be seen,or if performance using SM 3.0 was better with the hardware available at the time,even if the visuals were the same,and it was no on both counts for the most part?


ATI at the time claimed that SM 3.0 did have some advantages in performing certain effects in a single pass,while several passes would be needed to accomplish the same with SM2.0/2.0b,but by the time shader effects were created to use SM 3.0 effectively,and show noticable IQ differences,Nvidia's hardware at the time simply wasn't fast enough to output that at 60 Fps anyhow,so it was kinda a moot point when you look back at it now.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

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.

The point stands.

How does ATi manage to lose desktop discrete marketshare when:

A. They have no DX11 competition.
B. Their DX10.1 cards, which are excellent, are fire sale priced while the prices on NVIDIA DX10 cards have actually gone up.

To put it mildly that's like walking out of a brothel a virgin with a full wallet. NVIDIA DX10 parts were great, but to have them best ATi with just last gen parts to sell must have had them floating resume's at ATi.

They probably thought Santa was mad at them.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Well to quote steve sellers,one of the CEO's of the late 3Dfx,who played a huge part in starting 3D graphics on the desktop at affordable prices,he mentioned in an interview a long time ago that a new feature is only worth supporting if it can be pulled off while maintaining good FPS performance.

Look where his business philosophy got him. Was he CEO when NVIDIA bought his company?

I loved 3DFX stuff in the V1/V2 salad days, but they aren't who I'd point to for business wisdom. They made several large misteps until they were bought outright, sort of like ATi.

Usually one points at the guys who succeeded as back up for their view points.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

First, as Metro is one of those system punishing games that pretty much requires two GPUs at high res even without AA, it's pretty obvious you need another card for PhysX.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page6.asp

Second, how many other GPU physics accelerated games are there in the world? Oh yeah - none. So it's wildly popular compared to it's competition. IIRC it took at least a year for there to even be more than ten DX10 games, and that was a MS standard.

Can you name one proprietary ATi standard that has EVER made it into more games than PhysX? (e.g. Tru Form) Didn't think so. Broken promises, no dev relations, same old situation.

Sure i can.....Microsoft adopted the idea's that ATI were working on as the final specification of what turned out to be the DX9 standard(24 bit floating point precision and SM 2.0 features),which royally screwed over Nvidia,and the FX5800/5900/5950 cards for nearly 2 years,until Nvidia released the 6800 cards(NV40 GPU).


That's an entire graphics API for game creation that all developers had to abide by for several years,not just a specific feature here or there....


And if metro still requires dual GPU's for graphics and physics,then it's up to Nvidia to release much faster hardware still.....To be honest,i played the game about 1/2 way thru,and it doesn't look as good as Crysis does.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

The point stands.

How does ATi manage to lose desktop discrete marketshare when:

A. They have no DX11 competition.
B. Their DX10.1 cards, which are excellent, are fire sale priced while the prices on NVIDIA DX10 cards have actually gone up.

To put it mildly that's like walking out of a brothel a virgin with a full wallet. NVIDIA DX10 parts were great, but to have them best ATi with just last gen parts to sell must have had them floating resume's at ATi.

They probably thought Santa was mad at them.

Nvidia usually makes about 300~400 million net profit a quarter on the average year....You know how much they made this last quarter....60 million i think,which is more than a slight tumble to say the least.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

You must be high. When even NV fansites admit a card is a peice of crap, you know its not going to sell. I guess you can hang out in denial all you want though.

Heh- I'm using the card, I know it's anything but "crap". And I'm going to enjoy watching Fermi based cards dominate sales this year while ATi's sales spiral lower and lower.

Do you think if they go low enough, AMD and ATi will get bought up by a bigger company? Like maybe the guys who make Peeps Easter candy, or Mike Ditka's Steakhouses?

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Look where his business philosophy got him. Was he CEO when NVIDIA bought his company?

I loved 3DFX stuff in the V1/V2 salad days, but they aren't who I'd point to for business wisdom. They made several large misteps until they were bought outright, sort of like ATi.

Usually one points at the guys who succeeded as back up for their view points.

Funny,Nvidia still uses the SLI designation for it's MultiGPU configurations,which was first created and used by 3Dfx and their voodoo cards,although SLI in those days meant scanline interleave where one card rendered the even lines,and the other the odd ones(CRT display days).


Nvidia also bought out Ageia,which their PPU used the novodex physics API,and Nvidia renamed it to PhysX,so there's no new technology being developed there either.

[Slytat]

Here we go with the same 2 people derailing threads again.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Slytat

Here we go with the same 2 people derailing threads again.

Sorry,my bad.


It's just Rollo coming out with certain statements that were incorrect to say the least,such as ATI's contribution to graphics for features used in games,which i named a huge one called DX9,used in all games for years.


It kinda backfired on him....