GTX295 vs 4870X2

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
@chizow: So your argument for PhysX is 'well its better than dx10.1'

Yep I'll give you that.

Still not excited though.

What new game feature has excited you?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

Ok, so one markets no tangible gain, while the other markets incredible visuals and eye-candy. Are they equal? No, they're not.

They?re equal from the point of view that the number of shipping games for them is almost zero. This is unlike 8xMSAA (and other high AA modes for that matter) that provide a benefit in almost ever 3D game ever made.

Actually all market indicators show its clearly the next big thing. The only thing holding it back will be cross-platform development and whether or not devs are willing to put in the extra work for just the PC.

If devs are not willing to put in the work then how can it be the next big thing? That?s point. Without dev support and shipping games, PhysX can?t possibly be classed the next big thing in the current timeframe.

What about it?

You claimed nVidia can do anything ATi can with respect to DX 10.1, so I?m asking you whether nVidia parts can run the Stalker Clear Sky DX 10.1 path.

My point is that PhysX has progressed faster than DX10.1 in a shorter amount of time and we'll finally see the results of that development in a few weeks time.

And my point is that without actual games on the shelf right now, both are nothing more than marketing at this point.

And in 2 weeks you'll say its only 1 title? And a month after that only 2 titles?

Absolutely. What, two titles suddenly make something the next big thing? Again there are two titles for DX 10.1 already. Does that make it the next big thing? Nope.

I never claimed to have a list, I just listed 2 titles releasing within 6 weeks that satisfy your contrived list.

I didn?t claim you did, I asked you provide one. For something you claim is the next big thing, you shouldn?t have any trouble providing a list of significant game content with shipping titles. Until you provide one, PhysX is nothing more than hot air.

OK, list a single game where MSAA adds any additional eye-candy besides the removal of jaggies? Even in its most basic form PhysX provides more in the way of IQ and eye-candy than MSAA would in any of those thousands of titles.

Again, that wasn?t under debate. I?m not saying the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA is the same as the difference between PhysX vs no PhysX. I mean how can I? That?s clearly false.

What I am saying is that the impact to gaming is far larger with 8xMSAA because it?ll work in 99% of 3D games ever made, which amounts to thousands of titles, if not tens of thousands.

For this reason my GTX260+ was picked because of AF and high AA modes (including 8xMSAA), while PhysX wasn?t a factor at all. I need hardware that provides far-reaching advantages for gaming, not fringe marketing PR gimmicks. Until there?s a significant list of shipping PhysX game that actually show a benefit from the GPU, it?s nothing more than marketing fluff. Much like DX 10.1.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
They?re equal from the point of view that the number of shipping games for them is almost zero. This is unlike 8xMSAA (and other high AA modes for that matter) that provide a benefit in almost ever 3D game ever made.

That's completely disingenuous and you know it. So I guess if I said 32-bit color's significance was equal to MSAA based on their adoption rate in games, would that be an accurate statement from your point of view?

If devs are not willing to put in the work then how can it be the next big thing? That?s point. Without dev support and shipping games, PhysX can?t possibly be classed the next big thing in the current timeframe.

They are putting in the work, as Mirror's Edge was specifically cited as delayed relative to consoles due to PhysX enhancements. The point is they've had less time to implement PhysX compared to DX10.1 and they already have more to show for it.

And of course it can't be the next big thing in the current timeframe, or it'd be the current big thing. Based on market share, major devs signing on, DX11 and a general stagnation in graphics since DX9, its clear the market is looking for the next breakthrough in games.

You claimed nVidia can do anything ATi can with respect to DX 10.1, so I?m asking you whether nVidia parts can run the Stalker Clear Sky DX 10.1 path.

The NV DX10 hardware supports the same implemented DX10.1 features, Ubi proved it with FC2. Of course they can't run the DX10.1 path as they're not fully DX10.1 compliant. And that *is* a check-box feature. Given both vendors struggle similarly with DX10/.1 in CS and that there's no additional IQ benefit, there's no point to support DX10.1 extensions for NV parts.

And my point is that without actual games on the shelf right now, both are nothing more than marketing at this point.

And you can claim marketing all you like but once again, one markets nothing, the other markets incredible advancements in visuals and physics. But this isn't surprising given your previous stances on marketing and topics such as TWIMTBP. I guess if it isn't a checkbox in nHancer in 5 year old games its marketing?

Absolutely. What, two titles suddenly make something the next big thing? Again there are two titles for DX 10.1 already. Does that make it the next big thing? Nope.

So I guess you thought the same when the first Hardware T&L game was released? Did that make it the next big thing? Yep. Your adoption rate criteria will never be eclipsed for older standards but that doesn't mean they won't be eclipsed in significance.

And of course DX10.1 isn't going to be the next big thing, we knew that before there was a single game as it literally adds *nothing* over DX10. DX10.1 was doomed from the outset and with the announcement Windows 7 and DX11 are launching in 2009, its going to go EOL even sooner than expected.

I didn?t claim you did, I asked you provide one. For something you claim is the next big thing, you shouldn?t have any trouble providing a list of significant game content with shipping titles. Until you provide one, PhysX is nothing more than hot air.

I don't have a list and honestly I don't follow PhysX other than news bits about it that show tangible benefits. Like the Mirror's Edge trailer. Like the Cryostasis demo. Did you know either was going to so fully integrate PhysX until the demos/trailers were released? I'm sure most people did not, and yet here they are, only a few weeks away. I do know that there's a significant list of devs and publishers that have signed on to use it, meaning they've paid for access to the SDK, so there is certainly reason for optimism.

Again, that wasn?t under debate. I?m not saying the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA is the same as the difference between PhysX vs no PhysX. I mean how can I? That?s clearly false.

Yet you're willing to claim there's no distinction between DX10.1 and PhysX solely because neither is widely adopted? Again, clearly disingenuous.

What I am saying is that the impact to gaming is far larger with 8xMSAA because it?ll work in 99% of 3D games ever made, which amounts to thousands of titles, if not tens of thousands.

For this reason my GTX260+ was picked because of AF and high AA modes (including 8xMSAA), while PhysX wasn?t a factor at all. I need hardware that provides far-reaching advantages for gaming, not fringe marketing PR gimmicks. Until there?s a significant list of shipping PhysX game that actually show a benefit from the GPU, it?s nothing more than marketing fluff. Much like DX 10.1.

Well, we'll see about that. Do you honestly think more people would choose 8xMSAA over no PhysX in Mirror's Edge if they had to make a choice between the two? Are you honestly going to believe the ATI user who claims "Well I don't care about PhysX in Mirror's Edge, I got some 8xMSAA and DX10.1"

 

[nosfe]

the reason dx10.1 is doomed is because nvidia didn't want to support it, if it would, we wouldn't be having these conversations about how bad dx10.1 is. Is it important? well, microsoft thought so, that's why they developed it. Why nvidia didn't want to support it, i don't know but i think it would have been better if they did, even if all the enhancements of dx10.1 are just under the hood, at least give the option of supporting it or not to the developers, by not supporting it they've doomed it.
Remember, DirectX10.1 isn't bad, it didn't kill any ones cat, it just happens that nvidia didn't want to bother implementing it in their hardware
has anyone noticed the name of this thread? funny how fast these threads go off-topic on this forum

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: nosfe
the reason dx10.1 is doomed is because nvidia didn't want to support it,

10.1 is doomed because it offers very little over 10, there are very few DX10 games to begin with and Microsoft is already pushing DX11.

Granted lack of support from the largest discrete GPU vendor can't be helping it any.

I think the currently accelerated release of DirectX versions is causing problems among both game developers and hardware makers.

DirextX 10 was kind of rushed to market to promote Vista.

 

[nosfe]

there are very few games that support dx10 but those most likely would have been dx10.1 titles if nvidia had added support for dx10.1 as fast as ati did. Technically speaking dx10.1 is better than dx10, there would have been no point in not supporting it if nvidia also had it. Doesn't matter much right now, the damage has already been done, dx10.1 has gone into the land of fairies and marketing gimmicks

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: nosfe
there are very few games that support dx10 but those most likely would have been dx10.1 titles if nvidia had added support for dx10.1 as fast as ati did. Technically speaking dx10.1 is better than dx10, there would have been no point in not supporting it if nvidia also had it. Doesn't matter much right now, the damage has already been done, dx10.1 has gone into the land of fairies and marketing gimmicks

Well it's no different than 9.0a, 9.0b, 9.0c.

If you ask me the a/.1 revisions should be or bug fixes only.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: nosfe
there are very few games that support dx10 but those most likely would have been dx10.1 titles if nvidia had added support for dx10.1 as fast as ati did. Technically speaking dx10.1 is better than dx10, there would have been no point in not supporting it if nvidia also had it. Doesn't matter much right now, the damage has already been done, dx10.1 has gone into the land of fairies and marketing gimmicks

It's quite common for NV to ignore the established standards, then to go off, create their own, and somehow expect the rest of the world to follow suit (or not, thus giving them a monopoly on certain features).

DX9 is an example of this, and now DX10.1. IIRC, DX8.1 is also an example or this. They'll probably do it again when DX11 comes out.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
@chizow: So your argument for PhysX is 'well its better than dx10.1'

Yep I'll give you that.

Still not excited though.

What new game feature has excited you?

Wreckage, I'm suprised you didn't buy an Aegia Physx card before Nvidia bought them out... you seem to feel that Physx is the biggest developement in gaming in years. Or did this enthusiasm for Physx only start once it was bought by Nvidia? If it's green it has to be good, right?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
@chizow: So your argument for PhysX is 'well its better than dx10.1'

Yep I'll give you that.

Still not excited though.

What new game feature has excited you?

Wreckage, I'm suprised you didn't buy an Aegia Physx card before Nvidia bought them out... you seem to feel that Physx is the biggest developement in gaming in years. Or did this enthusiasm for Physx only start once it was bought by Nvidia? If it's green it has to be good, right?

I'm not answering for Wreckage here, just a side comment. When Ageia announced their PPU, nobody knew what it was, and there was barely a techdemo out for it. A pitiful amount of cards actually sold. There weren't very many out there. Frankly, Ageia didn't have the "muscle" to really give PhysX a kick in the pants. Tiny bit of software, and almost non existent sales of the PPU. Nobody thought it would take off then. Nvidia buys Ageia. Not more than a month later, has the PhysX running on over 70million installed 8 series or better GPU's already in peoples computers. And it's free. You don't need to buy a PPU because you already have one (8 series or better NV GPU of course), and the PhysX software is included in the Forceware drivers.
Now, more and more devs are adding themselves to the PhysX roster. EA, 2Kgames, THQ.

And to answer the last question in your post up there:

"If it's green it has to be good, right?"

I think this is better said like this: "Because it's "green", it has a helluva better chance of becoming good than it did before PhysX was "green".

If you don't think so, that's just fine. My opinion will differ with yours if that's the case.
Tonight I'll be checking out splitting up the render/physX workload between cores on the 295.

 

[SickBeast]

How does a card like an 8800GTS compare with the dedicated PPU cards that Ageia had released before they were bought out, in terms of raw physics performance?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
you seem to feel that Physx is the biggest developement in gaming in years.

Enlighten my oh wise one. What is the " biggest developement in gaming in years". Name a few if yah can. Thx.

Or did this enthusiasm for Physx only start once it was bought by Nvidia? If it's green it has to be good, right?

Close actually. If it's a free upgrade to a card I already have it has to be good.

Add in the fact I actually like high end gaming and see physics as the next step. What's not to like?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
How does a card like an 8800GTS compare with the dedicated PPU cards that Ageia had released before they were bought out, in terms of raw physics performance?

Night and day. Online PPU vs. GPU was kind of a landslide in favor of GPU's. I think they used an 8800GT. I'll try to find that article.

 

[Wreckage]

I was looking at the TR review of the 4870x2 and it was on average about 20% faster than the 9800GX2. It would seem we have come full circle.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I was looking at the TR review of the 4870x2 and it was on average about 20% faster than the 9800GX2. It would seem we have come full circle.

Are you baiting, Wreckage?

I fail to see how that is even remotely relevant. When the 4870x2 came out, it was generally compared with the GTX280, which it typically beat out by 40% or so, for way less money.

Right now I could write an article about how a couple of 4870x2 cards beat out a GTX295, then post here about it. Thankfully, I won't.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I was looking at the TR review of the 4870x2 and it was on average about 20% faster than the 9800GX2. It would seem we have come full circle.

Are you baiting, Wreckage?

I fail to see how that is even remotely relevant. When the 4870x2 came out, it was generally compared with the GTX280, which it typically beat out by 40% or so, for way less money.

Right now I could write an article about how a couple of 4870x2 cards beat out a GTX295, then post here about it. Thankfully, I won't.

Ya know, you've gone completely off your rocker today. I give up trying to have a rational discussion with you. Comparing the 9800GX2\4870x2\GTX295 is about as relevant as you can get.

comparing a 2 gpu card to a 1 gpu card would be more irrelevant.

Anyone who is not impressed with the GTX295 should have been equally unimpressed with the 4870x2 because of the 9800GX2.

 

[SickBeast]

People were impressed with the 4870x2 because most of the world had written off AMD, and then they came out of nowhere and took the performance crown away from NV, like I said, by 40%+ compared with the GTX280. It would have been far more expensive to purchase two 9800 cards compared to the 4870x2 at launch. Perhaps after the massive price cuts they were economical, but by that point all of the glowing reviews of the AMD cards had been written.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

So I guess if I said 32-bit color's significance was equal to MSAA based on their adoption rate in games, would that be an accurate statement from your point of view?

Of course it?d be accurate. Well actually not quite since 8xMSAA can be enabled in 16 bit games so it has even greater market penetration than the latter.

They are putting in the work, as Mirror's Edge was specifically cited as delayed relative to consoles due to PhysX enhancements. The point is they've had less time to implement PhysX compared to DX10.1 and they already have more to show for it.

No, the point is that both are a drop in the bucket in terms of market penetration.

And of course it can't be the next big thing in the current timeframe, or it'd be the current big thing. Based on market share, major devs signing on, DX11 and a general stagnation in graphics since DX9, its clear the market is looking for the next breakthrough in games.

I actually think DX11/DX12 will include a physics API and if that happens, developers will abandon PhysX like a bad smell. It?s pure speculation on my part of course, but it?s possible. I mean I didn?t expect a software DX10/DX11 renderer with Windows 7, but we?re getting one.

The NV DX10 hardware supports the same implemented DX10.1 features, Ubi proved it with FC2.

The only thing Ubisoft proved was that their implementation did not include anything nVidia couldn?t do. That does not necessarily translate to other cases (e.g. Clear Sky and future titles).

Of course they can't run the DX10.1 path as they're not fully DX10.1 compliant. And that *is* a check-box feature. Given both vendors struggle similarly with DX10/.1 in CS and that there's no additional IQ benefit, there's no point to support DX10.1 extensions for NV parts.

I would need to check this but I believe the DX10.1 path provides the ability to use MSAA with X-Ray?s deferred renderer more efficiently.

And you can claim marketing all you like but once again, one markets nothing, the other markets incredible advancements in visuals and physics. But this isn't surprising given your previous stances on marketing and topics such as TWIMTBP. I guess if it isn't a checkbox in nHancer in 5 year old games its marketing?

What isn?t surprising? That I don?t back proprietary tech that hasn?t been demonstrated in a wide range of games? That?s hardly surprising.

I mean did you get all excited about Truform back in the day? I sure as heck didn?t. It?s also worth noting the number of Truform titles far outnumber the number of nVidia PhysX titles, yet it still tanked.

So I guess you thought the same when the first Hardware T&L game was released?

Nope given T&L was part of the DirectX 7 spec and also part of OpenGL spec. That automatically made it the defacto standard for any IHV that wanted compliant drivers for said APIs. Additionally, any title that followed a standard OpenGL rendering pipeline would automatically reap the performance gains from hardware T&L without developer effort.

PhysX is nVidia?s proprietary solution and though they claim it?s open, it?s unlikely Microsoft/ATi/Intel will get behind it. It?s much like Truform back in the day. It could go somewhere but without developer support it?ll die.

And of course DX10.1 isn't going to be the next big thing, we knew that before there was a single game as it literally adds *nothing* over DX10. DX10.1 was doomed from the outset and with the announcement Windows 7 and DX11 are launching in 2009, its going to go EOL even sooner than expected.

I would tend to agree that DX11 will eclipse DX10.1 but you could still run into situations in the future where parts need it as a minimum to run games, similar to some titles requiring DX8.1 or higher and hence run on a 8500 but not on a Ti4xxx.

Yet you're willing to claim there's no distinction between DX10.1 and PhysX solely because neither is widely adopted?

Absolutely. You can have the greatest tech in the world but if no-one supports it, it?s useless.

Do you honestly think more people would choose 8xMSAA over no PhysX in Mirror's Edge if they had to make a choice between the two? Are you honestly going to believe the ATI user who claims "Well I don't care about PhysX in Mirror's Edge, I got some 8xMSAA and DX10.1"

ATi fanboys have their own issues to deal with. I?m not an ATi fanboy. I buy whatever hardware happens to provide the best benefit for my gaming, and currently PhysX is not part of that equation. At the same time, I don?t blindly follow either camp and will point out flaws from both, and I will not sit idle as nVidia employs their marketing tactics in this forum.

So like I said earlier, I back 8xMSAA because it provides a visible benefit over 4xMSAA in around 80-85 games I have installed right now, both new and old. I don?t currently back DX10.1 or PhysX because the titles aren?t there to justify it.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Enlighten my oh wise one. What is the " biggest developement in gaming in years". Name a few if yah can. Thx.

AF, AA, TrAA/AAA, FP HDR (+ AA), shaders, unified lighting systems, to name a few.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Enlighten my oh wise one. What is the " biggest developement in gaming in years". Name a few if yah can. Thx.

AF, AA, TrAA/AAA, FP HDR (+ AA), shaders, unified lighting systems, to name a few.

These added what to gameplay?

Not that AA/AF/Shaders etc were in the last few years.

How is HDR a bigger developement than game physics?

 

[Qbah]

The first time I saw FarCry with HDR, when I was looking out of the cave or went from a dark cavern to a sunny place I was picking my jaw up. The realism of those things was incredible. It looked VERY real. Now, with PhysX it does look more real, but it is still far away from what you can see with your eye. Not to mention the things sometimes mess up (like the cloth "waving" not quite the way it should), things don't move at a "real" speed or in a completely real way. Yeah, I know it's hard to emulate real world enviroment and those thigns are minor, but it's the small things that the eye catches and you immediately know there's something wrong. Trying to make it look real doesn't make it real-like. It's the small things that matter.

Now, I'd imagine that tricking someone with light is easier than showing a real physics enviroment, but HDR pulled it off, PhysX didn't.

As for the GTX295, it will be the fastest card available. But then again a HD4870x2 runs everything fine anyway and will probably drop in price. So in the end, if you want the fastest thing available, get a GTX295, if you want to have everything still running lightning fast and save some cash, get a HD4870x2. There's nothing a GTX295 can run that a HD4870x2 can't with the same level of comfort.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

These added what to gameplay?

They add to immersion and the suspension of disbelief, which aids gameplay.

If you don?t think graphics add anything to gameplay, would you be okay if Far Cry 2 had Space Invaders style graphics as long as the blocks bounced around with PhysX?

How is HDR a bigger developement than game physics?

It?s currently bigger than nVidia's PhysX because it's been a standard in blockbuster titles since 2005/2006.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
@chizow: So your argument for PhysX is 'well its better than dx10.1'

Yep I'll give you that.

Still not excited though.

What new game feature has excited you?

Wreckage, I'm suprised you didn't buy an Aegia Physx card before Nvidia bought them out... you seem to feel that Physx is the biggest developement in gaming in years. Or did this enthusiasm for Physx only start once it was bought by Nvidia? If it's green it has to be good, right?

I'm not answering for Wreckage here, just a side comment. When Ageia announced their PPU, nobody knew what it was, and there was barely a techdemo out for it. A pitiful amount of cards actually sold. There weren't very many out there. Frankly, Ageia didn't have the "muscle" to really give PhysX a kick in the pants. Tiny bit of software, and almost non existent sales of the PPU. Nobody thought it would take off then. Nvidia buys Ageia. Not more than a month later, has the PhysX running on over 70million installed 8 series or better GPU's already in peoples computers. And it's free. You don't need to buy a PPU because you already have one (8 series or better NV GPU of course), and the PhysX software is included in the Forceware drivers.
Now, more and more devs are adding themselves to the PhysX roster. EA, 2Kgames, THQ.

And to answer the last question in your post up there:

"If it's green it has to be good, right?"

I think this is better said like this: "Because it's "green", it has a helluva better chance of becoming good than it did before PhysX was "green".

If you don't think so, that's just fine. My opinion will differ with yours if that's the case.
Tonight I'll be checking out splitting up the render/physX workload between cores on the 295.

For the record I think the potential of hardware physics is very exciting. And I know what you're saying, and agree that Nvidia made it something that will actually move forward by purchasing Aegia. But, for what someone calls the biggest developement in gaming in many years, I'm shocked that he didn't buy a PPU card knowing what it meant for gaming. Now Nvidia adds it and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Let me say it again, I am way behind hardware physics, be it Physx (which already has a head start on any thing else) or some other technology. But what I've seen so far hasn't impressed me. That's not to say what is out there in a year won't be a must have for me, but what I've seen so far is not.


Wreckage, if graphics didn't count why do you have a card that is better then integrated? I see you have a GTX260, obviously you think graphics count for more then you let on.

I already told you in a different thread that I think what the Wii has done for gaming is far more exciting then what Physx has done so far. I think the trend in online gaming is more important then Physx is. That's not to say that hardware physics isn't important, or not going to be.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Of course it?d be accurate. Well actually not quite since 8xMSAA can be enabled in 16 bit games so it has even greater market penetration than the latter.

Haha ya right, and I'm sure you believe that too. Considering you won't even concede resolution is more significant than FSAA you actually think anyone is going to believe that?

No, the point is that both are a drop in the bucket in terms of market penetration.

Yet, they are still not equal by any standard. You said they're equal, when they are clearly not. When comparing A to B you can't just dismiss both by using C as your example.

I actually think DX11/DX12 will include a physics API and if that happens, developers will abandon PhysX like a bad smell. It?s pure speculation on my part of course, but it?s possible. I mean I didn?t expect a software DX10/DX11 renderer with Windows 7, but we?re getting one.

Why would they when its already been stated numerous times that PhysX will be fully portable with both OpenCL and DirectX11 compliance and already has a hardware install-base of 100 million parts? All that would be needed would be a PhysX to DX11/OpenCL wrapper. Unless DX11 offered a better API there would be absolutely no reason to abandon PhysX.

The only thing Ubisoft proved was that their implementation did not include anything nVidia couldn?t do. That does not necessarily translate to other cases (e.g. Clear Sky and future titles).

I guess that's one way to look at it. Or Ubi proved Nvidia was truthful when they said their parts supported the features Devs were most interested in with DX10.1.

I would need to check this but I believe the DX10.1 path provides the ability to use MSAA with X-Ray?s deferred renderer more efficiently.

It does the same thing as AC and FC2, allows reading of the MS depth buffer for improved AA efficiency which is also supported by Nvidia parts with the necessary DX10 extensions. Maybe when we see cube map arrays implemented DX10.1 will actually provide a tangible difference over DX10.

- Added MSAA for alpha-tested objects ("alpha-to-coverage" for DX10.0, custom "alpha-to-coverage" for DX10.1 for better performance, native DX10.1 implementation for better quality).[/quote]

What isn?t surprising? That I don?t back proprietary tech that hasn?t been demonstrated in a wide range of games? That?s hardly surprising.

No, that you consider anything not in a settings menu a marketing tool.

I mean did you get all excited about Truform back in the day? I sure as heck didn?t. It?s also worth noting the number of Truform titles far outnumber the number of nVidia PhysX titles, yet it still tanked.

Of course not because it not only offered very little difference in IQ (arguably worst), it actually resulted in artifacts/distortion and render errors in many games. Can you say the same of PhysX? Once again, a PhysX title will always be a better game with PhysX enabled vs. without.

Nope given T&L was part of the DirectX 7 spec and also part of OpenGL spec. That automatically made it the defacto standard for any IHV that wanted compliant drivers for said APIs. Additionally, any title that followed a standard OpenGL rendering pipeline would automatically reap the performance gains from hardware T&L without developer effort.

Yet it was still marketing because no games supported it. That's your measuring stick is it not? So when you saw the first Hardware T&L demo and no games used it yet, you dismissed it as marketing or the next big thing? And will hardware physics still be marketing when DX11 arrives in Q3 '09? Or will it suddenly be heralded the next big thing? Of course this is the exact same strategy AMD is pushing, marginalize PhysX in the press now but fully embrace it once DX11 gives them access for free.

PhysX is nVidia?s proprietary solution and though they claim it?s open, it?s unlikely Microsoft/ATi/Intel will get behind it. It?s much like Truform back in the day. It could go somewhere but without developer support it?ll die.

PhysX is proprietary just as Havok is and even DirectX is proprietary in the sense that its not a completely open spec. The main difference is PhysX and Havok are not free. There will still be a need for SDKs even if DX11 provides a standard API, just as there are numerous licensed DX compatible SDKs now for game engines, sound, physics etc.

As for developer support, there's plenty of developer support and more added monthly. Epic, GameBryo, EA, 2K, THQ along with all the other devs listed on that nZone PhysX page. Considering the list is growing by the month, its clear PhysX is gaining traction, not losing ground.

I would tend to agree that DX11 will eclipse DX10.1 but you could still run into situations in the future where parts need it as a minimum to run games, similar to some titles requiring DX8.1 or higher and hence run on a 8500 but not on a Ti4xxx.

Well once again, what DX10.1 features cannot be accomplished in DX10? If you're going to claim PhysX is going to die due to lack of industry support, you most certainly need to acknowledge any title excluding 60-65% of the discrete GPU market would be doomed to failure before launch.

Absolutely. You can have the greatest tech in the world but if no-one supports it, it?s useless.

But its still better than DX10.1. Support or adoption rate has nothing to do with a technology's significance, that's just you assigning value without objectively valuating the two.

ATi fanboys have their own issues to deal with. I?m not an ATi fanboy. I buy whatever hardware happens to provide the best benefit for my gaming, and currently PhysX is not part of that equation. At the same time, I don?t blindly follow either camp and will point out flaws from both, and I will not sit idle as nVidia employs their marketing tactics in this forum.

So like I said earlier, I back 8xMSAA because it provides a visible benefit over 4xMSAA in around 80-85 games I have installed right now, both new and old. I don?t currently back DX10.1 or PhysX because the titles aren?t there to justify it.

So PhysX isn't part of your buying equation, but that doesn't dismiss the significance of it especially when we have proof of tangible benefits in real games. Look around, even ATI fanboys have dropped any comparisons of DX10.1 to PhysX because its painfully obvious that DX10.1 is a dead standard. While it is still too early to say PhysX will be the de facto standard, there is very little doubt about the future and significance of GPU accelerated physics.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I was looking at the TR review of the 4870x2 and it was on average about 20% faster than the 9800GX2. It would seem we have come full circle.

Are you baiting, Wreckage?

I fail to see how that is even remotely relevant. When the 4870x2 came out, it was generally compared with the GTX280, which it typically beat out by 40% or so, for way less money.

Right now I could write an article about how a couple of 4870x2 cards beat out a GTX295, then post here about it. Thankfully, I won't.

Actually there was never a point in the 4870X2's availability where it was cheaper than the GTX 280. Also you seem to be confused about how long the 4870X2 has been available on the market, its actually only been a bit over 4 months. And if you were going to write an article about 2x4870X2 I'd certainly hope you would compare it to 2xGTX295 and not just one.