Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Again it's just a sandwich card that even your GTX280 SLI setup could beat many months ago, why should we be impressed?
What's nice is that you can have near (or so I hear ) the performance without needing an SLI motherboard, more powerful power supply and even an ATX case.
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I'll be impressed because everyone said it couldnt be done.
...
We should all point and laugh at anyone who posts an Inq link, even more than before:
Nvidia 270/290 in deep trouble
GT200 based GX2 dead as well
By Charlie Demerjian
LOL, just in the part I quoted, there are THREE things wrong. Well known that Charlie has an axe to grind. Funny thing is that some people believe everything he writes. C'mon people! Have some skepticism! TheInq is like one part Tom's Hardware, one part The Onion and a dash of Fox News. Sometimes some good information, oftentimes entertaining to read, but don't believe everything they say.
That's something that can be easily asked through PM, instead of taking this thread even further off track than it's already gotten.Originally posted by: ricleo2
Originally posted by: Zap
LOL, just in the part I quoted, there are THREE things wrong. Well known that Charlie has an axe to grind. Funny thing is that some people believe everything he writes. C'mon people! Have some skepticism! TheInq is like one part Tom's Hardware, one part The Onion and a dash of Fox News. Sometimes some good information, oftentimes entertaining to read, but don't believe everything they say.
I am curious as to why you put Fox News in your analogy. What has Fox News reported that you do not believe?
Originally posted by: chizow
Except opinion really has nothing to do with it. If you're going to ignore facts and claim the 4850 was more important than the 8800GT, you lack perspective.
Originally posted by: chizow
If you actually bought a 3870 instead of an 8800GT when given the choice, you lack credibility. So when did you buy that 8800GT again?
Originally posted by: chizow
No its not a possible future benefit, the benefit is already realized but has not yet been made available. These are more than just tech demos, they're tangible benefits in productin titles.
Once again, opinion only distorts your view of the facts and ultimately results in your lack of perspective.Originally posted by: Creig
Again, this is your opinion only. I think you lack perspective in stating that the 8800GT was more important than the 4850 by ignoring the facts of the initial and post-release pricing difference between the two. But that's why it's called an "opinion".
When given the choice between a 3870 and 8800GT, I bought the 8800GT. The 3870 I picked up recently for my HTPC because it has HDMI w/audio. My wife picked me up an LG HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/DVD burner drive as a Christmas present and it'll be going into that PC. Hence the desire for HDMI w/audio. Satisfied?
Is this a joke? Own a house? Have a mortgage? Taken a significant loan? What do you think they're basing your credit on? How your hair smells?How can it possibly be of tangible benefit to anyone if they can't play it? That's like saying a possible future salary raise is a benefit. You can't spend it now. You have to wait until it hits your paycheck. The same goes for PhysX in these titles you keep mentioning.
Yes we do. Mirror's Edge shows very clearly the difference between PhysX and no PhysX. Cryostasis does as well since once again, you will not find any effects like that in any game because there has been no game to-date that comes even close.Besides which, we don't know if there is any meaningful PhysX content in any of them since they obviously haven't been released yet. And if they haven't yet been made available, then they're not of any current "tangible" benefit to anyone at all.
Simple question, and try to answer truthfully, which upgrade resulted in the biggest performance gain: X1800/X1900 to 8800GT or 8800GT to 4850?
So I guess all of these previews about the GTX 295 are also just proposed hardware and proposed benchmarks and proposed future benefits just because they aren't available today and we can't play with it?
Yes we do. Mirror's Edge shows very clearly the difference between PhysX and no PhysX. Cryostasis does as well since once again, you will not find any effects like that in any game because there has been no game to-date that comes even close.
Yes, but it cost significantly more and if he or anyone else already had it, there wasn't much reason to get an 8800GT. The 8800GT however brought that incredible level of performance to the mainstream unlike any card before or after.Originally posted by: nosfe
wasn't there a G80 based card between the x1900 and the 8800gt?
Ya I'd say there's a pretty clear distinction between obscure vaporware that's been rumored for almost a decade compared to demo'd products a few weeks away from launch from reliable and consistent firms.and i guess Duke Nukem Forever is a real game because you saw some pictures of it, right? until it's officially out it's only rumor, or at least that's how i see it
Then you don't like it, but that will not change the fact that the games are significantly better with PhysX than without.and what if i(or some other guy) don't like Mirror's Edge or Cryostasis? what then?
The 8800GT however brought that incredible level of performance to the mainstream unlike any card before or after.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I don't know why you guys are talking about the 4850 and Duke Nukem Forever.
I've gotta say that this card is not such a big deal. There are too many downsides to having a dual-gpu setup.
The real big news will be when AMD/NV release a brand new GPU.
Actually I consider both insignificant, nothing more than marketing tools at this time. 8xMSAA is not a marketing tool when I can run it in 99% of 3D games ever released and it provides tangible benefits over 4xMSAA in real games.Originally posted by: chizow
Even the staunchest ATI supporters have dropped this line of debate as its painfully clear that DX10.1 is insignificant, especially given Nvidia DX10 parts support the only implemented DX10.1 feature anyways.
Where? Show me. Please provide a list of PhysX games that meet the following criteria:PhysX on the other hand has shown significant gains in the 10-month period since Nvidia acquired Ageia. CUDA PhysX and legacy title support 4-months later. Updated Power Pack 3 months later. Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis gameplay demos recently. We'll see a glimpse of what PhysX can do in games developed with it from the ground-up in the next two months with Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis.
No-body?s arguing that at all. What is being argued is that the amount of hardware PhysX titles that meet the four points above is a drop in the ocean compared to 99% of 3D games out there that can benefit from 8xMSAA without any developer effort whatsoever.I don't think anyone can argue with any credibility that DX10.1 or even 8x over 4x MSAA can result in such stunning visual differences.
No you took the discussion in that direction when you offered up that "last card FYI" as if it were proof you were nonpartisan or something. I guess "last card", right after that 3870, 4850, X1800, etc....Originally posted by: Creig
Whatever, Chizow. You've taken this argument WAY off the thread title. Have fun playing your "future" titles today.
Oh wait, you can't.
No need - I've already posted links backing my claims. Here?s a summary:Originally posted by: nRollo
BFG-
I understand if you can't link to your own site I guess, but if you want to put together some FRAPs videos of a modern game at 4XMSAA and 8X MSAA I might be able to figure out a way to host them for you.
MSAA has nothing to do with what you said, you were comparing the relevance of PhysX to DX10.1 when its not even close. DX10.1 is meaningless even in a best case scenario as it literally adds nothing over DX10. PhysX on the other hand is clearly the next big thing for PC gaming.Originally posted by: BFG10K
Actually I consider both insignificant, nothing more than marketing tools at this time. 8xMSAA is not a marketing tool when I can run it in 99% of 3D games ever released and it provides tangible benefits over 4xMSAA in real games.
Nope, no need for DX10.1 path, as Nvidia, Ben and a few tech sites hinted at months ago, Nvidia DX10 parts support the only worthwhile DX10.1 features.As for nVidia parts, can they run the DX 10.1 paths in Clear Sky and Far Cry 2?
I never claimed they were available now, I simply showed how much faster PhysX adoption was compared to DX10.1. No one ever said we'd have PhysX overnight due to development cycles but I think its pretty clear at this point its going to be a major factor going forward. Epic with UE3.0, GameBryo and the recent announcements by 2K and EA and just today THQ announced they were signing on for PhysX. In 2 weeks we'll get the first PhysX title that satisfies all 4 criteria. One month after that we'll have the second with Cryostasis.Where? Show me. Please provide a list of PhysX games that meet the following criteria:
- Are full games released to the public (so no tech demos, synthetic benchmarks, trailers, demos, screen savers, or up-coming titles).
- Provide hardware accelerated physics on the GPU.
- Enhance the gameplay with significant physics content throughout the entire game (so UT3?s five maps don?t count).
- Cannot have the same physics done on the CPU, or provide an exorbitant performance hit for doing so.
Well of course if you're referring to current compatibility rates of course MSAA has the edge, but in terms of overall significance there's no doubt PhysX offers the most benefit. Also, you may want to strike point 4 since AA has always been one of the greatest performance killers, especially beyond 4x.No-body?s arguing that at all. What is being argued is that the amount of hardware PhysX titles that meet the four points above is a drop in the ocean compared to 99% of 3D games out there that can benefit from 8xMSAA without any developer effort whatsoever.
Originally posted by: chizow
Cryostasis Downloadable Demo
Can run the demo yourself and see just how painful the experience is without GPU acceleration. Don't need an NV card to download and run it. Launch date is said to be Feb 9th 2009.
Actually they are given they?re nothing more than marketing tools at this time.Originally posted by: chizow
MSAA has nothing to do with what you said, you were comparing the relevance of PhysX to DX10.1 when its not even close.
If it's meaningless then why did the devs bother implementing the path? Why are EA and Blizzard (et al) signing up for it?DX10.1 is meaningless even in a best case scenario as it literally adds nothing over DX10.
It could well be, or it might well flop. Any inference either way at this time is nothing more than speculation, despite your assertions otherwise.PhysX on the other hand is clearly the next big thing for PC gaming.
What about Clear Sky?
And that is the whole point: they aren?t available now. That?s the point that appears to escape you.I never claimed they were available now, I simply showed how much faster PhysX adoption was compared to DX10.1.
But neither are released yet.In 2 weeks we'll get the first PhysX title that satisfies all 4 criteria. One month after that we'll have the second with Cryostasis.
So that?s one game you can add to your list. Would you care to finish the list so we can see just how big ?the next big thing? currently is?Mirror's Edge Side-By-Side
I'm sure you've seen this already. Its already out on the PS3 and Xbox360...so I'd say its a pretty safe bet its out of tech demo status.....
That's a demo for a game not even out yet. Again if you?re talking about future titles, you must also consider DX 10.1 in the same manner.Cryostasis Downloadable Demo
Can run the demo yourself and see just how painful the experience is without GPU acceleration. Don't need an NV card to download and run it. Launch date is said to be Feb 9th 2009.
The ?edge?? LMAO.Well of course if you're referring to current compatibility rates of course MSAA has the edge,
Way to totally miss the context of point four. The point was to ensure you didn?t come up with games having an ?advantage? when the CPU is just as capable of rendering identical physics as the GPU, without a large performance hit. Or are you really trying to suggest the CPU could render 8xMSAA with the same viability as a GPU?Also, you may want to strike point 4 since AA has always been one of the greatest performance killers, especially beyond 4x.
I've heard that will be the case and it'll be great if true, but I still think the best avenue would be for ATI to support PhysX.Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: chizow
Cryostasis Downloadable Demo
Can run the demo yourself and see just how painful the experience is without GPU acceleration. Don't need an NV card to download and run it. Launch date is said to be Feb 9th 2009.
I hope Windows 7 allows 2 video drivers to run at the same time...then someone can get a cheap Geforce 8/9 card to do PhysX and run whatever other card for rendering.
Ok, so one markets no tangible gain, while the other markets incredible visuals and eye-candy. Are they equal? No, they're not.Originally posted by: BFG10K
Actually they are given they?re nothing more than marketing tools at this time.
Well the tin foil hat peanut gallery would claim devs like Ubi bother because they're trying to sabotage ATI parts, but that's a good question as DX10.1 offers absolutely nothing over DX10.If it's meaningless then why did the devs bother implementing the path? Why are EA and Blizzard (et al) signing up for it?
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.It could well be, or it might well flop. Any inference either way at this time is nothing more than speculation, despite your assertions otherwise.
What about it? Its my 1.0 out of the 1.1 (Assassin's Creed being the other 0.1)What about Clear Sky?
No the point doesn't escape me, as I've once again never claimed they were available today. 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. Oh, and we'll actually be able to notice the differences, unlike DX10.1.And that is the whole point: they aren?t available now. That?s the point that appears to escape you.
So once again, what exactly are we promoting? Sunken tires? Half-Rocks? IQ anomalies? Unplayable stuttering? There's nothing DX10.1 provides over DX10. The difference between PhysX and no PhysX is extreme.If you?re promoting PhysX on the basis of upcoming titles then you must also do the same for DX 10.1 given EA, Blizzard and others have promised to support it.
And in 2 weeks you'll say its only 1 title? And a month after that only 2 titles? Its a foregone conclusion these titles will launch with PhysX and that they provide more tangible benefit with PhysX than the incremental differences provided by DX10, DX10.1 or 8xMSAA.But neither are released yet.
I never claimed to have a list, I just listed 2 titles releasing within 6 weeks that satisfy your contrived list. But again, I'm sure in 6 weeks you'll dimiss those 2 titles and demand another list.So that?s one game you can add to your list. Would you care to finish the list so we can see just how big ?the next big thing? currently is?
That's a demo for a game not even out yet. Again if you?re talking about future titles, you must also consider DX 10.1 in the same manner.
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.The ?edge?? LMAO.
Thousands of titles going back over ten years to GLQuake compared to what, five PhysX games that currently meet all four points?
No I thought you were referring to the performance hit when PhysX is enabled in UT3 compared to no PhysX at all, since its a point you've brought up before. But again, you're welcome to run the demos and see if your CPU can keep up with the GPU. It can't btw, there's nothing magic about it. If a CPU could manage it, we would've had these effects years ago.Way to totally miss the context of point four. The point was to ensure you didn?t come up with games having an ?advantage? when the CPU is just as capable of rendering identical physics as the GPU, without a large performance hit. Or are you really trying to suggest the CPU could render 8xMSAA with the same viability as a GPU?