PhysX worthless with ATI?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
HD-DVD was backed by Microsoft and Intel, and yet HD-DVD players now serve as upconverting DVD players.

Of course .. Sony finally took my advice

my *point* is, that choosing either PhysX or Havok - Now - is an exercise in futility where you have ~50% chance of being right [and 50% chance of being wrong]

. . . the most powerful videocard in the world that would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? .

are you feeling lucky?
-well are you?

Make my day .. go ahead, pick PhysX .. for all ten games that will ever be released with it

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: cm123
who knows, maybe good old Matrix will come again with something, after all they was the 1st 3D card back in windows 95 days, shortly before S3 which is back going again too (always was as part of VIA).

3dFX sold the first 3d video card (chip, or GPU). It used the Voodoo chip. Without 3dFX, we'd all still be gaming in 2d.

3Dfx made first 3D api - however long before for the launch of windows 95 which had small of amount 3D in it (screen saver) - Matrox was the first at that point - I do remember (was tech. sales rep then) selling soon after (more for games) S3 cards - of course then a wave of solutions like 3DFx and of course ATI - heck soon after than Intel with Express 3D or 740

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin
my *point* is, that choosing either PhysX or Havok - Now - is an exercise in futility where you have ~50% chance of being right [and 50% chance of being wrong]

Wrong again.

If you choose PhysX you are 100% right. Because you can actually use it right now. Instead of dreaming and hoping that some day maybe GPU Havok will magically appear.

Not to mention that when it does first appear it will be CPU accelerated. GPU Havok is a pipe dream. It's doubtful the 4xxx series will ever see it.

Right now there is no Physx vs Havok when choosing a video card. You can either get GPU accelerated physics with a NVIDIA card or you can get nothing with some other company.

Intel screwed AMD by purchasing Havok and leaving their GPU without any physics support.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
my *point* is, that choosing either PhysX or Havok - Now - is an exercise in futility where you have ~50% chance of being right [and 50% chance of being wrong]

Wrong again.

If you choose PhysX you are 100% right. Because you can actually use it right now. Instead of dreaming and hoping that some day maybe GPU Havok will magically appear.

Not to mention that when it does first appear it will be CPU accelerated. GPU Havok is a pipe dream. It's doubtful the 4xxx series will ever see it.

Right now there is no Physx vs Havok when choosing a video card. You can either get GPU accelerated physics with a NVIDIA card or you can get nothing with some other company.

Intel screwed AMD by purchasing Havok and leaving their GPU without any physics support.

You can use PhysX for very few games. We have AMD/Intel/MS actively working against it and setting out their own Havok solution. Not magic - but solid Physics for CPU/GPU. Havok exists and it is a competing solution for physics.

Who cares about "first" when all you have is silly demos, clunky Warmonger and a few maps?
:roll: . . . and i have yet to see your "must have" list of SOON to be AAA titles that shows what we will be missing out for the next year

It is very doubtful that either the 48X0 series or GT200 will ever play great Physics-enabled games. By the time we see what you are claiming is near, they will be antiques.

You sure don't get much *now* with Nvidia's PhysX
-Name the AAA games i am missing out on please

Put up or shut up, is what it is commonly called

you can repeat your same opinion over-and-over ... i want to see something more solid before i bother to reply again

to *me* PhysX makes ZERO difference today .. to you, a Nvidia supporter, it appears to be the deciding factor in choosing them over AMD.

that is some faith you have that approaches religious
- i am in awe as i am a cynic and i just say "wait and see" - and "who cares *right now*?"

Your list may be the only games that ever come out with PhysX support - IF intel/amd/MS have their way.. in that case, you are wrong and you will be missing out; but of course, you could be right
- i give you and Nvidia less than 50% chance of making PhysX a "standard" for all video games.

Now go ahead and argue it is a done-deal. i will be glad to bet against Nvidia on this one. It's no biggie; not crucial to their's or CUDA's success imo.

 

[Keysplayr]

Do you think devs will code for something that is already established? Or for something that's still in quite a gray area?
There are already over 70 million PhysX capable GPU's in users PC's ready willing and able to run CUDA based PhysX computation. We have already seen the power that these GPU's have over CPU's in hundreds of applications and growing. Who has better dev relations? Intel? AMD/ATI with their GITG program? Do you think that a CPU can run Havok better than an Nvidia GPU runs PhysX? I don't know, but I can tell you that I don't think it can. How often do you see a feature introduced as significant as PhysX already backward compatable with such a large install base? I guaranty you, if Toshiba introduced HD-DVD in a format that was capable of playing on already existing DVD players, Blu-Ray would be dust right now. Havok is dust. The install base for PhysX is just too formidable and already in place. IMHO.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

So besides UT3 and Graw2, and only some maps at that, you've got nothing to stand on

Yeah, at least DX10.1 was real and supported on a whole game, not on some hand picked maps, but thanks to nVidia and their lame point of view to stagnate evolution of technology, DX10.1 is no longer on Assassin Creed, thanks for nothing nVidia.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Apoppin, there is NO ATI SUPPORT FOR PHYSICS. None.


The first use of Havok will be CPU only.

These are both facts. Everything else you posted is just opinion and mostly wrong.

Until you can link to an ATI driver with Havok support, you don't have any foundation for your arguments.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Apoppin, there is NO ATI SUPPORT FOR PHYSICS. None.


The first use of Havok will be CPU only.

These are both facts. Everything else you posted is just opinion and mostly wrong.

Until you can link to an ATI driver with Havok support, you don't have any foundation for your arguments.

We all know here that you are more nVidia biased than even Rollo or Keys, so I'm gonna put this out very simple. How Intel is optimizing the Havok engine for an AMD CPU? Is that a logical move? AMD CPU is an x86 CPU, How Intel will manage to "optimize" the Havok with a simple x86 architecture similar to their counterparts? Optimize? Yeah, let us use some SSE2, SSE3 and accelerate the Havok engine, because AMD SSE3 is different from Intel SSE3 and the AMD CPU needs more optimizations for it, so It can run much faster than a GPU. Funny thing, of course there no current support for Physics for ATi yet, but definitvely Havok will use the GPU, because the GPU is the one who needs optimizations and tweak to make the thread to run as fast as possible, specially on a super scalar architecture like the HD 48XX series... Since you don't have strong proofs of this and neither am I, I will just shut up, and so you should, and stop spreading misinformation and a smokescreen to hide the fact that ATi has the fastest video card on the market, with the most features (DX10.1, 7.1 audio, etc), higher double precision performance, best Video Processor, and best performance per dollar on the market, otherwise we would still having $800 8800 Ultra or GTX 280.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.......

Apoppin, there is NO ATI SUPPORT FOR PHYSICS. None.


The first use of Havok will be CPU only.

These are both facts. Everything else you posted is just opinion and mostly wrong.

Until you can link to an ATI driver with Havok support, you don't have any foundation for your arguments.

Where is your game list?

What am i really missing?

Your 'facts' are distorted and perhaps clouded by Nvision and their little possibly premature foray into Physics on the GPU. MS, intel and AMD are actively working to thwart them with a competing solution

Now go repeat yourself

where is your AAA gamelist?

where is the beef?
:roll:

i got the smoke and mirrors demos already
- and the *BOLD* and all caps you use for distraction, don't make your *opinion* the right one

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

Did you miss the press releases where AMD and Havok agreed to work together to develop Havok for *both* CPU/GPU

Which ATI cards does this "press release" run on? What kind of frame rate hit do you get from using this "press release"? Have you yourself installed and ran this "press release" yet? Which games are currently supporting this "press release".

I assume you get my point. :roll:

NVIDIA HAS WORKING GPU PHYSICS. ATI DOES NOT. THESE ARE THE FACTS. You won't see Havok on an ATI card for years if ever. I would bet on it.

So we're supposed to take your assumptions as fact simply because you "bet on it"? Hardly.

The "point" that you're conveniently trying to overlook, Wreckage, is that Radeon GPU's are already capable of physics calculations as the demos have shown, even as far back as 2006. You would have to be pretty naive to think that they have been working exclusively on CPU based physics since then.

Let's compare shader processing power since that's what actually does the physics calculations:

4870X2 - 2.4 Tflops
4870 - 1.2 Tflops
4850 - 1.0 Tflops
GTX280 - 0.993 Tflops

ATI's cards stand a good chance at doing GPU physics better than anything in Nvidia's lineup.

ATI has said that they will come out with GPU physics when it makes performance sense. GRAW and Ageia's first attempt showed additional effects, but at a reduced framerate. Nothing says Nvidia won't run into the same issues. Also, nothing says that developers will actually make any meaningful use of PhysX. But if it shows enough promise, ATI have already stated they will have their own GPU physics support.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
HD-DVD was backed by Microsoft and Intel, and yet HD-DVD players now serve as upconverting DVD players.

That's because sony had more people backing it up. The same can be said for havok. MS really didn't do anything to support HD-DVD. If they want to support it, then it would of came stock in all 360s.

actually, this is because:
1. The PS3 is a blu-ray player that has some gaming capability, and that was cheaper to own at first. (heavily subsidized by sony)
2. The blu-ray has a scratch resistant layer.
3. and most importantly... blu ray had TWO copy protection schemes (both broken now), BD+ and AACS, HD-DVD ALSO used AACS... logical conclusion? crack AACS first, giving you full access to HD-DVD and half the work needed for blu-ray... which is what happened. But the idiots at Hollywood actually believed that the BD+ will not be cracked. And thus heavily favored blu-ray. At first for its extra security, and then because the HD-DVD was cracked and it was not.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin
.....

Still waiting for you to show a link to an ATI driver with Havok.

I know you are just trolling and baiting so I'm done with your endless ranting.

Until you can link to an ATI driver for physics your beloved company has been left behind.

Here's some Physx games for you. There are many more on the way including Bionic Commando and a MMO.

2 Days to Vegas
Adrenalin 2: Rush Hour
Age of Empires III
Age of Empires III: The WarChiefs
Alpha Prime
Auto Assault
Backbreaker
B.A.S.E. Jumping
Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon
Bet on Soldier: Blood of Sahara
Bet on Soldier: Blood Sport
Beowulf
Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War
Captain Blood
Cellfactor: Combat Training
Cellfactor: Revolution
City of Villains
Crazy Machines II
Cryostasis
Dark Physics
Desert Diner
Dragonshard
Dusk 12
Empire Above All
Empire Earth III
Entropia Universe
Fallen Earth
Fury
Gears Of War
Gluk'Oza: Action
GooBall
Gothic 3
Gunship Apocalypse
Heavy Rain
Hero's Jorney
Hour of Victory
Hunt, The
Huxley
Infernal
Inhabited island: Prisoner of Power
Joint Task Force
Kuma\WAR
Magic ball 3
Mass Effect
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Metro 2033
Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire
Monster Madness: Battle for Suburbia
Monster Truck Maniax
Myst Online: URU Live
Open Fire
Paragraph 78
Pirates of the Burning Sea
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea
Rail Simulator
Red Steel
Rise Of Nations: Rise Of Legends
Roboblitz
Sacred 2
Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened
Showdown: Scorpion
Silverfall
Sovereign Symphony
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Speedball 2
Stalin Subway, The
Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien
Switchball
Tension
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent (multiplayer)
Tortuga: Two Treasures
Two Worlds
Ultra Tubes
Unreal Tournament 3
Unreal Tournament 3: Extreme Physics Mod
Warfare
Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction
W.E.L.L. Online
Winterheart's Guild
WorldShift

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin
.....

Still waiting for you to show a link to an ATI driver with Havok.

I know you are just trolling and baiting so I'm done with your endless ranting.

Until you can link to an ATI driver for physics your beloved company has been left behind.

Here's some Physx games for you. There are many more on the way including Bionic Commando and a MMO.

2 Days to Vegas
Adrenalin 2: Rush Hour
Age of Empires III
Age of Empires III: The WarChiefs
Alpha Prime
Auto Assault
Backbreaker
B.A.S.E. Jumping
Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon
Bet on Soldier: Blood of Sahara
Bet on Soldier: Blood Sport
Beowulf
Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War
Captain Blood
Cellfactor: Combat Training
Cellfactor: Revolution
City of Villains
Crazy Machines II
Cryostasis
Dark Physics
Desert Diner
Dragonshard
Dusk 12
Empire Above All
Empire Earth III
Entropia Universe
Fallen Earth
Fury
Gears Of War
Gluk'Oza: Action
GooBall
Gothic 3
Gunship Apocalypse
Heavy Rain
Hero's Jorney
Hour of Victory
Hunt, The
Huxley
Infernal
Inhabited island: Prisoner of Power
Joint Task Force
Kuma\WAR
Magic ball 3
Mass Effect
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Metro 2033
Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire
Monster Madness: Battle for Suburbia
Monster Truck Maniax
Myst Online: URU Live
Open Fire
Paragraph 78
Pirates of the Burning Sea
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea
Rail Simulator
Red Steel
Rise Of Nations: Rise Of Legends
Roboblitz
Sacred 2
Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened
Showdown: Scorpion
Silverfall
Sovereign Symphony
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Speedball 2
Stalin Subway, The
Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien
Switchball
Tension
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent (multiplayer)
Tortuga: Two Treasures
Two Worlds
Ultra Tubes
Unreal Tournament 3
Unreal Tournament 3: Extreme Physics Mod
Warfare
Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction
W.E.L.L. Online
Winterheart's Guild
WorldShift

Wow quite the list of old games and unknown games there. I've not even heard of most of them On average about 5-10 pc titles are released every week. When it's not just the unknown fodder in this list that goes to the bargain bin, maybe physx will be interesting. When Valve, iD, Blizzard, Crytek and other large game studios that make quality games start telling me they are releasing physx it will be worth looking in to. This reminds me of when PhysX was not owned by nvidia and we all heard about it, and they were releasing their addon cards, nothing came of it then, and likely nothing is going to come of it now that nv is trying to push it.

It's fine, we can give nvidia the fact they can do physx, a feature supported in two games at the moment. I owned an 8800GTX for 15 months, why, because it was the fastest video card around. Now I own a 4870X2, why, because it is the fastest video card around. Get back to me when nvidia has that spot again and I'll buy another nv card. They can't sell me on some useless feature to make me settle for less performance.

 

[MarcVenice]

Wreckage, you'r doing the exact same thing as you did in the last thread you particapated in. It's okay if your a KNOWN nvidia supporter, at least we know where you stand, but please, be realistic, answer questions in an honest way. Some people here are arguing with you, for real, if you can convince them, even partially, or other people watching this thread, then that should be enough. But we've asked for triple A titles, and you managed to come up with a list of games that are a) allready out, and thus won't give any awesome kind of physics that will redefine gameplay, b) crappy titles that have no promise either of having physx that redefine gameplay, in fact, most of those games are pure crap, budget titles, from new studios, or studios who have a trackrecord of putting out crappy games.

The only REAL games I could make out of that list are: Sacred 2. Damn, one game, and I can tell you right now, it's a game like Diablo 3, which has havok support, and it will sport similar physx as Diablo 3, nice, some ragdoll effects, but nothing stunning. Now, there's huxley, and perhaps winterhearts guild, but I'm also pretty sure that those won't be worth buying a videocard capable of physx, because, heh, it won't have stellar physx in it, that won't run on a regular, non hardware accelerating physx system.

So now, triple a titles. Like spore, warhammer, crysis, stalker, mercenaries 2, fallout 3, left 4 dead, far cry 2 and cod: world at war. Do any of them require hardware accelerated physx, do any of them actually support it? Will you claim, that any of those games are going to be outsold by games in your list? What games will gamers be playing ? Crap games on that list, or those tripple a, heavily anticipated games I mentioned?

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
HD-DVD was backed by Microsoft and Intel, and yet HD-DVD players now serve as upconverting DVD players.

That's because sony had more people backing it up. The same can be said for havok. MS really didn't do anything to support HD-DVD. If they want to support it, then it would of came stock in all 360s.

actually, this is because:
1. The PS3 is a blu-ray player that has some gaming capability, and that was cheaper to own at first. (heavily subsidized by sony)
2. The blu-ray has a scratch resistant layer.
3. and most importantly... blu ray had TWO copy protection schemes (both broken now), BD+ and AACS, HD-DVD ALSO used AACS... logical conclusion? crack AACS first, giving you full access to HD-DVD and half the work needed for blu-ray... which is what happened. But the idiots at Hollywood actually believed that the BD+ will not be cracked. And thus heavily favored blu-ray. At first for its extra security, and then because the HD-DVD was cracked and it was not.

1) gaming means nothing for blu-ray - it's all about install base ( as I said MS didn't help )
2) scratch resistant didn't make or break HD-DVD
3) copy protection means nothing as you said both are broken, and it was expected.
4) Blu-ray had size. ( Started to become problems with movies like Transformers )
5) Blu-ray had more studios backing it up ( same that can be said with Havok )

The comparison of HD-DVD and Blu-ray should show that a physic war is not needed right now. Even now DVD is still the winner, just like 4870x2.

@Wreckage - Stop posting that crap list. Only AAA titles which recommend having GPU PhysX.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice allready out, and thus won't give any awesome kind of physics that will redefine gameplay, b) crappy titles that have no promise either of having physx that redefine gameplay, in fact, most of those games are pure crap, budget titles, from new studios, or studios who have a trackrecord of putting out crappy games.

This is the same argument over and over. "I don't like the games listed so Physx is irrelevant to everyone".

I have several of those games and I plan to pick up the newer games coming out (like Bionic Commando).

Many people have GRAW2 and UT3 so it's very relevant to them.

Now let's see a list of Havok games that ATI has driver support for....

The 9800GTX+ has the same performance as a 4850 and the GTX260 has the same performance as a 4870. However the Nvidia cards offer true GPU physics for free. Anyone who argues against that is just promoting some sort of bias. It's like bitching about free ice cream simply because you did not get any.

Either way most people against PhysX just bought a HD48xx card so of course they are going to be against it. So I'm not trying to convince them. I'm just trying to counter all of Apoppin's FUD.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

The 9800GTX+ has the same performance as a 4850 and the GTX260 has the same performance as a 4870. However the Nvidia cards offer true GPU physics for free. Anyone who argues against that is just promoting some sort of bias. It's like bitching about free ice cream simply because you did not get any.

More akin to bitching about a free bag of dog feces because you did not get any. Ice cream tastes great and kids love it, it's something you can really appreciate. I don't play UT3, it's an awful game with a playerbase of ten people. So I'm not missing the physx on my ATI card, and I'm not missing the lower framerates I'd be getting if I'd bought an nvidia card. Something I'd notice in every single game I play, in contrast to not getting fancy snowballs in a level of UT3.

 

[MarcVenice]

I don't care about ATI, they have nothing, why do they have nothing, because game devs aren't busy making games with heavy physx in them that warrant physx acceleration, be it on ppu or gpu.

Bionic Commando isn't even on that list, and I've seen many video's and presentations of that game, and guess what, it doesn't warrant physx acceleration through the gpu. Neither have I heard about any special maps with special kinds of physx. So your opinion is, that people should buy nvidia just because of GRAW 2 and 1 map in UT3? Oh, and out of those games in that list, what does the gpu physx acceleration really do, care to elaborate?

It's you promoting some sort of bias. The 9800gtx+ isn't at the same price as a HD4850. Between a GTX260 and HD4870, I could arguably say that the gtx260 is pretty damn close if not equal with the HD4870 in the US, but it's not out of the US. And physx is definately no reason to buy a gtx260 over a HD4870, just like dx10.1 aint.

It's more like you telling me I should be jealous/bitching because you got a pebble from your mother, and I didn't. But I don't care about your pebble, because chances are it won't be a diamond in the rough, and even if it is, it will take pretty long to mature into one. Hopefully that analogy makes sense.

Like I said, come back to me in 8 months, or even a year, if there's tripple a titles coming out, that rly need gpu physics acceleration to enjoy it to the fullest extent, then I will agree with you. Right now your arguments are based on 1 map in UT3, some 'fancy' yet cool physx in GRAW2, and wishfull thinking, LOTS of wishfull thinking.

 

[SlowSpyder]

At this point, isn't choosing an Nvidia card because of Physx about as stupid as choosing an AMD card because it has DX10.1? At this point both are little more then a marketing feature.

What companies are working on Havok? And what company will be releasing DX11? Unless Nvidia can get MS to jump aboard I doubt Physx will matter much.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Bionic Commando isn't even on that list, and I've seen many video's and presentations of that game, and guess what, it doesn't warrant physx acceleration through the gpu.

No game "warrants" AA/AF or a resolution higher than 640x480. Basically that's what you are advocating. I would say that game physics affects gameplay far more than AA/AF or resolution.

http://www.gamershell.com/news_57468.html

NVIDIA PhysX technology is included in more than 140 shipping titles for Sony Playstation 3, Microsoft Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, and the PC Capcom, GRIN Entertainment and NVIDIA Corporation today announced that the upcoming game Bionic Commando for the PC will use GPU-accelerated NVIDIA PhysX technology to enhance the game's debris, smoke, dust, and weapon effects

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The 9800GTX+ has the same performance as a 4850

But the 4850 is also less expensive than a 9800GTX+.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
and the GTX260 has the same performance as a 4870.

The 4870 is generally faster than a GTX260. Sometimes even faster than a GTX280.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
However the Nvidia cards offer true GPU physics for free. Anyone who argues against that is just promoting some sort of bias. It's like bitching about free ice cream simply because you did not get any.

Except that Nvidia has only one true flavor of ice cream available right now and it's one that most people have turned their noses up at. (Warmonger) When Nvidia has as many flavors available as Ben & Jerry's, then you would have something to crow about. Until then, PhysX is just another checkmark feature.

 

[evolucion8]

The HD 4850 is faster than the 9800GTX+ in many scenarios, not in all, they're quite close, but not close enough to justify it's purchase, more than half of the gaming benchmarks proves that the HD 4850 outperforms it, (60% for ATi, 40% for nVidia) of course not all of them, nVidia likes to recycle it's line up again and again and people keep buying it again and again accepting it's terrible tendency of GPU rehashing. 8800GT/GTS 512, same ship as 9800GT/GTX, and now the same chip only with a die shrink in the 9800GTX+, None of them are a real upgrade of their previous generation. Heck, better of buying a plain 9800GTX and overclock it and pray to performance close to the HD 4850, something that won't happen. At least the HD 3870 had more features and was cheaper than the HD 2900XT, but all nVidia cards has the same old features that are getting older and older.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=13

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice allready out, and thus won't give any awesome kind of physics that will redefine gameplay, b) crappy titles that have no promise either of having physx that redefine gameplay, in fact, most of those games are pure crap, budget titles, from new studios, or studios who have a trackrecord of putting out crappy games.

This is the same argument over and over. "I don't like the games listed so Physx is irrelevant to everyone".

I have several of those games and I plan to pick up the newer games coming out (like Bionic Commando).

Many people have GRAW2 and UT3 so it's very relevant to them.

Now let's see a list of Havok games that ATI has driver support for....

The 9800GTX+ has the same performance as a 4850 and the GTX260 has the same performance as a 4870. However the Nvidia cards offer true GPU physics for free. Anyone who argues against that is just promoting some sort of bias. It's like bitching about free ice cream simply because you did not get any.

Either way most people against PhysX just bought a HD48xx card so of course they are going to be against it. So I'm not trying to convince them. I'm just trying to counter all of Apoppin's FUD.

Everyone here is telling you that you are the FUD master; the servant to Nvidia who *never* considers AMD as worth anything but who only has one "side" and it is "all Nvidia" - defending and spinning anything that may be perceived as 'wrong' and attacking AMD graphics relentlessly. i have both AMD and Nvidia Graphics currently and - depending on the situation *unlike yourself* - i freely recommend either company based on my experience for their particular situation.



No one is denying that Nvidia is offering PhysX

OtOH, we are disputing the *importance* of it in today's games

i am still waiting for your AAA list of upcoming games. Something that will make me feel "left out"

You do realize that i already have a 8800GTX - that i loved - and i will get either a GT280 or an O/C'd 260 to review for my own site, ABT. Obviously, i like Nvidia and PhysX - why the hell else would i be driving to attend Nvision08 on MY vacation? - that is car rental and gas, 3 days off work and hotel rental - for a NVIDIA Event!!
:roll:

.. are you just jealous that i get the Nvidia T-shirts and run AMDx3?


. . . and i also intend to review and explore both Tesla and PhysX and Cuda ... i am just saying that - *today*; where it stands AtM - Nvidia lost the performance crown and that their PROPRIETARY PhysX is a solution that is not compelling whatsoever at this point in time no is there ANY guarantee that it will be adopted industry wide; Nvidia's PhysX is a small niche right now

Where is the upcoming PhysX AAA list ?
- i repeat,

where's the beef

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Bionic Commando isn't even on that list, and I've seen many video's and presentations of that game, and guess what, it doesn't warrant physx acceleration through the gpu.

No game "warrants" AA/AF or a resolution higher than 640x480. Basically that's what you are advocating. I would say that game physics affects gameplay far more than AA/AF or resolution.

http://www.gamershell.com/news_57468.html

NVIDIA PhysX technology is included in more than 140 shipping titles for Sony Playstation 3, Microsoft Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, and the PC Capcom, GRIN Entertainment and NVIDIA Corporation today announced that the upcoming game Bionic Commando for the PC will use GPU-accelerated NVIDIA PhysX technology to enhance the game's debris, smoke, dust, and weapon effects

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not advocating ANYTHING. You really FAIL at arguing, as soon as you lose, you rely on underhanded tactics and cheap shots, and throw in a bit of truth just to make it look good.

You mean, you THINK no game warrants aa/af at a resolution higher then 640*480. Your opinion. I might disagree, and I'm really certain others will COMPLETELY disagree. Here's two things for you to think about. I don't run AA often, because I either can't, or I don't really notice the difference to much and just forgot. And, I can run AA/AF in any videogame out there, where as physx is only supported in, you know how many titles/maps.

As for Bionic Commando, interesting, let's see how the smoke, debris etc will look. Do those things qualify as 'groundbreaking' physx though? Do they alter gameplay? I know bionic commando is planned to be big online, so online physx CANT play a big role, not everyone owns a nvidia videocard. And if it does, I think most of the physx will be able to be ran on the CPU. Nonetheless, if MORE, and I'd say over 50% of the game devs start putting stuff like that in games, making things more realistic and visually appealing, w/o taking a big performance hit, for free, nvidia might have something. But, it has to be adopted by huge amounts of games, because it's not gameplay altering. Just like AA/AF isn't. So there, right back at ya

 

[Keysplayr]

Learn when to say, "When". Agree to disagree. No need for 15 pages of getting nowhere.