Who's waiting for Nvidia Fermi

[Biscuit]

i dont think anyone really doubts that improved physics processing would be a great addition to games but what gets me is there are loads of games with fantastic physics (such as crysis and HL2) that dont use Nvidias Physx...

Im guessing adding Physx to games means they companies have to pay Nvidia to have it in there and im just wondering what the point actually is if it can be done just as well without them?

I understand some game engines might not have such good configurations for it int heir baseline setup but game engines get improved and developed upon more and more so all i see Physx as is a stop gap.

[aidanjt]

Especially since DirectX 11 provides physics processing capabilities.

[matty-hodgson]

i dont think anyone really doubts that improved physics processing would be a great addition to games but what gets me is there are loads of games with fantastic physics (such as crysis and HL2) that dont use Nvidias Physx...

Im guessing adding Physx to games means they companies have to pay Nvidia to have it in there and im just wondering what the point actually is if it can be done just as well without them?

I understand some game engines might not have such good configurations for it int heir baseline setup but game engines get improved and developed upon more and more so all i see Physx as is a stop gap.

I always thought that PhysX was mainly there just to help developers out, it provides a good basis for them to use instead of having to invest in the time and effort to develop a physics engine like the one in Crysis (which I REALLY like )
And it also allows graphics cards (NVIDIA only, I know :\) to be optimized to the physics. And also allows a second, less powerful card to be used to present the PhysX

i mean yeah theres more smoke and bits flying around, but is it really worth paying for more expensive cards for that?

I believe it is, personally. I can totally understand people who always want "bang for buck" cos that makes perfect sense, but i personally look for the features that come with a card.
PhysX is one of those features that I will pay a bit extra for, just cos I've seen videos of games where the PhysX does actually make the game look better
And I also have an 8400GS card ready to decode the PhysX.

So based upon what I've just said, I'm going to invest in a GTX275 and be more than happy with that .






Now.. Can we get this thread back on topic and stop talking about Rollo?

[kalniel]

And it also allows graphics cards (NVIDIA only, I know :\) to be optimized to the physics. And also allows a second, less powerful card to be used to present the PhysX

Which would be great if it actually allowed it. Why not have an ATI dx11 card for the graphics and a cheap nVidia for physX? Because nVidia prevent you from doing that for no good reason.

[matty-hodgson]

Which would be great if it actually allowed it. Why not have an ATI dx11 card for the graphics and a cheap nVidia for physX? Because nVidia prevent you from doing that for no good reason.

Well what do ATI provide for NVIDIA?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well what do ATI provide for NVIDIA?

MH has been hacked - it is nRollo or is it iRollo??!!

TBH,the only propriety Nvidia feature that actually interests me is CUDA.

[matty-hodgson]

MH has been hacked - it is nRollo!!

No, serious question. I'm sick to death of people saying the same thing over and over.
I really see no good reason at all why NVIDIA should provide PhysX for ATI users.
If you want PhysX, buy an NVIDIA card, it's part of the package

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No, serious question. I'm sick to death of people saying the same thing over and over.
I really see no good reason at all why NVIDIA should provide PhysX for ATI users.
If you want PhysX, buy an NVIDIA card, it's part of the package

Too late - ninja edit!!

TBH,games like Crysis had good enough physics and used the CPU. I have no interest in GPU accelerated physics myself at all and I want better use of the CPU for such things.

When the GPU is fudding around with physics less of its processing power is going to the graphics part of the game which means lower framerates or lower image quality IMHO. I buy a gaming graphics card for making my games run faster and look better.

With the fact multi-core CPUs are getting cheaper and cheaper it would make more sense to code games which can make better use of multiple cores rather than wasting time on propriety solutions.

Things like CUDA are good since when you are not gaming you can use the GPU for other things and I hope ATI is also inspired by this.

A person who can afford a single card setup which can run graphics and physics together or has two graphics cards can afford a decent CPU.

Regarding multi-monitor gaming and 3D gaming I can understand the attraction of this but the fact is you still need a fairly good GPU to run such setups. Of course the additional cost of the monitors and other bits also has to be considered!

It annoys me when "enthusiasts" dismiss the views of the gamer on a smaller budget just because they are a select few which can afford expensive setups.

[aidanjt]

Things like CUDA are good since when you are not gaming you can use the GPU for other things and I hope ATI is also inspired by this.

You mean like DirectCompute and OpenCL?

[matty-hodgson]

You mean like DirectCompute and OpenCL?

I think he means more like.. Try and advance things on a bit. They're a bit premature compared to CUDA atm.

[jim]

No, serious question. I'm sick to death of people saying the same thing over and over.
I really see no good reason at all why NVIDIA should provide PhysX for ATI users.
If you want PhysX, buy an NVIDIA card, it's part of the package

As has been said before though, I think everyone agrees that you should buy an nVidia card for Physx. As far as I'm concerned, I would have no problems buying a 9600 or similar for Physx processing. And I probably would've done by now, if it worked.

The restriction that nVidia added in, as far as I'm concerned, was a reaction to their failure to match ATI on the price/performance front, and was a bit of a dirty trick. This mantra about "QA and testing" keeps being repeated, which is utter nonsense. They don't QA for overclocking either, but they don't disable it.

On another note, Rollo will probably be doing a celebratory jig right now.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You mean like DirectCompute and OpenCL?

I think he means more like.. Try and advance things on a bit. They're a bit premature compared to CUDA atm.

What MH says!

However I value DX compliant gaming performance and power consumption as the most important factors when I choose a graphics card though!

[aidanjt]

I think he means more like.. Try and advance things on a bit. They're a bit premature compared to CUDA atm.

In that CUDA has been around for a little while longer, and thus has more applications using it, sure. In so far as scope and sane API, not even close.

[matty-hodgson]

http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...rth-extra.html

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

In that CUDA has been around for a little while longer, and thus has more applications using it, sure. In so far as scope and sane API, not even close.

I am happy to see ATI investing more time in such things TBH but like I said it is still not the most important factor for me when getting a gaming graphics card. Also unlike CUDA these should be more open standards AFAIK which is always welcome.

[aidanjt]

I am happy to see ATI investing more time in such things TBH but like I said it is still not the most important factor for me when getting a gaming graphics card.

Same, but it's certainly very nice to have a library which can directly access and utilise arbitrary processors across platforms regardless of vendors.

Also unlike CUDA these should be more open standards AFAIK which is always welcome.

Definitely that too.