Who's waiting for Nvidia Fermi

[kalniel]

Fact: While NVIDIA may be technically making PhysX "more obscure" by limiting it to their hardware, they are also proliferating GPU accelerated PhysX far more than any other firm has to date.

Which other companies would even want to proliferate an nVidia only technology?

[Rollo]

Which other companies would even want to proliferate an nVidia only technology?

Based on the currently released PhysX games, and the ones in development, apparently a lot of them?

[Bugbait]

Based on the currently released PhysX games, and the ones in development, apparently a lot of them?

This list isn't very large.

Even this one isn't that extensive given the greater scope of all PC games available...

Then you have to factor in the number of titles where PhysX actually makes a noticeable difference.

Is PhysX good? Yes, for the right customer base. Unless you can show statistics for the proportion of consumers that care about the technology maybe you should stop beating this drum? It's pretty clear on this forum that the majority actually don't care for it or are largely indifferent towards it. Yes, it may be a great technology but if it's only desired by a small portion of the market then does it really matter?

It's like ATI and Eyefinity. Yeah, looks great and some might really crave it but for the majority it's just a marketing exercise.

[Biscuit]

And still no one can respond to any of my points, so in mature and community minded fashion, you call names like kids on a schoolyard.

Fact: While NVIDIA may be technically making PhysX "more obscure" by limiting it to their hardware, they are also proliferating GPU accelerated PhysX far more than any other firm has to date. This is irrefutable as no other company has GPU accelerate physics.

While it's nice ATi owners want NVIDIAto spend the money to QA their hardware, consider that they'd have to QA Matrox, Intel, S3, and any other currently shipping graphics hardware as well. The cost and time to do this might be prohibitive. So is gaming better off having GPU accelerated PhysX for one brand, or no brands? I'm a "glass half full" kind of person, I'd say we're better off with it on one brand.

I'd also note that I doubt anyone here was complaining about ATi implementing proprietary TruForm, and not helping NVIDIA users get similar curved surfaces.

It's also irrefutable that while PhysX may indeed someday be eclipsed by an open method, NVIDIA owners will benefit from PhysX till then, and continue benefitting afterwards.

Im sorry but a mature community minded discussion tends to involve actual discussion instead of repeatedly spewing out the same answers to any question regardless of how relevant and to the point it actually is. There is no argument... yes nvidia have physx and noone else does... i dont see anyone arguing with you? Yes it will become redundant by some form of open version and the real point here is... in the mean time does anyone really see that it makes so much difference that they are going to buy green? Looking at the lists Bug posted above its quite unlikely to be the decision maker.

They certainly do not have to QA all that hardware at all, all they have to do is say 'guaranteed to work with NVidia TWIMTBP, no such guaruntee is passed onto configurations containing other hardware' then they hold no responsibility. I do suspect however, that it will work perfectly fine on other hardware.

[Rollo]

This list isn't very large.

Even this one isn't that extensive given the greater scope of all PC games available...

Then you have to factor in the number of titles where PhysX actually makes a noticeable difference.

Is PhysX good? Yes, for the right customer base. Unless you can show statistics for the proportion of consumers that care about the technology maybe you should stop beating this drum? It's pretty clear on this forum that the majority actually don't care for it or are largely indifferent towards it. Yes, it may be a great technology but if it's only desired by a small portion of the market then does it really matter?

It's like ATI and Eyefinity. Yeah, looks great and some might really crave it but for the majority it's just a marketing exercise.

I think we have a cultural difference going on. In the US, all this stuff is cheaper and in general people hav more cash because we're not taxed as heavily as you are.

No one I associate with would think of PC parts as some "elite luxury", everyone makes enough they can buy a $500 video card and a $1000 monitor if they choose.

There's not a lot of point in discussing video cards if you don't discuss the add on features or really high end stuff. Pretty much everything you buy can run everything at 19X12 0X16X.

[Georgy291]

oh i got one thing i love about ATi that nvidia hasent come up with yet... but it wouldnt be a desision maker in my choice off video card

the sli and xfire difference

with sli two cards have to be identical even same cards with different manufactorers arent compatible. i presonally tried sli'ing a gigabyte 8600gt and a saphire 8600gt and it doesnt work.

where as all you need to have for xfire is 2 same series cards. I wanted to see how much my pc is being bottlenecked by my cpu so i took a 4870 and xfired it with another 4850......worked with out a fuss....shame about cpu

[Bugbait]

I think we have a cultural difference going on. In the US, all this stuff is cheaper and in general people hav more cash because we're not taxed as heavily as you are.

Not quite correct but atleast something might be sinking in (finally). Interesting that you don't refute my links. Wouldn't think it would be hard if they're way off base given I spent a whole 60 seconds on Google finding them. I barely proof read them before posting to be honest. So your claim that PhysX is "sooo" popular isn't that compelling?

No one I associate with would think of PC parts as some "elite luxury", everyone makes enough they can buy a $500 video card and a $1000 monitor if they choose.

You almost had it, but dropped the ball again. Since you claim to have a thorough understanding of the market, I would've thought it obvious that your associates are but a microscopic portion of the consumer base. It's nice that you only associate with those that are financially comfortable but that's not representative of the global market.

Based on current exchange rates, USD$500 is about £315 give or take. Based on this thread spending £300+ on a graphics card is a minority on this forum. Arguably the nice bell curve on that thread is a fair representation of the consumer base, more so than your incredibly narrow minded example.

If you look at previous threads, a USD$1000 (~£625) is a "big deal" for most forum users as well, and I would argue the general consumer base too. So either your "market knowledge" is poor or you like to take any opportunity to thump your chest and boast (self esteem issues?).

You do realise that not everyone has a well paying job? That's not a cultural difference, that's called bothering to get off your high horse and looking around once in a while.

There's not a lot of point in discussing video cards if you don't discuss the add on features or really high end stuff. Pretty much everything you buy can run everything at 19X12 0X16X.

Bringing up the additional features in every single thread, mostly when it's not relevant is like constantly taking about your voice activated GPS in your fancy car in a discussion about car tyres. Yes, it's a nice feature but completely irrelevant in the current discussion besides making you look like a donkey.

[Biscuit]

And you just totally sidestepped what i said further proving your sole qualification as far as this forums goes as... a broken record

[Rollo]

oh i got one thing i love about ATi that nvidia hasent come up with yet... but it wouldnt be a desision maker in my choice off video card

the sli and xfire difference

with sli two cards have to be identical even same cards with different manufactorers arent compatible. i presonally tried sli'ing a gigabyte 8600gt and a saphire 8600gt and it doesnt work.

where as all you need to have for xfire is 2 same series cards. I wanted to see how much my pc is being bottlenecked by my cpu so i took a 4870 and xfired it with another 4850......worked with out a fuss....shame about cpu

Your post is not correct. NVIDIA cards only need to be the same series to SLi. I've mixed brands many times.

[Rollo]

Not quite correct but atleast something might be sinking in (finally). Interesting that you don't refute my links. .

What was there to refute?

You listed the existing 15 or so games that use GPU accelerated physics. Which is 15 or so more than any other company offers, and there are several more in development that are not on the list. So apparently devs don't share your concern for PhysX being NVIDIA only.

[Biscuit]

Hes been banned GJ admins!

[Terbinator]

Tbh, I don't see why he's been banned.

[Bugbait]

What was there to refute?

You listed the existing 15 or so games that use GPU accelerated physics. Which is 15 or so more than any other company offers, and there are several more in development that are not on the list. So apparently devs don't share your concern for PhysX being NVIDIA only.

I never had a concern that PhysX was Nvidia only, although other forum members do. What I questioned was that a handful (yes, that's how I classify 15 or so) of titles somehow translates to a lot of developers supporting PhysX. It's not like any of those games require PhysX to run. Now, if a game required PhysX to run that would be true developer support, or buy in at any rate. As it is now it's merely extra eye candy. Yes, it's eye candy that "some" people may value but hardly a vast proportion of the entire gaming community.

I compare this to Glide and Quake_GL back in the days. I was an early adopter of the 3DFX Voodoo 1 and 2 cards. The visual advantage offered by Glide in the initial years was significant compared to the competition. The Wing Commander series and Quake (transparent water - OMG!) spring to mind. In my mind, PhysX does not offer the same improvement.

The most PhysX adds for the non-fanatical is some nice details to a game but it's not a night and day, glaring difference. In fact, it's probably on par with DX10 vs DX11 at the moment. Tessellation is nice and all but hardly "must have" for most gamers at the moment. Start a poll if you don't believe me.

[Bugbait]

Hes been banned GJ admins!

Bah, saw this after I responded

[Fraz]

Tbh, I don't see why he's been banned.

I guess I don't really see why he's been banned either, but I'm glad he has been. What an absolute plonker he is.

[TooNice]

Trolling? The greater good? I opted to ignore a number of his posts I thought were troll-like, but some took the bait and at some time went close to his level IMHO (no names, no offence). Whatever the real reason, hopefully this will allow for more balanced discussions for the time being

The most PhysX adds for the non-fanatical is some nice details to a game but it's not a night and day, glaring difference.

AFAIK, it is very title specific. I don't have frequent access to my PC with a 8800GTS (I've got two desktop in different locations) so I've not really had the chance to have a good look at it. Anandtech did an article on it, the review felt it was a mix-bag. As far as 'night and day' goes, it is in some games, but not always good (apparently, it's distracting at time). However the review was particularly impressed by Mirror Edge (which I've not played), saying that it was one instance in the review where he 'missed PhysX' after switching it off. The article is a bit dated by now, but I am guessing that there be games now where it does not take an nVidia fanatic to appreciate.

The gamer in me would definitely like to think that it's a tech will get better over time even though it may not be 'in your face' right from the start. I didn't think much of early 3D games with their blocky polygons, but look how far it's come. PhysX (or other physic tech) do not even need to make half that much improvement and it would be quite an amazing must-have (IMO). We'll see