From this thread:
http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...s-cards-2.html
From this thread:
http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...s-cards-2.html
Nvidia and Ati bitching at each other. I'm shocked.
Anyway, one bit of this little spat bugs me:
The response from nvidia doesn't actually cover the issue at all.
Why yes, it is true that you've built a physics API that supports all that, but the wording used doesn't actually answer the question about whether that support is always available.Originally Posted by Nadeem Mohammad's response, 5th paragraph
His team could have built the philospher's stone (and the rest of the post tries to make it sound like they have..) but marketing isn't going to let it out of the door if it can be used to show their products in a bad light.
Just another day in the world of business.
I guess I just know something about business Hicks12.
Ever consider that:
1. The margins on the low end cards you mention might be so low that the sale of high end cards, or mid range cards with a dedicated PhysX card, might offset the revenue lost on low end cards ATi owners might buy?
2. Ever consider that people who see the videos comparing PhysX to normal on YouTube might be inclined to want PhysX enough to only buy a NVIDIA card? And that if they opened it up to ATi cards they might lose sales of high end cards?
3. Ever consider that NVIDIA has no control or knowledge of what ATi is doing, so changes in their hardware or drivers might break PhysX drivers and leave NVIDIA with bad press for the tech they've ivested a lot of time and money in? At the GF100 deep dive they told us they had 6 years of labor invested into their work on Batman counting all the staff they had working on it form PhysX and 3d. When you make significant investments like that in a technology, the last thing you need is posts all over the forums "Damn you NVIDIA! When the Cat. v. XYZ was released, my game started crashing".
Basically all the arguments you guys are putting forth amount to "We want NVIDIA to spend a lot of money and labor insuring ATi customers have a good experience with NVIDIA tech. We're willing to buy some $$75 NVIDIA cards in return for that".
I think I have pretty good comprehension of the situation.
Knowing a little of the semi conductor industry myself, I would suggest that either you know nothing about the business, or that you completely oblivious to the fact that there is always more than one way to do something.
Back to the OP, we've discussed nVidia and PhysX already on numerous occasions. We've even had what we believe are representatives from nVidia and ATi comment directly to these forums. Stop dragging it back to the same old arguament and flame other members who just want to read a post about video cards without your spam in it.
You see, the technology industry require this little thing called... S T A N D A R D S.. to work with each other correctly.
Where IT companies can truly differentiate their products is performance, stability, value, and standards completeness.
Shoehorning in new features is interesting (assuming they're actually useful), but not at the expense of standards compliance.
Hmmm. They put 6 years high priced labor into a game they don't make a dime off so their users would have a better experience- AA and PhysX.
What did Intel, ATi, S3, and Matrox put into the game for their customers? What they put in seems like nothing because it was nothing.
Nope, British spelling is not a requirement for posting on HEXUS matty.
Not that it matters now
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
If nobody cared about standards we'd all still be using software raster rendings (see mesa software 'accel'). That *hurts* your gaming experience.
After all, *nobody* but nobody, would reimplemented their game engine a few dozen times just to support every graphics/physics/audio library combination out there.
You know, for a 'lead developer' in a 'software company', you really are hopelessly dense at sane software development practices.
Hip hip hooray!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)