Does nVidia have more clout with game developers than Ati?

S

ShuttleLuv

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
7,534
I sat and pondered this after watching the Bioshock 2 eyefinity video. Apparantly it works but not fully which is pretty much unacceptable in a brand new game months after the 5000 series release. Is it because of lazy developers or the fact that AMD/ATI just do not have the clout and buying power with game developers that nVidia does? For reference, nVidia secured physX pretty good with Batman. Just food for thought, no flames, no troll posts or I will request a mod to delete it.
 
Nvidia works with a lot of studios to do that stuff. ATI really doesn't, at least not as much. Nvidia having a higher market share than ATI probably helps a bit too.
 
obviously, nvidia is the giant. how often do you see AMD being the flagship of major players? (dell, etc)

nvidia has a bigger share of the client base so they have more money for more R&D, to pay better developers and make sure everything works perfectly.
 
demografik said:
obviously, nvidia is the giant. how often do you see AMD being the flagship of major players? (dell, etc)

nvidia has a bigger share of the client base so they have more money for more R&D, to pay better developers and make sure everything works perfectly.
Click to expand...

Laptop wise I'm seeing more and more Ati-m chips and less Nvidias. At the best buy near me almost all the laptops with dedi's are around Ati 43-4600's.
 
Well mobile solutions are allegedly the exception, ATI claimed a while ago that they have the majority of that particular market.
 
Falling Anvil said:
Well mobile solutions are allegedly the exception, ATI claimed a while ago that they have the majority of that particular market.
Click to expand...

no doubt because they are cheaper. big companies just want to save money, and of course mobile computing isnt the same as gaming. so they can afford to cut corners.

i have to say though that my recent defection to ati has me a bit pissed. they havent improved on their driver situation much at all. they might want to put a bit more into their driver team to make the products do what they are supposed to.
 
Ive been playing around with gfx cards since the 90ies and let me tell ya drivers today are a hell of lot better than they were back then. Alot more reliable and thats from both ATI and nvidia. Both ofcourse still have thier ups and downs and theres plenty of proof for that on the net for both.

Nvidia has more financial resourses and they use it to thier advantage like buying game developer support and working on profiles and other stuff. ATI/AMD try to do the same but cant afford to do as much atm but that could soon change.

Its really incredible though how ATI can still compete dispite this enormous disparity in resourses. Goes to show you that more money doesnt always give you a championship winning team . ;)
 
Last edited:
Why?

Seeing as the question was basically rhetorical, what do you wish to figure out by asking that question? Why do you want to know? Nvidia is larger than ATI and has more to spend for R&D purposes as mentioned earlier. However, deductive reasoning can basically lead a person to that conclusion.

However, I'm a bit baffled by your example about eyefinity not being utilized properly in Bioshock 2 thus concluding that ATI has less clout than Nvidia because Physx was implemented into Batman. Which games utilize physx? Batman was definitely a Physx gem but what else? How about eyefinity, how many games are compatible with it? Physx is proving to be almost gimmicky in nature where as the adaptation of eyefinity had been more widely implemented.

That being said, what is this food for thought you mentioned?
 
edifyingkarma said:
Why?

Seeing as the question was basically rhetorical, what do you wish to figure out by asking that question? Why do you want to know? Nvidia is larger than ATI and has more to spend for R&D purposes as mentioned earlier. However, deductive reasoning can basically lead a person to that conclusion.

However, I'm a bit baffled by your example about eyefinity not being utilized properly in Bioshock 2 thus concluding that ATI has less clout than Nvidia because Physx was implemented into Batman. Which games utilize physx? Batman was definitely a Physx gem but what else? How about eyefinity, how many games are compatible with it? Physx is proving to be almost gimmicky in nature where as the adaptation of eyefinity had been more widely implemented.

That being said, what is this food for thought you mentioned?
Click to expand...

I want to know why when a game developer utilizes an Ati function, it's either flawed or non existent and when a game developer utilizes an nvidia function, it works well, even spectacular. I'm wondering if nVidia is buying off more than we think. This has been going on for years and years now.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I want to know why when a game developer utilizes an Ati function, it's either flawed or non existent and when a game developer utilizes an nvidia function, it works well, even spectacular. I'm wondering if nVidia is buying off more than we think. This has been going on for years and years now.
Click to expand...

You're right, they are probably buying off more than we think. However, many games work properly with Eyefinity and one distinct Physx success is not enough to base victory on. Compare the number of games that work properly with eyefinity against the number of Physx games. Point being, I am having trouble understanding how Physx is being declared spectacular (with Batman as the only significant example) while Eyefinity is either flawed or non existent (with support for numerous titles). Hell, Nvidia even punishes the user for having a competitor's card installed in the system. The proper question is, when are game developers going to utilize Nvidia's function, because that is non existent.
 
Well lets be fair. There are numerous physX games. The main ones to utilize it I know of being Mirrors Edge and Batman. But there are more than two titles. My point is, the implementation works and it works 100%.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Well lets be fair. There are numerous physX games. The main ones to utilize it I know of being Mirrors Edge and Batman. But there are more than two titles. My point is, the implementation works and it works 100%.
Click to expand...

I think your over generalizing things. Nvidia are far from perfect in what they offer. There drivers are far from perfect. Not every game works flawlessly on every system and there are plenty of people complaining about Nv hardware. I can think of only 2 games that had decent physics and that was Batman and Mirror<s Edge and how long has Physx been avail for Nvidia gpus^^ and then how long has Eyefinity been up and running^.
 
I never once said nVidia as a company was perfect and their software is not perfect either. But from all the years I've tested things, their implementation in games is second to none. It just works. The only exception I can think of was with the FX series pixel shader.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Well lets be fair. There are numerous physX games. The main ones to utilize it I know of being Mirrors Edge and Batman. But there are more than two titles. My point is, the implementation works and it works 100%.
Click to expand...

Look -> http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_new.html

6 games and only 2 of them have any significant physx processing involved. Batman and Mirrors edge are only titles that even make significant use of physx and even then it is nothing more than some papers blowing around, or glass shattering. Physx only adds a bit of eyecandy, thats it.

Look -> http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-software.aspx

This is a game list of Eyefinity validated and ready games and this isn't even all inclusive. Countless games on this list run without any issue. We aren't talking about some papers blowing around or glass shattering either. We are talking about tripling the resolution that the person without eyefinity gets to play in. Most people are taking 1920x1200 and turning it into 3600x1920 or 5760x1200.

Hmm, some glass shards shatter in 2 titles or tripling my total screen resolution while adding peripheral vision into the equation. Man, that is a tough choice.

So being fair, there was the real comparison.

The fact is, Nvidia has more money to spend on R&D but that hardly places Physx ahead of Eyefinity in adaptation, developement, and execution. The numbers don't lie, and neither does the critical reception. The only ones that do lie are the countless brand loyalist who will justify, denounce, and besmirch the competitors name and product for the sake of doing so regardless of rational thought, reason, or evidence.
 
Many people can say the same of thier exp with ATI as well. Atm Im on a gtx285, but back when I was with ATI, I didnt have any issues whatsoever in playing the games I had. I never once had an issue. Infact all my ati cards are still in good working condition.

There are many people like me who have never had or almost never had any issues from both companies and for these people both deliver incredible products that most of the time peform up to par. Sure there are those that have had bad experiences and we here about them often in places such as Hardocp, Nvnews, Rage3d and others but that doesnt mean its like that for everyone.
 
Tripling the res in eyefinity is fine and dandy, but you can't throw on a bunch of AA. So basically a MSAA'ed 1920x10 is very competitive with a eyefinity res without. The eyefinity allows more screen real estate, it's very purpose. In the bioshock 2 vid Kyle says He is able to pull off about 30 fps with dips at 36XX res with max details on a 5970, but admits some of details should be dropped for smoother gameplay. This is without AA as far as I know. Kyle basically states this in the Bioshock2 vid.
 
Last edited:
overlord20 said:
What about when nvidia uses eyefinity (or similar feature) on there gf100s?
Click to expand...


Not one bit more or less interested in it. It's a user thing. I like the idea of tripling res and the bigger screen estate, but the cost and the bezels really bug me.
 
Nvidia invests in their TWIMTBP program. It helps sell hardware for them so they can spend more on R&D. Self serving? Yes but it works.
ATi could have gone the same route when the 9700 Pro was the clear winner. They choose not to or at least not spend anywhere near the same.

If selling a product, who would you attempt to please? Those with the larger market numbers or hope generic code will move your product against someone who finetunes their product for the larger market?

Right or wrong, they are all trying to make money bottom line.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I want to know why when a game developer utilizes an Ati function, it's either flawed or non existent and when a game developer utilizes an nvidia function, it works well, even spectacular. I'm wondering if nVidia is buying off more than we think. This has been going on for years and years now.
Click to expand...

Ugghhh, yeah no. Comparing Eyefinity with PhysX is a bad comparison to begin with ShuttleLuv. You'd be better to compare the implementation of Tessolation with the implementation of PhysX as both of these features are designed to improve visual effects and currently tessolation is only available on ATI cards as nVidia hasn't released Fermi.

In that case, Tessolation in Dirt 2 which received a lot of developer support from ATI has no bugs/issues/problems. Tessolation in Heaven benchmark? No issues/problems. Tessolation in AVP? No issues/problems, etc.

In addition, Eyefinity works on literately 20-30x more titles than PhysX does. Its much easier to find 1-2 examples of games that don't work perfectly when your looking at 500 games compared to looking at PhysX's six games. Really, it doesn't take a lot of food for though to figure this out and its kind of common sense ShuttleLuv.

If you look at most PhysX games, patches have been released for those games to fix 'issues' or 'bugs'. They were not flawless and with absolutely no issues that shine with a holy light emulating from the game's Halo above the main character's heads. Many products have bugs on launch that are fixed within the first 1-2 days or within the first week. Heck, there's a lot of xbox 360 games that if you buy it on launch day, put the disc into the system and 'poof' this title needs an update. If you give Bioshock 2 about 3 days or less it'll probably have working eyefinity landscape from either ATI, 2k games or the widescreen forum team. That's assuming we can convince those three groups to stop playing Mass Effect 2 for a bit :D.
 
Cool Vibrations said:
Not to mention that it's mandatory to have GF100 cards instead of one.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that getting your hands on even one GF100 card is hard as heck since they aren't even available.

Anyone want to keep this chain going and the next person can comment on the entry level price for surround view is more expensive :D than the ATI's entry level or concerns about wattage, heat production, etc :D?
 
WBurchnall said:
Ugghhh, yeah no. Comparing Eyefinity with PhysX is a bad comparison to begin with ShuttleLuv. You'd be better to compare the implementation of Tessolation with the implementation of PhysX as both of these features are designed to improve visual effects and currently tessolation is only available on ATI cards as nVidia hasn't released Fermi.

How so? Eyefinity is a feature aimed at drawing in gamers for Ati, PhysX is a feature aimed at drawing in gamers for nVidia.

In that case, Tessolation in Dirt 2 which received a lot of developer support from ATI has no bugs/issues/problems. Tessolation in Heaven benchmark? No issues/problems. Tessolation in AVP? No issues/problems, etc.

It's ok to tout that your cards DX11 is "working" in 3 titles, but not ok for me to tout that phyX is working in 4 titles (Mirrors Edge, Call of Juarez BIB, Batman, Dark Void) otherwise you say how it needed a patch. Has there been one game released that hasn't needed an Ati patch recently? Ati literally releases at least 5-10 patches a month be it for games or their own internal driver division.

In addition, Eyefinity works on literately 20-30x more titles than PhysX does. Its much easier to find 1-2 examples of games that don't work perfectly when your looking at 500 games compared to looking at PhysX's six games. Really, it doesn't take a lot of food for though to figure this out and its kind of common sense ShuttleLuv.

Working on 20-30 titles with widescreenfixer.exe from some joe blow that works at burger king part time is not official support. I think users who spend $400-1200 on gpu's deserve some "official" support.

If you look at most PhysX games, patches have been released for those games to fix 'issues' or 'bugs'. They were not flawless and with absolutely no issues that shine with a holy light emulating from the game's Halo above the main character's heads. Many products have bugs on launch that are fixed within the first 1-2 days or within the first week. Heck, there's a lot of xbox 360 games that if you buy it on launch day, put the disc into the system and 'poof' this title needs an update. If you give Bioshock 2 about 3 days or less it'll probably have working eyefinity landscape from either ATI, 2k games or the widescreen forum team. That's assuming we can convince those three groups to stop playing Mass Effect 2 for a bit :D.
Click to expand...

Many products do have bugs on release day, but thats a totally different story. We're talking Ati and nVidia here. Not an Xbox 360 console that has RROD or a game update released months later. In order for eyefinity to get big, it needs support from the big boys and to be working for the masses. Literally out of the box support, plug and play.
 
Last edited:
WBurchnall said:
Not to mention that getting your hands on even one GF100 card is hard as heck since they aren't even available.

Anyone want to keep this chain going and the next person can comment on the entry level price for surround view is more expensive :D than the ATI's entry level or concerns about wattage, heat production, etc :D?
Click to expand...


Don't turn this into a nvidia vs ati flame fest. It doesn't matter if the GTX 480 is out yet. The 5000 series IS out, has been for months, and games are still not working 100% with it out of the box. Patches have been much too plentiful with Ati recently, whether from their internal driver division or for games. They need to support this stuff out of the box. It has nothing to do with the GTX 480. Eyefinity has been out for awhile now and if it was so easy to implement, it would be 100% working out of the box on Bioshock 2. When people spend a thousand dollars on three monitors and four hundred to twelve hundred on videocards, they want instant, working, support out of the box for the feature they bought all of that stuff for. It's common sense.
 
what we need is ati to get cross fire working with eye infinity
he stated on the bioshock video it wasn't working if this happens then ati really have got nvidia up the wall
i don't see any nvidia system with 3 monitors running
an this is coming from a Intel and nvidia fan boy who may be just persuaded to move to ati for gpu anyway not sure about cpu as I'm running an e8500
 
but to what this thread is about do nvidia have more clout i would say yes as every game i play at start up shows nvidia the way it is ment to be played also main reasion i run nvidia
 
Kowan said:
Nvidia invests in their TWIMTBP program. It helps sell hardware for them so they can spend more on R&D. Self serving? Yes but it works.
ATi could have gone the same route when the 9700 Pro was the clear winner. They choose not to or at least not spend anywhere near the same.

If selling a product, who would you attempt to please? Those with the larger market numbers or hope generic code will move your product against someone who finetunes their product for the larger market?

Right or wrong, they are all trying to make money bottom line.
Click to expand...

Ever since the very first GForce GPU, Nvidia have been outselling everyone including ATI...even when they clearly had inferior tech they still outsold ATI due to thier mindshare. Back when ATI had the R300, Nvidia still outsold ATI with thier crappy FX. Thats how strong mindshare/marketing can be.

LOL even today...I wouldnt be surprised to find out that NV are still outselling ATI even though ATI have had DX11 hardware for close to 6 months and Nv have had nothing new. Mindshare/brand name recognition is something extremely difficult to overcome even when you have something your competitor doesnt.
 
Last edited:
ShuttleLuv said:
I sat and pondered this after watching the Bioshock 2 eyefinity video. Apparantly it works but not fully which is pretty much unacceptable in a brand new game months after the 5000 series release. Is it because of lazy developers or the fact that AMD/ATI just do not have the clout and buying power with game developers that nVidia does? For reference, nVidia secured physX pretty good with Batman. Just food for thought, no flames, no troll posts or I will request a mod to delete it.
Click to expand...

Its because Eyefinity is still exceedingly new and used by such a ridiculously small percentage of people it just isn't a priority for developers. It may be "months after the 5000 series release" for us, but developers very rarely add new features when a game is nearing release. This has nothing to do with ATI or Nvidia's developer relations. PhysX is a terrible comparison bordering on flame bait because developers choose to use PhysX and test against it throughout the development cycle. PhysX is also much, much older than Eyefinity, and you're cherry picked example used an API that was acquired by Nvidia 2 years ago. Also, PhysX is a multiplatform physics API that is free - you are blurring the distinction between software PhysX and hardware-accelerated PhysX. Developers choose the former because it is a decent library that is cross platform. Nvidia pays to have developers add a bit of the later as part of the TWIMTBP program. Adding extra effects for hardware-accelerated physics when you are already using the API is easy.

Eyefinity caught developers by surprise just as much as it caught us by surprise.

ShuttleLuv said:
I want to know why when a game developer utilizes an Ati function, it's either flawed or non existent and when a game developer utilizes an nvidia function, it works well, even spectacular. I'm wondering if nVidia is buying off more than we think. This has been going on for years and years now.
Click to expand...

Eyefinity isn't an ATI function. Developers don't make any Eyefinity calls. There isn't an Eyefinity API or library. The reason games work better with Eyefinity portrait vs. landscape is because portrait is closer to typical widescreen ARs and thus flaws in the engine's AR mechanism isn't as likely to be exposed.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Don't turn this into a nvidia vs ati flame fest. It doesn't matter if the GTX 480 is out yet. The 5000 series IS out, has been for months, and games are still not working 100% with it out of the box. Patches have been much too plentiful with Ati recently, whether from their internal driver division or for games. They need to support this stuff out of the box. It has nothing to do with the GTX 480. Eyefinity has been out for awhile now and if it was so easy to implement, it would be 100% working out of the box on Bioshock 2. When people spend a thousand dollars on three monitors and four hundred to twelve hundred on videocards, they want instant, working, support out of the box for the feature they bought all of that stuff for. It's common sense.
Click to expand...

Bioshock 2 has a locked FOV, which is likely the only thing holding it back from having Landscaped Eyefinity support. Portrait Eyefinity was working fine.
 
edifyingkarma said:
Look -> http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_new.html

6 games and only 2 of them have any significant physx processing involved. Batman and Mirrors edge are only titles that even make significant use of physx and even then it is nothing more than some papers blowing around, or glass shattering. Physx only adds a bit of eyecandy, thats it.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX#Title_support

that list is either outdated or nowhere near complete. There are a lot of titles that use it other than those 6. Trine, for example, uses physx extensively for it's core gameplay mechanics.

just wanted to point that out. Back to your regularly scheduled ATI/nVidia bashing :D
 
kllrnohj said:
Its because Eyefinity is still exceedingly new and used by such a ridiculously small percentage of people it just isn't a priority for developers. It may be "months after the 5000 series release" for us, but developers very rarely add new features when a game is nearing release. This has nothing to do with ATI or Nvidia's developer relations. PhysX is a terrible comparison bordering on flame bait because developers choose to use PhysX and test against it throughout the development cycle. PhysX is also much, much older than Eyefinity, and you're cherry picked example used an API that was acquired by Nvidia 2 years ago. Also, PhysX is a multiplatform physics API that is free - you are blurring the distinction between software PhysX and hardware-accelerated PhysX. Developers choose the former because it is a decent library that is cross platform. Nvidia pays to have developers add a bit of the later as part of the TWIMTBP program. Adding extra effects for hardware-accelerated physics when you are already using the API is easy.

Eyefinity caught developers by surprise just as much as it caught us by surprise.



Eyefinity isn't an ATI function. Developers don't make any Eyefinity calls. There isn't an Eyefinity API or library. The reason games work better with Eyefinity portrait vs. landscape is because portrait is closer to typical widescreen ARs and thus flaws in the engine's AR mechanism isn't as likely to be exposed.
Click to expand...

Eyeinfinty user precentage is probably at what 2 precent? Maybe less? Yes AMD made alot of noise about this feature but it'll take time to support. Gamers are so impatient when it comes to updates and patches .. while I agree support should be better on AMDs end I would like to point out that 3D vision has been out over a year now and is barely FULLY supported by developers.
 
dr.stevil said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX#Title_support

that list is either outdated or nowhere near complete. There are a lot of titles that use it other than those 6. Trine, for example, uses physx extensively for it's core gameplay mechanics.

just wanted to point that out. Back to your regularly scheduled ATI/nVidia bashing :D
Click to expand...

The person you quoted was probably meaning gpu accelerated games although I think there are one or two more.

Trine does not utilise gpu acceleration last time I checked.
 
I don't know if they have more clout, but they certainly spend more resources working with developers. Whether you see that as a cynical anti-competitive move or not, there is little doubt that Nvidia spends more time working directly with game developers.

Despite that I find that ATI game support has actually improved a little, but I refuse to buy a Crossfire setup - I already went down that path once, and I haven't read anything since to change my mind. Still I've been happy with my 5870 and the 4870 before that. My laptop mobility 5830 has a lot of game glitches though, there are no available new drivers from HP or ATI, and mobility mod does not yet support it so I can't use desktop drivers yet. I also have a GTX 260 and it tends to just work better in new games, even though it is not as fast. ATI will usually get there for popular games, so I keep an eye on the forums for the ATI all-clear before I dive into a new game on my 5870 rig.
 
Spyhawk said:
Ever since the very first GForce GPU, Nvidia have been outselling everyone including ATI...even when they clearly had inferior tech they still outsold ATI due to thier mindshare. Back when ATI had the R300, Nvidia still outsold ATI with thier crappy FX. Thats how strong mindshare/marketing can be.

LOL even today...I wouldnt be surprised to find out that NV are still outselling ATI even though ATI have had DX11 hardware for close to 6 months and Nv have had nothing new. Mindshare/brand name recognition is something extremely difficult to overcome even when you have something your competitor doesnt.
Click to expand...

Yep. Things like bad drivers in the early days of the 8500 and lower releases really gave ATI a bad image to the sorts of people who expect perfection the first time or they spit you back out and spite you saying they'll never buy X brand again.

That happens with everything from VPUs to hard drives to a mouse with those types of people. I personally like ATI more than Nvidia from the underdog standpoint along with the ridiculous driver cheating and FX fiasco back in the day, however having said that we need competition and I hope we always have it going strong back and forth. I'd definitely like to see ATI get a bit more level with Nvidia on the playing field in terms of supporting release games quicker and a better crossfire/profile setup, whether that happens due to ATI getting more money and more market share to spend on R&D or from Nvidia hitting back strong with the new Geforce series and forcing invention and revolution from ATI as a necessity.
 
necrophile said:
The person you quoted was probably meaning gpu accelerated games although I think there are one or two more.

Trine does not utilise gpu acceleration last time I checked.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you. AFAIK, physx will use whatever you let it use. Meaning that you can turn it off and force CPU physics calculations or turn it on and use the GPU to do physics calculations. Having a hardware PPU might not be required to use the features, but AFAIK, it will still use it if you have it setup to do so in the nvidia CP

I could be wrong, but that is how I understood it. Some games require you to have a GPU to run physics calculations while others will let you run it on the CPU (for ATI or pre-G80 nvidia cards) :)
 
Last edited:
Spyhawk said:
Many people can say the same of thier exp with ATI as well. Atm Im on a gtx285, but back when I was with ATI, I didnt have any issues whatsoever in playing the games I had. I never once had an issue. Infact all my ati cards are still in good working condition.

There are many people like me who have never had or almost never had any issues from both companies and for these people both deliver incredible products that most of the time peform up to par. Sure there are those that have had bad experiences and we here about them often in places such as Hardocp, Nvnews, Rage3d and others but that doesnt mean its like that for everyone.
Click to expand...

I kinda wonder if that's what puts people in these fanboy camps. Do I use Nvidia? sure. Am I gonna defend them to the death and rant on and on about whats wrong with competition? No. I mean who cares? If something like eyefinity comes down the line and sells me on getting an Ati card big deal. I'm getting a little tired of people recommending things without looking at need and cost. Even manufacturer. There's a whole thread going on about how much somebody hates Diamond. Maybe I don't trust them but that not gonna stop be from referring to a Diamond deal if cost is an issue. I feel like we need an abuse rule in place that says you cant recommend a card without stating a deal or a reason why that one best suits the OP.
 
Eyefinity isn't an ATI function. Developers don't make any Eyefinity calls. There isn't an Eyefinity API or library. The reason games work better with Eyefinity portrait vs. landscape is because portrait is closer to typical widescreen ARs and thus flaws in the engine's AR mechanism isn't as likely to be exposed.
Click to expand...

My bad, my bad programming guy. I meant "feature". :rolleyes:
 
dr.stevil said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX#Title_support

that list is either outdated or nowhere near complete. There are a lot of titles that use it other than those 6. Trine, for example, uses physx extensively for it's core gameplay mechanics.

just wanted to point that out. Back to your regularly scheduled ATI/nVidia bashing :D
Click to expand...

We are talking Nvidia's Physx GPU acceleration here people, not the quantity of games that make use of any sorts of physics. The whole point of the debate is a comparison of the utilization of Nvidia's Physx compared to ATI's eyefinity. If you visit the Nvidia link, you'll see for your self, there are 6 games the currently support Nvidia's GPU accelerated physx. This has nothing to do with the total number of games that make use of any software, CPU accelerated physics, as Nvidia's proprietary Physx has nothing to do with your list. Unless you are claiming that Nvidia's website is wrong concerning their on proprietary technology of which they base a substantial portion of their marketing on, that list is complete. Only 2 games on that list make use of any substantial Physx processing and those 2 are Batman, and Mirror's Edge.

Just wanted to point that out.

There is no bashing involved here, only comparisons based on factual information directly from their original sources.

The OP denounced ATI's eyefinity as being either broken or non existent. The OP boasted that Nvidia's physx works well, or even spectacular. The point is, claiming that Physx is spectacular and more prominant than Eyefinity when only 2 major titles make any real use of the technology at all is false, especially when Eyefinity has approx. 10x-15x more titles than Nvidia that utilize Eyefinity without any problem what so ever.

The comparison:

Nvidia: 6 titles with Physx support with only 2 titles making significant use of the technology. Disables the use of Physx when a competitor's card is detected installed. Add some eyecandy such has broken glass shards, blowing papers, ect. Nvidia's webpage below
http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_new.html

ATI: Supports Eyefinity with 3 monitors running on one video card. Triples the total resolution that users with only one monitor get to use. 27 validated and eyefinity ready titles, with support for many others. Tripling the resolution allows the user to utilize wrap around peripheral vision in landscape, displays an incredibly high definition image. ATI's webpage below
http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity.aspx


With all facts considered, the conclusion should be obvious

If you are still having trouble considering the evidence, PLEASE visit both Nvidia's, and ATI's website above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top