First test of 5870?

Status
Not open for further replies.
necrophile said:
You do realise that nothing in any game released actually needs physx, just like no game actually needed the ageia PPU.

When you need to manipulate a users experience to make it seem worth it as much as they have to, you know it's bad.
Click to expand...

Right, but it definitely adds to the experience. Watch the Batman physx demo video, the physx in batman adds a ton to the game where as some may just add extra particles for explosions, Batman actually benefits quite alot graphically from Physx.

Heres a link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
 
Yes, but it is graphics, nothing that affects gameplay so nothing which requires any physics to work. If it doesn't affect the game it doesn't require any physics.

To say otherwise is crazy.
 
dnottis said:
Right, but it definitely adds to the experience. Watch the Batman physx demo video, the physx in batman adds a ton to the game where as some may just add extra particles for explosions, Batman actually benefits quite alot graphically from Physx.

Heres a link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
Click to expand...




If anything that link proves what bullshit the whole PhysX/NVidia is. Yes those effects add to the game, but there is for sure no damn good reason why it can't be done without PhysX/NVidia hardware. Batman does nothing I haven't seen before on weaker hardware (console's espcially.)

Originally Posted by necrophile
You do realise that nothing in any game released actually needs physx, just like no game actually needed the ageia PPU.

When you need to manipulate users to make it seem they have to have PhysX/NVidia hardware to get effects that have been done before without, you know it's bad.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
Debating the merits of the tech is pretty pointless since you have no control over that. All you have control over is whether you take advantage of the extra eyecandy that is available only on the Nvidia side.

Does Batman look nicer with the cool little atmospheric effects? Yes. Would I even care had I never heard of PhysX and just went on my merry way? No.

However, since we are all human beings, and all of us here know that we will be missing out on something if we go the ATI route, then we get the kind of sour grapes griping we see in this thread.
 
King Icewind said:
Meh, looks good but its benched against 2 year old hardware, lol.

I believe it will change once Nvidia gets its butt in gear and releases their new video cards.
Click to expand...

this.....signed im dissapointed ATI couldnt put out a bigger increase in performance than this, its sad i hope the gt300 comes out in the next 9 months and is a real upgrade in performance.........or im gonna have my 260 for a long time
 
dnottis said:
Right, but it definitely adds to the experience. Watch the Batman physx demo video, the physx in batman adds a ton to the game where as some may just add extra particles for explosions, Batman actually benefits quite alot graphically from Physx.

Heres a link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
Click to expand...
dynamic paper lol nvdia must be sad this days i can't believe how they use there physx advantage and that steam and fog was ultimate bs so we need physx for steam ? :rolleyes:
 
RM_Bulldog said:
this.....signed im dissapointed ATI couldnt put out a bigger increase in performance than this, its sad i hope the gt300 comes out in the next 9 months and is a real upgrade in performance.........or im gonna have my 260 for a long time
Click to expand...
uhm its nearly 2 times faster than your gtx 260 how that dissapoints u thats what i don't understand. gtx 280 was slower than 9800gx2 when it first came out so that was dissapointment too ? you think that every new generation will be like 3 time faster than old one or something ? better wake up from your dream i say
 
AthlonXP said:
Honestly Physx really is a bunch of crap.
Click to expand...

Careful, At###'s blood pressure is spiking! (At### always comes to attack anybody who says something bad about Physx, under the guise of 'Presenting the Truth").

Right.

Like Darkest of Days really needed physx.

how come Crysis could produce such great looking explosions, while darkest of days...

anyhow, before an aneurism occurs.



On the other hand, I wonder how do these people sneak info out from under a NDA?
 
Creig said:
What I doubt is that Nvidia would put forth as much effort into optimizing PhysX on ATI's behalf as their own if ATI were to license PhysX. Somehow I have the feeling that ATI's performance would always be one step behind that of Nvidia's, even should ATI's hardware be shown to be capable of better performance. And apparently ATI feels the same.
Click to expand...

Obviously you would think that way. It's not surprising that an ATI fan thinks that NVIDIA would be doing such a thing and I guess it makes sense from the fanboy perspective. However, you don't know how a license works and maybe you should read about it ? A license is a binding contract between at least two parites and it must be respected on the terms of the agreement. Not respecting the agreement, means severe penalties for the party that didn't respect it.

Creig said:
Apparently you and I see things differently as I don't think PhysX acceptance is increasing much at all. And now with the ATI lockout, I don't doubt developers will be spending even less time and money for PhysX coding. After all, why spend valuable resources on effects that will only be seen by a small percentage of your potential customer base?
Click to expand...

It seems you have absolutely no understanding of how PhysX works, but you obviously assume many things about it. There's no special or major additional effort or resource spending in terms of development, though obviously both NVIDIA and the developer need to work closely, to fine tune the drivers. The physics calculations are done according to the hardware resources available. If GPU Physics is enabled, more resources are available to compute more complex physics effects. If it's not enabled, then it defaults to the CPU and the complexity of the physics simulations is scaled down to what the CPU can handle.

Also, here's a graph for your viewing. PhysX is not only increasing in adoption, but is actually the number one Physics API at this point.

http://www.bulletphysics.com/wordpress/?p=88

Creig said:
Please see above regarding my opinion of Nvidia's potential commitment levels in ensuring PhysX would run at peak performance levels on ATI products.
Click to expand...

Please see above to understand why you need to know what a license is.

Creig said:
So you responded to what you perceive as an OT comment with another OT comment? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much like you did right here, instead of taking it to the physics sub-forum as I suggested :)
 
Matrices said:
Debating the merits of the tech is pretty pointless since you have no control over that. All you have control over is whether you take advantage of the extra eyecandy that is available only on the Nvidia side.

Does Batman look nicer with the cool little atmospheric effects? Yes. Would I even care had I never heard of PhysX and just went on my merry way? No.

However, since we are all human beings, and all of us here know that we will be missing out on something if we go the ATI route, then we get the kind of sour grapes griping we see in this thread.
Click to expand...

This

/thread....or should I say /of thread jack
 
Can't wait for physx to go ahead and die so an open solution will start being used. Its no better than MS or Sony buying the rights to have exclusive DLC for games. If anything it makes me dislike Nvidia for being underhanded.
 
It's kind of like the EAX/AL debacle, except that while good non-Creative soundcards can do open AL or emulate EAX, ATI has no alternative to or emulation of PhysX.
 
dnottis said:
Batman actually benefits quite alot graphically from Physx.

Heres a link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
Click to expand...
Wow, a few pieces of paper blowing in the wind, that really blew me way. NOT! And since when did they need hardware physx to do steam, give me a break (just look at the smoke in COD4 on the *consoles*, end of story). And I wanted Physx to work so bad (I'm one of the stupids that bought the Ageia Physx card) but sadly its just a bunch of BS. All it does is kill the framerate while producing crappy looking physics, I could write a better engine myself in just software. I mean, look at the CPU physics in Crysis, much better than some piece of paper on the ground. Or look at what Lucasarts was able to do on the consoles 2 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE4k9Vmcp5g

Maybe Nvidia can get those ex-Ageia devs to do a ground up re-write of the Physx software but really what they have is just broken and no amount of tri-SLI high-end video cards is going to save a crap implementation.
 
cybereality said:
Wow, a few pieces of paper blowing in the wind, that really blew me way. NOT! And since when did they need hardware physx to do steam, give me a break (just look at the smoke in COD4 on the *consoles*, end of story). And I wanted Physx to work so bad (I'm one of the stupids that bought the Ageia Physx card) but sadly its just a bunch of BS. All it does is kill the framerate while producing crappy looking physics, I could write a better engine myself in just software. I mean, look at the CPU physics in Crysis, much better than some piece of paper on the ground. Or look at what Lucasarts was able to do on the consoles 2 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE4k9Vmcp5g

Maybe Nvidia can get those ex-Ageia devs to do a ground up re-write of the Physx software but really what they have is just broken and no amount of tri-SLI high-end video cards is going to save a crap implementation.
Click to expand...


Show me Lucasarts doing cloth...or Crysis...I dare you :)
 
risqu3 said:
woosh.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If there can be made ingorant statements comparing apples to oranges, then I would like to se apples to apples...correcting the ignorance...but that is wrong? *LOL*

Anyone show me dynamic cloth, in-game, not driven by PhysX?
No?

Guess that answers the question about what is possible on the CPU then...all you have to do to prove me wrong is to show in-game dynamic cloth.

No red herrings, no wall of text, no FUD...just show me...until then, such chicken to motorbikes comaparisons only goes to shows the ignorance (about physics) of those making such claims.

Show me...
 
Atech said:
If there can be made ingorant statements comparing apples to oranges, then I would like to se apples to apples...correcting the ignorance...but that is wrong? *LOL*

Anyone show me dynamic cloth, in-game, not driven by PhysX?
No?

Guess that answers the question about what is possible on the CPU then...all you have to do to prove me wrong is to show in-game dynamic cloth.

No red herrings, no wall of text, no FUD...just show me...until then, such chicken to motorbikes comaparisons only goes to shows the ignorance (about physics) of those making such claims.

Show me...
Click to expand...

Did any game really need/want dynamic cloth?

UFC 2009 Undisputed. (Havok [Intel])

It adds to the game experience.

Alot.

Fancy blood.

Sexy boxer shorts.

EDIT: What a shame it was released before Batman Arkham Asylum
 
Last edited:
jeremyshaw said:
Did any game really need/want dynamic cloth?

UFC 2009 Undisputed. (Havok [Intel])

It adds to the game experience.

Alot.

Fancy blood.

Sexy boxer shorts.

EDIT: What a shame it was released before Batman Arkham Asylum
Click to expand...

Can't forget the games that have done it on inferior hardware. (Especially Consoles)
 
The Wii Charaters were supposed to use Havok for cloth simulations (dunno where that went).
 
martinmsj said:
Can't forget the games that have done it on inferior hardware. (Especially Consoles)
Click to expand...

*LOL*
I just wacthed som gameplay videos...if that is your "rebuttal"...I rest my case :)

.oO(Wonder when consoles will get tearbale cloth...and dynamic smoke..oh I know...next generation :rolleyes:)

In the mean time, lets look at the past, anno 2006:
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdviWZcphcIQ

But it is nice to know that in a closed arena, havok can almost pull of interactive cloth...on the small scale...I guess?
 
Atech said:
*LOL*
I just wacthed som gameplay videos...if that is your "rebuttal"...I rest my case :)

.oO(Wonder when consoles will get tearbale cloth...and dynamic smoke..oh I know...next generation :rolleyes:)

In the mean time, lets look at the past, anno 2006:
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdviWZcphcIQ

But it is nice to know that in a closed arena, havok can almost pull of interactive cloth...on the small scale...I guess?
Click to expand...


Rebuttal? Atech don't bother replying to me especially from what ever high horse you're riding on. I've seen your post and you stink of "fanboy-ism" that I dont' care to deal with. Consoles have done flowing cloth, dynamic breakable tiles etc.. It's been done. Keep playing yourself into thinking "it can't be done without physx and NV hardware."

I could care less.
 
Atech said:
*LOL*
I just wacthed som gameplay videos...if that is your "rebuttal"...I rest my case :)

.oO(Wonder when consoles will get tearbale cloth...and dynamic smoke..oh I know...next generation :rolleyes:)

In the mean time, lets look at the past, anno 2006:
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdviWZcphcIQ

But it is nice to know that in a closed arena, havok can almost pull of interactive cloth...on the small scale...I guess?
Click to expand...

I know, it's not like Havok has been used in over 100 titles.
 
martinmsj said:
Rebuttal? Atech don't bother replying to me especially from what ever high horse you're riding on. I've seen your post and you stink of "fanboy-ism" that I dont' care to deal with. Consoles have done flowing cloth, dynamic breakable tiles etc.. It's been done. Keep playing yourself into thinking "it can't be done without physx and NV hardware."

I could care less.
Click to expand...

Show me..all I ask for.
 
OpenCL and Gulftown. That's where the physics are.

Impressive bench. I think I'm going to buy a 5850 or wait for the 2010 Q1 cards....
 
Yossarian22 said:
OpenCL and Gulftown. That's where the physics are.
Click to expand...

OpenCL and Gulftown are not interlinked?
and my old 8000GT would still beat a +4Ghz 6core/12threads CPU in physcis?

OpenCL dosn't have a physics library...so a OpenCL driver would do...*ta-da* nothing.

Sure you don't want to refrase your post, because it makes no sense?
 
Atech said:
That was done in 2006 on the PPU, what is your point(small scale collisions(sub 10.000 obejcts))?
Here, let me re-educate you:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376657

There is even this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1410746

Let me know if this is over your level of technical insight?
Click to expand...

No, I'm a computer scientist and I doubt you could program you way out of a paper bag, let alone come up with design and build a serious application from the ground up, or even come up with an effective algorithm for any sort of problem.

"In fact Mark Randel, "head coder" for the Infernal Engine made it pretty clear that he thought that physics should be handled by the CPU and the GPU left for processing graphics." - Kyle
Click to expand...

Regardless, use GPU shader SIMD power to render rippling cloth and drops of water.
I know it's more complex but... big deal? I think the Infernal Velocity stuff with destructive environments and thousands of physics objects interacting with each other is way more interesting. Plus, it doesn't take away from my visual IQ because it has to do vector calculations, instead it taxes the you know, central processing unit. Not the graphical processing unit. I don't even have a boner for physics in the first place. I'm happy with the level of physics in the Source engine or ARMA II. (note: these games don't require PhysX and run perfectly fine physics simulations)

Hell, I'm sure even Kyle Bennett will agree with me. Speaking of which, I should probably give him a ring since you're doing a mighty bit of thread crapping, trolling, and generally bringing threads way off topic around the Video Cards part of the forum. Sounds like some infractions are in order, no?

So yeah, the Evergreen series looks like it's going to kick ass. If not, Nvidia will just come back with something to lower the prices of the 5xxx, which makes it an even more sweeter victory for the consumer.
 
Last edited:
Yossarian22 said:
No, I'm a computer scientist and I doubt you could program you way out of a paper bag, let alone come up with design and build a serious application from the ground up, or even come up with an effective algorithm for any sort of problem.
Click to expand...

Actually I can program, but that is not the point.
the point, strange as it may be, is why you considered ~3000 boxes collinding as a good arguments, when:
- It's one of the easiset form of physics to do.
- It's been surpassed...in the past none the less, by both PPU and GPU physcis



Regardless, use GPU shader SIMD power to render rippling cloth and drops of water.
I know it's more complex but... big deal? I think the Infernal Velocity stuff with destructive environments and thousands of physics objects interacting with each other is way more interesting. Plus, it doesn't take away from my visual IQ because it has to do vector calculations, instead it taxes the you know, central processing unit. Not the graphical processing unit. I don't even have a boner for physics in the first place. I'm happy with the level of physics in the Source engine or ARMA II. (note: these games don't require PhysX and run perfectly fine physics simulations)

Hell, I'm sure even Kyle Bennett will agree with me. Speaking of which, I should probably give him a ring since you're doing a mighty bit of thread crapping, trolling, and generally bringing threads way off topic around the Video Cards part of the forum. Sounds like some infractions are in order, no?

So yeah, the Evergreen series looks like it's going to kick ass. If not, Nvidia will just come back with something to lower the prices of the 5xxx, which makes it an even more sweeter victory for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Well, let begin...after sorting out the crap in your reply.
ARMA2 dosn't have great physics..a rock can flip an APC/AFV
Source Engine is no where near the level we are talking about here...but I can understand how progress can scare some people.

Now tell me:
Is physcis SIMD heavy yes/no?
What is best for SIMD CPU/GPU?
What is the performance ratio when comparing CPU to GPU physics?

My own tests have shown the difference to be unplayable(CPU) to playable(GPU).

I would like to see what data you have to the opposite?

Like I have said before:
Show me...not empty words.
 
Like I stated before:
AMD GPU users will start praising GPU physcis...as long as it isn't PhysX :D
 
Atech, shut up!
Just shut up or start your own thread if you want to discuss GPU physics, it's way way off topic for this thread and you are getting very annoying.
 
Wolfkin said:
Atech, shut up!
Just shut up or start your own thread if you want to discuss GPU physics, it's way way off topic for this thread and you are getting very annoying.
Click to expand...

So there will be no GPU physics on the R800 series?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top