• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Project CARS Devs Address AMD Performance Issues

Dayaks said:
As mope indicated if Physx can be disabled I see no issue here.
Click to expand...
Its been brought up multiple times in the thread, you can't turn it off. Nor is it reasonable to expect AMD to fix Physx CPU performance (or lack thereof).

But even if you could, it still doesn't give them a right to play stupid and pretend they don't know what the problem is, that AMD is unresponsive (which was also a lie), and that its all AMD's fault when the fault is with the NVidia product... an apparent intentional "feature" that its crippled on non-Nvidia hardware, the same as them artificially disabling PhysX when a second non-NVidia card is detected... the fear obviously being that they don't want people using a competitor's APUs or flagship expensive product, and just relegating a cheap used NVidia card bought on craigslist for Physx functionality. Surely also more of an issue in Windows 10 which I understood would allow hybrid graphics cards to work together in unison, being vendor agnostic.

These business practices are bad for the consumer, and its ridiculous to place the blame on intel and AMD with this Nvidia Sabotageworks title... which they couldn't be more blatant about if they tried:
CEcamQpWIAEgWW7.jpg:large


"NVidia has not paid us a penny" they say, with NVidia logos spammed throughout the game... Right.
 
There is no setting to disable PhysX.
You can only reduce its use by reducing image quality settings.
I dont know how much impact that has though.
 
Dayaks said:
As mope indicated if Physx can be disabled I see no issue here. Didn't pay the premium for nVidia, no Physx for you. It's like wanting Ford to make their interactive software tech open source. They're hurting the industry not doing it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It just means the developer loses out on a slice of the gaming market, which is fine, that's their call, they can pick whatever development tools and sponsors to go with.

But it's intellectually dishonest for them to complain about lack of support for something they knew was only available from that sponsor. Sounds like a shady PR stunt to me.
 
Wierdo said:
The same cannot be said for nVidia or AMD, if one of them controls the middleware and controls the path between DirectX and the drivers with a blackbox then it can potentially lock the market, you can put all sorts of things in there and no one could do anything about it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, your typical dev is not going to be very good at developing games for modern GPUs. Even John Carmack relied on the GPU vendors to make his engines work well, and he's kind of a smart guy.

You need to have the GPU engineers working with you to make the best optimizations. That's why things like Gameworks can be so beneficial to developers.

The question is, where is AMD? Where is AMD's version of PhysX or Gameworks that devs can plug in to make fancy effects and best optimizations for AMD's GPUs? Or do people expect that nvidia should invest their R&D budget into making these technologies and then let AMD enjoy the gains for free?
 
If physx can't be completely disabled and it cripples performance on non Nvidia cards to the point where a 760 beats a 290x then they need to put a disclaimer on the box or store front warning AMD users that the game is crippled for them. the recommended system requirements are a blatant lie as it stands, how is the 7000 series recommended when the 290 series runs like complete garbage. The devs can disable physx for consoles, so why can't they give pc users the option to do the same?
 
I'm thinking this is demonstrative of the tendency to focus on the GPU on these issues. One could simply ignore the AMD GPU in the system and say nvidia Physx needs to be fixed to work better on CPUs or blame the CPU for not being able to manage the physx calculations well. But due to the current way we think, everybody jumps on AMD. Well, I guess they are the easiest since their GPU is often the common variable even if its not their own performance that is the issue.
 
jwcalla said:
To be honest, your typical dev is not going to be very good at developing games for modern GPUs. Even John Carmack relied on the GPU vendors to make his engines work well, and he's kind of a smart guy.

You need to have the GPU engineers working with you to make the best optimizations. That's why things like Gameworks can be so beneficial to developers.

The question is, where is AMD? Where is AMD's version of PhysX or Gameworks that devs can plug in to make fancy effects and best optimizations for AMD's GPUs? Or do people expect that nvidia should invest their R&D budget into making these technologies and then let AMD enjoy the gains for free?
Click to expand...

If AMD had a version of physx would you advocate the developer spend double time putting BOTH into the game?

As for gameworks, AMD has the tech and tools, it just doesn't package it like "gameworks". TressFX, shadow tech etc etc. To be honest most of gameworks is silly crap like that that's not really important but does serve, due to how its packaged, to screw AMD.

Both AMD and nvidia invest in these things, the difference is how they both do it. You hear a lot about nvidias gameworks because it screws AMD over consistently. You don't hear about AMD as much because it doesn't cause this kind of controversy.

All anybody asks of nvidia is to not make tech that negatively impacts AMD and as consumers we should all be championing this sentiment because nvidias practices are not just against AMD, they are against us as consumers who want choice. I don't care for nvidias gameworks, was disappointed with it on my 970. Nobody wants them to help amd, they want them to stop sabotaging amd.
 
PRIME1 said:
Look at Batman Arkham Asylum or Starcraft 2. How come it took AMD so long to get something as simple as anti-aliasing working. How come they don't have a release driver for GTAV? How come Freesync does not work with crossfire? The list is near endless and goes back years, even before Gameworks.

AMD claims they can fix this problem with Project cars. Which means they clearly neglected it. Like so many other games.

Vote with your dollar, don't buy their crap until they provide a finished product out of the box. Having to rely on half baked beta drivers and false promises of "coming soon" features is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

What about SC2? It runs like dog poo on many systems, cpu or gpu.
 
Lol @ the people comparing this to mantle.

You see how you don't have a option to turn on mantle if you use a nvidia card?? That's because it's a amd feature. Your Game still works perfectly fine on dx11, but if you use amd you get a extra feature.


You see how in this game there is no option to turn on or off the physx?? That is crippling the competition. This is no different to if amd had gotten dice to release bf4 with mantle only. Would the nvidia guys have supported that?? After all its not amds job to develop mantle for nvidia.

It's funny how when bf4 released and worked fine for me with amd but not on nvidia the same people were saying "the gae is broken, fix the game" , now it's the other way around and the same people say "amds drivers suck, time for amd to fold" Lol. Hypocritical.


This isn't good for gamers. It's great for fanboys but not good for gamers. At this rate I am better off playing it on my 750ti over my r9 290.. Which is a joke.
 
jwcalla said:
The question is, where is AMD? Where is AMD's version of PhysX or Gameworks that devs can plug in to make fancy effects and best optimizations for AMD's GPUs? Or do people expect that nvidia should invest their R&D budget into making these technologies and then let AMD enjoy the gains for free?
Click to expand...

In regards to PhysX, the answer is DirectCompute. Which can be used by any vendor that's compliant with it.
 
PRIME1 said:
Look at Batman Arkham Asylum or Starcraft 2. How come it took AMD so long to get something as simple as anti-aliasing working. How come they don't have a release driver for GTAV? How come Freesync does not work with crossfire? The list is near endless and goes back years, even before Gameworks.

AMD claims they can fix this problem with Project cars. Which means they clearly neglected it. Like so many other games.

Vote with your dollar, don't buy their crap until they provide a finished product out of the box. Having to rely on half baked beta drivers and false promises of "coming soon" features is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I have voted with my dollar. I will not buy Nvidias overpriced, proprietary crap.
 
jwcalla said:
To be honest, your typical dev is not going to be very good at developing games for modern GPUs. Even John Carmack relied on the GPU vendors to make his engines work well, and he's kind of a smart guy.
Click to expand...

Well yes, GPU vendors have to write drivers that translate DirectX/OpenGL calls to native GPU code, Engine developers handle the calls on top of that, and then come game developers that mold the engine to their needs, everyone has their place in this process.

Gameworks sits between DX and the driver, it's a convenience not a necessity, we have open standards that handle these things already, the main reason for using Gameworks is to lock the product to a specific vendor, ala DirectX for Windows.

You need to have the GPU engineers working with you to make the best optimizations. That's why things like Gameworks can be so beneficial to developers.
Click to expand...

GPU engineers optimize their drivers for DirectX/OpenGL, their job is not to optimize for a competitor's proprietary tools, the developer chose to lock themselves into this, was not AMD's fault here.

Gameworks can be beneficial if it was open, but as a proprietary DRM kludge between drivers and the DirectX layer it's not wise to limit your project with it - barring sponsorship arrangements.

The question is, where is AMD? Where is AMD's version of PhysX or Gameworks that devs can plug in to make fancy effects and best optimizations for AMD's GPUs? Or do people expect that nvidia should invest their R&D budget into making these technologies and then let AMD enjoy the gains for free?
Click to expand...

You mean the open industry standard called OpenCL for example? That's the pro-consumer way to approach it, open standards that don't lock out the competition and make it easy for companies to optimize around because it's not a competitor's black box.
 
semitope said:
All anybody asks of nvidia is to not make tech that negatively impacts AMD and as consumers we should all be championing this sentiment because nvidias practices are not just against AMD, they are against us as consumers who want choice. I don't care for nvidias gameworks, was disappointed with it on my 970. Nobody wants them to help amd, they want them to stop sabotaging amd.
Click to expand...

THIS. I'm glad someone's using their head and sees the big picture. We're the ones getting screwed with these proprietary DRM-like plugs in the long run here. I use an nVidia card but I'm not an idiot, I see anti-market stuff for what it is, and I don't wanna end up with less options down the line.
 
Nenu said:
A raw programming language is nothing like the same.
There are no standardised proven physics routines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectCompute
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. So when the dust clears, then it looks like the developers went with a solution that already exists to achieve a vision they had. They probably knew they would alienate some customers, but that's why there are other racers for us to use.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Thank you for the clarification. So when the dust clears, then it looks like the developers went with a solution that already exists to achieve a vision they had. They probably knew they would alienate some customers, but that's why there are other racers for us to use.
Click to expand...

Maybe but by no means certain.
One of many possibilities.

For example, they may need more compute power than CPUs can give to get the accuracy they want to achieve.
Iterative processes increasing precision take exponentially more processing which is why PhysX on GPU was created.
Stream processors are much better suited to the task and GPUs have tons of them.
This saves the CPU for other tasks it needs to do.
 
Nenu said:
There is no setting to disable PhysX.
You can only reduce its use by reducing image quality settings.
I dont know how much impact that has though.
Click to expand...
While there does not seem to be a specific checkbox to turn physx on/off there most certainly is a way to turn physics down:

via command line options:
Number of physics threads:
-pthreads 1 / -pthreads 2 / -pthreads 3 / -pthreads 4
• Default physics threads = 2
Click to expand...
among other tweaks to turn down the graphics settings here
http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...Launch-Options&p=892188&viewfull=1#post892188

or ingame options:
Reflections: Self Explanatory - This is one of the overkill features. It looks nice indeed, but beware of performance!. Settings are off,low, med, high, ultra. Start with LOW even on high end system, If you drive Cockpit or bumper cam, you will *almost* not notice any graphical difference when keeping this to LOW.
Environment Map: Related to reflections. - Same statement as before applies. Start with LOW
Particle Level: Self Explanatory - Normally doesn't affects too much the performance since it only works when you see smoke, dirt, etc. Medium for start is fine
Particle Density: Same as before Medium
Streched Headlight Reflections: Reflections of head and taillights in the asphalt. Looks Awesome! Specially in wet conditions. Performance impact is medium. Try with this setting ON as first
Click to expand...
http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...ical-TroubleShooting-Steps-WIP-NO-CHAT-PLEASE

The developers also posted the main settings that impact in-game physics so people could reduce them and regain the desired performance.

Now, you can choose to believe the people playing the game and the developers, or the people in this thread who have argued:

you can't turn physx off, but even if you could it's not right that AMD users can't use physx.

physx should be available to everyone, but it's not an important feature anyway so nVidia sucks for developing it

physics should be calculated on the CPU, shame on nVidia for developing GPU accelerated physics

and the in a tough decision over which one of those statements is the most ridiculous, the grandaddy of them all:
GameWorks is DRM (but DirectX is nothing like GameWorks and MicroSoft is nothing like nVidia because...reasons)
 
mope54 said:
While there does not seem to be a specific checkbox to turn physx on/off there most certainly is a way to turn physics down
Click to expand...
You just repeated verbatim who you quoted.

Yes, we understand we can turn the graphics quality down.

Yes, it sucks that NVidia has crippled performance of their product on non-NVidia devices (Intel processors/GPUs, and AMD APUs/GPUs).

Yes, it sucks that a NVidia sponsored Sabotageworks title has integrated physx into the core of their game, knowing full well that Physx by design sucks on CPUs, can't be offloaded to a NVidia card for physx only using a AMD primary GPU, and can't run on AMD GPUs, requiring the use of a dedicated NVidia GPU.

Yes, it sucks that the NVidia sponsored developer publicly lied about AMD being out of communication.

Yes, it sucks that the NVidia sponsored developer blamed AMD drivers, knowing that AMD drivers have no ability to offload Physx from the processor and no tweaking on AMD's side can possibly fix a problem inherent and by design with Physx.

No, we don't have this problem with most games.

Yes, it sucks that the NVidia sponsored developer would choose to alienate the entire non-NVidia playerbase by requiring usage of NVidia proprietary technology.
 
mope54 said:
While there does not seem to be a specific checkbox to turn physx on/off there most certainly is a way to turn physics down:

via command line options:

among other tweaks to turn down the graphics settings here
http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...Launch-Options&p=892188&viewfull=1#post892188

or ingame options:

http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...ical-TroubleShooting-Steps-WIP-NO-CHAT-PLEASE

The developers also posted the main settings that impact in-game physics so people could reduce them and regain the desired performance.

Now, you can choose to believe the people playing the game and the developers, or the people in this thread who have argued:

you can't turn physx off, but even if you could it's not right that AMD users can't use physx.

physx should be available to everyone, but it's not an important feature anyway so nVidia sucks for developing it

physics should be calculated on the CPU, shame on nVidia for developing GPU accelerated physics

and the in a tough decision over which one of those statements is the most ridiculous, the grandaddy of them all:
GameWorks is DRM (but DirectX is nothing like GameWorks and MicroSoft is nothing like nVidia because...reasons)
Click to expand...

There is nothing logical about what you just said, only emotion and illogic. You can not turn PhysX off, period. Off is off, not down but off. The dev blamed AMD but it has been proven with facts that they used Nvidia Gameworks exclusively and locked it in so it could not be turned off.

If you want to support that with your dollars, go for it. Me, I have better things to spend my money on like running shoes and racing. I do not have to concern myself with someone lying to me about my running, it is all in the effort I put into it.
 
ManofGod said:
There is nothing logical about what you just said, only emotion and illogic. You can not turn PhysX off, period. Off is off, not down but off. The dev blamed AMD but it has been proven with facts that they used Nvidia Gameworks exclusively and locked it in so it could not be turned off.

If you want to support that with your dollars, go for it. Me, I have better things to spend my money on like running shoes and racing. I do not have to concern myself with someone lying to me about my running, it is all in the effort I put into it.
Click to expand...
You turn the rain down from Ultra (physX on) to medium (physx off) :rolleyes:
 
I haven't seen an actual physX checkbox since I think Batman

even borderlands was physx high (on the gpu) vs. low (on the cpu)

maybe developers need to have less faith in their customers because apparently people just roll their faces across their settings pages and when they look up at their screens can't understand why their game is running sluggishly
 
mope54 said:
You turn the rain down from Ultra (physX on) to medium (physx off) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about. The entire engine is rooted in Physx, much of it offloaded to NVidia GPUs. If you can't offload it, as shown in tests, framerates plummet. This is not an Intel or AMD problem, its a problem (or NVidia anti-competition feature, if you want to call it that) with Physx, and no medium graphics settings does not "turn off" physx. You can only reduce the most physx intensive settings in order to gain some framerates back, since racing games are unplayable with low framerates.

The fact remains that far superior non-Nvidia hardware is crippled thanks to the choices made by the NVidia sponsored developer, and the developer lied about it publicly as the cherry on top. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine, everyone can have an opinion. But you don't get to rewrite history or make up nonsense, and don't pretend that AMD can fix Physx CPU code in GW locked libraries with a driver update.
 
mope54 said:
You turn the rain down from Ultra (physX on) to medium (physx off) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Unless there is a physical PhysX off check box, you cannot turn it off. Also, the dev blamed AMD for what was clearly a dev and NVidia lock in issue. Oh well, I guess they did not need my sale anyways. :rolleyes:
 
mope54 said:
I haven't seen an actual physX checkbox since I think Batman

even borderlands was physx high (on the gpu) vs. low (on the cpu)

maybe developers need to have less faith in their customers because apparently people just roll their faces across their settings pages and when they look up at their screens can't understand why their game is running sluggishly
Click to expand...

Yep, that is the way to get customers, blame them for your screwup. :rolleyes::D LOL, oh well, my money has more important places to go than their lying pockets. :D
 
from the horses mouth:
The software render person says that AMD drivers create too much of a load on the CPU. The PhysX runs on the CPU in this game for AMD users. The PhysX makes 600 calculations per second on the CPU. Basically the AMD drivers + PhysX running at 600 calculations per second is killing performance in the game. The person responsible for it is freaking awesome. So I'm not angry. But this is the current workaround without all the sensationalism.

The best advice I can give while we work with AMD is to reduce settings which influence CPU load. Specifically in this order:

Shadow Detail -> Medium
Reflections -> Medium
Environment Map-> Medium
Car Detail -> Medium or High
Click to expand...

AMD developers took a shortcut and pushed all the physics onto the CPU. The CPU physx code has been open source for a little over a month and if you don't think that enables AMD to optimize the code to run on CPUs then we can safely disregard the rest of your opinion as well.

AMD is on *now* but they could have been working alongside the developers all along. They chose not to. Their $1500 dollar video card (the one you boasted you bought for $600) dropped in price and you're happy with your purchase. You bought a budget solution. Don't for one second kid yourself that you bought "far superior hardware." There's a reason for the cost difference: the level of support the GPU vendors provide.

You are one of the people who keeps parading the nonsensical claim that AMD optimized games still work on nVidia cards...that's because nVidia *always* shows up to the party.

Whenever AMD gets an exclusive they reap the benefits and nVidia sends devs anyway to make sure their premium level consumers don't get shafted. Whenever nVidia gets an exclusive AMD refuses to send anyone, and instead free rides off nVidia's proprietary work, and then when it doesn't work as well (as it shouldn't in a capitalist society--that's how the system is intended to work) they sit back on their laurels and their budget consumers march onto the forums and shit all over the place.

your argument boils down to: you don't want the nice features nVidia develops unless they give them away for free.

It's not about proprietary this or that because if it was you would have an issue with DirectX. But you don't, because it's part of Windows which you already paid for.

OSX and linux users have been dealing with DX bullshit for decades but you don't care about that because the argument isn't proprietary vs. open, it's about having to pay for something vs. getting it for free. You were one of the most vocal posters about modders charging for mods--your cover has been pulled...just a free rider at the end of the day. That's not a respectable position.

Valve and Blizzard threw millions of dollars into making sure open standards stayed relevant. AMD threw the towel in and shifted focus to consoles. That's capitalism. Pay to play. Don't like it, can't really help you there but you're philosophically wrong, historically wrong, empirically wrong, and you bet on the wrong horse in this race.
 
mope54 said:
from the horses mouth:


The CPU physx code has been open source for a little over a month and if you don't think that enables AMD to optimize the code to run on CPUs then we can safely disregard the rest of your opinion as well.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You cannot just modify it as you see fit.
 
IMO the driver thing is just a copout. You could max out graphics and CPU in other games without this kind of crap happening. Its only in this particular implementation that "oh look, amd driver overhead". They're blaming it because they can.They should be testing how well the game performs with changes to physx, if they are allowed to even see the code...


cageymaru said:
Finally this is what they are basing the assertion that it is an AMD driver issue on. Straight from the software engineer at SMS whom I think is a wonderful person and knows more about this than 99.9% of us. Note that they are NOT doing this test with the rain effects on, there are only 9 AI on the track, and the game is running at HIGH / Medium settings; not Ultra which Nvidia's slowest card (GTX 560Ti) from 4 generations ago will run "laps" around AMD's fastest card in this game currently. Also they are testing on a i7-5960X and it can't handle the load of the game and the AMD driver.

"And a quick update from me, since today I did some profiling with the various driver versions, all running on Windows 7SP1, i7-5960X@3.5ghz:

Brands, 9AI, 5PM, BMW GT4, graphics settings at High except reflections at Medium:

Driver v14.12 - 59FPS
Driver v15.4 - 67FPS
Driver v15.2 - 72FPS (engineering sample 15.200.1018.1 from Guru3D)

Timings measured with our internal “Release” development build with the usual <ctrl s> rendering metrics – this build is around 10% slower than Gold/Retail CPU Wise

CPU submission time across those driver versions (Begin Frame, D3D11 API calls, End Frame) drops from around 14.8ms to 12.5ms (18%) which is closely aligned to the 59->72FPS (22%) gain we see across the three drivers from top to bottom, above.
So it looks to me that we are CPU bound by whatever the driver is doing, but they've made gains there over time.

With the i7-5960X@3.0ghz which is a 16% clock speed drop over the test below, FPS drops nearly linearly to around 59FPS, which also adds to the evidence of the frame rate being CPU limited by a driver interaction.

Note that this isn't conclusive yet - their engineering team are also doing some analysis across driver versions, and also another more general review (although it should be said that we've exchanged several hundred emails over the course of the project between the two teams, with many previous reviews and re-reviews as we've made progress during the games development)"
Click to expand...
 
semitope said:
If AMD had a version of physx would you advocate the developer spend double time putting BOTH into the game?
Click to expand...

I think the developer should have the choice in how the game is implemented. If that means making a business decision to only target one GPU vendor and lose revenue accordingly, that's his decision.

I don't buy games that don't have Linux ports. That's my decision. If a developer doesn't want to support Linux, I understand his business rationale, and I don't buy his game.
 
mope54 said:
AMD developers took a shortcut and pushed all the physics onto the CPU. The CPU physx code has been open source for a little over a month and if you don't think that enables AMD to optimize the code to run on CPUs then we can safely disregard the rest of your opinion as well.
Click to expand...
This is literally the most uninformed comment you have made on the forum to date, and we disagree a lot, lol!

Please explain to the class how AMD could have avoided a "shortcut" and offloaded Phsyx processing to an AMD video card. I am genuinely curious how creative your answer will be, but please wash your hands and use a shovel this time! *pops popcorn* :D

As I've already said before, please keep pretending that AMD can fix Physx CPU code in GW locked libraries with a driver update, or that they can somehow make Physx, a proprietary NVidia technology, function on AMD GPUs... and remember, AMD said they'd support Physx if NVidia made an OpenCL port, but nope its locked down on CUDA.
 
jwcalla said:
I think the developer should have the choice in how the game is implemented. If that means making a business decision to only target one GPU vendor and lose revenue accordingly, that's his decision.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but be upfront about it, don't make up a string of lies, and be sure to advertise in your marketing material "Designed for NVidia Video Cards, expect drastically reduced drastically reduced performance with other hardware."
 
Ducman69 said:
Absolutely, but be upfront about it, don't make up a string of lies, and be sure to advertise in your marketing material "Designed for NVidia Video Cards, expect drastically reduced drastically reduced performance with other hardware."
Click to expand...
fair enough. maybe if we raise enough ruckus they'll put some nvidia banners in the game to let people know about their sponsors.
 
and btw, given that this
images

was my first video game

and this
Tank_Plus_2600_ScreenShot1.jpg

was my favorite

everytime you post this
CEcamQpWIAEgWW7.jpg:large

all I really see are those badass ripples in the corners of the banner...and I don't feel guilty about that at all...not at all.
 
jwcalla said:
I think the developer should have the choice in how the game is implemented. If that means making a business decision to only target one GPU vendor and lose revenue accordingly, that's his decision.

I don't buy games that don't have Linux ports. That's my decision. If a developer doesn't want to support Linux, I understand his business rationale, and I don't buy his game.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No one is going to give a develop a hard time for shooting themselves in the foot.. Other than to say "Well that's a bit silly".

But advertise it as such, it's basically the same as selling a ps4 game and saying it runs on xbone. Put on the box or website "nvidia exclusive".

But no, they are happy to take the money from nvidia, make it run like crap on amd and then take amd users money. And thats what it's all about.

Oh yeah, and then lie and claim amd didn't show any interest or want anything to do with the game for 12 months lol. Pathetic.

I will be getting my money back 1 way or another.
 
Mope, my popcorn is getting cold and I have to go to bed soon. You were going to explain to us how if AMD wasn't lazy, exactly how they would have offloaded physx operations from the CPU, and how anyone who doesn't know that should be disregarded.

Well, I mean after you explain to us again how medium settings disabled physx in game, when physx is ingrained in the engine.

That or you could admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about and were making stuff up hoping no one would call you on it, either way is cool. :)
 
mope54 said:
from the horses mouth:


AMD developers took a shortcut and pushed all the physics onto the CPU. The CPU physx code has been open source for a little over a month and if you don't think that enables AMD to optimize the code to run on CPUs then we can safely disregard the rest of your opinion as well.

AMD is on *now* but they could have been working alongside the developers all along. They chose not to. Their $1500 dollar video card (the one you boasted you bought for $600) dropped in price and you're happy with your purchase. You bought a budget solution. Don't for one second kid yourself that you bought "far superior hardware." There's a reason for the cost difference: the level of support the GPU vendors provide.

You are one of the people who keeps parading the nonsensical claim that AMD optimized games still work on nVidia cards...that's because nVidia *always* shows up to the party.

Whenever AMD gets an exclusive they reap the benefits and nVidia sends devs anyway to make sure their premium level consumers don't get shafted. Whenever nVidia gets an exclusive AMD refuses to send anyone, and instead free rides off nVidia's proprietary work, and then when it doesn't work as well (as it shouldn't in a capitalist society--that's how the system is intended to work) they sit back on their laurels and their budget consumers march onto the forums and shit all over the place.

your argument boils down to: you don't want the nice features nVidia develops unless they give them away for free.

It's not about proprietary this or that because if it was you would have an issue with DirectX. But you don't, because it's part of Windows which you already paid for.

OSX and linux users have been dealing with DX bullshit for decades but you don't care about that because the argument isn't proprietary vs. open, it's about having to pay for something vs. getting it for free. You were one of the most vocal posters about modders charging for mods--your cover has been pulled...just a free rider at the end of the day. That's not a respectable position.

Valve and Blizzard threw millions of dollars into making sure open standards stayed relevant. AMD threw the towel in and shifted focus to consoles. That's capitalism. Pay to play. Don't like it, can't really help you there but you're philosophically wrong, historically wrong, empirically wrong, and you bet on the wrong horse in this race.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most retarded posts in this entire thread.

Where were you when people were giving Nvidia flak for keeping CPU PhysX as x87 instructions only?

To this day, the CPU-accelerated PhysX library is crippled by it being pure, non-SIMD x87 floats.

Since Kepler and later NV GPUs sometimes have fits with the old Ageia PPU code, Nvidia has depreciated it. CPU PhysX has been, and will always be a performance-killing dead end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top