kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
AMD pays Intel for x86...where is the difference?
he's saying if havok didn't get bought out by intel, then things may have been different for havok fx.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AMD pays Intel for x86...where is the difference?
he's saying if havok didn't get bought out by intel, then things may have been different for havok fx.
Didn't say that...so....?
Show me any game doing the same with CPU physics.
Havok has been around for years, so it should be easy.
I lol'd at the holodeck. nice one. Quoted for more to see. I agree 100%
Surely there have been some great to legendary games before all this phsyx came along and immersion was enough ...or maybe I'm wrong? Keep drinking what Nvidia marketing feeds you and tells you what you need to enjoy pc games.
If we hadn't evolved opposing thumbs, things might have looked different for us.
I deal with facts...not "guessing based on a hypothetical past that didn't happen"
I've never said that Havok was equal to hardware-based PhysX. Can you find where I said so?Show me any game doing the same with CPU physics.
Havok has been around for years, so it should be easy.
Immersion is very much the wrong word to use, unless you are suddenly Batman himself. Think of it this way: if you were wearing a VR-style goggle system, plugged in so that anything you felt in-game, your body itself actually felt, that would be an example of immersion.It adds immersion...if not more immersion, what word you you use?
I agree, in terms of the game play experience, in terms of what each adds, physics adds more generally than AA and AF. AA and AF are concerned with image quality. Physics adds to image quality, but also adds to the experience itself when implemented correctly. Batman does this right. So did Havok with HF2, in terms of what physics added. Many implementations of physics, however, have been solely for image quality (smoke effects, particle effects), etc.. In that regard, it's far less useful.It's the same as with AA and AF.
It adds more I.Q. giving more immersion...try playing without any AA of AF...it's the same game...but is the experince the same, nope.
It all adds up and where AA and AF are "static" addistions, physics is interactive addistion...a whole different ballgame.
While I agree that RTS games are hard to do on a console, at the same time, look at what Blizzard is doing with a Havok-based Starcraft II to see what can be done with software implementations of physics. GPU-accelerated physics is hardly a requirement for PC RTS games.ARMA2, WiC, Crysis and Doom4 are/will not be console ports.
A console have limitations...most RST/RPG games simply don't cut it on a console.
FPS on console need to be dumbed down (autoaim ect) due to poor control.
CryEngine3 will show just how limited the 4 ears old consoels are now.
Of course AMD and Intel are pushing GPU physics on the PC. In fact, Intel will likely be pushing it in much the same way as nVidia is pushing PhysX, in regards to pushing a proprietary API that Intel wishes to see everyone licenses from it.Well, DX11, GPU physics (No matter the PhysX nay-sayers, AMD and Intel are pushing hardware physics too on the PC) and the sheer amount more power on PC's (compared to 4 years old console hardware will (hopefully) show otherwise.
It's a legitimate concern. Sure, some are pushing it a bit too much. But what if PhysX resulted in a 60% performacne hit. Would it still be so desirable to you?Look at the OP, the OP is whining about the performance hit...
Yes, DirecX is proprietary. The difference is, DirecX is fully available for all developers and hardware companies to use/implement/etc. AMD can use it without restriction. nVidia can use it without restriction. There's none of this "Sorry, but if you have an ATI card, we won't let you use your GeForce card as a PhysX card" nonsense.DirectX is proprietary.
No one besides Microsoft can add features.
You can't get physics in DX...unless Microsoft decides too.
How is DirectX fairing?
Uh, have you been living under a nVidia-sponsored rock for the last several months? AMD is on the market, and working to support Bullet.What I want is for AMD and Intel to get off their collective asses and get on the market.
It will level the peaying field..and make threads like this funny to read.
Because I am dead certain both Intel's and AMD's solutions will have the same performance impact.
Apparently a few dozen complainers = the entire millions-strong PC enthusiast community.Excuse me, try searching [H] for threads about Crysis...and see the vast amount of people whining that Crysis won't run at +60FPS maxed out on their mainstream rig.
Hell, try looking a Dan_D's signature..."inspired" by people in this very thread, whining about if games don't run maxed out on their year old rig...why should they buy it?
Uh, many of the people whining about PhysX, whine about how it's been implemented.To be blunt, most of the people whining about PhysX don't have the first clue about physics, the computations behind the scene...like the OP they whine about aded I.Q. cost performance.
"Lower the settings"? Really? That's your counter-point.Then upgrade your hardware...or lower the settings
It is really that simple.
"the grapes are sour" mentality is not a valid argument.
I like how you completely ignore the argument. Then again, that's par for the course with you.You can alway play PONG at +1000 FPS...better?
But part of that is because the hardware can't handle it at max settings, at 60 FPS. So yes, they go for the overall most well-rounded game play experience.I tweak both my hardware (overclocking) and my software (games) to get the best experience.
Look at [H]'s real world gameplay evalutions.
They don't strive for +60FPS, but the settings that gives the BEST I.Q(and thus the best immersion)....at playable FPS.
The only thing the 4 year old console are doing right now is slowing progress.
Quantity != quality.
Um, it's not just AMD fans. You only see it that way, because you're so rabidly pro-nVidia.Like the anti-PhysX crowd isn't driving by AMD fans?
Really? That's what you go with? The *only* reason that AMD cards have reduced image quality in Batman: AA, is because of software restrictions put into the game at what was likely nVidia's behest (note: there is no evidence I currently know of that actually says nVidia told them to do it. However, it seems a bit... suspicious that developers would ever want to restrict the quality of a game on any particular hardware).See, this is where it gets murky.
Some games (like Batman AA), shows that even the new AMD cards don't give the best I.Q.
Instead of whining about PhysX, punk AMD for dragging their asses.
AMD(then ATI) made a lot of PR-FUd about "we can do GPU-physics" too...back in 2006.
It's now close to 2010..and they have nothing to show.
That is sad.
What should they do?
Ask the pixie fairy for some magic?
It's not like Batman - AA is castrated.
It looks the same on the Xbox, PS3 and none-GPU physics PC.
What GPU physics did, was to enable them to ADD more I.Q...because of the more power available.
And that wasn't NVIDIA's doing...that was the doing of the game developers.
Ask them, why they did as they did...instead of falsely blaming PhysX.
The difference is that in order to support software written for x86, at that time you essentially had to be making an x86 processor.AMD pays Intel for x86...where is the difference?
exactly.he's saying if havok didn't get bought out by intel, then things may have been different for havok fx.
Well shit, let me go to the game I play. I have smoke in DoD:Source. This game is YEARS old (probably 3+), and when I throw a smoke grenade I get smoke. It may not be completely accurately rendered smoke, but that was my point. You can have smoke that is not PhysX compatible that is a fair proxy, and even if it is not swirling around you, is still a fairly good approximation without needing a second GPU to process it. Your video comparison is SHIT. Compare non-PhysX smoke to PhysX smoke and you'll have a more fair comparison...don't compare PhysX smoke to nothing then say, "OMG PHYSX ROCKS THE WORLD!!!!"
only thing is just because dod source has smoke type effects doesnt mean every other game has it. it's up to the devs whether it makes sense in the game or not. as for batman, they probably never thought of adding smoke/ fog (or any of the other additional effects) in their game prior to integrating gpu physx towards the very end of the development cycle prior to release. otherwise, they would have been on the console versions too. so the fact that their is a comparison with smoke on vs. off is the only valid comparison they can possibly make. a game like graw had comparison videos showed static flags vs. dynamic flags in it probably because the devs already intended to have the flags in the game in the first place. and physx doesn't rock the world. marijuana does.
Immersion is very much the wrong word to use, unless you are suddenly Batman himself. Think of it this way: if you were wearing a VR-style goggle system, plugged in so that anything you felt in-game, your body itself actually felt, that would be an example of immersion.
Simply sitting in your computer chair, looking at a monitor, and controlling a character using your keyboard/mouse/gamepad/whatever, is not immersion. At least, most wouldn't view it that way. If you have the ability to disassociate your consciousness from your body, and immerse yourself in whatever it is you're controlling, then I very much envy you.
It's a legitimate concern. Sure, some are pushing it a bit too much. But what if PhysX resulted in a 60% performacne hit. Would it still be so desirable to you?
Those physics effects you harp about. Yeah, they're nice to look at. They're nice to experience in game. You know what else is nice? Gaming at a steady 60 FPS, or close to it. I don't know about you, but I can see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, and ya know what? It adds a hell of a lot to the game also, when you can play it at close to 60 FPS.
Really? That's what you go with? The *only* reason that AMD cards have reduced image quality in Batman: AA, is because of software restrictions put into the game at what was likely nVidia's behest (note: there is no evidence I currently know of that actually says nVidia told them to do it. However, it seems a bit... suspicious that developers would ever want to restrict the quality of a game on any particular hardware).
Marijuana does. For Batman, they were retarded for not adding effects other than PhysX. IT'S A BAD COMPARISON. That's the only thing that I want to point out. You cannot point out lazy non-effects with optimized PhysX. IT's just wrong. The original thing that I quoted was a deceiving video. That's it, I only wanted to point out a horrible comparison.
lol, yup. hard to type with all this real life smoke in the way . unlike the fake gpu physx smoke, lol. okay, this is something i can agree with based on your perspective. point duly noted.
I've never said that Havok was equal to hardware-based PhysX. Can you find where I said so?
You're lumping me into the group claiming that CPU-based PhysX = GPU-based PhysX. Sorry, but I'm not part of that crowd.
Immersion is very much the wrong word to use, unless you are suddenly Batman himself. Think of it this way: if you were wearing a VR-style goggle system, plugged in so that anything you felt in-game, your body itself actually felt, that would be an example of immersion.
Simply sitting in your computer chair, looking at a monitor, and controlling a character using your keyboard/mouse/gamepad/whatever, is not immersion. At least, most wouldn't view it that way. If you have the ability to disassociate your consciousness from your body, and immerse yourself in whatever it is you're controlling, then I very much envy you.
I agree, in terms of the game play experience, in terms of what each adds, physics adds more generally than AA and AF. AA and AF are concerned with image quality. Physics adds to image quality, but also adds to the experience itself when implemented correctly. Batman does this right. So did Havok with HF2, in terms of what physics added. Many implementations of physics, however, have been solely for image quality (smoke effects, particle effects), etc.. In that regard, it's far less useful.
While I agree that RTS games are hard to do on a console, at the same time, look at what Blizzard is doing with a Havok-based Starcraft II to see what can be done with software implementations of physics. GPU-accelerated physics is hardly a requirement for PC RTS games.
And, uh, what? Most RPG games don't cut it on a console? Apparently you've never played some of the greatest RPGs in history. Almost all of them were console exclusive.
Of course AMD and Intel are pushing GPU physics on the PC. In fact, Intel will likely be pushing it in much the same way as nVidia is pushing PhysX, in regards to pushing a proprietary API that Intel wishes to see everyone licenses from it.
AMD is the only one going for an open platform solution. Whether it's because that's what they truly want to see, or simply because they could never do their own proprietary standard properly, it doesn't matter. AMD is the closest to what a lot of enthusiasts want to see. Apparently you don't agree with it though.
It's a legitimate concern. Sure, some are pushing it a bit too much. But what if PhysX resulted in a 60% performacne hit. Would it still be so desirable to you?
Yes, DirecX is proprietary. The difference is, DirecX is fully available for all developers and hardware companies to use/implement/etc. AMD can use it without restriction. nVidia can use it without restriction. There's none of this "Sorry, but if you have an ATI card, we won't let you use your GeForce card as a PhysX card" nonsense.
That would be like Microsoft saying "Sorry, we detected Linux on your system also, DirectX will not properly run anymore."
Uh, have you been living under a nVidia-sponsored rock for the last several months? AMD is on the market, and working to support Bullet.
Intel is still a ways off with Larrabee, but I have no doubt that when Larrabee does finally come out, you're going to see Havok being pushed with a passion. And if you think that nVidia getting a few developers to implement hardware PhysX is a coup'd etat, just wait until Intel puts its marketing muscle behind Havok.
Apparently a few dozen complainers = the entire millions-strong PC enthusiast community.
Hmm, any chance you work for Fox News as a pollster?
Uh, many of the people whining about PhysX, whine about how it's been implemented.
Once again, and for what likely won't be the last time, it's not a issue with *what" PhysX is. It's an issue with how it's being implemented. As in, it's subject to nVidida's control.
"Lower the settings"? Really? That's your counter-point.
I'm sorry, but for someone who constantly talks about image quality, and all that physics adds to a game, to hear that person say "lower your settings", it's laughable at best.
In fact, I think I'll add it to my signature. Tomorrow. After I get some sleep.[/qoute]
Please do...it's sound advice.
Any PC gamer should know this.
It would most likely cause less whining if it where common knowlegde.
I like how you completely ignore the argument. Then again, that's par for the course with you.
Se above.
Yes, let's play PONG at 1000 FPS... since everything over 60 FPS is useless.
The whole argument is that you would gladly trade playable performance for "PhysX effects". And that's probably the truth.
False.
I can play Batman - AA at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF/PhysX:High at playable FPS.
And don't lie about what I would or wouldn't.
Ask me...that way you don't make false statements.
But part of that is because the hardware can't handle it at max settings, at 60 FPS. So yes, they go for the overall most well-rounded game play experience.
False again:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/01/wolfenstein_gameplay_performance_iq/4
FPS as low as 41 FPS
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/08/10/arma_ii_gameplay_performance_image_quality/4
FPS as low as 9 FPS
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/07/21/call_juarez_bound_in_blood_gameplay_perf_iq/4
FPS as low as 27 FPS
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/07/01/ghostbusters_gameplay_performance_iq/4
FPS as low as 15FPS
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/06/15/demigod_gameplay_performance_iq/4
FPS as low as 21 FPS
That was the lastest 5 gameplay reviews, perhaps you should read them again?
However, the "goal" if you can understand that, is to be able to play some of these games, at max settings, at 60 FPS. Why not? For someone who harps about image quality, and physics effects, and "immersion", it's funny that you then say "hey, max settings don't matter. max viewable FPS doesn't matter."
You are borderlining lying now, please stop.
A lot of games don't need 60 FPS to be playable, se above, and I never stated what you try and put in my mouth now.
Those physics effects you harp about. Yeah, they're nice to look at. They're nice to experience in game. You know what else is nice? Gaming at a steady 60 FPS, or close to it. I don't know about you, but I can see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, and ya know what? It adds a hell of a lot to the game also, when you can play it at close to 60 FPS.
Se above, you have painted yourself in a corner with your notion that +60FPS needs to be sustained in all games at all time to be playable.
How are they slowing down progress? You make it sound like the only good games that come out, are those on the PC, and only then, those that support stuff like PhysX.
Come on...4 year old "DX9" style hardware being the target of development is now called making progress?
Why do you think Crysis didn't come out for the consoles?
They pushed the envelope = Console couldn't be in the game anymore.
You know how people talk about those "gamers" who only care about pretty graphics, and don't care as much for the experience of the game itself? Yeah, that's you.
False, again.
I enjoy games such a EVE - Online, that are hardly pushing the hardware...but scares people of because EVE is a cruel world, where the game dosn't hold you hand and you actually LOOSE your stuff when killed.
You are so WRONG here...and gettign way offtopic and into the "personal attack" realm.
Um, it's not just AMD fans. You only see it that way, because you're so rabidly pro-nVidia.
Yeah, because I really like to run a NVIDA chipset in my rig
You just crossed the line into "personal attack" country,
I don't count myself as a fanboi of any particular company. Once upon a time? Sure. If anything, I was a fan of nVidia. I also used to fervently promote Sega, and despise Sony. You know what happened? I grew up, and matured. Now, I just want what performs the best. Right now, that's ATI's cards.
Not in Batman - AA and other games.
Again, +60FPS is wasted.
Really? That's what you go with? The *only* reason that AMD cards have reduced image quality in Batman: AA, is because of software restrictions put into the game at what was likely nVidia's behest (note: there is no evidence I currently know of that actually says nVidia told them to do it. However, it seems a bit... suspicious that developers would ever want to restrict the quality of a game on any particular hardware).
You mean like NVIDIA wote the AA for Batman - AA...and the developers asked AMD for the same, but never got an answer back?
When those restrictions have been eliminated, such as in th case of AA/AF, the game has looked just as good (minus hardware PhysX of course).
You can't have your cake and eat it to...make up your mind.
You really need to try better in your examples.
Really?
UG, you're kind of all over the place, or maybe it's just my interpretation of your perspective. I would rather assume more than you've said if only because it means I'm covering more bases. First admitting to being familiar with smoke then accusing me of smoking something means that I have no idea what you're going for...let's stick to video games. It's really the same as it has always been. Show a normal smoke demo, then use Batman's swirly smoke. Then gauge reaction based on framerate. My bet is that you get get close enough to swirly smoke to not need a second GPU and perfect swirls.
Once again, I am not discouraging the use of PhysX. I am just saying that comparing PhysX to nothing at all is deceiving. You can certainly achieve smoke without PhysX, so why don't they do that? It's a biased game and not fair game for comparison. That is all.
lolwut? i was just joking about the marijuana. then i made a wisecrack about pretending to have problems typing due to marijuana smoke. and then brought it full circle by tying it back to the fact that we are "arguing" about smoke in video games. if you didn't get it, that's okay. as for everything else - yes i got your point. and they didn't do it possibly due to time constraints and more importantly cause no one gave them money to go back and add "approximations" of the effects in software (which would have to be done for the console versions as well). um btw, i thought you were sleeping? lol, guess not.
Alright, sorry, hard to figure out subtleties online. Never know when someone might be serious. I'm glad you got my point, and that the developer only added the features due to time constraints does not say that one is better than the other. It only says that the developer was under time constraints. I feel like you're mocking "approximations" but that is what most effects are. You model dymanic effects with a generic effect and it is close to the actual thing...it just doesn't swirl when you run through it.
And I never sleep muahahahahahahaha...*falls asleep*
there have, there is, and there will be. there have also been awesome games before dx10/11 (or gpu physx) came along, doesn't mean they can't make future games visually better or more immersive. and some quality big name games use physx like gears of war and mass effect, so physx certainly isn't preventing them from being great games either. same can be said for havok (and maybe bullet in the future) or any physics engine for that matter.
i guess if that's what you believe, lol. speculating on alternative pasts/ futures can past the time though.
I say if you want the effects, get off your butt and buy a cheap nvidia card and enjoy them via physX because that's one of the only ways to get B:AA-style phyisics effects today.
If you don't want the effects, deal with not having them.
I wanted them, I paid $60 for a physX card. I'm glad I did.
Meh Physx's days are numbered, with directx 11, openCL and the open source physics solution AMD is pushing (which works with any GPU/CPU combination and all 3 major platforms) which developer in their right mind would opt for a nVidia only solution?
Video of xbox 360 game using the open source, universal bullet physics engine here. xbox 360: That's the machine without an x86 CPU and with an ATI GPU.
EDIT: more here.
PS, I'm not 100% sure but I think the xbox is produced by that little known company Microsoft.
So it's AMD, Microsoft and the rest vs nVidia (there's already a CUDA version of Bullet btw)... I wonder who'll win out?
Physx is a gimmick nVidia is trying to sell you to justify their under performing, expensive video cards, which *may* be able to compete in terms of FPS but we all know that comes at the expense of image quality.
wtf? nvidia cards lack IQ? last time I checked, some of nvidias old, underperforming cards, are still competing head to head with ATi's latest and greatest. Until a title actually uses DX11, it's a worthless feature
Agreed about the IQ comment...that goes to show you the amount of crap and non sense we have to read on the internet every day...amazingYea, I cannot remember the last time either company's cards lacked IQ. It's been a long time...
MAYBE when l4d came out and ATi had that weird shadow issue that was soon fixed, but it wasn't that big of an issue...
wtf? nvidia cards lack IQ? last time I checked, some of nvidias old, underperforming cards, are still competing head to head with ATi's latest and greatest. Until a title actually uses DX11, it's a worthless feature
Like Cryengine 2 games? Dirt2? Battleforge. The new STALKER. Oh, but I forgot, we only buy video cards for yesterday's games, not tomorrow's.
I want nVidia to succeed, even though I rarely buy their hardware, but they better get their fingers out! Rebranded 8800GT anyone?
I wasn't saying MS were involved, but the point is, it's a system that works on their hardware. I agree havok might seem the obvious alternative to physx, but Intel now have control of it. Just like Physx is going to be sidelined by a more open solution if they decide to make it dependent on their hardware for GPU accelleration.
And ... AMD (current flavour of the month) have switched allegiance to Bullet.
It supports all platforms equally well, and it's FREE, which must be attractive for developers.
Not sure how many other games currently support it if any, I'd say it was early days, but the thought of a cross platform demo.
Currently I believe it is supported by nVidia hardware better than AMD, but then again CUDA is the nVidia version of Open CL, supported by ATI.Directx 11, so I can see a port being relatively straight forwards.
Whatever, I can't see either Havok (of it retains open hardware support) or Bullet, losing out to the "PC and nVidia hardware only" system "Physx".
Physx is a gimmick nVidia is trying to sell you to justify their under performing, expensive video cards, which *may* be able to compete in terms of FPS but we all know that comes at the expense of image quality. Never mind dx 11, most of their cards don't even support 10.1 yet. I just hope they get their act together, stop relying on smoke and mirrors and produce something good soon. We all saw what effect the lack of competition has had on 5770 prices, and that sort of thing benefits no one (other than AMD)!
By that definition the R800 is a rebaged R700 that is a rebagded R600...sure you wnat to go down that path?
By that definition, Atech is a rebadged troll.
*but* he lost some SP in the process. (lasered out).
Anyhow... how did the post you quoted even tranlate into your post? Because it doesn't.
BEcause Nvidia says Dx11 is useless. And we need to buy Batman with Phyixs!!!!!
NO, its more than just useless..
what we need is BATMAN!!!! LOOK AT HOW AMAZING BATMAN IS.....