mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Seriously, I'm definitively getting one of those fake Fermi's. I'm gonna frame it and put it up on he wall. They should sell them as memorabilia, so that they may always reminds of one of the biggest fails in the universe. I don't want to come off as an ATI fanboy or something. Lets face it, ATI sucks, but Nvidia sucks even more. Here the ridiculous pricing system offers Nvidia products for double the money of same "gen" ATI offering. So of course I'll buy ATI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Seriously, I'm definitively getting one of those fake Fermi's. I'm gonna frame it and put it up on he wall. They should sell them as memorabilia, so that they may always reminds of one of the biggest fails in the universe. I don't want to come off as an ATI fanboy or something. Lets face it, ATI sucks, but Nvidia sucks even more. Here the ridiculous pricing system offers Nvidia products for double the money of same "gen" ATI offering. So of course I'll buy ATI. Put it this way, they both make good products, but they treat their customers like shit. BTW you know of the Fermi wood screw edition? It costs $1700. Edited November 7, 2009 by JigglyAss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Only 1700$? Does it come decorated with fake connectors and blocked vent openings that would surely fry circuits if there were any inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Only 1700$? Does it come decorated with fake connectors and blocked vent openings that would surely fry circuits if there were any inside? Sure does! In addition you get wood screws screwed into nothing. Furthermore you get free coupon for Batman: Arkham Asylum. Its not like you can play it on 1.7% yields, but its good to try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I can only hope they package it with some of them new drivers that block physx if any ATI or Ageia card is present in the system. That sure would be swell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Come on guys this is going way way off topic now, both GPU manufacturers are c*nts, neither is "more" of a c*nt than the other. Both GPU manufacturers are sell out bastards and if I had a viable choice I wouldn't use either ATI or Nvidia's sorry arse crap. This is one of the reasons why I am hoping Intel pulls something out of the hat (unless they sell it to f*cking Sony too) and I am not gonna right off Intel yet till I actually see the product. As for the physx issue do I agree with a "closed" system like physx ? of course I don't. However I do understand why Nvidia would want to make it closed, they paid millions for it they invested in it and they want to see the benefit of it. On a wider note, do I want something LIKE physx's incorporated into GTA 4 ? Well yes the cpu does do the physics at the moment and at best we get 30-40 cars on screen. Now if the GPU took some of the work load off the cpu maybe we could get 60 - 80 cars on screen or even more. However this is all immaterial it will never happen, GTA 4 runs as badly as it does because it is a straight tidied up recompile of the 360 version. The next GTA on the PC will be a straight tidied up recompile of the 360 version and the next one after that will be etc etc etc. So arguing about physx's in GTA 4 is a bit like arguing there will be a black President of the United states ...... never gonna happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Come on guys this is going way way off topic now, both GPU manufacturers are c*nts, neither is "more" of a c*nt than the other. Both GPU manufacturers are sell out bastards and if I had a viable choice I wouldn't use either ATI or Nvidia's sorry arse crap. This is one of the reasons why I am hoping Intel pulls something out of the hat (unless they sell it to f*cking Sony too) and I am not gonna right off Intel yet till I actually see the product. As for the physx issue do I agree with a "closed" system like physx ? of course I don't. However I do understand why Nvidia would want to make it closed, they paid millions for it they invested in it and they want to see the benefit of it. On a wider note, do I want something LIKE physx's incorporated into GTA 4 ? Well yes the cpu does do the physics at the moment and at best we get 30-40 cars on screen. Now if the GPU took some of the work load off the cpu maybe we could get 60 - 80 cars on screen or even more. However this is all immaterial it will never happen, GTA 4 runs as badly as it does because it is a straight tidied up recompile of the 360 version. The next GTA on the PC will be a straight tidied up recompile of the 360 version and the next one after that will be etc etc etc. So arguing about physx's in GTA 4 is a bit like arguing there will be a black President of the United states ...... never gonna happen Or maybe they will actually take good time developing the next PC version, and maybe it may outcome as a legendary GTA ever made for PC. Haha oh wow thats so not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoOopiD Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Nvidia should combine the names Fermi and Cuda. and call the new card Coodies. i would love to put a Coodie300GTX in my xbox 660. lol Edited November 7, 2009 by StoOopiD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ins1d3r Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Here just watch these 2 videos so you would understand what GTA4 engine has that Physx doesn't The engine they use creates all the animation on-the-fly, but if they would use Physx they would need to programm every reaction and possibility. Edited November 7, 2009 by Ins1d3r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 CharmingCharlie, all you are doing now isn't proving why PhysX doesn't suck but just flame on me and JigglyAss for providing better alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simulated-AI Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I have been gaming on PC for nearly 20 years now..... I know CharmingCharlie is right. Thats just the way things develop. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 CharmingCharlie, all you are doing now isn't proving why PhysX doesn't suck but just flame on me and JigglyAss for providing better alternatives. All you are doing is using this as an excuse to attack Nvidia because you don't like them. If phsyx was shown to be the next coming of Jesus Christ you would still be slagging it off and attacking Nvidia. But then again you are the one that started this topic with the intention of attacking Nvidia. I have an Nvidia card as an Nvidia customer I would like to see physx used. As for your "alternatives" why are they better than Nvidia's physx ? oh yeah that's right because it isn't tied to Nvidia is it. So your only complaint about physx is the fact it is tied to Nvidia hardware. Now Nvidia has poured millions into the development of physx so why should they let their competitor share in the spoils ? There is no reason why GTA 4 could not benefit greatly from the implementation of physx but you just don't like the idea because it is locked into Nvidia is basically this topic summed up in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 They're complaint is not about Nvidia, it is about the fact that not all users will be able to benefit from it if it was tied to Nvidia. Why would you want PhysX in this game when only half of the pc gaming market would be able to use it, when everybody can benefit from an open standard like Bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 They're complaint is not about Nvidia, it is about the fact that not all users will be able to benefit from it if it was tied to Nvidia. Why would you want PhysX in this game when only half of the pc gaming market would be able to use it, when everybody can benefit from an open standard like Bullet. Who is to say ATI users wouldn't have physics if Nvidia's physx was implemented ? You just need to look at Batman to see that ATI users can still play the game. However if you have an Nvidia card you get extra benefits with the implementation of physx. What is wrong with that ? Nvidia paid millions, they did the work and Nvidia customers in return pay a premium for their graphics cards. In time I can't see any reason why ATI couldn't license physx from Nvidia and even ATI users could access the features. This is business Nvidia are trying to make their cards attractive to people by giving people extra features. Essentially you have Nvidia trying to make their graphics cards do more and ATI are trying to make their graphics cards go faster. Do I like Nvidia's practices ? no I don't, but I understand why they are doing them. I equally don't like the sh*t ATI have pulled in the past and will continue to pull in the future. Who wants to bet that the work they are doing with developers for Dx11 games will have a better effect on ATI hardware than it will on Nvidia hardware. That is business that is how it works. I don't like either company if I am honest, just like I don't particularly wave the flag for Microsoft. However I have to use their products if I want to game and I choose which I feel benefits me more. Now I am interested in physx and I would like to see it implemented in more games because I am an Nvidia user and I f*cking PAID for it. However you guys are saying I shouldn't get benefits from it because "not everyone can get the benefits", socialism in PC gaming you have to love it don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) They're complaint is not about Nvidia, it is about the fact that not all users will be able to benefit from it if it was tied to Nvidia. Why would you want PhysX in this game when only half of the pc gaming market would be able to use it, when everybody can benefit from an open standard like Bullet. Who is to say ATI users wouldn't have physics if Nvidia's physx was implemented ? You just need to look at Batman to see that ATI users can still play the game. However if you have an Nvidia card you get extra benefits with the implementation of physx. What is wrong with that ? Nvidia paid millions, they did the work and Nvidia customers in return pay a premium for their graphics cards. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just that using Bullet would be better because it is open to everybody. Plus GTA 4 already uses bullet so it would mean less time implementing it Also, AMD users wouldn't have hysX because there is no physX driver that runs on AMD hardware, because it is from Nvidia. If you don't have a Nvidia 8000 series card or better then you simply can't use it. Also, even if you have a Nvidia card, you can't use it if you happen to also have an AMD card like an AMD integrated gpu on your motherboard or someting because Nvidia made it so that their driver detects what hardware you have in your system. Edited November 7, 2009 by BKwegoharder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 CharmingCharlie, all you are doing now isn't proving why PhysX doesn't suck but just flame on me and JigglyAss for providing better alternatives. All you are doing is using this as an excuse to attack Nvidia because you don't like them. If phsyx was shown to be the next coming of Jesus Christ you would still be slagging it off and attacking Nvidia. But then again you are the one that started this topic with the intention of attacking Nvidia. I have an Nvidia card as an Nvidia customer I would like to see physx used. As for your "alternatives" why are they better than Nvidia's physx ? oh yeah that's right because it isn't tied to Nvidia is it. So your only complaint about physx is the fact it is tied to Nvidia hardware. Now Nvidia has poured millions into the development of physx so why should they let their competitor share in the spoils ? There is no reason why GTA 4 could not benefit greatly from the implementation of physx but you just don't like the idea because it is locked into Nvidia is basically this topic summed up in a nutshell. All you're doing is saying i'm not right instead of proving why PhysX should be implented in GTA IV. This topic initially is about that. I can change to an almost equally performing nVidia card in less than 10 minutes if i wanted. My alternatives aren't GPU-bound but they use both the CPU and GPU (like i said a few times ago, but you're still denying it). That engine is already implented in the RAGE engine GTA IV uses. I'm okay with nVidia spending millions into developping a great physics engine. The only thing i hate about PhysX is it's advertising. NVIDIA® PhysX® technology adds an element of realism never before seen in gaming. With an NVIDIA® GeForce® GPU in your PC, experience dynamic PhysX® effects like blazing explosions, reactive debris, realistic water, and lifelike characters. Literally copied from nVidia's site. That's what i hate about them. Nothing else. ATI also makes crappy control panels. at the time i bought this ATI card was because it was cheaper/performing better than an equal nVidia card. Before that i never used an ATI card. Tell me why GTA IV would profit fom PhysX. GTA isn't really a physically demanding game. Only computers that initially were unable to run GTA IV but with modded files could run GTA IV suffer from framedrops when advanced physics are involved. But for them PhysX is not the answer. Modders do profit from PhysX. Especially when having a LOT things spawned and then blow it all up. That's where having PhysX is awesome. But at least three quarter of the PC users wouldn't profit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nvidia paid millions, they did the work and Nvidia customers in return pay a premium for their graphics cards.have to love it don't you. Why then if you own an old Ageia or any ATI card along with your Nvida GPU (that you might have for phys only) you can't get any of the extra stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Also, AMD users wouldn't have hysX because there is no physX driver that runs on AMD hardware, because it is from Nvidia. If you don't have a Nvidia 8000 series card or better then you simply can't use it. Also, even if you have a Nvidia card, you can't use it if you happen to also have an AMD card like an AMD integrated gpu on your motherboard or someting because Nvidia made it so that their driver detects what hardware you have in your system. You know what I would love to use AMD's Fusion Gaming tool. it looks like a right tasty lil optimiser. Do you think I should download it and use it ?.................. oh wait I can't can I because I have an Intel processor and AMD's Fusion Gaming tool won't work on Intel's hardware. Now why would AMD do that ? could it be because they made the tool for THEIR customers and don't want Intel users free loading ? All you're doing is saying i'm not right instead of proving why PhysX should be implented in GTA IV. This topic initially is about that. I have said several times why it would be beneficial to have physx in GTA 4, you just keep ignoring me and screaming that it's unfair for ATI users. The only thing i hate about PhysX is it's advertising. So you hate physx's and Nvidia because of a bit of sales blurb on their site Seriously who the f*ck cares what Nvidia put on their damn site ? The only time I actually go to Nvidia's site is to download a new driver. I imagine if you went to ATI's site you would see equally meaningless marketing blurb. What next do you have a passionate hatred of the Physx's logo Tell me why GTA IV would profit fom PhysX. GTA isn't really a physically demanding game. Only computers that initially were unable to run GTA IV but with modded files could run GTA IV suffer from framedrops when advanced physics are involved. But for them PhysX is not the answer. I have already said several times with physx we could have more advanced effects and a greater quantity than we do now with GTA 4 using just the CPU for physics. Now there is no reason why ATI users would suddenly experience a complete loss of physics in GTA 4 if they used physx but for Nvidia users it would be nice to have it implemented and have extra effects but hey the PC is "socialist gaming" isn't it Why then if you own an old Ageia or any ATI card along with your Nvida GPU (that you might have for phys only) you can't get any of the extra stuff? You probably have a fair comment about the Ageia cards but at the end of the day those cards are bloody ancient now. I don't particularly understand why Nvidia ditched doing a physics only card but they stumped up the cash and it is their decision. As for mixing an Nvidia card with an ATI card well personally I would say that is never a good idea technically anyway and again Nvidia will say "we haven't tested this with ATI hardware". Nvidia bought into Physx to shift graphics cards and it doesn't make sense from a business perspective to allow Physx to work with a competitors graphics card. It isn't fair, it isn't right but I can tell you now if ATI had bought Physx they would be doing the same damn thing as Nvidia. At the end of the day I own an Nvidia card, I paid a premium for an Nvidia card. In a sense I paid for Physx and I damn well want to see it used. If Physx was used in GTA 4 we could see a much more vibrant lively city with more cars, more peds, realistic water and particle effects and I would be all for that. The only people that seem to be against this are those that have a bee in their bonnet about it being available only to Nvidia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 but I can tell you now if ATI had bought Physx they would be doing the same damn thing as Nvidia. You can't possibly say this. ATI hasn0t show such deviant behavior in the past ten years like these two moves form Nvidia. ATI are bad with drivers, they release a broken driver more often then not and they don't care that much about sucking up to the devs, but this blocking and exclusives bullsh*t has been exclusive to Nvida up to now and there is no recanting it. We simply do not know what would ATI do if "..." whatever. Let's not dive in parallel universes and what could have been had on or the other thing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) [...] [...] I have said several times why it would be beneficial to have physx in GTA 4, you just keep ignoring me and screaming that it's unfair for ATI users. Ten tell it now, because i haven't seen any things. And i'm not screaming it's unfair for ATI users. I'm just trying to make clear there are BETTER ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR BOTH CARDS AND CPU'S AT THE SAME TIME. /scream. [...] So you hate physx's and Nvidia because of a bit of sales blurb on their site Seriously who the f*ck cares what Nvidia put on their damn site ? The only time I actually go to Nvidia's site is to download a new driver. I imagine if you went to ATI's site you would see equally meaningless marketing blurb. What next do you have a passionate hatred of the Physx's logo I fap on ATI's Ruby. I coudn't fap on nVidia's awesome dog crusing things. I hate it because it seems so many people believe this crap. On youtube for example. Some people just don't believe there is somethings else besides PhysX. It's like telling a Christian in the 6'th century the earth isn't flat. *i'm talking about the people who believe PhysX is the only thing that could render nice physically affected objects) [...] I have already said several times with physx we could have more advanced effects and a greater quantity than we do now with GTA 4 using just the CPU for physics. Now there is no reason why ATI users would suddenly experience a complete loss of physics in GTA 4 if they used physx but for Nvidia users it would be nice to have it implemented and have extra effects but hey the PC is "socialist gaming" isn't it I've been saying for a few posts that GTA IV doesn't ONLY use the CPU but also uses the GPU. Explaining one more time: GTA IV uses RAGE RAGE has Bullet implented Bullet physics engine supports parralel processing between the CPU and the GPU. [thing about your nVidia card] You are absolutely right at that point, but i bet PhysX in GTA IV wouldn't provide a greater FPS. To get the features like clothing etc, R* would need to give the whole RAGE enige an overhaul. Wouldn't it be better if they skipped IV and added it in V? Edited November 7, 2009 by ikt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Also, AMD users wouldn't have hysX because there is no physX driver that runs on AMD hardware, because it is from Nvidia. If you don't have a Nvidia 8000 series card or better then you simply can't use it. Also, even if you have a Nvidia card, you can't use it if you happen to also have an AMD card like an AMD integrated gpu on your motherboard or someting because Nvidia made it so that their driver detects what hardware you have in your system. You know what I would love to use AMD's Fusion Gaming tool. it looks like a right tasty lil optimiser. Do you think I should download it and use it ?.................. oh wait I can't can I because I have an Intel processor and AMD's Fusion Gaming tool won't work on Intel's hardware. Now why would AMD do that ? could it be because they made the tool for THEIR customers and don't want Intel users free loading ? Two wrongs don't make a right. And two, the fusion tool is really petty, for one, you can make it work on systems with Intel processors, and there is already another tool that works just as well if not(Gamebooster). But even then, I'm not complaining that AMD cards can't use PhysX. I don't care, you are missing my point. It would be much easier for rockstar to simply use bullet and it would be much more profitable as well. They are already using Bullet and it is already much more compatable in GTA 4, remaking the entire gaming with PhysX would just throw out lots and lots of hardwork for no benefit. Also the thing with PhysX and Fusion is different. Even if you baught a PPU crd or a Nvidia card, you can't use PhysX if you have an integrated video card from AMD or are using an AMD card with the Nvidia card to do physX. It's like Toyota making it so that your car can't drive their cars a certain speed if you own another car from Honda. It is also illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 but I can tell you now if ATI had bought Physx they would be doing the same damn thing as Nvidia. You can't possibly say this. Why can't I possibly say this ? We have a recent example I just showed you it. The Fusion Gaming tool locks out Intel users, there is no technical reason why it should but it does. Now the Fusion Gaming tool is made by AMD and last time I checked AMD owns ATI. So I don't think it is a big stretch of the imagination to assume that if they are willing to lock Intel users out of a small program like the Fusion Gaming tool (a program that probably cost less than a few thousand bucks to make) it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that they would do the same with Physx if they had invested millions in it. Ten tell it now, because i haven't seen any things. And i'm not screaming it's unfair for ATI users. I'm just trying to make clear there are BETTER ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR BOTH CARDS AND CPU'S AT THE SAME TIME. /scream. I have said that using Physx would enable more physics effects and a greater volume of physics effects in the game. If there are better alternatives why isn't anyone using them then ? I think it is probably down to resources. If a company uses Physx then Nvidia will quite happily devote time and resources into helping that company use those effects. Now Nvidia are not going to do that for free and they sure as hell are not going to do it to also help a competitor. It is business pure and simple I fap on ATI's Ruby. I coudn't fap on nVidia's awesome dog crusing things. . I hate it because it seems so many people believe this crap. On youtube for example. Some people just don't believe there is somethings else besides PhysX. It's like telling a Christian in the 6'th century the earth isn't flat. *i'm talking about the people who believe PhysX is the only thing that could render nice physically affected objects) Well I am not personally saying Physx is the only way of doing things, but Physx comes with the substantial support of Nvidia which makes it tempting for software developers and as an Nvidia customer why would I be against something that will give me more for my investment ? I've been saying for a few posts that GTA IV doesn't ONLY use the CPU but also uses the GPU. Explaining one more time: GTA IV uses RAGE RAGE has Bullet implented Bullet physics engine supports parralel processing between the CPU and the GPU. Sorry but I have to disagree with you there, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that GTA 4 uses the GPU for physics. The fact that RAGE has Bullet implemented in it does not mean for one second it uses the GPU for physics. I would go as far to say that Rockstar would be deadset against using the GPU to do physics simply because the PS3 version will never have the ability to run physics on the GPU and Rockstar will want to keep all three version "similar". [thing about your nVidia card]You are absolutely right at that point, but i bet PhysX in GTA IV wouldn't provide a greater FPS. To get the features like clothing etc, R* would need to give the whole RAGE enige an overhaul. Wouldn't it be better if they skipped IV and added it in V? I wouldn't expect physx to give me an fps boost everything I have seen of physx so far is about "extra stuff" rather than improving frame rates. Naturally I would love to see extra features in the PC version. I hate the fact that LC is still so damn static, I hate the fact that when you go up to a shop window it isn't actually a bloody shop window it is a damn texture. I am not going to turn my nose up at more and better features though and if Physx means I get more and better features then I am all for it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I am not saying it is right I am saying it's business, Intel do it, AMD do it, Nvidia do it and ATI do it. It is the way things work if you invest heavily in something you are not going to want your damn competitor to reap the rewards of it are you ? And two, the fusion tool is really petty, for one, you can make it work on systems with Intel processors, and there is already another tool that works just as well if not(Gamebooster). But even then, I'm not complaining that AMD cards can't use PhysX. I don't care, you are missing my point. I know you can get it to work with Intel a simple hack is all it takes. I didn't bother with it since my system is pretty lean anyway and I saw no gain from the tool. I just used it as an example that it isn't all one sided. If a company invests in something for THEIR customers they are not going to happily let competitors use it. It would be much easier for rockstar to simply use bullet and it would be much more profitable as well. They are already using Bullet and it is already much more compatable in GTA 4, remaking the entire gaming with PhysX would just throw out lots and lots of hardwork for no benefit. That is a matter of opinion if Rockstar were to use Physx's you can bet your life Nvidia would pour a substantial amount of resources into helping them do it. However as I have already said none of this is going to pass so it is all theoretical. Also the thing with PhysX and Fusion is different. Even if you baught a PPU crd or a Nvidia card, you can't use PhysX if you have an integrated video card from AMD or are using an AMD card with the Nvidia card to do physX. It's like Toyota making it so that your car can't drive their cars a certain speed if you own another car from Honda. I have already stated that it is NOT good practice to mix and match ATI/Nvidia cards. I am sure a lot of the reasoning is down to "commerical" reasons why you can't use an Nvidia card just for physx's and an ATI card for graphics. Your example is a bit flawed there is no interaction between the Honda car and the Toyota car. Let's say it was discovered there was a small chance that your Honda car might melt if you drove your Toyota car at a certain speed. You can bet your damn life if that was the case then Toyota would put a restriction on their cars speed for people that own Honda's It is also illegal. So I guess ATI and Nvidia will have their day in court, it is only illegal if the courts deem it illegal. I see Nvidia investing in it's product and trying to differentiate it's graphics cards from the opposition. As I have said ATI are going for speed and Nvidia appear to be going for "more stuff" it is up to the consumer to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) I have already stated that it is NOT good practice to mix and match ATI/Nvidia cards. I am sure a lot of the reasoning is down to "commerical" reasons why you can't use an Nvidia card just for physx's and an ATI card for graphics. Your example is a bit flawed there is no interaction between the Honda car and the Toyota car. Let's say it was discovered there was a small chance that your Honda car might melt if you drove your Toyota car at a certain speed. You can bet your damn life if that was the case then Toyota would put a restriction on their cars speed for people that own Honda's So I guess ATI and Nvidia will have their day in court, it is only illegal if the courts deem it illegal. I see Nvidia investing in it's product and trying to differentiate it's graphics cards from the opposition. As I have said ATI are going for speed and Nvidia appear to be going for "more stuff" it is up to the consumer to choose. For one, there is no problem with using an Ageia PPU(physics processing Unit) card with an AMD card. That is actually exactly how they were made to be used. For one card to process the physics, and for another card from whatever company you choose to run normally. also, that doesn't explain why they disabled physics usage for integrated graphics cards. By that logic, they are saying that any motherboard with integrated graphics shouldn't be able to run dedicated video cards because they conflict. Also, that lame pr excuse that Nvidia made is nothing more than a lame PR excuse. It's been shown many times in many situations that physX works perfectly fine in when using an AMD card. And that lame PR excuse doesn't cover te fact that it disables Ageia PPU cards and that it disables cards when a disable AMD integrated graphics unit is on the system. Also, why didn't they disable PhysX when an Intel integrated graphics unit is detected? And the AMD fusion thing is not illegal. The PhysX thing with Nvidia blocking PhysX is illegal. Because it prevents you from using the card based on what hardware you own. AMD did do plenty of things that was illegal like ripping Intel off for some of their early cpus. but that isn't really the point. Should we justify these big companies just doing whatever they want because it is "just business" or because everybody does it. If more of these companies continue to keep doing what they have been doing then it will only be a matter of time before they start getting anti trust lawsuits. EDIT: Also Rockstar is simply not going to implement PhysX. There is simply no benefit. Why should they use a physics engine that they have to pay another company for, when they have an open Physics engine ready to use. An engine that they already implemented in RAGE. Thew whole point about making RAGE is so thay don't have to bother with making a brand new engine or making tweaks to the engine whenever they make a brand new game. Bullet can do everything PhysX can do, and they don't have to pay money for it, plus to use PhysX they have to spend time implementing it even if Nvidia helps them, but they already have Bullet implemented so basically they are wasting time. There is also no benefit in Nvidia paying rockstar to use physX since the whole point is for companies to go to Nvidia and pay Nvidia to use PhysX, not for Nvidia to pay companies to use it. All of this would be a big waste of time money and energy and in the end their isn't much profit. Edited November 7, 2009 by BKwegoharder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 All quotes @ Charlie I have said that using Physx would enable more physics effects and a greater volume of physics effects in the game. If there are better alternatives why isn't anyone using them then ? I think it is probably down to resources. If a company uses Physx then Nvidia will quite happily devote time and resources into helping that company use those effects. Now Nvidia are not going to do that for free and they sure as hell are not going to do it to also help a competitor. It is business pure and simple Maybe they are used but not as being advertised as PhysX. Havok, for example, isn't overhyped. I haven't seen anobody screaming 'HAVOK IS THE BEST PHYSICS ENGINE EVAH!1!!!!1!ONE1!!!1!ELEVEN!1!' when HL2 came out. Before nVidia bought AGEIA, i haven't seen people screaming 'OMFG WE NEED PHYSX GIEF IT TO USSS'. And before that, PhysX DID work well on nVidia cards. That about nobody not using Physx. Well I am not personally saying Physx is the only way of doing things, but Physx comes with the substantial support of Nvidia which makes it tempting for software developers and as an Nvidia customer why would I be against something that will give me more for my investment ? It indeed is tempting, and if i was a game developper i certainly would knock on nVidia's door. But it's the developpers choice. Sorry but I have to disagree with you there, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that GTA 4 uses the GPU for physics. The fact that RAGE has Bullet implemented in it does not mean for one second it uses the GPU for physics. I would go as far to say that Rockstar would be deadset against using the GPU to do physics simply because the PS3 version will never have the ability to run physics on the GPU and Rockstar will want to keep all three version "similar". Well. Crap. You're right. That makes half my arguments invalid. CRAP. Well, we need R* to implent OpenCL in the RAGE engine. But have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_%28software%29 reference 3. But i still need something to confirm that RAGE has OpenCL support enabled. I wouldn't expect physx to give me an fps boost everything I have seen of physx so far is about "extra stuff" rather than improving frame rates. Naturally I would love to see extra features in the PC version. I hate the fact that LC is still so damn static, I hate the fact that when you go up to a shop window it isn't actually a bloody shop window it is a damn texture. I am not going to turn my nose up at more and better features though and if Physx means I get more and better features then I am all for it. GTA IV would indeed look better. I also was disappointed when not being able to walk in random shops. But that isn't PhysX. That's a lazy R*. But it would defenately look better if clothes were behaving realistic. Seeing trees moving with leafs falling off (it's autumn). But those effects wouldn't NEED PhysX to be enabled, any other physics engine could handle that. The reason it isn't in GTA IV is just because it would take time to develop. And GTA IV got delayed already a few times. You think R* wanted to wait for a game to be released just because they can add effects people just don't pay attention to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The Fusion Gaming tool locks out Intel users A good example, but not quite on spot, is it? Fusion doesn't work on Intel CPU systems, OK. They made it, it's theirs to copyright or copyblock. Nvida drivers block physx on Nvidia hardware if a non-Nvidia secondary graphic processing unit is detected. I'm sorry, but this is not even nearly the same. This would be basically as if you bought a new car and when coming in for a service, the service man tells you he will block air conditioning in your vehicle because you used some non-original equipment, like third party seat covers. It's your f*cking car adn you can do waht ever the f*ck you want with it. This is bullsh*t and if I was an Nvidia card owner (I actually considered getting a cheap Nvidia card for physx only)I would be f*cking pissed. Consider this also. There are many ATI users out there. Let's say there was a number of physx games to choose from. Many of those guys would get another Nvidia card as a physics processor in addition to their existing ATI card. Who knows, maybe some of those guys would switch completely to Nvidia. But no, Nvidia blocks this option and shoots themselves in the foot with this ultralame move. You can say what you want about ATI, but they would never be that dumb to cut their profits intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 You guys do realize they would have to REBUILD RAGE in order to even support the physX on the GPU for GTA 4. Rebuilding a game engine is not something that ten people can achieve in six months. Id take six months, but wait someone has to test it? Which would take time... Oh and money. Charlie, seriously nvidia could of easily offered physx to ATi hardware but for a FEE just like companies specialize in making game engines and developers purchase the license of the particular engine for a FEE in order to use it for their game. This is the fucking problem with both card manufacturers, they have direct compute they have OpenCL support which can do physx/havoc capable physics, hell even better. Unfortunately, they are both stuck up their asses so deep that they try so fucking hard to promote their own exclusive propitiatory engines which cause fan boys to go fucktarded. I just wish one of them would just quit the whole "hurr durrr r duuuuuuuur i have this and you cant have it". If one would stop doing it, soon the next one would follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Actually AMD/ATI is letting go of havoc and they support Bullet which is open and uses OpenCL. One of the reasons could be because Havoc is owned by Intel and intel s coming into the market someday with larabee, and that could potential cause issues for AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azkay Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The Fusion Gaming tool locks out Intel users A good example, but not quite on spot, is it? Fusion doesn't work on Intel CPU systems, OK. They made it, it's theirs to copyright or copyblock. Nvida drivers block physx on Nvidia hardware if a non-Nvidia secondary graphic processing unit is detected. I'm sorry, but this is not even nearly the same. This would be basically as if you bought a new car and when coming in for a service, the service man tells you he will block air conditioning in your vehicle because you used some non-original equipment, like third party seat covers. It's your f*cking car adn you can do waht ever the f*ck you want with it. This is bullsh*t and if I was an Nvidia card owner (I actually considered getting a cheap Nvidia card for physx only)I would be f*cking pissed. Consider this also. There are many ATI users out there. Let's say there was a number of physx games to choose from. Many of those guys would get another Nvidia card as a physics processor in addition to their existing ATI card. Who knows, maybe some of those guys would switch completely to Nvidia. But no, Nvidia blocks this option and shoots themselves in the foot with this ultralame move. You can say what you want about ATI, but they would never be that dumb to cut their profits intentionally. Its only a google away. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sour...sx+with+ati+car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The Fusion Gaming tool locks out Intel users A good example, but not quite on spot, is it? Fusion doesn't work on Intel CPU systems, OK. They made it, it's theirs to copyright or copyblock. Nvida drivers block physx on Nvidia hardware if a non-Nvidia secondary graphic processing unit is detected. I'm sorry, but this is not even nearly the same. This would be basically as if you bought a new car and when coming in for a service, the service man tells you he will block air conditioning in your vehicle because you used some non-original equipment, like third party seat covers. It's your f*cking car adn you can do waht ever the f*ck you want with it. This is bullsh*t and if I was an Nvidia card owner (I actually considered getting a cheap Nvidia card for physx only)I would be f*cking pissed. Consider this also. There are many ATI users out there. Let's say there was a number of physx games to choose from. Many of those guys would get another Nvidia card as a physics processor in addition to their existing ATI card. Who knows, maybe some of those guys would switch completely to Nvidia. But no, Nvidia blocks this option and shoots themselves in the foot with this ultralame move. You can say what you want about ATI, but they would never be that dumb to cut their profits intentionally. Its only a google away. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sour...sx+with+ati+car Well, thanks a lot, because I really couldn't find it on NGOHQ all by myself You completely missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azkay Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The Fusion Gaming tool locks out Intel users A good example, but not quite on spot, is it? Fusion doesn't work on Intel CPU systems, OK. They made it, it's theirs to copyright or copyblock. Nvida drivers block physx on Nvidia hardware if a non-Nvidia secondary graphic processing unit is detected. I'm sorry, but this is not even nearly the same. This would be basically as if you bought a new car and when coming in for a service, the service man tells you he will block air conditioning in your vehicle because you used some non-original equipment, like third party seat covers. It's your f*cking car adn you can do waht ever the f*ck you want with it. This is bullsh*t and if I was an Nvidia card owner (I actually considered getting a cheap Nvidia card for physx only)I would be f*cking pissed. Consider this also. There are many ATI users out there. Let's say there was a number of physx games to choose from. Many of those guys would get another Nvidia card as a physics processor in addition to their existing ATI card. Who knows, maybe some of those guys would switch completely to Nvidia. But no, Nvidia blocks this option and shoots themselves in the foot with this ultralame move. You can say what you want about ATI, but they would never be that dumb to cut their profits intentionally. Its only a google away. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sour...sx+with+ati+car Well, thanks a lot, because I really couldn't find it on NGOHQ all by myself You completely missed the point. I didnt miss the point. I just provided a work around, theres no point talking about the point, because this thread isnt going to work anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now