FAQ-QUESTIONS,release date,system specs, for CoD

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Did anyone have tesselation that made a positive contribution to any game back then? I'm really thinking of the last batch of cards, the 5xxx series against the 4xx series, and the nvidia cards were better at tesselation.

Tessellation.

And you basically said phoenix1963 claim was wrong, where it was you who was wrong. That's what I was referring to.

The reason there were no positive contributions, because not many game developers did make use of it. If you had a Radeon 9500, you would have seen it in Quake, Unreal Tournament, Rainbow Six, Morrowind and some others.

The other point was that AMD is innovating. nVidia isn't. nVidia does the "oooh, let's do that too, but a bit better" a generation after AMD. Same with surround gaming.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by domian

Flaming fanboy

Funny that, as I had nothing but nVidia cards till now.

Originally Posted by domian

Flaming fanboy

It's sort of true. They're usually the ones that look to see what happens then try and catch up and pass the innovators. Most of their early 2000's innovation came about after acquiring 3DFX and all their tech and a lot of their staff.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

It's sort of true. They're usually the ones that look to see what happens then try and catch up and pass the innovators.

Actually a smart move, economically too.

[Flanker35M]

S!

AMD or nVidia, you can not go wrong these days. Anything above 60FPS at your desired screen resolution and details is good IMO. Comparing cards how they perform in IL-2, for example, is just plain stupid as we know AMD has some issues with it AND back then IL-2 was optimized for nVidia. I've been using both brands and not a single game has performed badly in the games I play. I prefer AMd because it is more silent, cooler and draws less power for almost equal performance to the green team. For me a few % means a squat, I play not live for benchmark scores

[dduff442]

AMD and nVidia are both guilty of anti-competitive practices -- that's what optimisations for a specific card are all about. Competition in this way rather than on price hurts buyers.

PhysX and CUDA are examples of anti-competitive practices as well. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs to cement their control of the market. CPU power is very cheap compared with GPU power, and physics belongs on the CPU.

dduff

[swiss]

Originally Posted by dduff442

ll. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs

Hold on to old cpus?

Pls explain.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by dduff442

PhysX and CUDA are examples of anti-competitive practices as well. Nvidia want gamers to hold on to old CPUs and buy new GPUs to cement their control of the market. CPU power is very cheap compared with GPU power, and physics belongs on the CPU.

dduff

Originally Posted by swiss

Hold on to old cpus?

Pls explain.

I believe duff's point is that nvidea want you to become dependant on the GPU for the PhysX elements of a game, which suits the cards they sell more than their competitor. But it would be more economical for the physics to be handled by the cpu, so users would be better keeping their cpu up to date, rather than spending more on their nvidia GC.

[swiss]

why should nv develop a program which does not use the resources they sell?

There isn't a AMD or Intel Physx version...

[Baron]

CPU`s doesnt even come close to GPU`s abillity to handle PhysX, proppably never will.


Thats why NVidia is working so hard to make it a feature in games and nvidia gpu`s. The fact thet everyone who doesnt buy nvidia is whining about them dealing dirty is, well childish.

No reason what so ever why Nvidia should just give away features they work hard to develop.

Especially not to a company (read AMD) who cant even be bother if it cost them the slightest. (SoW to name one)