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

[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)

[Blackdog_kt]

While nVidia is obviously doing what's best for them, us users complaining about it is anything but childish, it's about what's good for us.

For example, if 99% of the games 5 years from now use physX and you are forced to buy nVidia cards at grossly inflated prices due to lack of competition, you'll understand why people are complaining now in a effort to steer things the way of the customer while it's still early on

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

While nVidia is obviously doing what's best for them, us users complaining about it is anything but childish, it's about what's good for us.

For example, if 99% of the games 5 years from now use physX and you are forced to buy nVidia cards at grossly inflated prices due to lack of competition, you'll understand why people are complaining now in a effort to steer things the way of the customer while it's still early on

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by swiss

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

+1

Also I'd only see a problem if a game NEEDED PhysX, rather than just benefitted from it, which I think is unlikely.

If PhysX became an important factor in the sales of Nvidia cards, the competitors would probably come out with their own solution... I'm not surprised that they haven't yet.

[dduff442]

Well first of all I pointed out that both AMD and nVidia are guilty of anti-competitive practices, so the accusations I'm part of the fanboisie are misplaced.

Secondly, I'd need to see a lot of evidence before I'd believe GPUs have some inherent advantage over CPUs for physics calculations; physics engines have been incorporated in numerous games for years and hardly any games are CPU limited on even the most basic machines. Il-2 has it's own rigid body model for crashes for example, one of many innovations.

People need to move past brand loyalty and see attempts to control the market for what they are: monopoly exploitation that will hurt consumers in the long run. PhysX, CUDA etc are just attempts to balkanise the industry in the exact same way Netscape and Microsoft tried to with the internet. They took open standards like HTML and added proprietary extensions; the idea was that websites would look bad or just be broken on their opponents software. This had nothing to do with helping consumers and everything to do with gaining power over them.

I don't believe that AMD are more innocent than nVidia, it's just that these tricks serve the interests of the dominant player rather than the underdog. Two companies are already insufficient for proper competition. If either gets a lock on the market, everybody loses.

dduff

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by dduff442

Secondly, I'd need to see a lot of evidence before I'd believe GPUs have some inherent advantage over CPUs for physics calculations;

GPUs have advantages over CPUs for processing, full stop. The only advantage CPUs have is that they are optimised for x86 and x64 code, so you need them to run Windows (or Linux, or Apple's OSX).

People used to use multiple CPUs to make fast computers, now they use multiple GPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU

CUDA is the nVidia name for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

The AMD name for it is Stream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fir...evelopment_Kit

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

GPUs have advantages over CPUs for processing, full stop. The only advantage CPUs have is that they are optimised for x86 and x64 code, so you need them to run Windows (or Linux, or Apple's OSX).

People used to use multiple CPUs to make fast computers, now they use multiple GPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU

CUDA is the nVidia name for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

The AMD name for it is Stream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fir...evelopment_Kit

http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/c...sp=release_157

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by swiss

Isn't it the programmer/studio who decides to use physx or not?
So:

1st: blame the programmers
2nd: blame AMD for not having something similar
3rd: blame nvidia only if they OWN the programming studios.

I don't really disagree with that, but that's just one side of the coin. The point stands that if we are ever left with a single GPU brand, a lot of things we take for granted will become prohibitive in price.

I think that currently nVidia's lead is a perceived one and not a real one, a lead that's mainly in the marketing department. That's why i object to such practices, because if they sell enough of a product that needs improvement technically, they will be less inclined to improve it.

It's not like i'm an nVidia hater either, up till my current PC all i've ever had was nVidia cards. However, i have no brand loyalty whatsoever. I pay good money to these people and i expect the product to suit me, if it doesn't then too bad for them. However, the reason i can do this is because there is a competitor. I wouldn't be able to if there wasn't one.

In simple terms, a spinning logo during game start-up or all the hype about a technology that's still in its early stages and used in a handful of games (tesselation) doesn't equal true technological benefits for me that will justify their prices.

I'd rather they used some of that money to improve their manufacturing techniques, bring down the cost per unit and lower their wattage and heat signature than buy advertising space for a logo on as much games as possible. Then they would be more competitive, their products would be even better and we would all benefit from it due to the price wars with Ati.

As it is now, Ati has been selling at the prices they are simply because they know it doesn't make sense to buy a single core card that costs almost as much as, is hotter than, draws similar or more watts and delivers comparable performance to their dual core flagship model. If they were feeling threatened they would have cut prices earlier.



EDIT:

Originally Posted by dduff442

Well first of all I pointed out that both AMD and nVidia are guilty of anti-competitive practices
[...........]
People need to move past brand loyalty and see attempts to control the market for what they are: monopoly exploitation that will hurt consumers in the long run. PhysX, CUDA etc are just attempts to balkanise the industry in the exact same way Netscape and Microsoft tried to with the internet. They took open standards like HTML and added proprietary extensions; the idea was that websites would look bad or just be broken on their opponents software. This had nothing to do with helping consumers and everything to do with gaining power over them.

I don't believe that AMD are more innocent than nVidia, it's just that these tricks serve the interests of the dominant player rather than the underdog. Two companies are already insufficient for proper competition. If either gets a lock on the market, everybody loses.

dduff

That's exactly the point really.

A company develops software to further their own hardware sales: Good

A company actually spends money and time on sabotaging their own hardware if a competitor's hardware is also present on the system: Down right unacceptable and worth a big fat "screw you" to them next time i decide to buy