Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

it looks like the table is turning towards Nvidia

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 20, 2008 8:16:37 AM

The Inquirer, now that's from the horses, Mouth?
August 20, 2008 8:21:52 AM

wow is this news! not!

like 200 games use physics?
Related resources
August 20, 2008 8:30:42 AM

Table-turning? How?
August 20, 2008 9:29:55 AM

This is the best news ever! I am going to buy all of NVidia's stocks right now. Woohoo! I'm gonna be rich! Unbelievable! I just really can't wait until I can cash in all those stocks and buy a lot of stuff. Alright NVidia! Way to go! Thank you in advance for making me a billionaire! Yesssss! Woo! Yeah. Sweet... sigh.
August 20, 2008 11:27:31 AM

How is this table turning? About 1% (and even thats pushing it) of the games on the market use physics on a level where you need this (or a physx card/chip), other than that the CPU can do the job fine.

Physics on PC"s can piss off, leave it to the consoles where the 360 and PS3 can handle this with utter ease. I just want to see some good games comming out on the PC for once.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2008 12:03:26 PM

Good move by NVIDIA.

Look at it this way: Why is it that in a FPS game, you can hide behind a hollow wooden box and not die when a grenade lands on the other side? Physics solves that problem, and enhances all games as a result. How people can stand against a free, open source physics API is beyond me.
August 20, 2008 12:33:03 PM

Last time I checked most Gamebryo titles don't lend themselves very well to complex physics effects; Oblivion and Fallout 3 maybe but both of those use Havok...
August 20, 2008 12:53:51 PM

spathotan said:
Physics on PC"s can piss off, leave it to the consoles where the 360 and PS3 can handle this with utter ease.


Was that a serious comment? Leave it to the consoles? HAH myabe the PS4....
August 20, 2008 1:33:03 PM

huh? did i do something wrong? i was only posting the news i read you know...sigh
August 20, 2008 1:44:06 PM

Last I checked, they're adding PhysX because the package ALREADY pretty much was effortlessly integrable with the main competing API, Havok. As homerdog noted, hardly any of those titles using GameBryo are the sort that would rely on physics for much of anything, save for BethSoft's Oblivion and Fallout 3, and both already use Havok well enough, accomplishing everything they do with the CPU alone without physics-related slowdown.

And of course, this really matters pretty much nothing to consoles, since last I recalled, the GeForce 7 series was incapable of being used for most GPGPU applications, including physics, and the PS3's RSX GPU is effectively just a cut-down G71. (with half the ROPs and memory controllers)

So really, this won't have any actual impact on nVidia's fortunes. Yes, it may be "good" for them, but its impact would be less than 1% of the impact had by, say, the mere existence of the 4870X2. To say nothing of what's become their worst nightmare, the 4850...
August 20, 2008 1:58:20 PM

szwaba67 said:
This is the best news ever! I am going to buy all of NVidia's stocks right now. Woohoo! I'm gonna be rich! Unbelievable! I just really can't wait until I can cash in all those stocks and buy a lot of stuff. Alright NVidia! Way to go! Thank you in advance for making me a billionaire! Yesssss! Woo! Yeah. Sweet... sigh.

lol have fun losing all your money when ati cards support havoc and physx
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2008 2:00:34 PM

I wish there was just 1 physx type out. Then wed see apples to apples, and itd be cheaper and more forthcoming in games. The only thing nVidia truly has going thier way, and its going slowly, is 55nm. Theyre effectively beat in every segment, which will be nailed down come Sep. The 4670 and the 4850x2 will finish the complete market edge for ATI. nVidia needs 55nm, and quickly
August 20, 2008 3:12:51 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I wish there was just 1 physx type out. Then wed see apples to apples, and itd be cheaper and more forthcoming in games.

Yeah, some sort of open physics API (OpenPL? :D ) supported by both (or all three ;) ) IHVs is what we need to get devs on board for GPU physics. Console compatibility would also be a great boon, which is why PhysX looks so enticing. NVIDIA doesn't seem opposed to letting ATI use CUDA or PhysX, but I understand ATI's reluctance to adopt a closed standard controlled by its largest competitor.

Also, although it's a long way off, DX11 and its compute shaders could make some waves :pt1cable: 
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 171 Î Nvidia
August 20, 2008 7:25:34 PM

captaincharisma said:
have you been living in a cave for the last 4 years. physix has already been done. its just a special card you have to buy. not sure if they still sell those cards or not. but who cares :sleep: 

Not any more it's not, or did the news not reach your cave?
August 20, 2008 8:07:27 PM

Plus, has anyone here ever tried to use Physx? I bought a Ageia PhysX card for $10 dollars from a friend who was stupid enough to buy one. I tried using it on UT3 on the map with the giant tornado, and if it didn't crash, it would just run extremely crappy. I also tried it on GRAWII demo, and it made absolutely no difference.

As far as Physx is concerned right now, the games it supports, are better off not using it. Maybe in time this will change since Nvidia is now heading development, but it's not really a major selling point as of right now.
August 20, 2008 10:35:08 PM

Lavacon said:
Was that a serious comment? Leave it to the consoles? HAH myabe the PS4....


Im going to just assume youve never heard of or seen what the Sony/IBM Cell processor can do. Did you think LucasArts just...randomly decided to not put The Force Unleashed on the PC, or do you think it was because you would need a $1200-$1600 PC to run it at high/max settings and still struggle with the physics due to piss-poor driver optimization and choise of OS. Xbox 360/PS3 can, and DOES, provide the same visuals as that $1500 PC and runs it at 30FPS + constantly. This is a tired old argument and dosent belong in this thread really, just felt the need to rattle your brain. Nvidia/PC fanboism is beside the point though.

Nvidia, ATI and Intel can snatch up all the physics crap they want, but it does me no good until some damn worthwhile gameSSSSS(S, PLURAL, S, MANY, S, MORE THAN ONE) come out that take advantage of this.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2008 11:04:29 PM

homerdog said:
Last time I checked most Gamebryo titles don't lend themselves very well to complex physics effects; Oblivion and Fallout 3 maybe but both of those use Havok...


My thought exactly.
And yeah when I read Gamebryo at first I thought, Ooh Bethesda? Oie! Now that would be a coup, and would make me cringe a bit at them going with one IHV over the other 3. I would definitely be drawn in if they made it important to their future titles.

Then I read the upcoming titles, pfft, big freakin' deal. :sarcastic: 

Seriously they should show me a version of one of their existing titles with PhysX at the core and then I'd be impressed, but the title list sofar, no big games use PhysX as the underlying physics engine.

And for me as long as it ain't Fallout3 or Elder Scrolls V gambryo titles, then....


a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 20, 2008 11:25:45 PM

nottheking said:
..save for BethSoft's Oblivion and Fallout 3, and both already use Havok well enough, accomplishing everything they do with the CPU alone without physics-related slowdown.


Yeah, but wouldn't you just love them to have added accelerated physics ontop of that. It works pretty good, but a destructable environment in Oblivion or Morrowind, OOoh I'd pay extra for that. [:thegreatgrapeape]

Hopefully Bethesda will stick with Havok for ESV and give it some Larrabee acceleration by then (launch 2010 still on?).

Quote:
And of course, this really matters pretty much nothing to consoles, since last I recalled, the GeForce 7 series was incapable of being used for most GPGPU applications, including physics, and the PS3's RSX GPU is effectively just a cut-down G71. (with half the ROPs and memory controllers)


True, but the PS3 was given Ageia IP to allow them to use their CELL FPUs as PPUs, so for the PS3 it would be possible, and for the X360, possible, but far less practical because of the design.

homerdog said:
Yeah, some sort of open physics API (OpenPL? :D ) supported by both (or all three ;) ) IHVs is what we need to get devs on board for GPU physics.


Yep, I've been hoping for that since the first Xfire-Phsics vs SLi-Physics days, although not necessarily open, but I would prefer that too.
The idea of Direct Physics was promising (just because DX is bigger than OGL) but they dragged their feet, and there was little motivation in the OGL community to work on physics (far more effort/interest in OpenCL). Hopefully DX11 with it's physics intergration will help.
!