Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Some unknown terms for me, plz help!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 25, 2010 5:17:37 PM

i'm very impressed with the answer of this forum.
and i'm now waiting to buy a graphic card (5670) and i'm reading a lot about the graphic cards

and i got some terms which i don't understand, so please explain me

1. what's physic X and it's the property of nvidia and ati don't have it, so what's the advantage of having physic X and what's the disadvantage for ati of not having this
2. i read i 1 review that he got ati card and got another nvidia for secondary physic X card, what is this mean
3. i think cuda is technology to enhance the speed for transfer of media file, but i think it's not correct. so correct me please.
4. what's the effect of this tech in game play
5. what's the advantage of ati over nvidia interms of tech (nvidia have cuda, physicx and what more)

More about : unknown terms plz

a c 201 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2010 5:29:25 PM

1.PhysX is a physics engine, some games use it some dont. Those that do use it normally place its workload on the CPU, however an nVidia GPU can take over the physx workload.

2. You can use an ATI card to handle the graphics rendering and have a cheaper nVidia card in the system that handles all the physx calculation.

3. CUDA is nVidia's way of using the parrallel processing power of the GPU to handle some largely parrallel tasks that the system might encounter. ATI has Stream which does the same thing. Some programs can use it for faster transcoding of videos, but it does not enhance the transfer speed as that is dependent on other hardware.

4. PhysX on the GPU is supposed to lead to more realistic particle effects, i dont use it so i havent seen this in person and cant say how significant it is.

5. ATI has Stream to counter CUDA, its a bit less used but serves the same purpose. The 5670 has eyefinity which will allow you to run 3 monitors off of a single card instead of just the normal two which can be useful for people who use large quantities of screens. ATI also has DX11 support, and OpenCL but the 5670 isnt really strong enough to use DX11 well and OpenCL isnt used much yet.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2010 5:51:18 PM

myowaiwin said:
i'm very impressed with the answer of this forum.
and i'm now waiting to buy a graphic card (5670) and i'm reading a lot about the graphic cards

and i got some terms which i don't understand, so please explain me

1. what's physic X and it's the property of nvidia and ati don't have it, so what's the advantage of having physic X and what's the disadvantage for ati of not having this
2. i read i 1 review that he got ati card and got another nvidia for secondary physic X card, what is this mean
3. i think cuda is technology to enhance the speed for transfer of media file, but i think it's not correct. so correct me please.
4. what's the effect of this tech in game play
5. what's the advantage of ati over nvidia interms of tech (nvidia have cuda, physicx and what more)



1. PhysX is indeed now the property of nVidia. It has been supported by a number of game titles. Some titles have been impressive with their use of the technology, most have been pretty lackluster. In all cases it has been used for eye candy and doesn't affect game play. So if you like to see things blown up more realistically, or cloth simulations that look more realistic, or water flow more realistically, then PhysX is a worthwhile technology. If you find that gimmicky, then it isn't. I don't know if the titles that use it to good affect are enough to say whether it's worthwhile. It's really subjective. There are no games out there that absolutely require Physx to run or be enjoyable.
2. Initially this was the case, with some finagling you could get PhysX to work on an nVidia card while using an ATI card to display the graphics. nVidia disabled this feature, and then just recently messed up and released a driver that allowed this again. The drivers were pulled once they realized their mistake, but once the cats out of the bag, it's hard to get it back in. The drivers are still available from many sites. Whether the benefit is worth all the hassle again is up to the user.
3. CUDA is an API which programmers can use to accelerate certain types of tasks to run faster by using a nVidia GPU. In most cases these seem to be image editing, video editing, video transcoding apps. Really anything that benefits from parallel computing benefits from compiling under CUDA (or stream processing on ATI).
4.I discussed the affect on game play. There really isn't any. It's really only affects the user experience. So if you really dig seeing millions of particles being expelled from explosions, then it's useful for you, if you don't, then it will annoy the hell out of you.
5. Whether nVidia has an advantage over ATI because of PhysX remains to be seen. Some have made a big deal of it. Personally I can take it or leave it. It's nice to have, but if I had an ATI card (I don't) it wouldn't be enough for me to go out and buy one from nVidia. As for CUDA, being an advantage, it just may be. It really depends on how important the apps that benefit from it are important to you. CUDA seems to have a little more traction with developers than stream processing does for now. That could be because there is just more nVidia hardware out there than ATI. If the winds begin to blow in ATI's favor, you may see developers put more time into stream processing. It's hard to say, nVidia spends a lot of money to market things like "The Way It's Meant to be Played", PhysX, and CUDA, so it's the technologies that everyone sees.

So no really definitive answers for you. It's not really a yes or no type question. It really depends on the individual to decide whether these technologies are important to them. They must be important to enough people, or nVidia wouldn't spend so much developing and marketing them.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 26, 2010 10:57:08 AM

thank for all, bro

now i get some more question

i'm planning to buy a graphic and as i say i initially plan 5670 512mb ddr5

but i look more into the cards and i've some more options, so plz let me know ur opinion

my current pc

i3 530 3.3 Ghz OC stock cooler (so cuda is not that important for me, right? :)  )
2gb ddr3 (will be 4 gb later)
500 gb hdd
H55 mb

my other options are
9600 gso 768mb ddr2 (my psu is just 400W so can this handle?)
9500 GT 512 ddr3
4670 512 mb ddr3

<i look this cards because i want to save some bucks>

i have 4650 ddr2 OC now and are they worth upgrade?

little tight budget, pc use for gaming <i'll play modern games that just release> (1280*720 medium setting)

thanks in advance
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 26, 2010 12:26:45 PM

Doesn't seem like you'd use CUDA.

The fastest card out of all of those would be the HD 5670 GDDR5, which would be worth the upgrade in my opinion.
m
0
l
!