AMD Talks GPU Gaming Physics

Forum Graphics & Displays : Graphics Cards AMD Talks GPU Gaming Physics

PowerColor

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/g [...] -physics/1

Guys Ageia co-founder has joined ATI.So will we see ati version of physx in the future.

Reply to Pc Guru_07

These companies really need to agree on some kind of standard tech, all they're doing is polarizing the people who buy their cards, and probably making them all more expensive to boot.

------------------------------ Core i7 920 @ 3.7Ghz - 12GB Corsair XM3 - 120 GB OCZ Vertex Turbo SSD - 2TB WD Black - SLI GTX 580 - Xonar DX - Zalman 850W - Blu-Ray Drive - Thor's Hammer - Obsidian 800D - 3X Asus 120Hz LCD (Nvidia Surround) -
Reply to Annisman

Well, according to most AMD fans: PhysX is not worth it, slows down frame rates, doesn't improve graphics, can't be seen most of the time, places too much strain on hardware, is only used in a few games, is a distraction, etc. So, I'm sure the AMD version will be GREAT!!!

------------------------------ MSI P55-GD80, Core i7-875K, Corsair A70 heatsink, PNY GTX580, 8GB Corsair Dominator RAM @ 1600mhz, Corsair 850HX PSU, WD Black 1 TB, WD Green 2 TB, Audigy 2, Antec Sonata, Cambridge Soundworks 5.1 THX speakers, Samsung P2770H 27" monitor, Windows 7 Ultima
Reply to matto17secs

^Sarcasm overdose

Reply to Pc Guru_07

yeah about as good as an amd powered 3d gaming solution...

Reply to jjb8675309

@Matto and the cat guy, u guys work for Nvidia or what?
=.=

Here's what I see, GPU physics is more less useless in today'situation.
we have 6 core CPUs mainstream in today's market, and most games, still utilizing no more than 3 cores, it;s time they started taking advantage of more CPU cores.

According to Nvidia, GPUs are better than CPUs in simulating physics, but as we have learnt, this is mostly due to the x87 coding of PhysX, instead of X86 .

From AMD's roadmap, we already know that AMD's first 32nms will have 8 cores as their flagship, and Intel already have a 6 core monster as theur flagship, will more affordable ones to come with LGA 2011.

Programmers should start programming their games to use CPU for physics simulation better, etc. Source Engine and Frostbite Engine, with some of the best CPU based physics, looks fluid enough to compete with PhysX too

Message edited by greghome on 02-21-2011 at 11:28:45 AM

------------------------------ True Malaysia
Malaysian Fact
LittleGreg:Core i5-2500,8GB ddr3,MSI P67A-C45,Sapphire HD6950 1GB,3TB Total HDD,Xigmatek NRP-PC602
Lappy: Athlonx2QL62, 4GB ddr2, HD 3200 IGP
Reply to greghome

easy boss, I could care less about physx, people that want it buy a dedicated gpu or have a high end nvidia gpu, to each his own, whats your gripe?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to jjb8675309

jjb8675309 wrote :

easy boss, I could care less about physx, people that want it buy a dedicated gpu or have a high end nvidia gpu, to each his own, whats your gripe?

on what?
:hello:

in response to this qoute and you bashing physX...."@Matto and the cat guy, u guys work for Nvidia or what?"

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by jjb8675309 on 02-21-2011 at 11:42:04 AM

Reply to jjb8675309

jjb8675309 wrote :

in response to this qoute and you bashing physX...."@Matto and the cat guy, u guys work for Nvidia or what?"

well, Matto's sarcasm overdoes...........and u?.............sorry i picked on u :lol:

Take a chill pill dude! its just physx! we've all been arguing about it for years. Some people like it some people think its pointless. Get over it

------------------------------ Windows 7 64 - Corsair Special Edition White 600T Case - ASUS P6T SE iX58 - Intel Core i7 920 3.8GHz - OCZ 6gb DDR3 1600MHz - XFX Radeon HD 6950 2GB x 2 Crossfire
Reply to Marney_5

yeah its kind of a matter of preference really but personally I have 2 6870s so I'm not running physx...

Reply to jjb8675309

i think physics in games is great, physx is gay, why should i HAVE to buy a nvidia card to use it? I have owned both ati and nvidia in the past and am happy with both. What i never owned was a 3dfx card because i did not like their bullcrap glide API and glide only games. Everyone knows that an ATI card COULD run physx if nvidia would let them. The problem i see here is the wa*ker game devs that implemented physx probably because they were paid by nvidia. I dont want ATI to make their own version of GPU accelerated physics it just creates even more bullcrap. There are already open physics acceleration standards like havoc and bullet that are used in games so why even use nvidias physx or have ATI bring out their own bullcrap?

------------------------------ INTEL CORE 2 Q6600 @ 3.49GHz, CM Hyper TX3, ASUS P5N-D, 8GB DDR800 RAM, Powercolour HD6850, 650w Antec Trupower New PSU
Reply to iam2thecrowe

Aahhh! 3Dfx and Glide takes me back!

Ask the community Add a reply

Related content

See all topics related to "AMD Talks GPU Gaming Physics"

Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphics & Displays > Graphics Cards > AMD Talks GPU Gaming Physics

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 1913 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 1.062 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel