• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Radeon and GeForce Share Work, PhysX Applications Win

fitseries3 said:
i dont game though.
Click to expand...

Then IMO that money will be better spent paying some drinks to your friends or something. Maybe sending it to the DarkMatter, he will surely give it good use... :rolleyes:
 
fitseries3: how about a 9600GT? (if you can get 9000 series cheap). They used it in here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/

If I could get a 9800GT for $40 I'd swap my 8800GT, even though they are the same :D (well with luck 55nm version).

Fun to break stuff in warmonger, don't know if there is any other use at the moment. Runs surprisingly well with just my single card.

edit: oh and the 9800GT can always be downclocked for less power and heat, power is still plenty.
 
so 9800gt is a bad choice? 9600gt better?
 
OnBoard said:
Yep, just renamed and hybrid power support added. Most 9800GT's are even slower than my 8800GT stock.. :)


Not the 9600GT, but some 9800GT's are and probably will soon be all, like the 9800GTX+.
Click to expand...

yup , but not right now .
 
Not a bad choice, just that the single slot cooling goes for the near 100C load numbers (well probably not in just PhysX use). 9600GT would run a bit cooler and draw less power and still be fast enough for every physics currently out there.

edit: I'll take that back. It's a MASSIVE 9W load difference with 9800GT and 9600GT :) So yeah, the 9800GT is just fine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GT_Amp_Edition/24.html
 
i cant sell them for $40 but i can get you a good deal on one.
 
OnBoard said:
Not a bad choice, just that the single slot cooling goes for the near 100C load numbers (well probably not in just PhysX use). 9600GT would run a bit cooler and draw less power and still be fast enough for every physics currently out there.

edit: I'll take that back. It's a MASSIVE 9W load difference with 9800GT and 9600GT :) So yeah, the 9800GT is just fine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GT_Amp_Edition/24.html
Click to expand...

I've been talking about the small differences all the time. :)

Anyway the 8800GS/9600GSO would be a lot better physx card.
 
Exactly what Nvidia wanted...and you guys fall for it...
 
DarkMatter said:
I don't get it. We fall for what?
Click to expand...

Nvidia wants to win back discrete card market share , and with AGEIA acquisition they can attack ATI on two fronts . Graphics and this PhysX . Nobody knows how popular is it going to get, but everyone wants to buy a Nvidia card to run those few games .
 
They won't, software based physics engine is still by far the most popular, Intel bought the company that is the industry leader in gaming physics engine widely used in games, AMD/ATI is also following this approach since they are a CPU/GPU company as well...

PhysX is pretty much a gimmick now like it has always been (probably dying a slow death) when both Intel and AMD/ATI are using their multi core CPU's to assist on in-game physics.

The processing power involved isn't that demanding at all, using a 2nd graphics card solely for PhysX is a complete waste of time when any multi-core CPU could handle it without a single hint of slowdown at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
insider said:
They won't, software based physics engine is still by far the most popular, Intel bought the company that is the industry leader in gaming physics engine widely used in games, AMD/ATI is also following this approach since they are a CPU/GPU company as well...

PhysX is pretty much a gimmick now like it has always been (probably dying a slow death) when both Intel and AMD/ATI are using their multi core CPU's to assist on in-game physics.

The processing power involved isn't that demanding at all, using a 2nd graphics card solely for PhysX is a complete waste of time when any multi-core CPU could handle it without a single hint of slowdown at all.
Click to expand...

Again, :shadedshu we are obviously not talking about the same physics. CPU can't and never will be able to handle the kind of physics that GPUs or PPU can. The demos and games that have been already released show how good PhysX can be. It is not a gimmick at all. And those demos and games can run easily on my card when deliverately downclocked the shaders to embarrasing clocks to test how much of the card was actually being used. The veredict is that my GT can handle a lot lot lot more physics. The future will just be so much better IMO. Ati very inteligently said they COULD end up using Ageia if it is successful, because they knew it's a good thing. They are just hoping game developers don't adopt it to the point that GPU acceleration is required.

wolf2009 said:
Nvidia wants to win back discrete card market share , and with AGEIA acquisition they can attack ATI on two fronts . Graphics and this PhysX . Nobody knows how popular is it going to get, but everyone wants to buy a Nvidia card to run those few games .
Click to expand...

That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.

EDIT: BTW you knew that Ageia aproached AMD/Ati long before Nvidia isn't it? Ati had the chance and they didn't took that train.
 
Last edited:
That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.


To another Point, Havoc is the alternative to Physx. TBH, Id rather not buy hardware that supports a Function such as Physx until there is actuall Tangible Software out there that utilizes it, not just a handful but when majority have that technique, by the time Actuall Stuff comes to fruitition it will be time to upgrade again= which makes buying that piece of hardware a waste of time, im sorry future proofing is not in my vocabulary.
 
ATI actually announced that they won't go for their own or nvidia's but will focus on the directX11 (which reportingly has physics) and OpenCL (note the C not G in there) variants, and perhaps nvidia will have to follow suit, it's hard to argue with DirectX really, even when nvidia tries from time to time.

It's a bit trange how ATI still has to decide paths and don't seem to have resources to follow 2 paths, even after AMD bought them, a company that tossed billions of dollars around like it's going out of style.. well actually, the dollar is going out of style I guess :P
 
eidairaman1 said:
That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.


To another Point, Havoc is the alternative to Physx. TBH, Id rather not buy hardware that supports a Function such as Physx until there is actuall Tangible Software out there that utilizes it, not just a handful but when majority have that technique, by the time Actuall Stuff comes to fruitition it will be time to upgrade again= which makes buying that piece of hardware a waste of time, im sorry future proofing is not in my vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Future proofing? I hope that at least 2 of the 50 PhysX titles that are going to be released n the coming months will be worth a try. Those with Ati hardware can do 3 things:

- Buy a Nvidia card and enjoy the extra physics.

- Don't buy anything and argue about something they don't want, and they don't understand, primarily because they can't have it.

-Enjoy the game as they can play, not acting like a childish, crying for something they can't have.

PhysX is just a FREE added value for those who bought their hardware. If you don't have it and don't want to benefit from great physics, then continue as you are today. But why argue with something yo say you don't care about?

I remember so many people saying the same about the first graphics cards that is actually so funny... I'm not saying it will be as successful, but it has the potential.

Besides Havok is the alternative, but not the competition. It has nothing to do against Ageia, because where it is computed. LOL Havok, UT games, Half-LIfe 2, Oblivion... CRAP, CRAP, CRAP. The physics I mean. It had to come Crytek and make a better physics engine on their own, even if they are supposedly not experts.
 
Last edited:
Wshlist said:
ATI actually announced that they won't go for their own or nvidia's but will focus on the directX11 (which reportingly has physics) and OpenCL (note the C not G in there) variants, and perhaps nvidia will have to follow suit, it's hard to argue with DirectX really, even when nvidia tries from time to time.

It's a bit trange how ATI still has to decide paths and don't seem to have resources to follow 2 paths, even after AMD bought them, a company that tossed billions of dollars around like it's going out of style.. well actually, the dollar is going out of style I guess :P
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about GPU physics on DX11. GPU compute is going to be there AFAIK, but from there to a good physics API there's a long way. DX11 will launch a lot later and taking into account the adoption rate of DX's, we wouldn't have hardware accelerated physics until 2011. No thanks, give the physics now, and I myself will decide if I want it or not.

EDIT: after some searching I have found that Ati said that before Ageia's adquisition. And TBH there is a difference. Ageia had a hardware base of not more than 100.000 PPUs, Nvidia has over 50 million capable cards and 55-60% market share. You can't compare, it does pay off to implement good physics in your game if you know it could mean an advantage over other games when you have so much potential buyers.
 
Last edited:
Look what happened Ageia, it never took off, Nvidia bought them up, they gotta be careful they dont have the same fate, but i guess Nvidia would drop it like a whore if it flops, before they go under.
DarkMatter said:
Future proofing? I hope that at least 2 of the 50 PhysX titles that are going to be released n the coming months will be worth a try. Those with Ati hardware can do 3 things:

- Buy a Nvidia card and enjoy the extra physics.

- Don't buy anything and argue about something they don't want, and they don't understand, primarily because they can't have it.

-Enjoy the game as they can play, not acting like a childish, crying for something they can't have.

PhysX is just a FREE added value for those who bought their hardware. If you don't have it and don't want to benefit from great physics, then continue as you are today. But why argue with something yo say you don't care about?

I remember so many people saying the same about the first graphics cards that is actually so funny... I'm not saying it will be as successful, but it has the potential.

Besides Havok is the alternative, but not the competition. It has nothing to do against Ageia, because where it is computed. LOL Havok, UT games, Half-LIfe 2, Oblivion... CRAP, CRAP, CRAP. The physics I mean. It had to come Crytek and make a better physics engine on their own, even if they are supposedly not experts.
Click to expand...
 
eidairaman1 said:
Look what happened Ageia, it never took off, Nvidia bought them up, they gotta be careful they dont have the same fate, but i guess Nvidia would drop it like a whore if it flops, before they go under.
Click to expand...

Man, understand this:

less than 100.000 PPUs = big flop as no game developer will care to make separate code if the hardware base is only 10% of the number of game copies they try to sell. Yet Ageia managed to convince some developers!! Speaks volumes to the quality of the feature!

more than 50 million capable GPUs (and potentially a lot more to come) = a developer only needs to sell the game to 2% of the installed base to become the most successful PC game in late years. IF the game really stands out IMO they can sell a lot more than that 2% of Nvidia owners EASILY.
 
DarkMatter said:
I'm not so sure about GPU physics on DX11. GPU compute is going to be there AFAIK, but from there to a good physics API there's a long way. DX11 will launch a lot later and taking into account the adoption rate of DX's, we wouldn't have hardware accelerated physics until 2011. No thanks, give the physics now, and I myself will decide if I want it or not.

EDIT: after some searching I have found that Ati said that before Ageia's adquisition. And TBH there is a difference. Ageia had a hardware base of not more than 100.000 PPUs, Nvidia has over 50 million capable cards and 55-60% market share. You can't compare, it does pay off to implement good physics in your game if you know it could mean an advantage over other games when you have so much potential buyers.
Click to expand...

They actually said it early august this year:

"in his speech GPG CTO Technology Day held in Iceland’s capital, Raja Koduri, CTO of AMD GPG (ex-ATI), announced that AMD believes that the time for proprietary software solutions such as AMD's own Close-to-Metal and Nvidia's CUDA has passed.

As a result, AMD will throw its efforts behind DirectX 11 Computational Shaders and the OpenCL GPGPU language and will focus on standardized solutions only."

Of course it's true that that is not mentioning physics, and also it's not quite clear if MS will do anything in that direction or offer encouragement or support for physics on the GPU via DX11, on the other hand ATI could use the GPU-computational part of DX11 and write a physics plugin for it, theoretically, as could nvidia, or nvidia could extend CUDA to work on top of DX11 so they can smoothly move their PhysX api to DX11 and have no need to expose their users to big changes in that area.
And then there's the DX11 platform.. it'll be vista/windows7 and not XP, which most people still prefer and have.
So I guess you are right, PhysX seems to be the winner and we'll have to get nvidia cards as assist or someone should make a PhysX driver for ATI.

Personally I pull more towards getting a nvidia card as secondary right now, as soon as I know if that's practical, because some dubious pictures on hardspell isn't quite the same as knowing it works, and works smoothly, to mix cards that is, for all I know it's fraught with all kinds of issues and/or requires hacks and instability I'm not willing to accept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top