1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

NVIDIA DirectX 11 Questionnaire – A Response to AMD’s Views

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Final8y, 9 Oct 2009.

  1. Final8y

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 May 2006

    Posts: 12,193

    Location: London, Ealing

  2. craig3000

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jan 2009

    Posts: 1,398

    ''Even today our GeForce GTX 285 significantly outperforms the HD 5870 in next gen games like Batman Arkham Asylum with physics. In fact, even our GeForce GTS 250 outperforms it.''

    That makes the 5870 sound really bad and the only reason the GTX 285 outperforms it is because they do not allow ati cards to do physx if they did the 5870 would perform better

    ''That's fundamentally the difference between us and AMD. We focus on graphics plus cool effects like physics and 3D stereo, whereas AMD just makes incremental changes to their graphics cards.''


    Yeah cool effects like physx, OHHH please the physx effects are crap, the day when I actually see some proper physics to be proud of, then I might take my hat off to them
     
  3. 'Wes

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Jun 2009

    Posts: 11,747

    Location: Łódź, Poland

    Didn't the Batman game limit ATI? If so, then a comment like the GTS 250 beating it is irrelevant.
     
  4. JBuk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Nov 2002

    Posts: 11,043

    Location: Cumbria

    ''Even today our GeForce GTX 285 significantly outperforms the HD 5870 in next gen games like Batman Arkham Asylum with physics. In fact, even our GeForce GTS 250 outperforms it.''



    That's all very well but it means nothing if your competitor has had it's legs tied together
     
  5. craig3000

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jan 2009

    Posts: 1,398

    I think it's all well and good nvidia are trying to push forward physx (don't like that its restricted to certain hardware) but when you say physics or at least in my eyes, I would think of chucking a hand grenade in a room, the windows blow out taking into account forces and a hole in the roof or floor appears, physics in red faction or star wars force unleashed, NOT a few bits of paper which fly about the room (batman) or some tear able cloth (mirror's edge)

    We need real physics, that makes us say 'wow'
     
  6. AMG

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Aug 2008

    Posts: 4,702

    Location: lincs, spalding

    that was a interesting read...and is that all what Nvidia have got to back themselves up on.....batman, oh dear.

    I like AMDs answers to Nvidia as well

    its all well and good Nvida pushing physics on GPU that is a good idea, but it give only effects unlike some Havok games that really do bring the game to life *cough* red faction, COH
     
    Last edited: 9 Oct 2009
  7. Auraomega

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 22 Sep 2009

    Posts: 2,089

    Location: Leicester

    Seriously guys, is the only argument nVidia have here Batman?
     
  8. AMG

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Aug 2008

    Posts: 4,702

    Location: lincs, spalding

    yes
     
  9. bru

    Soldato

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,324

    Location: kent

    yes we do need more physics in games, i dont think that is in question but we are not going to see a more widely adopted attitude to in game physics untill both the red and green teams have hardware acceleration in place, so come on ATI get it together.
     
  10. reflux

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Nov 2007

    Posts: 12,839

    Location: Enfield

    Yep. The same argument that means my frame rate gets cut by 20-30fps whenever there are PhysX objects on the screen. They honestly talk complete carp and I am getting really sick of it.
     
  11. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 33,194

    It wouldn't be so bad if the effects physx do,
    1/ couldn't be done on the CPu fine when you alter the settings,
    2/ weren't physics effects done in games for 5 years with no penalty hit in dozens of decent(and bad) games.
    3/ the overhead of power used actually gave accurate and realistic physics, smoke/fog we've seen in tonnes of games, very very scripted and basic damage to walls, and, lol, magical paper that goes right through Batman whenever it wants, so, not accurate, not real time, but scripted(badly at that) general paper/wind effects that we've seen in games for a decade................ oooooo

    The real question they should have asked when Nvidia bought up batman was, so, Nvidia, why are the physx in batman worse than plain physics in games 5 years, ago, why the scripted paper when your whole argument for physx is improved realism, accuracy and real time physics, why the scripted minor chunks of wall being damaged, again an effect we've seen for years and years. Why is it taking your physx hardware so much power and time to do such basic and not at all new effects, is something wrong with the hardware?
     
  12. bru

    Soldato

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,324

    Location: kent

    hehehe nicely put
     
  13. honvik

    Gangster

    Joined: 8 Aug 2008

    Posts: 264

    Basic economics. Nvida dont like how ATI have a new card out while they dont but both companies are fighting for market share so some truth is always 'bent' :) personally I now use ATI I like the card but if Nvidia had a better product overall I'd use it.
     
  14. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,783

    I couldn't agree with them more on that particular point.
     
  15. ebilcake

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2007

    Posts: 1,211

    Not really, if you've played the game with full physx enabled you wouldnt be comparing the effects to games released five years ago.

    It's actually a pretty stupid statement.

    Bare in mind I'm not a fan of physx myself, but this comparision is just silly and if asked they would just laugh at the interviewer.
     
  16. johny dolan

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 22 Jul 2007

    Posts: 1,396

    Location: nottingham

  17. thebandit

    Hitman

    Joined: 5 Mar 2009

    Posts: 752

    Location: Essex

    The problem with Batman on ATI was that nvidia locked out all the in engine AA for none Nvidia cards. Hence ATI cards were forced to use default AA ie full screen, which is obvioulsy going to be much slower.
    This is another instance of Nvidia blowing smoke up everyone's @rse and hoping we won't notice their Bulls***. In fact, it's another instance of Nvidia acting in a way which does not benefit PC gamers on the whole, only themselves. It makes me laugh cos only a week or so ago they were being portrayed as the saviours of PC gaming with the cash they pile in with TWIMTBP program, shows, there's always two sides to every story !

    Edit: oops I see at the top of the Anand article in the linky it basically says the same thing.
     
    Last edited: 9 Oct 2009
  18. magicroundabout

    Mobster

    Joined: 20 Apr 2008

    Posts: 3,134

    Location: West Midlands

    more importantly where is the Nvidia 250 comparison which it loses against?

    i think i may have to sell my card to get a 250
     
  19. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 33,194

    you do realise, bits of paper that pass through the character, unaware the character is there, is one of the very things Physx was supposed to prevent with its real time physx and interaction of models in a game. Scripted debrie blowing around is , well, used in games for years, upon years upon years. Its scripted, nothing more, something Physx/Nvidia/Ageia have been arguing is sucky and something physx can surpass bringing ultimate realism to games.

    The chucks of wall that fall down, aren't any chunks, again they are basic chucks that fall off walls, something we've seen, again, for years upon years. Its nothing remotely fancy or unseen before. Fog, since we hit DX10 fog, and its poor clipping effects, have been irradicated more or less, Bioshock shows the difference in dx9 and dx10 mode. Fog/smoke looks great in dx10, it "blends" in with floors perfectly, while in dx9, it clips, you see distinct lines where the smoke/fog ends as it interacts with the floor. Please tell me what physx brings to Batman thats brand new and never seen before?


    Do try and remember this simple thing, how the effects LOOK is down to the design team and graphical power, the PHYSICS BEHIND HOW THE EFFECTS ARE DONE, is what physx is supposed to improve. Better physics engine, better interactions, more detail, more realism. The EFFECTS and HOW THEY INTERACT, which is where ALL the power used in physx goes, it draws nothing, physx doesn't do anything graphically, how the effects work in Batman, offers nothing new at all. The way they work are like older physics in very old games, how they look has nothing to do with the physx team.

    For instance, I'm not a fan of Mirrors edge at all, but the cloth, and windows breaking are newer effects that are marginally improved. But the glass itself, is drawn and designed by the team, the cloth is drawn and designed by the team. The MOVEMENT and the interaction of player with the cloth, or the pieces of window with each other as they shatter, thats the ONLY part physx is involved in.

    Of course a game, out in the last month or two, looks better than a 5 year old game, again thats nothing even close to anything to do with physx. How the extra effects react, behave, move and work is what physx do, and it brought entirely nothing new to "game physics" at all.
     
    Last edited: 9 Oct 2009
  20. zytok

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 12 Feb 2004

    Posts: 2,325

    Location: Chesterfield

    Using Batman as a solitary stick to beat ATi with indeed rather lame. wtf do they think they're kidding?:rolleyes: