Nvidia halts PhysX support... 32 replies

Please wait...

>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#21 9 years ago

PhysX!!!:deal:




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,447 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,656 Posts

779 Threads

#22 9 years ago
Sgt. D. Pilla;4976107And I never said that. But when 90%~ of developers develop on nVidia hardware, and when that same percentage of games have "The way it's mean't to be played" I'd call that a Monopoly, as would a number of other people.

Uh, again, not an indicator. If you really want to get down to it, freaking Intel are the market leaders in GPUs at the moment. Nvidia is second, with something like 30 - 40% odd of the market at most. NVIDIA ISN'T A MONOPOLY. ANYBODY CALLING IT THAT WOULD BE SO VERY WRONG. PHYSX IS BARELY USED BY ANYBODY OUTSIDE OF GRAPHICS NUTS.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#23 9 years ago

Aye the GPU market is really an oligopoly as I believe all three major players (Intel, nVidia and AMD in order of size) all have sufficient market share to qualify. Beyond those three companies you have companies like SiS, Matrox and VIA who have a tiny percentage.

Of course if you look at the dedicated GPU market specifically then obviously Intel falls off the chart completely, but in that case it's still not a monopoly, it's a duopoly. It's just that nVidia is the larger of the two companies in that duopoly.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#24 9 years ago
And I never said that. But when 90%~ of developers develop on nVidia hardware, and when that same percentage of games have "The way it's mean't to be played" I'd call that a Monopoly, as would a number of other people.

Counting integrated GPUs, I would estimate Intel has about 65% of the market. Most of the rest is divvied up ~60/40 between NVidia and AMD, respectively.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#25 9 years ago

Bs|Archaon;4976206Aye the GPU market is really an oligopoly as I believe all three major players (Intel, nVidia and AMD in order of size) all have sufficient market share to qualify. Beyond those three companies you have companies like SiS, Matrox and VIA who have a tiny percentage.

Of course if you look at the dedicated GPU market specifically then obviously Intel falls off the chart completely, but in that case it's still not a monopoly, it's a duopoly. It's just that nVidia is the larger of the two companies in that duopoly.

Thats' altogether too many opolies in one post. LOL




Shadowfire67

All your base are belong to us

50 XP

3rd February 2004

0 Uploads

596 Posts

0 Threads

#26 9 years ago
*The.Doctor;4974321Meh, PhysX doesn't make much of a difference in anything besides benchmark scores and tech demo's anyways. ATI is still able to keep right with Nvidia's performance even without PhysX, so i don't see that being much of a problem for them.

Really? Check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luSAnouAFJs




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#27 9 years ago
Really? Check this video out.

I refuse to believe that without PhysX it is impossible to have steam and smoke effects. I also refuse to believe that without PhysX it is impossible to have breakable banners, since that was pretty much half of Havok's last 'update'.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#28 9 years ago
I refuse to believe that without PhysX it is impossible to have steam and smoke effects. I also refuse to believe that without PhysX it is impossible to have breakable banners, since that was pretty much half of Havok's last 'update'.

It's not, but why would nVidia promote Havok if they use Ageia? They dont do physics for Havok they do them for Ageia. Thus having breakable cloth banners is impossible without PhysX, same for the smoke, DYNAMIC smoke that bounces off things that it collides with, paper is the same, its not the fact the paper moves, its HOW it moves. Breakable environment is a bit BS, every game has that. It's not impossible to have steam and smoke without PhysX, (or havok) but it's how it is handled. That video was a comparison of with Physics off and Physics on, and a nVidia title, Off there is no way you can easily and smoothly perform the smoke, paper, cloth effects. On there is a way, since you have a physics engine to do it with. So yes, in a nVidia title, it will be impossible to have steam and smoke effects dynamic like they did without having PhysX enabled. ATi and Havok would do the same thing.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#29 9 years ago

Yeah the PhysX argument can really only be justified if you look at it in a perspective of whether you're equipped hardware wise for games that have it, not so much whether the effects it has are possible without it. It's really just another effects standard that Nvidia is pursuing. I happen to follow it because I prefer Nvidia over ATI, not because I think PhysX is a superior format or necessary to get such effects. It's just that ATI hasn't gotten up to speed with physics and even if they do, they'll likely still have crap driver writing.

Two things struck me as funny about that video. He had to really whirl Batman's cape to even get the paper to move, at which point you'd likely be engaged in combat and looking at foes you're fighting not the ground, and the banners didn't even show on the non PhysX part of the last demonstration. I'd actually rather they show interactive spider webs in vents than this stuff. However these are just minor examples of the possibilities with PhysX. They've yet to fully tap it's potential.

A bit of trivia I'd like to share for those following PhysX for whatever reason though. I've seen benchmarks where two GTX280s and a 9600GT for PhysX actually outperform 3 GTX280s in tri SLI. That either says a lot for the efficiency of having a dedicated PhysX card, or very little for Nvidia's current tri SLI vs dual SLI efficiency. The graphics rendering scalability seems to go way downhill once you add the 3rd card.

Wouldn't it be interesting if they were purposely thwarting tri SLI capability a bit just to entice more people into using the 3rd card for PhysX? It seems even lots of MBs are made to encourage that kind of setup. Many if not most tri SLI capable boards are at best 16x, 16x, 8x, more commonly 16x, 16x, 4x. All it really takes is 4x for a dedicated PhysX GPU.

Tri SLI using 2 graphics GPUs and 1 PhysX GPU just makes more sense in a lot of ways than tri SLI with 3x graphics GPUs. There's not enough room on lots of standard ATX MB to even have 3 two slot GPUs without getting inthe way of a PSU case, etc, and certainly there's better chance of fitting a sound card with one of the GPUs being single slot for PhysX. Besides that it's a cheaper setup.

This thinking has made me reconsider what X58 MB I want to build my next rig with. I may forego Gigabyte's 2oz copper, 16x, 16x, 8x Pci-Ex slots and 2000MHz memory standard in favor of the tried and true ASUS P6T, with which I could use two dual slot GPUs and a single slot PhysX GPU and still have room left for a PCI sound card. With the Giga UD5 the former is possible even with 8x on the PhysX card, but with the tradeoff of costing $30 more than the P6T and having to use a Pci-Ex sound card, of which there are few.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#30 9 years ago

Surely you've seen all the ipod and iphone commercials?

I've never actually seen a Mac commercial though.

Oh and no I haven't. I never see MS or Apple adverts on TV, ever.