ATI vs. NVIDIA??? Who currently has the throne?

[jethro]

Im not sure if there are any atm.
But im sure devs see the potential since it is not proprietized.

I don't think they do:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ysics-argument

ATi made OpenCL physics available to the world in April, 2009. That was one year and seven months ago, still no games . I don't know of any in development either.

Of course, that wasn't the first time ATi tried to push for physics:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=308&pgno=1
ATi also promised GPU accelerated physics through Havok back in 2006, and never delivered.

I have several PhysX games: Batman AA, Metro2033, Mafia 2, Dark Void, Darkest of Days, Cryostasis, Mirrors Edge, UT3, Ghost Recon AW, and Warmonger.

[Poci]

The upshot is that game developers can use physics more liberally, they don't have to worry about minimum specs as much.

If I were a dev Id rather use OpenCL since any gpu can accelerate it.
Nvdia physx on the other hand can only be done with nvidia cards.

[jethro]

If I were a dev Id rather use OpenCL since any gpu can accelerate it.
Nvdia physx on the other hand can only be done with nvidia cards.

I guess the devs don't agree with you, it's been over 19 months since ATi suggested OpenCL for physics, and still no games or even announcements I know of.

So for today it's fair to say "ATi does not have GPU accelerated physics. Nvidia owners can play several GPU accelerated physics games, and there are more in development"

[Pehu]

I guess the devs don't agree with you, it's been over 19 months since ATi suggested OpenCL for physics, and still no games or even announcements I know of.

So for today it's fair to say "ATi does not have GPU accelerated physics. Nvidia owners can play several GPU accelerated physics games, and there are more in development"

I think that says more about the whole physics processing using a GPU and really does NOT speak in favour of nVidia either. It is a handful of games that support PhysX and frankly none of them need it either. PhysX is what is holding back true and full physics support, since it is obvious that a proprietary solution will NEVER get full developer support. And that is a good thing.

[oralpain]

Id love to stick with ATI but there scaling in CF isnt that great

Crossfire scaling has improved greatly with recent drivers.

[mr_raider]

If I was to buy today, Nvidia would get my vote

460 1g > 6850
470 > 6870
580 > 5870 etc

These cards are lumped so close together in price we can do the opposite exercise:

6850 > 460 768mb
6870 > 460 1g
5870 > 470
580 > 5970

[Meridian]

since it is obvious that a proprietary solution will NEVER get full developer support.

Exactly - that's why DirectX was never able to compete with OpenGL.



Oh - wait a moment...


It doesn't work like that. If a propriety solution gets a big enough head of steam, then provided that they don't price themselves out of the market like 3dfx with Glide, then it can frequently beat an open solution. Open is good, but money is better.



M

[Fle@B@gL@ne]

Corsair 850 sorry not 800 I like the Corsair ram over time so I took a shot.

[jethro]

Crossfire scaling has improved greatly with recent drivers.

This is true, but I think it's just on the 68XX series cards IIRC.

[jethro]

I think that says more about the whole physics processing using a GPU and really does NOT speak in favour of nVidia either. It is a handful of games that support PhysX and frankly none of them need it either. PhysX is what is holding back true and full physics support, since it is obvious that a proprietary solution will NEVER get full developer support. And that is a good thing.

How can PhysX be holding back GPU accelerated physics when PhysX is the only GPU accelerated physics Pehu? I'd say by definition that means NVIDIA is the only company advancing GPU accelerated physics for gamers.

I think it's unfortunate ATi isn't joining NVIDIA helping devs bring GPU accelerated physics to us. NVIDIA supports OpenCL, I think it would be great if I could play OpenCL and PhysX games.

[Pehu]

How can PhysX be holding back GPU accelerated physics when PhysX is the only GPU accelerated physics Pehu?

Err... It is not? OpenCL was already mentioned here?

I'd say by definition that means NVIDIA is the only company advancing GPU accelerated physics for gamers.

By pushing its own proprietary engine over OpenCL, do you think that is advancing GPU accelerated graphics? If nVidia spent the same amount of money and development towards OpenCL and its integration into games... Maybe we'd get somewhere.

I think it's unfortunate ATi isn't joining NVIDIA helping devs bring GPU accelerated physics to us. NVIDIA supports OpenCL, I think it would be great if I could play OpenCL and PhysX games.

Like said: nVidia supports OpenCL in theory, but pushes its own proprietary engine instead (and thus it is nVidia who 'isn't joining the effort helping devs bring GPU accelerated physics to us'. nVidia has also taken steps to not allow using its own nVidia based graphics card alongside an AMD graphics card for physics only... How is that for support for a combined effort?

[jethro]

Err... It is not? OpenCL was already mentioned here?

By pushing its own proprietary engine over OpenCL, do you think that is advancing GPU accelerated graphics? If nVidia spent the same amount of money and development towards OpenCL and its integration into games... Maybe we'd get somewhere.

Like said: nVidia supports OpenCL in theory, but pushes its own proprietary engine instead (and thus it is nVidia who 'isn't joining the effort helping devs bring GPU accelerated physics to us'. nVidia has also taken steps to not allow using its own nVidia based graphics card alongside an AMD graphics card for physics only... How is that for support for a combined effort?

NVIDIA: Purchased Ageia for millions of dollars, developed the PhysX SDK for GPU accelerated physics, employs many people whose only job is helping developers add PhysX to games, and most importantly, helps bring GPU accelerated physics to market at great cost.

ATi: Complains that all the investment NVIDIA made in GPU accelerated physics should be made available to their customers, for free. Expects NVIDIA to do QA for using PhysX on their products, at cost to NVIDIA.

That is the difference in NVIDIA and ATi, NVIDIA spends the money and brings more immersion to gaming while ATi watches on the side lines complaining that other companies should invest in improving their customer's experience.

NVIDIA isn't stopping developers from using OpenCL, they are members of the Khronos Group and support OpenCL as well. Developers are free to use whatever standard they like.

You should be directing your frustration at ATi for not buying Ageia and Havok when they were considering it, and currently not working with developers to bring OpenCL physics to their customers. The only company holding back physics in gaming is ATi- NVIDIA and Intel purchased physics companies and have assisted developers in working with their technology.

ATi sits on the sidelines and says other companies should spend the money and do the work for them, just like they're doing with 3d.

BTW- Intel told ATi they wouldn't develop GPU physics for Havok also, are they in on physics conspiracy too?

[AMDScooter]

^^^^ Not a fanboi for either AMD or NV.... I have loved and hated both companies at one time or another.

But it seems to me like NV is cutting it's own nuts in regard to physx. As mentioned above NV has gone through great cost to buy Ageia... continue development... etc. Why not ensure their physx works with AMD's stuff? IMHO they would easily offset the development and support cost in sales of midrange cards for physx only to people that use AMD high end cards as their main GPU. They are effectively taking away another channel to cut into AMD's mid range market. Trying to force folks to buy their cards only seems extremely short sighted IMHO. It would have been a better move from a purely business oriented aspect to get everyone hooked on physx first... then maybe later on after full adoption by consumers AND game devs to perhaps pull a d*ck move and have it work on NV cards only. Kinda like how MS implemented product activation. Get people hooked on the products first... then make them pay!!!

That's my 2c on the issue anyway. BTW.. there are some new AMD drivers out... we're up to 10.10e now. If you like your old CCC... I'd do some reading before installing these.

[oralpain]

This is true, but I think it's just on the 68XX series cards IIRC.

5850 reviews/comparisons with the various 10.10 drivers have shown scaling nearly on par with that of the GTX 460s.

The 68xx cards aren't so different from the previous generation.

[JoshMST]

As much as everyone likes open source, and open standards, NVIDIA really is the one who has put their money where their mouth is. While AMD/ATI took some of the first steps with GPGPU work on the X1800/X1900 series of cards, NVIDIA started work on CUDA well before that and put into place a pretty significant group of people, and a lot of funding, to get it off the ground. Sure, the first few generations of NVIDIA products that supported CUDA were not so hot, that all changed with the G80.

Now we are onto GPU physics, and NVIDIA threw down a big chunk of change to get into that game. PhysX is actually free to developers to use, but it is unsupported. If they want help with programming, then they have to pay NVIDIA.

So I honestly see no problem with NVIDIA and how they push PhysX. They paid for it, they have worked hard to get it to where it is, and AMD has been lagging well behind when it comes to developer support and really pushing things like OpenCL and Bullet Physics. Sure, they have a few people working on those things, but not nearly the number NV does. Last I heard, NV has around 4x the developer relations people that AMD does, and that pays off for NV as a company... as games do typically run better on their cards... because they provide the people to help make that happen.

Sure, there has been lots of screaming about TWIMTBP, and developer money... but in the end, it isn't a conspiracy, it is NV helping these developers get their product up and running. And running well on NV cards. While it is unfortunate that we see things like the specific AA code in a couple of games which is not proprietary, which NV claimed it was, that is an exception and not the rule.

But yeah... I guess what I am trying to wrap up here is that NVIDIA is putting in the money and the effort to get this all off the ground. AMD needs to ratchet up their support if they want to compete. They have added more people, but they have a ways to go to match NV's support.