With what specs since you can predict performance that well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Printable View
With what specs since you can predict performance that well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Which we might see, best case scenario, late Q2/Q3 '10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Something around 416SP, 384 bit 1536MB GDDR3, 650mhz core clock and some sugar and spice with everything nice!!!! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
I am not predicting performance based on specs, but based on "strategy", where it should be placed at, imo. It's just an opinion.
I would bet for late Q1/Q2 if "full" GT300 launches indeed at November, but, hey, I don't know a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Seeing as no other derivatives of GF100 has taped out yet, that is very unlikely, especially with all the 40nm woes they have had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Nvidia says their architecture scales down well... i don't think ANYONE should be making ANY claims about ANYTHING until ANYTHING happens...
Most of the stuff in this thread is 100% bs... its just one extreme to the next... just don't say anything :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDDeathstar
Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Your all missing a key fact! Microsoft and Ati are basically becomming partners. The xbox has tesselator technology because it has a ati gpu. Microsoft wants to implement dx as close to and with ati as possible, because its good for both of thier buisinesses. If microsoft benefits through the xbox to have exclusive advantages, it has all the reasons to back ati and thier vision of 3d graphics.
well if i put massive, and its only small i look more silly then the way i do now :PQuote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
i know there will be a performance hit but imo i still belive it will be small but i could well be wrong :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
that doesnt match with nvidias strategy though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
historically it has always been their strategy to have parts that beat ati slightly or notably and then have a small to notable premium for that.
like 5-15% more performance for 50-100$ more.
so i doubt they will have a part that comes in between the 5850 and the 5870... the performance diference between a 5850 and 5870 isnt that big, and it makes more sense that they go for a part that still beats the 5870 but just not as much as the full blown gt300.
the further down they scale gt300 the more they lose the advantage of having one big beefy gpu, and it becomes harder if not impossible to compete price wise with a chip like juniper which is half the size...
we might as well shut down the internet then ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
Hey SAAYA, did you see my post for you a couple pages back on page 21. You gotta see it.:rofl:
522? hehe yeah :D
you forgot to mention that nvidia had gt300 silicon in q1 of this year, which is what nvidia originally claimed :D
and about the soda cans, they actually integrated that game into cryostasis in one of the first levels :D
seriously, you open a door and there is a pile of cans that then collapses, sponsored by physix^TM... wow... great... i feel soo immersed into the gameplay right now! :lol:
its really a shame... i wish nvidia would push for propper physix instead of gimmicks that you can show off easily and patch onto games without much effort, but dont really do anything besides catch your attention for a second or two and thats it...
what ever happened to cell factor btw??? :confused:
Yeah its pathetic whats going on. Im not a fanboy of either camp. I have a 9800gt, Im sorry 8800gt, whats the difference:shrug: but I tend to favor Ati's buisiness ethics. At least they improve the industry for all consumers instead of the nvidian hypocrites. Nvidia, Were saving gameing by making pc games "special" and adding Physx. If they truley ment it, they would do whats best for us consumers and improve games for all platforms, even at a loss. Whats the saying "you recieve 10X what you give away" and I believe every word of it. In fact Id have more respect if they improved games at a loss, it isnt a loss if you recieve something in return, like sabotaging ati performance. If nvidia truley wants Physx to take the world by storm, then give it away and set it free, and open it up to everyone who really needs it. Just by doing this alone could be enough to make it adopted and used by everyone. They could make more money making it work better than anyone else, than being the only one with it, and then the money will come to them. Its really simple aint it?:up:
If I had the cure for cancer what would I do?
a: Sell it by the bottle to be a millionaire
b: Give it away to save millions of lives
I would do b, but thats me, But I bet you I would make more than enough cash giving it away and saving lives.
Think if they marketed physx as folding for cures, and how they donated this technology to better help mankind. That would make me feel so fuzzy inside that Id want to buy a nvidia card! cuz were saving lives here and Nvidia can save more when you use their cards.
Instead of donating money to charity, just buy a nvidia gpu for 50$ or 100$ or more and help find the cures! anyone can help, see how much your helping day to day and make a difference. That sounds great if I do say myself!
Check this out:Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_downloads.html
Literally anyone can download the SDK for free. So why hasn't it "taken the world by storm" as you said? It's proprietary. NVIDIA claims that PhysX, along with CUDA, is open to any hardware should one want to support it. The most likely reason holding AMD back from doing this is the unbalanced performance prospects of such an implementation. They probably don't feel like they need to anyway, since more open standards like Bullet physics will eventually arise to make use of OpenCL.
Of course if AMD was so confident in OpenCL, they might be more enthusiastic to get a working driver out for it, but as it is, even NVIDIA has beat them to the punch there. AMD makes great hardware but they really suck in the software/developer support side compared to the competition.
I was just making a marketing point. It sure sounds a whole lot better the way I spun it, I think so. Like I said donate the technology to the community! but obviosly your happy supporting a propietary standard thats going nowhere fast. Why dont you support something thats beneficial to everyone? There is a difference between letting someone barrow your stuff and just giving it to them to do what hey want! You can only use what they let you, you cant just go and build your own physx ppu and sell it why? because its not free or open!
AMD is already working on getting their opencl certification for the gpu. They have it for the cpu, but the gpu is still waiting for certification from the khronos group. There opencl driver will be released within 2 months!
IMO, the most likely reason holding AMD back from adopting CUDA is the fact of being propietary itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
If AMD would have adopted CUDA, it would have been probable that CUDA would have been standardized (given the absence of other standards that are starting to appear now.
Then, being a propietary API, everything would be in the hands of their main (only?) competitor:
What if they want to, from a certain version of the API, not allow the use of the latest versions to the competitors, to keep themselves ahead? (Creative and EAX).
The developement of the API would depend only on the criteria of NVIDIA, and they wouldn't have a word on that, also.
Of course, there's what you say about performance, but IMO it would be one of the less problematic here.
There are tons of reasons why AMD isn't interested in a propietary API from it's main competitor becoming the de facto standard for GPGPU, so better if they don't help their enemy to achieve that.:yepp:
About OpenCL, I have seen them very enthusiastic. They have send a driver to the Kronos group that is approvation pendant (for compliance), even before (little before, I know) than NVIDIA. And the same that NVIDIA, they have a pre-release driver for developers with which you can work. They are not publicising so much as NVIDIA, but they are using it more. They are working with Havok, Bullet Physics and Pixelux, for example, to implement OpenCL. So I don't know how is NVIDIA beating AMD in OpenCL ground.
You hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
This is not how you run a business. What world do you live in, a fantasy world where everything is powered by love. Should they give away computers to third world countries so they can learn, should they give free videocards to people so that they may fold? Your being completely unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
If they give physX out to anyone and didn't charge licensing for it, they would have just lost money developing the technology and lost money for buying ageia.
From your lovey dovey perspective, what as AMD done to benefit mankind? They run a business like anyone else.
By some of the points you are making, NV is already starting to save lives because their cards are the best at folding for cures and as a result they are one of the biggest contributers(ps3(rsx) too). You most likely know this too, so buy more NV cards. Honestly, I would find it tacky and relatively deceptive if NV main advertisements mentioned folding for diseases everywhere since we all know this was not their main purpose. It would seem shallow and artificial, because all of us that are not naive would know that NV sells videocards mainly and the folding part is just a bonus.
I don't even see how AMD improves the industry for all consumers, besides being present to present competition for the industry they are in. Something NV does as well.
Also how are you giving it away(the cure for cancer), if your still making money off it. The most selfless thing(and the right thing to do in your opinion) would be to not collect any of the money, any money generated from the patent donated to charity and lastly to do this somehow anonymously so you don't get the credit for it.
Guys, you know that NV does give PhysX out to anyone and don't charge licensing for it (developers or IHVs as AMD...), don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
They offered to implement CUDA for free to AMD (and PhysX in the batch), and PhysX it's completely free to license for software developers.
They bought AGEIA to use their PhysX as an attempt of marketing CUDA in the mainstream, gamer territory in it's race to standardize CUDA as the de facto GPGPU standard.
They didn't need money to produce a benefit from their investment, what they need it's CUDA being used.
good point, that actually DOES make a diference... thats the ONLY useful application of gpgpu so far imo...Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
yepp... they have come a long way and improved their driver support, but its still not great, and still slightly behind nvidia... and their dev support is much worse compared to nvidia afaik...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
and farinoco, if cuda wouldnt have been a closed standard, we might have never seen opencl and direct compute... they might have adopted it or made it a v1.1 or 2.0 of cuda... but nvidia was too caught up in promoting themselves and too greedy, trying to lay chains on everybody else...
asking others to trust them in not crippling cuda for them is really quite something after nvidias history with other industry players...
Im sure Nvidia wouldnt make any money selling video cards if they had a life changing initiative to fold for cures.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
There has been countless people who have left a impact in this world, some good and some bad. The only ones that matter are the good ones, because without them you may have never even had a chance to live. How many people can you name that have done something good for mankind? Its always harder to remember the good people that made a difference than the the ones who never do.
Why dont you read the buisiness practices of this guy : Percy Julian http://inventors.about.com/library/i...lcortisone.htm
Read about this guy too while your at it: Forrest Bird http://inventors.about.com/od/bstart...rrest_Bird.htm
The thing about physx is it may be open to be used by anyone, but its not a standard and its not open source.
Once it actually becomes a standard and open source... where it can actually be applied in many more games for more than just special effects... you'll see performance increases... and in general just better physics...
Thats what I don't like about physx... it has the potential (even though atm it takes a relatively big performance hit) to do something worth while in the world (not only with gaming) and yet nvidia isn't letting it run free (disabling it in the presence of an AMD card....wtf?)
If nvidia let free physx the gaming world would be a much better place on many levels (literally and figuratively)
Forget about it, you know Nvidia... :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
This will become free just as likely as SLI.
They should port PhysX to OpenCL.
why? CUDA is pretty much nvidia's form of openCL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
That would be awesome for the consumers, and for PhysX itself, but I think it would completely defeat the purpose of the AGEIA adquisition and the PhysX promotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
IMO, the NV's goal was to introduce CUDA into the mainstream gamer community, so it would be used by as many developers as possible. That way the CUDA support of a videocard would get an additional value in that market, that would be lost if it wasn't required to run PhysX...
So I don't think it will happen any time soon, at least if they don't think that the original goal is missed out anyway. Which could happen if developers start favouring more standard and compliant solutions as other OpenCL accelerated libraries instead of going with the restrictions of using a CUDA only library.
Yes they should but they won't. AMD offered to do it for them and Nvidia declined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus