Well you aren't correct about the papers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Your_Boss
+1 I agree.
I posted about NV & Batman Physx a while back.
Basically, when NV gives money they are going to get a "benefit" that the other company doesn't get. If it's just a Logo then sure, no problem, just advertizing. But when they're paying for actual coding then you're talking about major changes. When they're paying millions then you better be damn sure they're expecting more than an ad.
When they paid for Batman:AA to add in Physx fog, papers, etc. The makers didn't replace those features with "static" similar looking stuff, THEY LEFT THE FEATURES OUT ALL TOGETHER!
Just so you can better see how Physx fog is better than no fog at all. Well, no sh%t. You know what? During game play 99% of people wouldn't notice any damn difference between Physx fog and "static" fog. But, oh no, we can't have anything close to our Physx fog so why don't you just leave the fog out entirely..It'll make our cards look even better.
That type of BS I can't stand. You're telling me that AMD should have paid money so the game developers could put in "static" fog instead of nothing at all? What a crock. If a game developer really wanted what's best for ALL cards then they will not play the favoritism game. And just accept money for simply an ad or something.
It's like a whore politician..both sides can pay all the money they want but ultimately it's who pays the most who gets the final vote their way.
Sorry the papers do show up without PhysX enabled.
I didn't go further in and check "the fog", but the papers are there.
Also, "the fog" was implemented with Physx, not "removed without".
Would you like to show me the proof that "fog was removed" ?
Try, "fog was never present", until PhysX and TWIMTBP put it in. Or perhaps it's there as the papers indeed are.
Also, the Batman cape swings and swirls a bit without PhysX - although with PhysX the effect becomes impressive.
Now, since ATI didn't spend money to make the game better for their users, you should be mad at ATI - and Huddy's promises which failed to deliver - their lack of "radar" for the game, and all the rest...
The facts are, with more than one card company, and differing hardware, each card company has to do their own work, not their own and work for the other.
ATI(AMD) needs to PAY UP if they want all the millions of dollars of PhysX work, and they aren't going to pay a dime, because they don't have a dime.
A good solution is buying the videocard that has massive support in thousands of games, and that's what most people do.
They don't buy the non-supported card, then complain the competition didn't make everything work for them. (well some do just that)
When you buy an ATI card expect it to be less supported, have fewer things going for it in games, and have less solid drivers - and yes, that's MONEY that makes the difference. A "cheaper card" means less profit or even losses ( and it was losses for many, many years) ... and now it's a miniscule tiny "profit" if any considering general book cooking for Q results.
That's the result when "buying the cheap" card.
In fact, when I buy my EXPENSIVE card, I want something for the money I'm paying, and I certainly don't want all that money I've spent "given away" to the competition that runs around claiming they paid so much less for the same or better performance. Instead, that's what I hear is the major, major DEMAND!
Yes, not only are ATI card fans supposed to pay less, and have their cheaper smaller core card that makes no profit or barely a pinch do as well and better than the "expensive" NVidia product, but they;'re supposed to be able to DEMAND that the money NVidia spends, money from MY POCKET, go toward making your cheap ATI card better ? :mad: No... more like :rofl:
I don't see what's so hard to understand. I'M PAYING, not you. I GET THE BENEFIT, not you. :up:
Really, is it FAIR any other way ? I see how people want something extremely UNFAIR - they get by cheap, then the big $$$ others pay - benefits are to be ganked and stolen "for those who didn't pay up" !
So, the "ATI" side wants to, for FREE ! ....
1. Control NVidia and their money and
2. CONTROL the game makers, and their games -
Somehow, there is on that side, an inherent DEMAND that they HAVE A RIGHT to some game makers PRIVATE COMPANY and game output !
What would really open the eye's of the "collective" that has a big "entitled" problem is a big game manufacturer putting out a game that RUNS ONLY ON NVIDIA HARDWARE.
Now, that's LEGAL, that's THEIR RIGHT, they could DO THAT, and NO ONE could stop them.
That's THE LAW, and that's HUMAN RIGHTS.
But, that just doesn't happen... does it... even after endless NVidia $$$$$$....
Time to put the conspiracies to rest.
That's not evidence of NVidia or game maker bias
Quote:
Originally Posted by
STEvil
SNIP!
A. 3Dmark series. Some of them work better on one type of GPU than another. This isnt necessarily due to brand loyalty, it could just be the method in which the engine is programmed.
SNIP!
B. 3Dfx cards? 2. See the TMU performance arguments coming around again with GTX480 vs GTX580
SNIP!
C. Trackmania series. I've got a 4870X2 and a GTX480. The 4870x2 gives nearly 3x performance in the latest version.
D. A game engine can be design perfectly for one architecture and be almost worthless on another. AVP2, Metro 2033, even the 58xx series is an example of this by itself due to the tesselation method
SNIP!
E. Engine performance as related to GPU architecture is nothing new.
A. Ok, with 3dmark you refute your own point to start. It's switches around, you claim it's fair.
B. 3DFX - and quake - NEW TECH, no point, it's "coming around again.. ? NO POINT, no proof. 580 isn't out yet. Same card company anyway.
C. Trackmania - the game with the ATI texturing problem - likely "the latest version" has some ATI CYA implementation, and wether or not it's 3x 480 I don't know, but it sure is DOUBTFUL - and you have NO LINK.
We could cite something similar from the recent SIM and SLI CF - what was it Civ 5 ? - Driver problem... probably already fixed - used as a comeback cover for ATI's massive CF failure - to show a single instance of SLI issue in PART of the benchmark.
Once again, not a game bias - not a problem, merely drivers
D. AVP2, Metro 2033 - that's just ridiculous - I've seen the benchmarks - no different than FAR CRY 2.
No doubt the two card companies cards/ drivers favor this or that game. BUT - BOTH OF US - have seen entire TURN AROUNDS in that - where initially one company took this or that game by storm, yet driver updates, game patches, etc - turned it around to the other company.
So, all in all, NO GAMES come out so obtusely biased to one architecture or the other.
It just does NOT happen.
There are only so many game engines and so many ways to do things differently, and in the end, both cards run on all the engines and switch about in performance regularly - AND ESPECIALLY AT VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND SETTINGS - IN THE SAME GAME. :D
One wins low res, the other catches up or passes on high.
THAT's reality. :clap:
E. We agree here. It's just that the games made and engines used are quite fair to both architectures, a fine swath of switching about here or there and often within the same game.
Nothing to see - no giant bias, no giant NVidia $$$$ ripping apart ATI unfairly....
:up:
I've been correct all along.
