Printable View
LegitReview GT 240 Batman Preview Nov 17, 2009
LegitReview HD 5870 Batman review Sep 22, 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemax
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8666/lrhd5870.jpg
Looks like big check can change the review big time. We can only guess where the check came from
wow and they call themselves legit review :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
Its true though. It DOES run 57% faster. Its just misleading as they're forcing uncommon settings onto the 5870.
Can somebody please explain to me. I'm DYING here.
90nm G80. 128 shaders
65nm G92. 128 shaders
55nm G92b. 128 shaders
65nm G200 240 shaders - 576mm2!
40nm GT240. 96 shaders
nVidia has barely changed the shader count at all... AMD went from 64 to 160 to 320, and each has 5 execution units. AMD doesnt even need die shrink to make 2.5x more shaders (RV670 -> RV770) and still small die size.
Does this mean AMD shader architecture design is more compact and efficient,
or
nVidia design has technical limitations and overhead?
Not sure if this was posted here yet or not:
Quote:
NVIDIA Fun fact of the week: The GF100 board pictured in last's week's fun fact is 10.5-inches long -- the same length as GeForce GTX 200 Series graphics cards!
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Nvidia's facebook pageQuote:
Originally Posted by Tim
the result they obtained is completely legitimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Quite simply, if you put Physics = high, ANY Radeon will plummet in fps like stone.
How? Why? Ask TWIMTBP. You'd think a 3.3Ghz Core i7, executing 8 threads in parallel, could perhaps be enough to figure out where to render a few dozen swirling pieces of paper. After all, whats a few pieces of paper compared to cranking out 3000fps per core in Unreal Tournament.
The simple and logical conclusion is that some *special* BS is being done to make the GeForces look good.
Another successful example of parking dump trunk full of money at developer's HQ.
Check the CPU utilization screenshots.. pretty much explains everything:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...m,2465-10.html
Forgot 55nm G200b 240shaders and 484mm2 and the supposed G212 w/ 384shaders on 40nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
AMD's shaders are more compact and efficient in terms of power consumption and die area.
The shaders for Nvidia are also clocked +2x higher than the core clock which helps even out the playing field in terms of shader count and performance.
Hmmm.. what happened to the 9-9.5in board that some people here where so adamant was true?Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Nice how they picked out Batman for its own unique graph without any proper analysis of the results though isn't it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
I think the issue is more the paragraphs of text surrounding the graph than the graph itself. In particular, the text right before the Batman graph looks like something I'd read on an NVIDIA press release, not on a 3rd party website.
I don't know if its necessarily Nvidia's design that as limitations, but that ATI's was designed from the start to be super-scalable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
They said that R600 would be the foundation for 3 generations of video cards, and while a lot of people said that R600 was a failed architecture, R700 definitely vindicated the design. R600's failures were more likely due to the fab process and leakage which killed any chance of higher clocked cores or the rumored original specs of 480SP's, rather than 320.
That being said, it is true that G92 and GT200 have all been heavily based on the G80 (G92 basically just a shrink) and Nvidia did hit a wall earlier on the scaling of its design
Yeah but even though shader clock domain is higher, clocks havent really improved much G80, G92, G92b, G200, G200b..Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
nVidia's crazy fantastic "PROGRESS" in clockspeeds :rofl::ROTF:
90nm - avg = 562
8800 ULTRA 612/1500
8800 GTX 575/1350
8800 GTS 500/1200
65/55nm - avg = 662
8800GT/9800GT 600/1500
8800GTS 650/1625
9800GTX+/GTS250 738/1836
65/55nm - avg = 615
GTX280 602/1296
GTX260 55nm 576/1350
GTX275 633/1404
GTX285 648/1476
40nm - avg = 617 (ie die shrink = slower?)
GT210 675/1450
GT220 625/1360
GT240 550/1360
Although nVidia has yet to beat 740Mhz, which ATI/AMD did with 2900XT, 2600XT, 3870, 3870x2, 4890, 5870 etc..
ATI/AMD clocks aren't improving much either. 850 is tiny improvement over 750, but at least its not slower.
the previous one was nvidias PR they failed to mention that in article but if you look into forums you ll see the discussion going on and admin telling taht it was Nvidias own slides now the second one is Legits own review :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaserjzx100
TWIMTBP is that a misprint? Did you mean TWIMTBG? (see #3)Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
haha, thanks, much easier to explain the meaning of the word now.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPsQuote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
The 275 > 5870 chart is with PhysX enabled. No doubt the 5870 destroys the 275 with PhysX off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68LegitReview GT 240 Batman Preview Nov 17, 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by Teemax
LegitReview HD 5870 Batman review Sep 22, 2009
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8666/lrhd5870.jpg
Looks like big check can change the review big time. We can only guess where the check came from
I had a feeling that might have been the case, especially since I've never seen any review put "X% increase with Y card" on top of their graphs before. But since I couldn't find it anywhere else after a few minutes of Googling I decided not to mention it.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
first graph looks to be from NVIDIA PR material! No one else puts full explanation like "Boost Performance by 57% with a dedicated GeForce GT 240"Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Journalists usualy put on that place name of the benchmark (like on the second graph)!
It's shame that "Legit" do not mention anywhere fact that article is PR propaganda from NV :(
more importantly, note how fast clocks decline on nvidias 40nm gpus with added complexity! over a 100mhz drop for the most complex 40nm part so far, and its only a cut down G92... so a tweaked G92 in 40nm can only clock to 550mhz, but fermi which is 5+ times more complex will reach 650+mhz? (clock derived from nvidias flops numbers mentioned at the super computing event)Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Dont think thats the problem. X2900XT was 80nm and something like 740Mhz. The mid-end X2600XT was a blazing 800Mhz.. a milestone nVidia has yet to conquer 3 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
AMD moved to 55nm early on, at same time as nVidia launched 8800GT on 65nm. Likewise, AMD first to 40nm. So, you'd think AMD would be the one with yield problems, right?
Lets compare last 3 gen product launches.
X2900XT/PRO - full chip, 600-740 clocks
HD3850/HD3870 - full chip, 668-825 clocks
HD4850/HD4870 - full chip, 625-850 clocks
HD5xxx... only one where not selling all full chips at launch.
nVidia? crippled chips gallore - 8800GTS, 8800GT/9800GT, GTX260.. even their mid-range where you'd think yields wouldn't be an issue.
Clearly, nVidia designs are either more susceptable to defects or tight schedules are pressuring them to cut corners... litterally.
die shrink - > lower clocks??... this happened for each and all of AMD's Athlon64s. Recall those top of the line FX were 130nm. Couple years later the 90nm were offered at highest clockspeed while 65nm for mid/low end.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
And then ofcourse Phenom1 but that was more of a power budget issue.
And power budget is clearly no prob for a 32sp 40nm nVidia chip... so how does AMD make 850Mhz 2B tran and nVidia only 600Mhz and shaders running barely as high as original 90nm GTX....?
1. They do it on purpose, so Fermi looks good compared to GT220 /GT240:ROTF::rofl:
2. Fermi delay will be announced and they'll ship a 40nm G92 in the meantime :shocked:
3. Design not scalable. :shrug: Could be a prob if even crippled cut-down Fermi can only run (extrapolating)... 400Mhz.
4. Simply inexperienced and incompetent engineers. Can't be the "process" since 4770 was getting great clocks early on before things were ironed out.
5. Management.:mad:
Hate to repeat it so many times, but nVidia Fermi is way late, their DX10.1 cards are a joke, huge die GT200s are sinking profits, and dont even have Intel/AMD chipset business to fall back on. If they dont get PERFECT Fermi out with whole lineup down to bottom, it could be not just NV30, but more like 3Dfx time
Important correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Nearly all games have physics calculations now. Lots of games with configurable physics wont affect an ATI card.
Physics =/= Physx
One is a model of the laws of motion and the other is marketying hype and false bottlenecking
Except his post cleary says PHYSX not physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
Unless hes retarded, he wrote physx on purpose. In which case, if you put PHYSX to high, any radeon will do poorly
Lots PHYSX games only use cpu do physics,Only 14 games has gpu PHYSX.
So,radeon will do well in most PHYSX games.
Well, for people who really cares about games with GPU PhysX, you can always do something like this:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/38/18bat.png
hmm, HD5870 + GTX275 faster than 2xGTX285 SLI at a GPU PhysX game.
:D
I wrote Physics.
Does it matter if I wrote Physics or PhysX? Its OBVIOUS we're talking about 1 setting.
The point is, thousands of games (minus the dozen that use PhysX) didn't need nVidia fancy PhysX to make rigid bodies and cloth and blowing papers.
In 2002, Hitman2 had cloth simulation. Half-Life 2 floating barrels and colliding objects didn't require a nVidia card. And ofcourse Crysis runs just as well on a Radeon as a GeForce.
But, Batman is a TWIMTBP game. nVidia wants only their loyal gamers to have access to all features. I'm all for acceleration of existing content, but requiring PhysX for additional game content (cloth, debris, papers etc) is just wrong.. And if Crysis managed to model village houses collapsing from exploding barrels with a CPU, why other than "cheating" would some crumpled paper in Batman cause it to always go down to 15fps with a Radeon?
FYI: in older post I have link to tomshardware which shows like 30% CPU (i7) both WITH AND WITHOUT PHYSX - most cores idle.. clearly its artificially generating low results.
no, using partially functioning chips on low/middle end parts is to save money. they have also been tenacious moving to new processes for the past few years. why are you so focused on frequency? g80 had 24 rops and gt200 had 32. they can also do 4 multisamples per clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
i would take this as sensationalism. half of the "facts" you have stated are wrong or just made up. they are in better shape than amd right now too. its a 384 bit bus so my estimate for the die size is less than 500mm2. that would put clocks at a g80 level. gf100 is simply a monster of a chip and there is no denying that.Quote:
And power budget is clearly no prob for a 32sp 40nm nVidia chip... so how does AMD make 850Mhz 2B tran and nVidia only 600Mhz and shaders running barely as high as original 90nm GTX....?
1. They do it on purpose, so Fermi looks good compared to GT220 /GT240:ROTF::rofl:
2. Fermi delay will be announced and they'll ship a 40nm G92 in the meantime :shocked:
3. Design not scalable. :shrug: Could be a prob if even crippled cut-down Fermi can only run (extrapolating)... 400Mhz.
4. Simply inexperienced and incompetent engineers. Can't be the "process" since 4770 was getting great clocks early on before things were ironed out.
5. Management.:mad:
Hate to repeat it so many times, but nVidia Fermi is way late, their DX10.1 cards are a joke, huge die GT200s are sinking profits, and dont even have Intel/AMD chipset business to fall back on. If they dont get PERFECT Fermi out with whole lineup down to bottom, it could be not just NV30, but more like 3Dfx time
PhysX is marketing.... nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
its not a PHYSX game then...
and a lot more than 14 do it
eeeeeh no. only 14 GPU PhysX-accelerated titles. The rest of the titels is CPU accelerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
I'm sorry. I thought there were a LOT more than that. My mistake.
While I do think theres something wrong with Radeons and the performance levels with Phsyx, I'm not sure what it is. The code itself is being run on the cpu, which has done this sort of stuff for years. Its like its purposely horribly coded for cpus, and then told not to work when in the presence of a radeon gpu (hence why hacks can get physx working with great performance on radeons). It just seems anti-competitive. I don't have anything wrong with physx but it just seems its being used for 'silly' things and not used to its full potential - especially since its proprietary.
So are you saying nVidia will be fine if Fermi isn't launched Q1 and perfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
or
Are you giving nVidia the benefit of the doubt and re-assuring me that a non-perfect Fermi is impossible?
I'm not particularly concerned about ultra-high end Fermi products, but more worried about lack of anything else other that Fermi on roadmaps. Whats gonna replace the 8800GT->GTS250?
Why, the 8800GT -> GTS250 -> G350 is what.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Rebadging is your friend. ;)
I wouldnt be surprised in the least. G92 is probably as cheap as dirt now and still matches up with HD 57xx performance wise. It'll be a tough sell without even DX10.1 support but since there's no word of anything faster than GT216 on the horizon they probably have no choice but to rebrand (or just keep selling) old reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humminn55
Coming soon to a store near you!
Geforce G350!
Features:
CUDA!
PhysX!
DirectX 10.1
TWIMTBP!
Did we mention CUDA??!!
uh trinibwoy, g92 isn't even really close to 57xx series
thats like saying the 8800 ultra = 4870 which is just a blatant lie
Maybe with a 256 bit GDDR5 bus... and LN2.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Fermi better be the second coming of the 8800 or I will be giving up on nvidia.
Think they'll miss you ? ( no offense )Quote:
Originally Posted by shoopdawoopa
even if fermi sucks for gaming, so what? itll only take nvidia 6-12 months to get back on its feet, and they have a big enough gobbly fat belly to make it through that time easily without going bankrupt :D
i really hope fermi will deliver... i dont even want to think about what will happen if they dont...
ati prices will get out of control, nvidia will go crazy pr wise, trying to make up for bad performance with more pr, they will go for lots of perf tweaks again, be even more agressive in trying to lock ati out of games they support during the development... it would get real ugly...
If they are too aggressive in locking ATi out, AMD may file charges aka law suite's and nvidia would be in trouble as its not really that trustworthy looking at the past "3dfx"Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
The PR dep for Nvidia is as good as the lawyer dep for Apple. :ROTF:
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I think you need to read some 5750 reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
Exactly. Maybe big green has to learn the hard way that bigger is not always better ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
it matches the 5750, but can't match the 5770 and can't match the 5750 and 5770 power consumption, OC potential, features etc...
Maybe that's why even the most expensive PCs at the time couldn't run Crysis 60+FPS stable on enthusiast settings. Have you heard the phrase "Can this run Crysis?" Wouldn't you like being able to run this game at 100FPS with all eye candy enabled by only adding a 60$ secondary card?Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Look, I totally understand all this NVdia is evil deal and frustration caused by their business practices but the bottom line is, they invented the technology they can use however they want. You don't like how they market their technology? Solution is simple: Just don't purchase their cards and the games that only support their technology. Let your wallet do the talking. Even this thread, 6 pages of nonsense speculation over a stupid picture on facebook is nothing but fuel to the NVdia hype machine. Besides, AMD has directx11 cards and some games will show more features to ATI cards and not to NVdia cards (like tesselation). Just buy a 5870 and enjoy your games.
Nvidia invented Physx? ;)
nVidia bought Ageia, that invented PhysX and the first PPU card.Quote:
Originally Posted by postumus
But you already knew it :p:
Well I think the PPU cards floating about out there are part of the gripe, ppl purchased them and used them with their Ati GPU for years and now they can't. The Ati gpu Aegia ppu combination must have been the QA and Support nightmare that drove Aegia to auction itself off ;)
You are right, they didn't. I should have said, NVidia owns the technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by postumus
It doesn't have to. As long as it's cheap enough and good enough it'll sell. Nvidia sold gazillions of 5200's. If they can sell that they can sell anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Crysis running like :banana::banana::banana::banana: on most hardware has nothing to do with its physics engine, it's GPU limited :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by SamHughe
PhysX discussion aside, it's not the size of the objects that matter, it's the number of them. If a house collapses into a few pieces it takes far less processing power to simulate than a several dozen bits of paper. It's quantity, not size that matters ;) You will never see a physics simulation running on a CPU that uses many objects - hence no realistic smoke, cloth or fluid simulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
the cryengine 3 movie with the nuke going off looked pretty damn realistic to me.
the definition of real is not quite as simple as throwing together a great engine and put in some objects and characters. good games are probably handled by a director who knows how to give a real movie feel. raw processing power with no direction can "feel" like crap. there are so many little things that we ignore in every day life, that when missing from a game can quickly take away the experience.
If Nvidia keeps PhysX artificially running on a single CPU thread to kill performance when no NV GPU is present, then you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
I didn't realize that Nvidia could dictate what's possible on a CPU. What's stopping somebody else from doing it? Why doesn't Havok have great fluid and cloth effects running on the CPU if it's so easy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Well not everybody is investing big money in the TWIMTBGQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Interestingly it has gotten awfully quiet around Havok after they were acquired by Intel oO I remember them being the #1 physics engine :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/tumbleweed_004.jpg
Someone wake me up when something actualy happens.
Not so quiet with about 70 PC games and more coming. Intel invested $110 million in Havoc, they are not going to go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Havok Inks Longterm Deal with Ubisoft® ─ Becoming One of Its Major Middleware Providers Oct 6, 2009
What does TWIMTBP have to do with coding a physics engine? Or were you just not able to answer my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
They're still the #1 physics engine AFAIK. Which is all the more reason to question why all these great effects aren't being done on the CPU if it's possible to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
right on bro :) everytime i enter this thread there is solme pointless discussion i think mods must close this thread until april or something :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
2. GimpedQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
They can also apparently dictate what is possible on a GPU (FSAA).Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Try to keep up with the times :up:
That wasn't a Cryengine 3 video, that was a CryEngine 2 video that was pre-scripted. So that nuke blast has already been debunked as not real time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Let me spell it out for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
Hhhhaaaarrrrdddllllyyy
Want me to explain? Okay good, Hope you got a nice drink right now. Let's take a list of both phsyic's engine support list.
http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=pc
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_all.html
Now let's compare them. But that's sorta hard to do.
But let's break it down. Some of the only Havok game's that looked appealing were Assassin's Creed, Half-Life 2, TimeShift, World in Conflict.
Now the PhysX list. Batman, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge, UT3.
Both a very note-able list.
But from my experience with all these titles. I do have to say on a physic level and environment. PhysX takes the cake. UT3's Tornado effects, Mirror's edge glass, cloth and etc. Cryostasis for it's water and more. Batman for cloth,boxes,etc(?)
But the Havok games I listed were very good too. But not in such details as the PhysX games.
Assassin's Creed - Very simple cloth effects
Half-Life 2 - Fun for games like Garry's Mod and throwing boxes...
TimeShift - Very good water effects in my opinion, but that's it.
World in Conflict - Level physics and that's it.
(Note - I'm not stating they not very good games, because they are extremely good games. I'm just giving examples based on physics engines.)
Of all you listed, I think half life 2 was the only real blockbuster.
Also, wasn't there a video of some guy simulating a million barrels in the crysis engine falling down?
I don't think most ppl question whether physics can be improved, just if a closed standard such as physx is the way to go for the industry. To me, it seems pretty clear that Nvidia splashes around some cash to developers to support Physx in order to unlevel the playing field. On a level playing field their cards can't compete in absolute performance, performance per $ or performance per watt. So it makes a lot of sense for them to disrupt the playing field and make it so an apples to apples comparison is impossible. I think most ppl would prefer an opencl phsyics standard and for the onus to be on developers to push the gpus/gpu physics, not hardware companies paying developers to include Physx support.
even cryengine physics engine looks better than havok's me thinks :rolleyes: *hides*
+ Red Faction Guerrilla (Excellent destruction physics)Quote:
Assassin's Creed - Very simple cloth effects
Half-Life 2 - Fun for games like Garry's Mod and throwing boxes...
TimeShift - Very good water effects in my opinion, but that's it.
World in Conflict - Level physics and that's it.
+ Wolfenstein (good overall usage of havok's engine)
Too bad it's buggy as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky
Didn't know those 2 used Havok. It doesn't have a Havok logo stamped all over it nor on the website.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Deye
I will agree Red Faction is good, but Wolfenstein wasn't. Floating bodies do not count for physics.
Nvidia gimped Havok? Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
nVidia Gimped PhysX when not run on an nVidia GPU (ie when run on a CPU). It is limited to a single core.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Its been explained to you twice now and your trolling-the-line is very tiresome. Go do it over on H or Toms.
Here are examples of "normal" physics beating pretty much anything "PhysX" has to offer.
Farcry Physics vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseIDV7jaU0
Farcry 2 Physics vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSL6ObOyNwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrZjhTg8J-U
Here's the Crysis vid with phsyics better than "PhysX".. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../9/VaHS-y_mapQ
Here's a Rollercoaster Tycoon vid with phsyics better than "PhysX": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuR9ZiO5URc OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIAT5VxuAro
Half-Life 2 Physics vids
"Physics House" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhIRaB5HFxY (best phsyics vid ever)
Sony TV ad recreation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h34xgynBpL8
Nuke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMyG8O_DXrI
Collision Objects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWD7n-mtU6U
Exploding Barrels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNDLJ8E6VrA
Would like to see that house filled with exploding barrels..
Also endless videos of Rube-Goldberg Machines on Youtube.
There isnt any PhysX enabled game that matches Half-life 2.
Physics house was stilted.
Totally unrealistic. An entire floor of a house with no support underneath floating?
Woodboards breaking pre-scripted. Jerky physics motions. Things moving in ways they wouldn't.
For a start, lasers puncture holes and weakened itegrity should crumble the house. Lasers wouldn't have that explosive effect on woodboards.
Physics fail.
Given the physics enabled materials available in the engine without creating custom content that is the best "house" that can be built. Given the rigid body physics used for the structures and how long ago the engine was programmed it is impressive. Show me a better PhysX vid.
edit
I should mention that the engine has limited capabilities of crush and angle/vector physics. If you put a 200 Ton weight on top of a board it wont crush it. If you put a weight off-center the item holding it up will not deform/snap.
NOTHING to do with Havok. I NEVER said anything about Havoc in my reply to you. Go back and read Piotrsama reply in post #356. To me it looked like he was talking about Batman and I just continued on that subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Since I never said anything about Havok in my reply to you I have no idea what is Warboy trying to spell out for me.
Can you please post a link for the above benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokinhow
Thanks Heinz
lets see if they fixed it on the new cryengine :) *waits crysis 2*Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Heinz, are you even following your own posts? I asked what Nvidia has to do with what's possible on a CPU and you responded like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
So there was no mention of PhysX or Batman anywhere. Now how exactly does Nvidia or TWIMTBP gimp Havok's ability to run complex physics on the CPU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
I hope this is the last time I need to explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
As I said already "go back and read Piotrsama reply in post #356" here it is:
Batman is the only game I know about where where CPU use is limited to single thread when PhysX is enabled. Read Tom'sHardware and many others. Therefore I believed that was what Piotrsama was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
When I did reply to your #357 post i highlight this part of your post "I didn't realize that Nvidia could dictate what's possible on a CPU." just to make sure I'm not talking about Havoc.
As I said before I never said anything about Havoc in my reply to you, neither was I interested to discus which is better Havoc or PhysX, but if you really want to know, for me Havok is 100% better since it works on my PC setup.
Yes please explain it some more. I fail to see what Batman has to do with what's possible on a CPU (your bolding). Batman is just one game.
Enough time wasted on you.
That's too bad. I was really looking forward to your explanation on how Nvidia is limiting the level of physics that's possible on a CPU. I see people making these claims all the time and at the end they can never back it up....and that trend continues.
Are you really that dense?Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
CPU use is limited to single thread when PhysX is enabled.
There....happy? nVidia has the game devs write the coding so that physics is limited to running on a single thread in the cpu, eschewing multi threaded running capabilities, when a non-nVidia video card is found in the system.
Is that so hard to understand? I guess so........
why would nvidia make physx run fast on a cpu? they would get more much speed and sales by using gpu's. physx is also designed for high throughput processors, not cpu's so that would probably waste a lot of time and money and defeat the purpose of physx altogether. the last time i checked physx was using 60% of quadcore systems too. core i7 is misleading because you have to understand how hyperthreading works. 4 threads have the same amount of execution resources 8 threads do when HT is on so the speed is invisible to task manager. the speed up is from reduced memory latency and pipeline bubbles.
Sigh, speaking of dense.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Humminn55
I'm not sure why english is so difficult to understand but what does PhysX have to do with the ability of other people (i.e NOT NVIDIA) doing better physics on the CPU? I missed the announcement that Nvidia has a monopoly on physics code.
Don't you know Nvidia locks developers in their secret dungeon lair and forces them to do their bidding, developers have no choice but to comply. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Oh, thanks I missed that development. Not surprised though...evil bastards :shakes: :rofl:
Troll banned for a week.
+rep to whomever delivered that ban, guy never has anything constructive to add imo. Was about to place him on ignore anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...x_8.html#sect2
:)
there is this one tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by techreport
Wow... look at all the violence I started...
I never mentioned Havok, or wanted to start a big argument.
My point was simply that the "you need to buy nVidia video card to get them" special PhysX effects in Batman were done LONG before. (ie smoke/fog effects in Aquamark3 - its NOT new but gullible younger gamers wont know otherwise).
And in the tomshardware link I posted and others, they clearly show CPU under utilization and little effect when PhysX enabled.
As Chumbucket843 pointed out, this is simply to make sure GPU PhysX looks/performs as good as possible by crippling/not-optimizing it for CPU.
EDIT: STEvil, that Crysis thing was running 0.1fps and sped up for youtube. I dont care if I get 1 000 flying boxes with CPU, or 60 000 flying boxes with nVidia GPU. Problem is nVidia is marketing all these common simple special effects as being only possible on nVidia GPUs.
I did read a jolly good article about the fermi/GF100/GT300 in a local Indian Mag. They focused more on the super computer application and cache design rather than anything else.
They positioned AMD's evergreen against Nvidia's Fermi, they started of saying both support IEEE 754 2008 with FMA but fermi has ECC while evergreen is limited to ECD "A little bit on EDC vs ECC in a real environment, etc".. The interesting part was the cache sub sytems.
Lets start of with L1, Fermi has 16 SM's with 64KB memory attached. This 64KB can be configured as 16KB shared memory and 48KB L1 cache or vice verse. Now comes the evergreen it has 32KB shared and 8 KB L1, this can not interchange. Now comes the L2 Evergreen has 4*128kb blocks meaning total of 512kb L2 and fermi has 768kb L2. To this mix Evergreen also has a 64kb data share.
Extract:
Total Shared cache in Fermi- 256kb or 768kb "16kb or 48kb each"
Total L1 cache in Fermi- 768kb or 256kb "48kb or 16kb each"
Total L2 cache in Fermi- 768Kb "Shared"
Total Shared cache in Evergreen- 640kb "32kb each"
Total L1 cache in Evergreen- 160kb "8kb each"
Total L2 cache in Evergreen- 512kb "4 blocks of 128kb each"
Global data share 64kb "Connected to L1 and L2"
This means fermi has a big advantage in terms of L1 and L2 flexibility. The L2 fermi has is big enough to store overhead for retracing, etc. The evergreen is also not a bad machine at all but it seems to me that a fermi may perform better in GPU-CPU operations that need flexibility than Evergreen.
this is fermi rendering the morocco track from dirt2 in dx11!!!11 :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
your right!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
look at how good they handle AA on those power lines!!
and the Physx of that rolling dustweed, its incredible!!
and the AF logic is beyond perfect!!
too bad the bump mapping sucks, they could have atleast done a better job with the potholes, the whole road just looks to flat....
now that i look at it, they've nailed the look on those power lines, almost no pixels visible!Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
:lol: :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
So...any more news on when Fermi will actually hit the market?