This thread reminds me of an argument I heard two homeless guys having outside the bar the other night. They were arguing about Marlboros vs Camels, which seems to me basically the same thing just without all the pretty tech talk.
Coke vs Pepsi - Alien Vs Predator - Joe Vs the Volcano - Ford vs Chevy - ATI vs Nvidia.
I think AMD visits forums like these and "news" sites like semi-accurate to get their talking points. Not that it's an AMD exclusive tactic, but in this case its overly pronounced.
Accusing ATI of renaming is a funny joke. You must have missed the whole Nvidia geforce 8 - 2 series being based on the exact same GPU.
Who was the first to implement DX 10.1 and 11?
Who was the first to 40 nm?
Who was the first to GDDR5?
Oh right, ATI did all of that. As for Physx, Nvidia didnt do anything other then buy out Aegia and completely ban Physx support on any ATI GPUs.
ATI could have easilly had Physx too if it wasnt for that complete BS move by Nvidia. But Physx is a load of crap anyway. I see plenty of explosions and fine particle details in Battleforge, wonderfully optimised for my DX11 hardware.
It probably would run faster with Physx support yes, but its not ATIs fault that Nvidia banned Physx from working on ATI hardware.
__________________
Intel I7 920 D0 + Asus Triton 88
Gigabyte GA X58 - UD5
6x2 GB Geil Ultra Series PC3-17000
2x1 GB Sapphire HD 5770
2x1 TB Samsung F1
Gigaworks THX 7.1 Speakers
OCZ ModXStream 780 Watt
Antec P182
Acer G24
Razer Deathadder GW edition
Saitek Cyborg keyboard
Windows 7 Proffesional
Nvidia had to port PhysX to CUDA, you don't want to forget that hard work.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by motown_steve
Every genocide that was committed during the 20th century has been preceded by the disarmament of the target population. Once the government outlaws your guns your life becomes a luxury afforded to you by the state. You become a tool to benefit the state. Should you cease to benefit the state or even worse become an annoyance or even a hindrance to the state then your life becomes more trouble than it is worth.
Once the government outlaws your guns you life is forfeit. You're already dead, it's just a question of when they are going to get around to you.
Accusing ATI of renaming is a funny joke. You must have missed the whole Nvidia geforce 8 - 2 series being based on the exact same GPU.
Who was the first to implement DX 10.1 and 11?
Who was the first to 40 nm?
Who was the first to GDDR5?
Oh right, ATI did all of that. As for Physx, Nvidia didnt do anything other then buy out Aegia and completely ban Physx support on any ATI GPUs.
ATI could have easilly had Physx too if it wasnt for that complete BS move by Nvidia. But Physx is a load of crap anyway. I see plenty of explosions and fine particle details in Battleforge, wonderfully optimised for my DX11 hardware.
It probably would run faster with Physx support yes, but its not ATIs fault that Nvidia banned Physx from working on ATI hardware.
nvidia did push gpu based physics.. if ageia died, and no one picked it up, do you think we would see open cl/havok gpu physics as far along as it is today?
definitely nvidia put themselves in sort of a jam with their physx. all that marketing, and the buying of ageia, and eventually nvidia's physx will fade away and we'll see something like a push towards open cl by developers... somewhat similar to vista and eax
nvidia did push gpu based physics.. if ageia died, and no one picked it up, do you think we would see open cl/havok gpu physics as far along as it is today?
Yes.
HavokFX was being worked on back in the day and AMD/ATi was pushing that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by motown_steve
Every genocide that was committed during the 20th century has been preceded by the disarmament of the target population. Once the government outlaws your guns your life becomes a luxury afforded to you by the state. You become a tool to benefit the state. Should you cease to benefit the state or even worse become an annoyance or even a hindrance to the state then your life becomes more trouble than it is worth.
Once the government outlaws your guns you life is forfeit. You're already dead, it's just a question of when they are going to get around to you.
It depends on how you look at it. Performance was there with GDDR4, but with as inexpensive as GDDR3 modules were/are we didn't see a lot of pick up with 4. That's why we've seen a lot of cards based on it for a long time. It's cheap and "good enough". Because of this, not all of the normal memory manufacturers even made GDDR4 to begin with. This went on long enough for us to see GDDR5. In the last generation, what we saw because of this was a choice between either cheap as potatoes GDDR3 or by-this-time-pretty-normal (but still more costly) GDDR5. There wasn't much of a reason for anyone to choose GDDR4.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there was nothing wrong with the technology itself for its own merits. It was a victim of the market and business decisions.
__________________ Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but what are you going to do about the zombies?
Speaking on flops, anyone remember the Geforce 5 range?
At least GDDR4 worked well enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
nvidia did push gpu based physics.. if ageia died, and no one picked it up, do you think we would see open cl/havok gpu physics as far along as it is today?
definitely nvidia put themselves in sort of a jam with their physx. all that marketing, and the buying of ageia, and eventually nvidia's physx will fade away and we'll see something like a push towards open cl by developers... somewhat similar to vista and eax
Well, I surely remember having seen much more hype over Havok then I have ever seen for Physx. Regardless of how well it works, why should I be forced to only have Nvidia hardware to run Physx or AA in BAA?
__________________
Intel I7 920 D0 + Asus Triton 88
Gigabyte GA X58 - UD5
6x2 GB Geil Ultra Series PC3-17000
2x1 GB Sapphire HD 5770
2x1 TB Samsung F1
Gigaworks THX 7.1 Speakers
OCZ ModXStream 780 Watt
Antec P182
Acer G24
Razer Deathadder GW edition
Saitek Cyborg keyboard
Windows 7 Proffesional
It depends on how you look at it. Performance was there with GDDR4, but with as inexpensive as GDDR3 modules were/are we didn't see a lot of pick up with 4. That's why we've seen a lot of cards based on it for a long time. It's cheap and "good enough". Because of this, not all of the normal memory manufacturers even made GDDR4 to begin with. This went on long enough for us to see GDDR5. In the last generation, what we saw because of this was a choice between either cheap as potatoes GDDR3 or by-this-time-pretty-normal (but still more costly) GDDR5. There wasn't much of a reason for anyone to choose GDDR4.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there was nothing wrong with the technology itself for its own merits. It was a victim of the market and business decisions.
Demand for GDDR4's higher clock speeds (compared to GDDR3) also dissapeared due to larger memory busses implemented by Nvidia and ATI. G80 had a 384 bit bus and R600 had a 512 bit bus. GDDR4's clock speeds stagnated around highly spec'd GDDR3 levels.
Not only that, but bandwidth requirements for GPU's weakened following the R600 fiasco. Nvidia went back down to G92's 256 bit bus while ATI went with RV670 and its 256 bit bus (although, the HD3870 did use GDDR4).
__________________
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 3.20GHz | Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 | ATI Radeon HD4890 950/1000 | Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x2GB 1066MHz
2 x Western Digital Caviar Blue 320GB RAID0 | TRUE 120 | Lian Li PC-A71B | Windows Vista x64 HP
I would say rambus as a whole is far more successful than ddr4. Its only been a couple unsuccessful videocards so far and thats about it.
Rambus has found its niche in videogames consoles and additionally the technology is still being used today, as alot of companies are being sued(and they win these) and it is making rambus money.
Its not like NV has been lacking in innovations either.
They were the first company to direct x 10. First with hardware texture and lighting. Angle independent AF and I believe the first videocard to use DDR memory. There is bound to be other firsts that the company got to, but I am not crazy enough to go check it out. But to discount NV contribution to forwarding videocards is foolish and fanboyish.
i hate the duopoly we have now. we need some more 3d graphics companies like back in the day.
anyone remember r600 competing with g80 with crossfire?
you seem quick to lash out at nvidia. why should gpu physics not be a first for them? proprietary is not a legitimate answer either.
Lots of good things were proprietary at the start. Proprietary isn't necessarily bad. Some of us just prefer open systems for the long run, that's all.
I totally agree with you about the graphics companies though. It's good that we are getting Intel back in the game. Too bad we couldn't get something competitive from say S3 and Trident too .
Yet again DX11 has become a mindless buzzword. (Regarding the quote from Richard Huddy in the OP.)
Sure, DX11 support is nice to have over DX10 as Tessellation alone is nearly a drop-in replacement for Parallax mapping when moving from DX10 to DX11. However, currently only 40% of people actually have a DX10 compatible setup. (Ref: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey )
No games development company are going to want to support just DX10+ if they can only market to 40% of their potential customers. Sure you can have DX9 and 10 support as Crysis did, but the DX9 support puts huge limitations on what can be done to make the best of the new features.
TL;DR: DX11 is nice, but is nowhere near being adopted for current games. People need to get over it.
Yet again DX11 has become a mindless buzzword. (Regarding the quote from Richard Huddy in the OP.)
Sure, DX11 support is nice to have over DX10 as Tessellation alone is nearly a drop-in replacement for Parallax mapping when moving from DX10 to DX11. However, currently only 40% of people actually have a DX10 compatible setup. (Ref: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey )
No games development company are going to want to support just DX10+ if they can only market to 40% of their potential customers. Sure you can have DX9 and 10 support as Crysis did, but the DX9 support puts huge limitations on what can be done to make the best of the new features.
TL;DR: DX11 is nice, but is nowhere near being adopted for current games. People need to get over it.
No offense but with that midset we'll never get beyond DX9.
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
Rule 1A:
Rule 2:
Rule 2A:
.
This forum requires that you wait 70 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.
Linear Mode
