Did NVIDIA cripple its CPU gaming physics library to spite Intel?

You guys are idiots, why would they optimise it for CPU or AMD just so they can lose money, do you not know the point of a business.

 

Because it builds brand loyalty/image? Why would I want to buy Nvidia products if they are purposely ****ing over potential customers? I also don't see how they'd lose money from it, if anything it would spread the adoption of PhysX even more.

 

who said anything about discovering stuff:wanker:


all i said was that this article just proved my point about cpu vs gpu physx, unlike your supersledge comparison that has no relevance what so ever..optimized yea how much more and compared to what? loll its still based on x87 and single threaded for cpus so..

 

Sprecker: You mean the ATI hack that was recently also discovered to have some kind of keylogger or virus of some sort along with it?

And you say NVidia would own the market if they allowed an NVidia card to use PhysX alongside an ATI card for graphics? Ok.... so let me ask you this...... if someone buys a $550+ ATI 5970..... and say a ~$100 9800GT or GTS250 or something..... how exactly is that "owning the market"? Yes... there will be quite a few systems with an NVidia card regardless of whether or not it's used for graphics.... but who's sales exactly are they helping? Not their own. they'd be making next to nothing while their only competition is raking in the cash.

 

Saw this a few days back, and wasn't surprised to be honest.

I've been a loyal nVidia customer since my GeForce 3, but their actions in the last three or so years have been despicable - almost enough to turn me to ATI.

I know ATI aren't saints either, back when the FX and 9800 series was around they were both done for price fixing. But, whereas ATI got their game together, nVidia just got more and more snidey. The 8800 etc was brilliant when it came out, but many die-spins/rebrands/lies/late products/driver-lockouts later, and even their loyal customers are turning their noses up.


Plus, when are they going to learn - Crap CPU and good GPU = Lame / Badass CPU and crap GPU = Lame - it's almost as if nVidia think that you only need a GPU... and nothing, absolutely nothing else. They really need someone new in charge.

 

They're pretty much right though. Practically every modern game is content with a modest CPU and a strong GPU.

Plenty of sites have done comparisons and come to the conclusion that a triple core provides only marginal frame rate improvements over a dual core. Quad cores or hexa cores are complete overkill in today's games.

 

well to some point, but let me ask you this; did you enjoy playing UT3, DiRT1, RE5, GTA4, Ghostbusters, Assassins Creed, nfs shift,...?

hard to believe on a dual core imo, even if you have 295gtx in it and what most are over 2 years old.

 

UT3, Dirt1 & 2, RE5, AC, NFS Shift are as smooth as butter with me.

 

Going from 2-4 cores on UT3 is only a ~13% performance increase. AC/GTA4 are higher at around ~20%. But all those benchmarks are at extremely low resolutions where you're going to extract a lot more bias towards the CPU and generally not how people play the games. Those percentages diminish as the graphics options go up. Generally speaking there isn't that huge of a performance advantage going from 2 - 4 cores (in gaming).

 

What I meant, is pairing a GTX470/480 with a CPU like the older Pentium D's or lower end Core 2's would be a waste. A good mix of both is definitely needed.

I read a review about that on Bit-Tech I think, interesting article - showing a lot of games with marginal FPS increases after 3 cores. :nerd:

 

i meant like sustaining a reasonable frame rate above 60 all the time or maybe small dip into mid 50fps,.there are more fps drops on duals that's for sure and that's a no go for me..especially in gta4, ghostbusters, or ut3 (30 players)..

anyway, we're going off track here :nerd:

 

I played through Ghostbusters on PC, with Firefox open, with procaster open, streaming to livestream, with my Quad core, and framerates never dipped below 60FPS, and that was with my GTX 260 216 core at 1920x1200 resolution with max graphics options

I've gone through scenes like the library blowing up with those huge item cluster monsters, to the pools of water with hundreds of floating books in the water and I've never seen the framerate drop into the "10-20's" with it

I've played all the way through Crysis Warhead, start to finish, and I've never seen a drop in framerate from tons of effects on screen, and same situation, me streaming with a GTX 260 216 core, streaming to livestream with procaster and firefox open, same lack of framerate drop when tons of stuff happens on screen at 1920x1200, and framerate was always at 25-35FPS constant

The only time I ever got a drop in warhead was the start with the excessive blur/smoke effects as you get out of the dropship at the start, that's it

EDIT: I've never had massive framerate drops in UT3 or any unreal 3 games either

But Valve games I can almost with a watch on the dot predict my framerate dropping from 150-200FPS to 20FPS on the 2 hour played mark each and every time on the spot