*The Official Tech-Forums 3DMark Vantage Rankings*

You do know that even futuremark encourages turning physx off for vantage don't you?

Futuremark was pressured into that by ATI

Burn said:
Futuremark designed it to test the CPU not GPU

Futuremark designed the benchmark to test the Total Gaming Ability of any system running the benchmark. When you start the benchmark and the loading screen is visible what do you see at the bottom left corner. It says PhysX.

When Ageia came out with the PhysX Processor ATI was all over it, they claimed there gpu's could do Physics and they even started building a PC to show their stuff off.
ATI Takes on Physics - ATI Takes on Physics | [H]ard|OCP

They even said "Physics acceleration is the next big leap in gaming; it's the next step in evolving the immersive game experience beyond what gamers know today"
ATI - Effects Physics & Gameplay Physics Explored | [H]ard|OCP

But when Nvidia bought Ageia they made the Big Flip-Flop and suddenly Physics is just a Gimmick or as they now like to say a "Marketing Ploy".

They had time long before 3DMark Vantage was ever released to further develop Physic Processing on their GPU's. But did they? No they didn't, it was more profitable to cancel development and start their own Anti-Physics Campaign.

ATI users need to quit demanding that Nvidia users disable features. They should be demanding ATI to quit ignoring the development of Physics Processing. It shouldn't be up to Nvidia to develop it for them and it shouldn't be up to Intel either.
 
Okay, the problem as I see it isn't really ATi, as ATi aren't the ones blocking PhysX from running on a card that is advertised to run it(my 9800GT and GTX260) when a competitor's gpu is present. Then again, it is an advertised feature of Nvidia, so there is nothing wrong with using it. However the fact that Nvidia is blocking Hybrid PhysX (ATi card as rendering buffer, Nvidia card for dedicated PhysX)(yes it is possible and has already been done before Nvidia blocked it), is wrong for the consumer(i.e. you and I). So with that said here is my score. Short of ATi getting a PhysX implementation or Nvidia choosing not to block hybrid PhysX, I dont see it going much higher even with a further overclock. Also, congratulations Slaymate, that's a great score buddy.

30,521 | cq842000 | i7 930 @ 4.51 ghz w/HT | ATi Radeon HD 5970 @ 1000/1225 | Windows 7 64-bit | ORB - Compare
 
Directcompute is the future of GPU implementation of physx and will win out in the end despite how much NVIDIA will push physx. Mark my words.

ATI was fine with physx as they thought it was a new standard being created....when NV purchased this they made sure the opposite was the case. You had to own an NV card to use PhysX and if you happened to own an ATI card as well....then physx was disabled even though you had bought and paid for the NV card and all it's features.

The NV business model is despicable TBH. 100% money and business and not much concern for the end-user... and anyone who thinks otherwise is silly.
 
Any component you buy is developed by a company to perform certain tasks/features. That company looks at the operating systems available and then they write the software that enables their hardware and all of it's features to be compatible. ATI needs to write their own software to work with their own cards hardware requirements. It's not Nvidia responsibility to give their technology away. If ATI wants to use Nvidia's Physics then they should workout a license agreement. Otherwise it's up to ATI to develop their software and provide the needed info to the Game Developers.

It's not Nvidia's business model that's despicable, they spend money on research and development and deserve to be compensated. Despicable is developing hardware and not offering software that enables all of it's features. Despicable is condemning technology because another company won't give it away for free. Despicable is knowing your technology is compatible but refusing to pay when you don't want to do it yourself.

Nvidia is Fabulous to the End-User, if you follow the requirements. I have no complaints, I got exactly what I paid for.
 
frankie_says_chillax_80s_t_shirt-p235883328467935145q6xn_400.jpg
 
It's not Nvidia's business model that's despicable, they spend money on research and development and deserve to be compensated. Despicable is developing hardware and not offering software that enables all of it's features. Despicable is condemning technology because another company won't give it away for free. Despicable is knowing your technology is compatible but refusing to pay when you don't want to do it yourself.

The fact of the matter is that NVIDIA spend money on disabling rival companies....and that is despicable.

Despicable is developing hardware and paying developers to use your inferior software over a great standard.

Despicable is developing "new" hardware which is only rebranded old hardware made on a smaller process and selling it as something new and better over and over again...and charging MORE for it even though it costs much, much less to manufacture.

NVIDIA marketing strategy screws the consumer, holds back technology, and capitalizes on ignorance. YES they are EVIL. There are not many existing companies like them, but unfortunately NVIDIA are allowed to rule their little kingdom.

Nvidia is Fabulous to the End-User, if you follow the requirements. I have no complaints, I got exactly what I paid for.
Please, I invite you disprove any of my statements. They are all true, and when you look at them the only conclusion is that NVIDIA has great marketing, bankers, and stockholders and very little concern for the future of PC gaming. A company you should NOT support. Arguing that they have your desires in mind is absolutely crazy.
 
ATI needs to quit screwing it's customers over and start spending some of their profits on developing it's own Physics Package.
They have.
It's called Stream, which uses OpenCL and DirectCompute, and the SDK is in version 2.1 now. They just don't pay developers to use it.
Nvidia is treating it like am marketing issue more than a technical issue, while ATI is treating it like a technical issue.

Inevitably DirectCompute is the way Physics processing is going, because it's a part of DirectX, which developers are already using anyway.

*edit*
Also, please keep the discussion civil
 
PhysX should be left enabled. It provides a performance boost, and if ATI has Stream then let ATI users take advantage of that and stop bashing.
 
I think the only issue with ATI stream (from a technical standpoint) is that you need to download the SDK even if you just want the client driver to run OpenCL programs, and a lot of people don't realise that that's why they don't see OpenCL support just installing the standard Catalyst drivers.

There is support for OpenCL, and they can run OpenCL applications. It just isn't in the current Catalyst drivers; it's in the SDK.
Though DirectCompute (client) support is in the standard Catalyst drivers.
 
Back
Top Bottom