|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22149 |  SuperG (22) Sep 23, 2009 - 11:35 am
| I have it for PS3. problem with that is. That RE5 cant be saved?
I have also 3D geforce vision. But only a 85hz CRT 19". played Fallout3 with it.
Well my PS3 I did a 500Gb upgrade.
My co own other half year olde 40GB PS3. Will get a 500GB upgrade. So my Re5 gamesaves will be lost.
Well a PC version to test out 3D vision sound very attempting. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22149 | SuperG (22) Sep 23, 2009 - 11:29 am
| Might be that PC is going strong in current gen hardware. While Console ar fixed and stuck in the R500 ATI, RSX 7seriesnV stuff.
If console must run along a lot longer. PC get a lot stronger in spect. And with that attractive. It might be even so much that budged hardware even outclasse console. Wonder what budged DX11 line deliver on performance. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22032 | SuperG (22) Aug 17, 2009 - 12:10 pm
| I would take the 8800GT release Price and look what you can buy with that now.
But the 8800Gt is a specific price point.
Do this with the older 8800ultra.
And 8800GTX
3 year old cards.
etc.
You get a plenty load of more horspower.
Not alone because GPU getting faster. But that GPU's get cheaper vs performance. RV770 forced that fenomena.
I played Crysis wenn it was just out on a R600.
I hear Cevat utilizing Hardware not out now.
R600 was semi high-end or upper midrange in performance.
So I knew extreem setting are way off, And high settings to.
Compared to the competition games who target in the here and now, and even then mainstream.
COD4MW and UT3 where its competition.
That is exualy something like a " Ultra extreme feature" load setting. So that means a 8800 Ultra is like not something for Crysis in extreem setting.
But R600 with a mix medium/high setting was wonderfull. And yes the interaction is what i remember to. Like the Northkorean part a lot.
I think it where espacialy those $700+ 8800U owner who whined.
Now I did Crysis Warhead with a GTX285
The Asus GTX285 was even cheaper then the
HIS HD2900XT was. €379 for the R600.
So the 2 years is a crude aproximation of cyvat. To Ant... about that is not relevant.
So yeah I like Cyvat choice.
But they better do it like FarCry one. Don't release settings for future hardware. Do that in the future wenn the nextgen high-end hardware is there.
In my opinion the whining was mob massive.
Reason to go for episodic development each GPU refresh and generation en new episode. With higher setting and high fidelity content upgrade.
Or something like Fallout3 DLC concept. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21623 | SuperG (22) May 16, 2009 - 08:06 am
| You wonder but you don't have to. Just look what other similar games brings to you and is it a lot less or similar or better.
If it's 2005 GFX your right
If it similare then physics adds.
If it better its a top dev studio
and you get with powerfull hardware even some extra. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21468 | SuperG (22) Mar 31, 2009 - 11:15 am
| OFP is mine kind of game. But not perfect one. But I like that large scale more realistic sub genre of FPS games. The dev choices apeals me but the game execution polish buggy ness.
Then came Arma wich is actualy OFP2. As it look & feel is so OFP. But not for the better. More near to OFP1 level. A above average shooter. But I like this sub genre so much I have played it. Mostly because my prefererd features set I realy like. And wich are rare in the FPS genre.
ARMA2 would be the actual OFP3. Hope this wil become the best of this series.
OFP2 is actualy a new game. Summoned by publisher,a fresh dev team to make it happen.
So I see this as a extra sequel. With fresh dev choices but also look and feel. More chance to a different but still close game in this genre.
So we get 2 sequels, wich means two chances of a great game.
Just like Farcry and the dev publisher soap yield Crysis+warhead & Farcry2.
The only problem is wenn both are good en well competing. Wich one to choose. Arma2 ? OFP2 :) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21306 | SuperG (22) Feb 21, 2009 - 06:52 am
| I sure don't want glasses.
1 ) because I ware glasses.
2 ) They are to dark. like say a fictonal 75% as example.
3 ) They flip 50%
So it is 75% of 50% 37,5% so you must cranck up backlight or CRT to compensate for 62.5 %.
Wonder if my CRT can compensate for it. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21306 | SuperG (22) Feb 21, 2009 - 06:43 am
| Well is it important that it isn't new.
I don't care much about it. even if nV would claim it was.
I care more about if 3D takes of and 3D vision will become the way we game in the future.
If sucses keeps out let say for 2 years. nV could pull the plug out on this attempt.
So we can yell nV doesn't support it. I would say gamer don't want to support it.
And this mighthave some infleunce on the sucses of 3D in cinnema's and home TV and BR 3D
to. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21306 | SuperG (22) Feb 21, 2009 - 06:33 am
| Yes, it isn't a fanboy probleem. But chicken egg. ATI and nV are also image and prestege driven. They both want to have the innovation trophy. So won't work together on innovations. Because they compete with each other.
No competive company will be the follower in something new. At least they would prefere to do there own implementation.
But just like nV GPU PhysX owner ship. And 3D vision. Dev's see something old brought up agian with only halve part of the market potentional.
This means for Dev's it can't get past optional game feature support. Because it never can become mainstream if it's nV only. So it has not much value for them.
But nV effort can get the attention of ATI to come with there solution. The TV market is also pushing it. Monitor market to. 3D is coming. But wil it be accepted?
Problem is you got two or more systems to support. The need of a standard preferly without glasses.
But maybe in several years 3D get trought if ATI pick's it up and dev's implement both hardware supprot path's. Or DirectX and OpenGL get standarized support for it.
Or the Game monitor and Movie market doing a combined effort to get a standard trough.
But that takes year'S
Have a 19" Trinitron 200Hz CRT. So I just need the 3D glasses kit. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21124 | SuperG (22) Dec 20, 2008 - 05:32 pm
| » TWIMTBP Department
Wel nV in its aggressive forcing Debv to support there GFX hardware. The can now push physX in between. Knowing that this. Aggressive harres dev's workt. ATI did some late catch up with GiTG. But the don't own physics SDK middleware. There isn't any independant left with some market importance.
PhysX under Ageia had also a decent support in the industry. 150+ games for SDK PC consoles.
PPU a few 10 to 15.
nV will extend that.
But because physX is a standard GPU SDK.
Dev's cant be to heavy on gameplay physX.
So expect heavy effect Physics and less extreem gameplay PhysX.
For that nV needs ATI GPU target.
And nV is more competing in the futue with iNtel. CPU vs GPGPU.
iNtel is big and a much more powerfull foo with some aggressive push power.
Latest was the iNtel HavokFX kill.
If it was for the gamers the need a independant PhysX sDK middware with no hardware ty's.
iNtel might strike at nV with havok FX adopted to put larabee to good use. And hybrid CPU with GPU Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21111 | SuperG (22) Dec 17, 2008 - 08:08 pm
| Well I also don't think MS DX11 comes with a full phycics SDK. More a API. Just like OpenCL. But build on HSML. And call it ompute shaders. So I don't see a third big Middleware Physics lib rise that fast. It take 5 years to build a SDK and the first game.
While Havok or PhysX could be ported. PhysX might be ported to OpenCL.
I would expect to much from larrabee.
Larrabee is almost full software rendering. On a GPU using CPU tech. But optimised more for GPU task. This makes it very fexible but also misses the powerfull boost of fix hardware dedicated computing. nV and ATI can outperforme easaly on a simmilar die size and procede. DX11 performance would be also a important thing for cucses. Then after a while some may pick up other kinds of render methods like raytracing or voxel engines. But Larrabee would be more exotic instead mainstream.
nV is now in the position, with the PhysX SDK and has the opertunity to push its SDK hard for the 3 years, till the competition roles out. There reaction. It take around 3 years to make a game. And it's competitor is iNtel.
CPU vs GPGPU. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21111 | SuperG (22) Dec 17, 2008 - 07:55 pm
| Well the conclusion said it all.
It's a tech demo. So they can ignor everything execpt nV hardware en push it.
The real game have to deal with mainstream.
Wich aren't nV high-end gamers that to small.
So I agree. there is a nV PhysX detection where you have some physX slider or checkboxes for each PhysX feature.
Might be that they keep the PPU ignoring. thing.
Hope that PhysX get ported to OpenCL. Wich could use ATI GPU to.
Or els I hope iNtel biach slep nV with there HavokFX on larrabee.
API hardware owned by 3DFX Ageia nV iNtel is a bad thing.
Havok was independant HavokFX would be supporting both. ATI nV. Wich would mean a lot of havokFX AAA titles could have maybe already nice Physics acceleration for a bigger load of it.
Yes it's a bad thing indeed.
As for this tech demo. Wel just like expected.
Other games may differ. Also the retail version. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21024 | SuperG (22) Nov 20, 2008 - 05:05 am
| Because there isn't much atention to it. We need a nv PhysX article how the situation is now and where we where with PPU and ewhere we hadding to. Like a list of games released near future and some for the far future.
So far I know Some new games like
Alien kolonial marines
Bionic commando
and even some more are new nV physX twimtbPushed by nV games.
Graphics look not impressive. But the interaction of the world is nice intergrated as it supports the game. instead of glued on for the sake of physics. the PhysX belongs in that place. It's a integral part of the game. Physx where you expect physx as part of the game(play)
The recommend 9800GTX+ wich is some proof that physX doesn't come for free.
Take also in account that this is the first physX games not aimed at PPU but on shared nV Physics GPGPU.
That means the PhysX load could be a lot more then PPU. Not that it is. Or it could be set to be heavier or lighter. PPU and non DX10 nV Gamerigs. Like a nice PhysX effects setup screen.
So I wonder if PPU can handle this game.
The game is uniek in game play. riminds me more to bionic commande. Where you move differently then used to throug FPS game enviorment.
I am not sure I would like such games.
I wonder how hard this new steering through the game is. I'am more a slow pace tactical shooter gamer. With tad stealth.
Because this looks like a heavy on singleplayer aimed game so PhysX game design have not to deal with heavy online PhysX netload.
Nice Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20964 | SuperG (22) Oct 30, 2008 - 10:58 am
| Because nV doesn't have anything DX10.1 yet. but flooded the market for years with DX10.0.
DX10.1 isn't the common Viata Dx10 path the 10.0 is. So a few games support DX10.1 most just up to DX10.0.
Dx11 is different case, nV and ATI will support it with there upcoming hardware. so it will become better supported then Dx10.1 was. more like DX10.0 Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20897 | SuperG (22) Oct 07, 2008 - 04:49 am
| The thing I like most on DX11 are the Compute shaders. Going the route of larrabee. But non x86. DX11 is also more GpGPU friendly.
And HSML is extended to support GPGPU use better. The DX11 HSML is in core like CUDA.
But without a extensive libary. It's sucses depends on middleware using it.
The problem is. The great GPGPU use for games are the Physics libaries. And the big market ruling onces are owned by hardware vendors. That's bad for market adoption.
iNTel promoting Physics true only CPU, later Larrabee. CPU Wich are up to now weaker at it then PPU amd GPU and CELL
DX11 could be the way of delivering Low level API Physics layer to games. But without a full feature highlevel Phsyics SDK. It has les impact in the industry of making games.
Wenn Havok was independent HavokFX would take it up. Now It's not.
Gamedev's like Crytech making a inhouse solution could use it. But not much studio's going that way.
Don't expect the nV PhysX SDK dropping Cuda for HSML(DX11) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20762 | SuperG (22) Aug 16, 2008 - 05:36 am
| I don't agree on a few point in the conlusion
For me the performance was as expected. All those game where made with a PhysX load for PPU1 in mind.
PPU was ment back then for enthausiast gamers. Like me, currious about it, spend 2 times €233( == $350 orso)to give it a spin. In decent game rigs. A PPU make sense in a high-end game rig at that time. A fast CPU and Gcard so PPU get its time slice per frame to do it's thing and that not FPS but much more Physics then normal.
CPU gaind in time more computing power but not neer PPU1. So Dedicated PhysX made sense. But there wasn't a tripl A Highprofile game using PPU power. To push it hard in the market.
UT3 was late and not a dedicated PhysX game. But trough mods.
For hardware that’s over two years old,
it's 125 mil low clocked transistors on 130nm. Don't match against high clocked shader array of 350+ mil transistors. 1/4 or 1/8 of its shaders could match a PPU. And that is more realistics. It's a old 130nm 125Mil transistor chip. VS a 680Mill 65/55nm chip.
It would be the 8 world wonder if it did match the performance of today’s GeForce 8800 GT and 9800 GTX cards. Because ppu logic must be like 400% more effective then a unified shader.
For me it make no sense to buy a 2 year old Chip now, witch would be normaly replaced by somthing more powerfull. PPU isn't replaced by PPU2 but G8x/G92/GT200 produkts. In a dedicated and non dedicated form.
So by now I would buy a PPU2, but instead something from nV as PhysX doesn't come for free as this review and conlusion will make you believe it comes with a cost. As long if you have a overkill of shader power. you never notice this cost and it will look likes if it comes for free.
Buying a PPU now is like buying a 6800 or dualcore. Old dated and bypassed by newer stuff.
A g92 give only better performance if the card has a overkill of shader for particular game and its game settings. It can be used for more than just PhysX. I would put two G92+ in sLI. To get the most out of rendering and PhysX.
It's also nice that ATI with PPU will do to for current PhysX games.
I won't expect that nextgen PhysX game will use a high-end dedicated GPU PhysX load. Thus PPU could do for a much longer time.
As dev's have now a target audience of some very litle to zero to very much spare shaders power with single gPU configurations. And also optional dedicated low to high-end G-cards for sLI and multiGPU gamers.
PhysX in game would need just like rendering a very large Option screen. with a lot of check boxes and sliders. Not many dev will go for that. So they pick a few mainstream PhySX load paths with a few optional settings.
For Physics it's becoming a very interresting time. But it all depends if the dev's will pick it up. And use it to it's full potention.
I wonder if some dev will implement setting to optional stress a full dedicated GT200B Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20762 | SuperG (22) Aug 16, 2008 - 04:48 am
| Well the conclusion and testbed doesn't take a opinion on that. There is no GPU scaling. Also limmited render setting used.
Also the game tested are only a few and based on the same engine.
U3 engine is Fillrate depending and most of those game arent pushing the limits with GFX. So even a G92(+) Have enough spare shader to do PhysX to.
However low to midrange card needs there shaders harder for rendering. For shader depending games even more so.
Such situation wil give a very low PhysX performance win. While PPU as it is dedicated keeps strong. Just like a extra Gcard with all its shaders dedicated for PhysX would even outperforme PPU. But only more the game is PhysX dependand.
A Other review of CPU vs PPU vs GPU showed that.
by just putting the render setting a lot higher. The game get more GPU dependand and FPS will drop.
Now a new heavy PHYSX DX10 shader heavy game.
Heaving two G92 or single GT200 make more sense. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
