Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing - Page 12

post #111 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by videoman5;13883883 
This+APUs=nVidia's dead in the mainstream PC department. Their only future is with Tegra based devices and maybe Tesla/Quadro boards.

Nvidia has more then capable GPUs. All APUs, the best of their best, is around the performance, actual less of, a HD 4650. A 540m or better is more then efficient to run GPU accelerated applications.
post #112 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m;14027799 
you cannot have those "physx" simulations within any game

it isn't possible to showcase more than 1 or 2, simulations without the game coming to it knees.




ignorance

And here seems to be your argument about why CPU based physics is better than PhysX running on GPUs. Yet, it already runs within a game and uses only a single 570.

Your inability to comprehend such a basic understanding of what physics is capable of doing is appalling. No one mentioned scientific research using physics but yourself. You somehow think that maxing out an i7 920 giving 5fps would be able to run a full game on top of that. With what processing power? PhysX of course doesn't have this problem since it can run on a $50 9800gt or an existing Nvidia card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m;14011864 
particle physics irrelevant to gaming
Yeah... LOL
post #113 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;14028949 
And here seems to be your argument about why CPU based physics is better than PhysX running on GPUs. Yet, it already runs within a game and uses only a single 570.

Your inability to comprehend such a basic understanding of what physics is capable of doing is appalling. No one mentioned scientific research using physics but yourself. You somehow think that maxing out an i7 920 giving 5fps would be able to run a full game on top of that. With what processing power? PhysX of course doesn't have this problem since it can run on a $50 9800gt or an existing Nvidia card.


Yeah... LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m;13979874 
You do realize that^ is all computational fluid dynamics (which I use on a daily basis) & that it just "fabric" or "particle" physics..?

None of any of that will ever be in a game, because it requires it's own video card(s) to calculate...!

Again, Physx is just a marketing gimmick. None of the physics it uses are deformable, or real. Nvidia has just had to market "physx" well to recoup its investment from buying Agiea & Physx, only shortly after(2yrs), find that multi-core CPU's were powerful enough to handle object based physics (ie: bfbc2).

......

GPU physics are not for gaming, mostly for scientific use. Don't believe me... show us one game where physx does anything real like in bf3. Don't believe the hype, you'll become an unwilling shill to nvidia's marketing.

What he's trying to prove here is CPU physics is superior to GPU physics, nothing more nothing less. In a sense he is right, with his video of the i7 doing physics. If GPU's were to do the same thing, it would've taken Tri-SLI or more.
manako
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k ASUS Sabertooth X99 GTX 980 Ti Hybrid 16GB 2400 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
240GB PNY H100i Win 10  Dell U3415w 
KeyboardPowerCase
Razer Blackwidow 2013 EVGA 1000 G2 Fractal Define S 
  hide details  
Reply
manako
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k ASUS Sabertooth X99 GTX 980 Ti Hybrid 16GB 2400 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
240GB PNY H100i Win 10  Dell U3415w 
KeyboardPowerCase
Razer Blackwidow 2013 EVGA 1000 G2 Fractal Define S 
  hide details  
Reply
post #114 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Donkey;14029881 
What he's trying to prove here is CPU physics is superior to GPU physics, nothing more nothing less. In a sense he is right, with his video of the i7 doing physics. If GPU's were to do the same thing, it would've taken Tri-SLI or more.

I've already explained that PhysX has been able to do that since 2005 when AGEIA owned the technology. It doesn't take more than a 9800GT to do that.
post #115 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;14030819 
I've already explained that PhysX has been able to do that since 2005 when AGEIA owned the technology. It doesn't take more than a 9800GT to do that.

Which has well over 10x the processing power. Wow, what an accomplishment that PhysX can do on a 9800GT. rolleyes.gif

Sure takes a lot more processing power then a 9800GT to handle the PhysX in Mafia 2. Which are as a basic as Havok back in 2004 on the source engine. Valve had full fledged liquid physics coded for the engine...all CPU based. Didn't make it in the release of HL2.
Edited by Domino - 6/27/11 at 10:49pm
post #116 of 151
I don't know what to make of this. The last thing a standard needs to be is vendor or platform specific - that's why there called "standards". I fear that this will leave other operating systems out in the cold.
Edited by jammy4041 - 6/28/11 at 12:28am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Windsor Asrock N68C-S UCC XFX 8500GT Passive Cooled 2x Hynix 512MB DDR2 533MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 500GB SATA LG Supermulti SATA Lightscribe Debian Sid AMD64/Windows XP x86 Dell 17" TFT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CTC Keyboard PS2 Antec Basiq 350W Casecom KB-7760 Cheesegrater Logitech Mouse PS2 
Mouse Pad
F1 Magazine 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Windsor Asrock N68C-S UCC XFX 8500GT Passive Cooled 2x Hynix 512MB DDR2 533MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 500GB SATA LG Supermulti SATA Lightscribe Debian Sid AMD64/Windows XP x86 Dell 17" TFT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CTC Keyboard PS2 Antec Basiq 350W Casecom KB-7760 Cheesegrater Logitech Mouse PS2 
Mouse Pad
F1 Magazine 
  hide details  
Reply
post #117 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler;13890965 
The time that we will see powerfull CPUs and GPUs on the same chip is still a few years ahead, and it will take some time for the industry to adopt these changes.

CPUs and GPUs on the same chip has already been done hasn't it?
War Machine
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 4670k @ 3.4ghz Asus B85M Gamer MSI Twin Frozr V R9 390X 8gb Kingston Hyper X Beast 16gb 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
HGS 2.5" Sata 1tb Corsair H100i v2 4 x Corsair SP120 Quiet Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Benq RL2455 Microsoft Sidewinder X4 EVGA Supernova G2 750w Corsair Carbide Air 240 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga Molten Edition Steel Series Guild Wars 2 Sennheiser HD201 
  hide details  
Reply
War Machine
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 4670k @ 3.4ghz Asus B85M Gamer MSI Twin Frozr V R9 390X 8gb Kingston Hyper X Beast 16gb 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
HGS 2.5" Sata 1tb Corsair H100i v2 4 x Corsair SP120 Quiet Windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Benq RL2455 Microsoft Sidewinder X4 EVGA Supernova G2 750w Corsair Carbide Air 240 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga Molten Edition Steel Series Guild Wars 2 Sennheiser HD201 
  hide details  
Reply
post #118 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino;14028063 
Nvidia has more then capable GPUs. All APUs, the best of their best, is around the performance, actual less of, a HD 4650. A 540m or better is more then efficient to run GPU accelerated applications.

what he meant is nvidia will have problems dealing with cheaper platform for the masses in the near future ... amd will be able to build a cpu + competitive gpu on the same die ... that rivals intel's cpu and nvidia gpu ... lower platform cost for the oem ... so lower pricing for the consumer ... wich is the real market ...


he probably thinks nvidia will die .. but i doubt it ... nvidia will surely have a tough time if amd can make bulldozer good and improve on it ... and the same goes for their gpu architecture ...


and not only that .. but their all out plan is to introduce apu's on all front ... servers .. workstations etc... imagine a 4 socket system with 4 16 cores apu with state of the art low power gpu on die that can still provide lots of flops and can crossfire 4 way on top of that ....


think nvidia and intel could manage that if the support is there on amd's side ?????


times ahead are interesting since microsoft is getting into the gpu compute game .. wich means an easier platform to introduce your product

wich means more applications made for people to use the power of apu's or gpu's to help accelerate their tasks ...



anyway its my point of view of the comming years
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8120 Asus crosshair V formula 2 msi HD6870 Twin Frozr II CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 SAMSUNG F4 2TB boot + 4 WD 2TB storage Lite On blu ray player win 7 sp1 oem Asus VH236H @ 1920 x 1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech Media Elite Keyboard ENERMAX MAXREVO 1350W psu SILVERSTONE RAVEN RV02B-EW Matte black logitech OEM 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8120 Asus crosshair V formula 2 msi HD6870 Twin Frozr II CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 SAMSUNG F4 2TB boot + 4 WD 2TB storage Lite On blu ray player win 7 sp1 oem Asus VH236H @ 1920 x 1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech Media Elite Keyboard ENERMAX MAXREVO 1350W psu SILVERSTONE RAVEN RV02B-EW Matte black logitech OEM 
  hide details  
Reply
post #119 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;14030819 
I've already explained that PhysX has been able to do that since 2005 when AGEIA owned the technology. It doesn't take more than a 9800GT to do that.



You keep saying that^^... but it is not true.


Yes, physx can do object based physics, but usually needs multiple video cards. That is why you hardly ever see object based objects within PhysX engines.

Nvidia had to change their marketing strategy when dual & quad cores become prominent. So they started featuring "particle physics" by specifically placing such "eye candy" within single player games, using the TWIMTBP moniker, so you absolutely cannot miss the physx smoke & shuffling paper..!

Then they tell you, if you buy more nvidia, future games will have more eye candy..
post #120 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m;14034639 
You keep saying that^^...
Yes, physx can do object based physics, but usually needs multiple video cards. That is why you hardly ever see object based objects within PhysX engines.
Oh, that's hilarious. You need multiple video cards? Do you know why this is such a strange thing to say? Because PhysX does not feature GPU-acceleration for rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are always calculated on the CPU, just like in other engines.

Multiple video cards, eh?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing