Originally Posted by dantoddd
I used to do 'physics' testing in university using computers
Let me guess, "but then you took an arrow in the knee".
Originally Posted by xoleras
Yeah I did,
How many other games have had this level of attention and optimisation gifted upon them is another open question. One thing we can say is that the list of benchmarks shown off by Nvidia where Kepler has an overwhelming advantage all support PhysX.
Sounds like the advantage is in physx games and everything else will be slower than pitcairn.
You do understand that the quote you pulled out of the article doesn't say anything about the GK104 only
being good at PhysX right?
Line 1: How many games will get this level attention from nVidia?
Line 2: Let's take an example of nVidia's current support in games, IF
it's going to be the same as PhysX then the set of games that this card will shine in is really narrow. The benchmarks shown off by nVidia all used the PhysX engine and overwhelmingly beat the 7970 (note how this doesn't say anything about the performance excluding these games)
How you reach the conclusion GK104 will only be good in PhysX titles from this, I do not understand
Or you forgot line 3 that followed directly after the text you picked:
This is not to say that they are all hardware/GPU PhysX accelerated, they are not, most use the software API.
Your comprehension of the article would also contradict the conclusion:
Nvidia is going out of their way to have patches coded for games that tend to be used as benchmarks by popular sites.
PhysX only runs on games that are coded from scratch with the PhysX engine. How will they get reviewers so far to benchmark only 2 or 3 games? He's talking about popular games not necessarily games that use the PhysX engine.
Not saying I necessarily like these tactics but it would be pointless of nVidia to go with those tactics for only 2 or 3 games per year. Nor would charlie say that this SKU stomps the 7970 on nearly all metrics.Edited by TheBlademaster01 - 2/2/12 at 1:44am