Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [GameSpot] PS4 not worth the cost, says Nvidia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[GameSpot] PS4 not worth the cost, says Nvidia - Page 15

post #141 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBrogbo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post

Clearly u have not either... or do u think shuffling papers on the floor in batman is worth singing about. Or worth using a second PhysX card to add in nothing other than eye candy. Not actual physics.. just graphic effects.

Ever see Battlefield... notice how it aint PhysX?

People not liking PhysX has nothing to do with nVida, thuz amd. It is just that proprietary physics engine is pointless. Thus, PhysX is pointless.

Though it is great for marketing to fanbois...

Haha, papers shuffling on the floor are the only PhysX effect in Arkham City, eh? Thank you for completely and utterly proving my point.

You really haven't seen what PhysX can do, if that's your opinion. I know it's nothing other than graphical effects, but when it's used properly (as in some scenes in Batman: AC), it can be breathtaking.

Sure, there are Nvidia users who don't like PhysX, but they are vastly outnumbered by the non-Nvidia users who don't like PhysX. Are you really going to deny that?

I see PhysX haters spout the "it's just effects" garbage over and over and over and over. So is SSAO. So is depth of field. So is motion blur. So is any (and every) one of the hundreds of things we PC gamers love to tweak. Talk about a double standard.

Also, who in the world needs 2 cards to be able to run PhysX?

Borderlands 2 runs just fine on a overclocked 570m (GTX460 performance) and the PhysX effects really add to the game. Frankly, its a nice addition to it.

Games are just getting far too boring these days... they need more effects to add to the experience.
post #142 of 271
It's more likely because Sony was looking for a similar deal that an AMD Processor + AMD GPU would have netted through NVIDIA. Getting both the CPU and GPU through AMD, they were probably able to get a better deal through AMD, but Sony wanted to lowball and try the NVIDIA route anyway smile.gif

Either way I'm glad Sony went the x86 route now though, more games will be made to utilize multiple threads and that in turn will help boost the FX processor's performance, although it won't help any of the games already out, hopefully GTA V will be one of those games that benefit from such.
Edited by hellojustinr - 3/14/13 at 6:39pm
Katniss
(21 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4770K ASUS MAXIMUS VII GENE XFX Radeon R9 295x2 8GB GDDR5 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR3 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1TB Seagate Laptop SSHD 1TB Seagate Laptop SSHD 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm HDD 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green 5400rpm HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
LG iHAS 124B Corsair H100i Liquid Cooling Windows Technical Preview OS X 10.10 Yosemite 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
23-inch Dell S2340M Slim LED Monitor 23-inch Dell S2340M Slim LED Monitor 23-inch Dell E2310h LED monitor CM Storm Quickfire TK Cherry MX Red 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX 1200 Gold modular PSU Corsair Obsidian 350D Micro-ATX Mad CATZ R.A.T. 3 Black Designer Mousepad 
Audio
Logitech X-530  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 4300U Intel HD 4400 8GB DDR3L 1600 128GB flash storage 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 12-inch multi-touch 2K display Surface Type Cover 
  hide details  
Reply
Katniss
(21 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4770K ASUS MAXIMUS VII GENE XFX Radeon R9 295x2 8GB GDDR5 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR3 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1TB Seagate Laptop SSHD 1TB Seagate Laptop SSHD 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm HDD 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green 5400rpm HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
LG iHAS 124B Corsair H100i Liquid Cooling Windows Technical Preview OS X 10.10 Yosemite 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
23-inch Dell S2340M Slim LED Monitor 23-inch Dell S2340M Slim LED Monitor 23-inch Dell E2310h LED monitor CM Storm Quickfire TK Cherry MX Red 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX 1200 Gold modular PSU Corsair Obsidian 350D Micro-ATX Mad CATZ R.A.T. 3 Black Designer Mousepad 
Audio
Logitech X-530  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 4300U Intel HD 4400 8GB DDR3L 1600 128GB flash storage 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 12-inch multi-touch 2K display Surface Type Cover 
  hide details  
Reply
post #143 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

Um, people that want eat the eyecandy graphics and the eyecandy physics?

That has nothing to do with PhysX "requiring" 2 graphics cards. That is simply a result of 1 card not being strong enough for the effects you're trying to push. That could easily happen with any number of other games, such as running too many mods in Skyrim.

Just because you can improve overall performance by offloading PhysX processing to a cheap second non-SLI video card doesn't mean that it should be condemned for it, or that it's even required. In fact, wouldn't it be nice if you had the option of pushing shadow rendering to a $60 secondary card, and gain 15fps, rather than spend $400 to replace your main card?
Someone's Trash
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core2Quad QX9650 Foxconn Blackops x48 Zotac Amp! GTX 580 1.5GB G.Skill 8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Sandisk Extreme 120GB SSD Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus Windows 7 x64 Professional Hanns-G 27" 1920x1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech K800 Rosewill Tachyon 750W 80+ Plat Rosewill Thor Logitech Wireless Trackball M570 
  hide details  
Reply
Someone's Trash
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core2Quad QX9650 Foxconn Blackops x48 Zotac Amp! GTX 580 1.5GB G.Skill 8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Sandisk Extreme 120GB SSD Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus Windows 7 x64 Professional Hanns-G 27" 1920x1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech K800 Rosewill Tachyon 750W 80+ Plat Rosewill Thor Logitech Wireless Trackball M570 
  hide details  
Reply
post #144 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellojustinr View Post

PS3 exclusives looking better than Xbox 360 exclusive games have nothing to do with the GPU especially considering that the Xbox 360 GPU (X1850 XTX equivalent) is faster than the PS3 (7800 GTX). Also most developers develop for Xbox 360 first then port to PS3 and PC most of the time.

You are taking this out of the context which I meant it. It was in relation to the comment of getting 80% performance for 120% money which is a complete fallacy.

RSX was designed to work with the Cell to provide graphics. That was Sony's design decision not Nvidia.
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #145 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBrogbo View Post

That has nothing to do with PhysX "requiring" 2 graphics cards. That is simply a result of 1 card not being strong enough for the effects you're trying to push. That could easily happen with any number of other games, such as running too many mods in Skyrim.

Just because you can improve overall performance by offloading PhysX processing to a cheap second non-SLI video card doesn't mean that it should be condemned for it, or that it's even required. In fact, wouldn't it be nice if you had the option of pushing shadow rendering to a $60 secondary card, and gain 15fps, rather than spend $400 to replace your main card?

I'm a bit confused. I'm assuming that PhysX can be run on the main card, but some people choose to get another one for PhysX.
post #146 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

Ok so we both agree Sony bought an inferior gpu for more money. Moving on.

Isuppli had the initial cost of the Xbox 360 gpu as $141 and the RSX cost Sony $129.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061117130000.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

So no, I don't agree with the false information you provided to desperately make nVidia look as as per usual.
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #147 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBrogbo View Post

I see PhysX haters spout the "it's just effects" garbage over and over and over and over. So is SSAO. So is depth of field. So is motion blur. So is any (and every) one of the hundreds of things we PC gamers love to tweak. Talk about a double standard.

Depth of field and motion blur are useless wastes of performance, much more so than most PhysX effects.

Anyway, people disregard PhysX is because it's virtually never used to it's full potential, even when powerful NVIDIA hardware available. There are a million ways to do the same sort of visual effects that you see in most PhysX titles. It's virtually never used for anything that would affect gameplay, thus it has no 'killer app' to make it desirable enough to really be relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBrogbo View Post

Also, who in the world needs 2 cards to be able to run PhysX?

No one needs two cards to run PhysX, or even any GPUs at all, but sharing GPU power for physics calculations, while at the same time increasing the visual demands of the scenes that need to be rendered, means that heavy use of PhysX can bog down even a higher-end NVIDIA GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

I'm a bit confused. I'm assuming that PhysX can be run on the main card, but some people choose to get another one for PhysX.

PhysX can be run on the CPU, or any 8000 series plus NVIDIA GPU.

Many people use a second card for PhysX so it doesn't bog down performance as much as running it on the CPU or primary GPU.

I used to use my GTX 275 as a PhysX card, but so few titles that I played ever made use of it. It did offer a decent boost over running everything on my GTX 480.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #148 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcg75 View Post

Isuppli had the initial cost of the Xbox 360 gpu as $141 and the RSX cost Sony $129.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061117130000.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

So no, I don't agree with the false information you provided to desperately make nVidia look as as per usual.

Your info is false...
My figures were off also.



http://news.cnet.com/PlayStation-3-component-prices-Why-so-high/2100-1043_3-6042226.html


I find it so funny you put so much effort in defending Nvidia. I hope they are paying you.
http://news.cnet.com/PlayStation-3-component-prices-Why-so-high/2100-1043_3-6042226.html
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #149 of 271
Classic buyer say too expensive, seller say too cheap. There is nothing wrong with this in the business world. I hate how some of you like to bash either company.
post #150 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by zooterboy View Post

Sadly, Nvidia is the one who will work with game developers to get games to run on their PC hardware though.

Throughout this thread, I have seen some of the worst critical thinking in my life. Why would Nvidia even bother to try to get into consoles? Making hardware to sell at/below cost...is a stupid decision. AMD has been selling their desktop cards either at or below cost for a couple years in order to gain market share, and it's burying the company. Sure, they be selling more cards, but they are just where they've been for the last 4-5 years: bleeding money. The worst part about it is that they are barely even making a dent in their PC market share overall. If you look at Steam's hardware survey, you'll see that the average gamer hasn't really budged that much in AMD's direction, maybe 5% in the last two years. Why is AMD selling their cards so cheap? They don't need to. Do they really think winning the console hardware contracts is going to turn into profit for them? It's not.

How's the tomb raider game then, if nVidia is so much better at working with developers?
Also, AMD's gpu division makes AMD money, go look at the breakdowns.
AMD's solution was by far the cleanest - single chip, unified memory, and probably HSA capable. How would NVIDIA compete with that?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [GameSpot] PS4 not worth the cost, says Nvidia