Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH]Nvidia Smokes 3DMark Thanks to PhysX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TH]Nvidia Smokes 3DMark Thanks to PhysX - Page 3  

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud89 View Post
You could say that if it was a game being discussed, but it isn't. It's a synthetic benchmark that is meant to make an accurate comparison between different video cards. Obviously this comparison is rendered worthless if it is shown that it clearly favors one side because it only chooses to include certain features.

I think including only PhysX would be perfectly acceptable if ATI didn't have a specific API to compete on this front, but now it has been revealed that they'll have Havok support. Although I don't expect 3dMark to have Havok support yet, but when it is fully implemented they need to add a test if they want to remain fair. In the same respect, I think they should also have a DX10.1 test as well.
And that is exactly what it is doing. ATi doesn't have PhysX, and Nvidia does. Why should an advantage be taken away from Nvidia? If they didn't have PhysiX then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargate125645 View Post
No, because PhysX currently doesn't run on the CPU (or at least it never used to). You either have CUDA or a PhysX card.
No, if you don't have a physx card or CUDA you can still run any physx application, it does run on the CPU. For example the Physx enabled UT3 maps will look and act the same on a computer with Physx as one without, but those maps (and only those maps, really) will run at a better framerate with a Physx card. Same goes for the Physx tests, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendaryC View Post
And that is exactly what it is doing. ATi doesn't have PhysX, and Nvidia does. Why should an advantage be taken away from Nvidia? If they didn't have PhysiX then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
Which is exactly why he's saying they should have 10.1 as well. They are taking away something that nvidia doesn't have, an advantage for ati, but putting in something that ati doesn't have, an advantage for nvidia.

If they didn't have 10.1 then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
Edited by Deathsnapper - 6/22/08 at 10:35am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendaryC View Post
And that is exactly what it is doing. ATi doesn't have PhysX, and Nvidia does. Why should an advantage be taken away from Nvidia? If they didn't have PhysiX then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
Either allow DX10.1 and Physx (then Havok in the future), or don't allow any of these additions at all. One could argue that DX10.1 is the only real valid addition to a DX based bench, as this is a gaming related benchmark.............physics acceleration is rare in games, and seldom allow for higher framerates (because the bottleneck is normally at the GPU due to high res, level of detail.)
PWNzershreck
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4930K @ 4.6 GHz ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition MSI GTX 1080 FE Heatkiller Acetal 16 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600C9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Samsung 840 Pro  ASUS DVD-RW SATA Koolance 380i & 2x HW Labs 480GTX Arch Linux x86_64, Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG UC88-B Ultrawide, ASUS VS278Q Ducky Corsair AX1200i Caselabs STH10 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G500 Func 1030 ASUS Xonar Essence STX 
  hide details  
PWNzershreck
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4930K @ 4.6 GHz ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition MSI GTX 1080 FE Heatkiller Acetal 16 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600C9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x Samsung 840 Pro  ASUS DVD-RW SATA Koolance 380i & 2x HW Labs 480GTX Arch Linux x86_64, Windows 7 x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG UC88-B Ultrawide, ASUS VS278Q Ducky Corsair AX1200i Caselabs STH10 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G500 Func 1030 ASUS Xonar Essence STX 
  hide details  
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathsnapper View Post
No, if you don't have a physx card or CUDA you can still run any physx application, it does run on the CPU. For example the Physx enabled UT3 maps will look and act the same on a computer with Physx as one without, but those maps (and only those maps, really) will run at a better framerate with a Physx card. Same goes for the Physx tests, etc.



Which is exactly why he's saying they should have 10.1 as well. They are taking away something that nvidia doesn't have, an advantage for ati, but putting in something that ati doesn't have, an advantage for nvidia.

If they didn't have 10.1 then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
I've never mentioned DX10.1.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by binormalkilla View Post
Either allow DX10.1 and Physx (then Havok in the future), or don't allow any of these additions at all. One could argue that DX10.1 is the only real valid addition to a DX based bench, as this is a gaming related benchmark.............physics acceleration is rare in games, and seldom allow for higher framerates (because the bottleneck is normally at the GPU due to high res, level of detail.)
DX10.1 isn't exactly common either.

In fact, I don't believe there is a single game that does have it (Unless you count AC when not patched.)
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendaryC View Post
I've never mentioned DX10.1.
I know, but that was the large point of Darkcloud's post was that if they added ATi's advantage, 10.1, people whouldn't be so against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkcloud89
I think including only PhysX would be perfectly acceptable if ATI didn't have a specific API to compete on this front, but now it has been revealed that they'll have Havok support. Although I don't expect 3dMark to have Havok support yet, but when it is fully implemented they need to add a test if they want to remain fair. In the same respect, I think they should also have a DX10.1 test as well.
As you see you neglected the main point of the post to reply to only a fairly insignificant segment.
Edited by Deathsnapper - 6/22/08 at 10:46am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
post #27 of 36
Yeah PhysX in vantage was a bad idea. Maybe as an option it would be OK, but not by default. It needs to be disabled when comparing nvidia vs ati to get an accurate comparison.
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
Yeah PhysX in vantage was a bad idea. Maybe as an option it would be OK, but not by default. It needs to be disabled when comparing nvidia vs ati to get an accurate comparison.
Or include Havok...
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendaryC View Post
And that is exactly what it is doing. ATi doesn't have PhysX, and Nvidia does. Why should an advantage be taken away from Nvidia? If they didn't have PhysiX then it WOULD be an unfair comparison, because the card has the power to be better.
Did you read what I said? My point was that if they want to support PhysX, that's fine. But if they want the test to remain fair they also need to add Havok support when it's available. I actually agree with what you're saying, I just think you misread what I wrote. I apologize if it was my wording that was unclear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by binormalkilla
Furthermore I don't really see how Physx support is even relevant in a gaming oriented benchmark, as VERY few games even support Physx.....
3DMark usually tends to be a forward-looking benchmark in that it isn't tailored so much to measure performance in current-generation games, but where they think the trends will go in the future. If this is their intention, then PhysX/Havok support are appropriate (in my opinion). I think the biggest reason that PhysX never really took off was because it (sort of) required an additional physics acceleration board. Now that support is integrated into GPUs, it's a safe bet that any gamer is going to have support for it, which is going to give developers more incentive to include support for it.
post #30 of 36
okay so how much games use physx? 2? 3? of course no games use DX 10.1....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH]Nvidia Smokes 3DMark Thanks to PhysX