Originally Posted by stargate125645
There is no reason for Vantage to have gone with PhysX over anything else, let alone not have DX10.1. If Nvidia had nothing to do with it then they are the lucky enough to win the lottery 10 times over. And then you have the whole Assassin's Creed bit. Something happened behind the scenes, and it'd be naive not to think so.
Very true, I think it kind of proves that a lot of benchmarks really don't matter, and can easily be manipulated. Personally I think that if the performance or feel of a game is improved, then I think the benchmark should reflect that. Maybe they shouldn't have released physx for Vantage, but that is another debate that could go either way ethics wise.
I have no problem with a standard, but Nvidia pushing PhysX is going in the wrong direction. If all you cared about were GPGPU abilities, then it shouldn't matter to you whether there is CUDA from Nvidia or whatever ATI has developed and it is only helping to have two competing forms as each company has to make theirs better to compete. But you are pushing CUDA as the necessary standard, and it doesn't need to be.
Well, there are two incompatable standards, with CUDA being widely adopted. Is there any info on what folks have adopted ATI's GPGPU language? I know it is AMD's nature not to really advertise, but I haven heard much on it, either for secrecy, or lack of adoption I would really like to know.
I haven't heard much on it, which led me to think that perhaps CUDA should be pursued more.
It is just like teasing a dog with a piece of meat. Since developers have a tough enough time developing for either language, much less both; we have Nvidia dangling Physx in front of us one minute, then ATI dangling +1 teraflop performance the next. Then back to Nvidia with Badabom and wider use of CUDA.
We all know what happens in format wars, and the consumer is rarely the winner.Edited by trueg50 - 7/8/08 at 7:55am