Not really fair to compare CPUs. Intel is already way ahead in that market anyway. Not just games where Intel CPUs excel, it's pretty much everything across the board.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Borderlands 2 PhysX can be forced to run on the CPU
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Not really fair to compare CPUs. Intel is already way ahead in that market anyway. Not just games where Intel CPUs excel, it's pretty much everything across the board.
AMD are doing the same thing in the GPU market now as well. In response to Nvidia? Probably but I don't see any innocence here.
I would never buy a GPU based on PhysX or anything unique AMD come up with. I buy based on the whole package.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,174
- Location
- Behind you
I totally agree, I don't like that Sleeping Dogs Extreme AA is geared for AMD cards. I think all features should be on both brands and not delibratly made to run a lot slower on 1 just 'coz its using a special technique that favours 1 brand.
Indeed. Even with two cards - 1080 performance leaves a lot to be desired. There's no doubt what they were thinking when they implemented that!
Surround performance with extreme AA is laughable. Minimums of 4 and averages around 11!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,224
Thats not the same. Nvidia have used features that there cards have, to boost there performance in certain games. I have no real problem with it as long as they are not trying to gimp performance of the other brands.
Physx is totally locked out to amd and can not run at all on an amd gpu.
Amd added in a feature to sleeping dogs which is not locked out to nvidia gpu's. They just added a feature that suits there top end cards which are good at compute. Its not like the high preset aa is not up to the job as its supposed to be what other games would call the extreme aa setting. You could even call it an innovation that nvidia could use to good effect on some of there twimtbp titles.
Last edited:
Well if you go down to that level it's not the same but I prefer to look at it from a high level perspective and look at it as eye candy which one can run and one can't. PhysX can run on AMD systems it just goes to the CPU and performance is rubbish.
Extreme AA can run on Nvidia Kepler systems it just lacks the compute to process it and performance is rubbish.
It's different but from a high level it's essentially the same thing.
Extreme AA can run on Nvidia Kepler systems it just lacks the compute to process it and performance is rubbish.
It's different but from a high level it's essentially the same thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,477
You are missing the point. nVIDIA can have better performance with their next GPU by increasing the perf. in direct compute for games and so, render this disadvantage in rendering null. AMD could never run PhyshX on their GPUs. I think it a clever way of putting that part of the gpu to work, instead of laying around for nothing.
After all, nVIDIA choose to get rid of the GPGPU part, after all, in the 6xx series.
After all, nVIDIA choose to get rid of the GPGPU part, after all, in the 6xx series.
Last edited:
I'm not missing the point at all I'm just choosing to view it at a higher level.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,224
If nvidia had continued the trend of there top end being good at compute we probably would not be talking about this. I still think nvidia may be able to do something in there drivers to make the extreme setting run better. Then this convo will mean nothing. At the same time i don't think we would be praising gtx680/670 for being good on power,low noise and heat. Its a trade off they made and have to live with it. Nvidia had this advantage last round and used it well to showcase there cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
AMD 7970 at 1150/1650 (on this driver), i7 2600k at 4.5ghz, all settings to their max, physx forced onto cpu = at least 60fps smooth gameplay - 3/4 of the way through atm and have had no slowdown.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I can't use an Nvidia GPU in my set up due to a lack of Nvidia support for frame sequential in Tridef, I was a launch day GTX680 owner and had to switch to a 7970.
I could use SBS, but I'm not one to sacrifice on quality.
So, I either choose my 3D support or PhysX support.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,477
Just because nVIDIA it's a bad gpgpu performer, it doesn't mean AMD should not use some advance features because of that. It's an open "standard" not closed one, it's not something used for the sake of money and marketing like tessellation in Crysis 2. The red team is having a faster overall card atm, that all. Probably GK110 or maybe the entire 7xx series will go back on the road started by GF. Besides, is there such a big difference between Extrem AA and High AA in that game?
PS: It would be interesting to see how a 470/480 would score in that benchmark.
AMD use OpenCL Direct Compute to render AA /Advanced Lighting and Physics, Nvidia have OpenCL and as far as i can tell you can use it on some if not all AMD games.
The problem is Nvidia OpenCL is very weak compared with it on AMD cards, so it's very slow.
Nvidia do lock AMD out of Physx to keep that to themselves, infact the whole thing is just about Nvidia marketing, Nvidia Physx uses the Compute core of the GPU just the same as OpenCL, it's simply that Nvidia use a different code and call it Physx, the same thing can be done with OpenCL, this simply means they can work with game developers to use it specifically and lock AMD out of it.
If anyone needs to change to give everyone the same deal it's Nvidia who need to improve OpenCL on their cards or make Physcx Open Source.
The problem is Nvidia OpenCL is very weak compared with it on AMD cards, so it's very slow.
Nvidia do lock AMD out of Physx to keep that to themselves, infact the whole thing is just about Nvidia marketing, Nvidia Physx uses the Compute core of the GPU just the same as OpenCL, it's simply that Nvidia use a different code and call it Physx, the same thing can be done with OpenCL, this simply means they can work with game developers to use it specifically and lock AMD out of it.
If anyone needs to change to give everyone the same deal it's Nvidia who need to improve OpenCL on their cards or make Physcx Open Source.
Last edited:
First time I've actually considered upgrading to i5.As i see it they could have done the same thing by using what is freely available to them (OpenCL) it's what it's there for, more and more software / game developers are using it so your not one or the other GPU dependant and locked in to it.
The makers of Borderlands 2 have for what ever reason gone Nvidia Physx only and thus denying AMD users Direct Compute features.
Clearly they don't want my custom.
I have a good mind to ask them why they locked AMD users out of such features.
Seriously tho, this is stupid. I use OpenCL Hardware accaliration for Adobe Photoshop CS6, Handbrake ecte.....
That's just rubbish on Nvidia 6## series GPU's and fast as *&$!"@?£?"$ on AMD's, games are using it now to so for the most part i have the best of both worlds.
It would be the same if i had an Nvidia, had they not gimped there own OpenCL performance and continue in there old fashioned approach of lock the customer in by lobbying game developers to use Physx instead of OpenCL.
Last edited:
^
Because nVidia paid them a hell of a lot more than a few missed sales from upset AMD users
Nvidia financed game locked to Nvidia, well they can keep it then.
Unless someone comes up with a Physx > OpenCL Hack for it