[spajdr]

this is so retarded to include physX to total Vantage score ...

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by spajdr

this is so retarded to include physX to total Vantage score ...

its just more of the same , 3dmark has allways provided benfits to nvidia cards in the game test while pushing benfits to ati into none scoring tests

[BRiT]

Originally Posted by spajdr

this is so retarded to include physX to total Vantage score ...

I think it's a major deficiency to have one base total score. They should have kept the GPU, CPU, and Physics tallies separate.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

When I multiply 7274 by 1.3 I get ~9400.

You are right!

Are any of the cards over $200 worth it?

If ATI 4870 performs very close to GF9800GX2 and you have 24" or 30" inch monitor, "AND" If 4870 drops to range ~$270.00 US dollars - then it might worth it.

[tacopaco]

whats the release date for r700? if the performance is right that's the card ill be getting also i hope the drivers will be decent on release....

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by tacopaco

whats the release date for r700? if the performance is right that's the card ill be getting also i hope the drivers will be decent on release....

August 2008.

Question! Why do you want to get 4870X2 ??

[Shtal]

I was wondering if ATI will unlock extra 40 or 50 stream processors for RV770XT "HD4870". = Total 840 or 850 stream processors.

[Dave Baumann]

Originally Posted by BRiT

I think it's a major deficiency to have one base total score. They should have kept the GPU, CPU, and Physics tallies separate.

With the current strcuture that wouldn't be particularly telling either. In actual games physics and graphics would be contending for the same resources and in the GPU accelerated case you would effectively be "double scoring" graphics and physics scores.

[Rebel44]

Originally Posted by Shtal

I was wondering if ATI will unlock extra 40 or 50 stream processors for RV770XT "HD4870". = Total 840 or 850 stream processors.

It would be nice to do it at least for 4870x2

[tacopaco]

Question! Why do you want to get 4870X2

Because i have a single pci-e 2.0 motherboard crossfire on a stick and such...
Why does it matter its not set in stone I am hoping they turn out great if they don't ill get a gtx280 whatever works.
Do you have something against it? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by tacopaco

Do you have something against it? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder.

Only drivers and power consumption under full load

EDIT: 4870X2 power consumption runnning idle, no complains from me.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by eastmen

its just more of the same , 3dmark has allways provided benfits to nvidia cards in the game test while pushing benfits to ati into none scoring tests

Sometime november 2006, everybody was all raving about physics processing on a GPU. Now it's finally there and people are complaining about Nvidia cooking the books? It's not exactly their fault that FutureMark chose to go with PhysX (long before the acquisition of Ageia by Nvidia I would assume).

As for your general statement: upon release R600 was neck and neck with an 8800. We all know how well that reflected real world performance.

[Arty]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Sometime november 2006, everybody was all raving about physics processing on a GPU. Now it's finally there and people are complaining about Nvidia cooking the books? It's not exactly their fault that FutureMark chose to go with PhysX (long before the acquisition of Ageia by Nvidia I would assume).

That is exactly the case here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=43

[AlexV]

Originally Posted by Shtal

Only drivers and power consumption under full load

EDIT: 4870X2 power consumption runnning idle, no complains from me.

Because your crystal ball briefed you about what exactly the card will be and how it will behave, obviously.

[ChronoReverse]

Originally Posted by Wysicon

Wasn't there a rumor that the SP count is 830-840? Just a theory, not even sure, but maybe they've dedicated those extra SPs for AA?

I heard that a physical count of the die showed 180 units so that makes 900SPs? Was this confirmed by anyone else?

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

Because your crystal ball briefed you about what exactly the card will be and how it will behave, obviously.

I never said R700 sucks, it just need time to mature. "R700 is very good, but it will get better overtime".

[AlexV]

Originally Posted by Shtal

I never said R700 sucks, it just need time to mature.

And you know this how?

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Sometime november 2006, everybody was all raving about physics processing on a GPU. Now it's finally there and people are complaining about Nvidia cooking the books? It's not exactly their fault that FutureMark chose to go with PhysX (long before the acquisition of Ageia by Nvidia I would assume).

As for your general statement: upon release R600 was neck and neck with an 8800. We all know how well that reflected real world performance.

True, it's not their fault that FM botched up and added that without a way to test if it will work simultaneously on one card.

From what I've heard so far the only way to take advantage of this in games currently is to have 2 video cards. One for the video rendering and one for physics.

Vantage however tests each seperately and then composites the scores (as I understand it). Leading people to think they can have GPU accelerated 3d graphics along with GPU accelerated physics on 1 card.

Then again I could be wrong about not being able to currently render 3D and Ageia game physics at the same time on one card. I haven't been following it too closely lately.

Regards,
SB

[psikobare]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Then again I could be wrong about not being able to currently render 3D and Ageia game physics at the same time on one card. I haven't been following it too closely lately.

it's supposed to be possible to get both things on a single cars (as nvidia claims)

the argument of nvidia is totally wrong if you have to buy a second card to get physx, and nvidia know that

remember the time when nvidia was yelling that their cards could do physx even better tha the physx card, without pushing that hard

i think physx built-in driver have just been released
they might have some test on the internet

[AlphaWolf]

You can see on some benefit (working as physx and gpu) on custom UT3 maps, but there's not a lot of places where its working atm. Right now I'd put this in the future feature category, buying a card right now based on potential physx support may lead to disappointment.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by serenity

That is exactly the case here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=43

You have an API that defines PhysX. You have a piece of SW that looks for the presence of the API, and when it's there it uses it. You have an implementation of that API that uses the GPU.

Exactly what do you suggest Nvidia should have done? Do app detection and disable PhysX? Of course, not, after all people have claiming for years that app detection is evil. Or is that only true when it serves your case?

The blame on the scores being skewed rests 100% on FM: they are the ones who decided that PhysX is part of the final results. They knew that PhysX would be implemented on the GPU before Vantage was released. They had a chance to take it out of the equation, but they didn't. Their mistake. Case closed.

Personally, I'm excited to finally see a reasonable chance of HW accelerated physics that doesn't suffer from the chicken and egg problem. You can't blame Nvidia for AMD not (out-)bidding on Ageia.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

From what I've heard so far the only way to take advantage of this in games currently is to have 2 video cards. One for the video rendering and one for physics.

I'm perfectly able to run 3D stuff and CUDA on my little 8600GT: there are examples that do this as part of the SDK. My understanding is that PhysX is based on CUDA: at least that's what Nvidia has been telling the world. I have no reasons to doubt that.

If the inability to run PhysX and 3D at the same time is the core of the argument, then "from what I've heard" is not good enough.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

And you know this how?

Partially from logic!

[compres]

Originally Posted by Shtal

Partially from logic!

Care to explain your logic?

[BRiT]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

With the current strcuture that wouldn't be particularly telling either. In actual games physics and graphics would be contending for the same resources and in the GPU accelerated case you would effectively be "double scoring" graphics and physics scores.

Agreed. That's why I didn't suggest they add together all 3 separate scores, like they do now.

I find it rather pedantic that FM do not allow spare video cards to be used for physics even though Nvidia has shown it's perfectly capable of doing so in Vantage. As a user, I'd prefer the ability of running the equipment the way I want to. If a game doesn't support SLI/Crossfire or doesn't scale enough with it, then re-allocating a GPU to physics should be perfectly acceptable.