How will NVidia counter the release of HD5xxx?
- Thread starter Miksu
- Start date
- Status
Here are Q2 2009 numbers, the most recent available, AFAIK. Steam may be interesting, but all the numbers I've seen reported from financial filings and from market research firms show that Nvidia still has the larger desktop market share, even though it has shrunk. You are right about the mobile space, ATI/AMD has the larger marketshare there.
http://xtreview.com/images/intel g market share.gif
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-9516-view-Graphic-market-share-Q2-2009.html
I will try and locate discrete desktop graphic market numbers, I know I saw them recently.
Well I didnt say AMD had a greater market share, just that they gained significant in mobile and less in desktop. Gain is gain and despite Nvidia's humungous price cuts, they did lose market share. And that was with a higher performance parity and more (debatable) features too. Now if they dont get their D3D11 products out, then they will be in a worse situation. I think that is what most of the previous posters were trying to highlight.
And again, unless running it on ATI GPUs makes it more than 10% faster than running on Nvidia GPUs, Havok has very little meaning regaurdless of who and how much is being spent on it. As it uses OpenCL which Nvidia supports. So again, please refrain from saying its ATIs Holy Grail Savior until we can do some comparisons.
Uhm, help? I really fail to see the logic of that statement, why do ATi GPUs have to make it 10% faster than nVidia's again?
I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it, could be I missed something...it is a looong thread.
Uhm, help again? I really fail to see the logic of that statement, why do ATi GPUs have to make it 10% faster than nVidia's again?
I'm very curious to hear the reasoning behind it, could be I missed something...it is a looong thread.
Havok and OpenCL go hand in hand. Havok is an AMD/ATI/Intel thing for stuff such as Physics in games. Right now we only have PhysX for physics in games. When havok arrives in true form with OpenCL support for all, as it is AMD/ATIs GPU Holy Grail Savior as some would like all to believe, it should be 10% faster or more on ATI GPU vs Nvidia GPUs, others wise It WASN'T THE HOLY GRAIL some people are making it out to be.
All I keep reading is wait for OpenCL/Havok. OCL/Havok gonna rui Nvidia CUDA/PhysX. Nvidia gonna be in trouble when OCL/Havok comes to be. Problem with this theory is Nvidia is doing OCL to, so unless the ATI GPU does it 10% or more faster, it wasn't all that.
Nope! What you are reading is "someone is dissing my nvidia and psysx!!!!" and what people are actually saying is that exactly because HAVOC on OCL will be IHV agnostic it is better and probably will be picked up by developers over PhysX. If it runs blazing fast on ATi and dog slow on NV the whole OCL thing will be for naught (I mean they might as well have ported it to CAL if they want to keep NV out of it).
Maybe because most people who bring that up are doing exactly that? They aren't quite as noble as you make them out to be. Read carefully, do they really want physics for all or do they want to see PhysX fail? The two might be related but many ppl seem to focus on the latter
And the reason they want PhysX to fail and Physics for all is?
I guess it dependsMaybe because most people who bring that up are doing exactly that? They aren't quite as noble as you make them out to be. Read carefully, do they really want physics for all or do they want to see PhysX fail? The two might be related but many ppl seem to focus on the latter
I didn't mean the obvious fanboys or rants. I meant that the well-founded criticism towards PhysX is that it is proprietary and I see no reason why it wouldn't (or shouldn't) fail to a GPU independent platform which supposedly will be Havoc ported on OCL. Now if Nvidia should port PhysX to OCL or CS it would be interesting to see what this competing middlewares will offer. That is best case scenario in my book since then they would be competing solely on features. Why I don't think that this would happen is because recently NV even disabled PhysX for people who wanted to use their cards only as a physics accelerator.On a side note I believe XMAN26 isn't a NVidia employee and so shouldn't take insults directed at PhysX personally therefore I pointed out the real problem people are having with it (those who are not overly biased that is).
I think it's very simple really. If you are an avid gamer genuinely interested in better physics what behavior would you rationally engage in?
A) Demonize PhysX and pray for its downfall.
B) Appreciate that PhsyX is a step forward and put pressure on other parties to step up to the plate and contribute as well.
See PhysX hate is irrational because that indicates a belief that we would be better off now had Nvidia done nothing. I guess that makes sense since everyone seems to be quite happy with the nothing that AMD is doing. That last bit boggles my mind actually....
A) Demonize PhysX and pray for its downfall.
B) Appreciate that PhsyX is a step forward and put pressure on other parties to step up to the plate and contribute as well.
See PhysX hate is irrational because that indicates a belief that we would be better off now had Nvidia done nothing. I guess that makes sense since everyone seems to be quite happy with the nothing that AMD is doing. That last bit boggles my mind actually....
As long as nVidia wants to see money for supporting PhysX, I don't see why working with the other alternive is mind-boggling
It would be nice to have seen some Red Faction type game to show off PhysX (realistically a game like that can't work with an out of the box physics engine though, requires hacks upon hacks upon hacks). At the moment PhysX is a fancy particle engine and grass animator ... a developer could do that on the GPU with a little effort themselves.
C) Pray for an open standard that works on all platforms.
C) Support some other physics implementation that isn't proprietary to one vendor.
FrameBuffer
Banned
Which is far more likely to happen if people start supporting PhsX. Once businesses see there is a market they will support it. I think AMD doesn't want to put resources toward GPU physics calculations b/c they sell CPUs, they see the market as saturated, they do not see people buying other hardware to get that support.
If a significant number of people bought nvidia hardware simply for the reason of PhysX suddenly AMD would have GPU accelerated physics as well. As of now poo pooing anything that your favorite company doesn't make is a bit silly.
And no I don't suggest people should go and behave irrationally by buying hardware that is more expensive per performance. I am saying if they did that then AMD would sit up and take notice. That is how companies really work despite all the cheerleading.
You're making it sound as if Havok doesn't require a license. They are actually both commercial products with a free license for non-commercial projects. Only one of them supports some GPUs as well as CPU, though.
Besides paying for a license, you'll actually have to pay extra to run PhysX on your GPU.
- Status
Similar threads
