What market? You mean the few dozen people who care about Nvidia's "ethics"?
I would like to know if only a dozen. Nice idea for a poll ;D
Nvidia GT300 core: Speculation
- Thread starter Shtal
- Start date
- Status
I would like to know if only a dozen. Nice idea for a poll ;D
Does this mean they will manage a release on Q4? I sure hope so.
This remark was pretty sad though:
"Personally I think that the Vantage team should have never implemented a technology that can boost your score, but only be used by one side."
Back when Futuremark implemented PhysX, it was still an Ageia product, and their PPU could be used in combination with any GPU. Futuremark realistically had no way of knowing that nVidia or any other GPU manufacturer would buy out Ageia and make it into something that can only be used by one side.
"Personally I think that the Vantage team should have never implemented a technology that can boost your score, but only be used by one side."
Back when Futuremark implemented PhysX, it was still an Ageia product, and their PPU could be used in combination with any GPU. Futuremark realistically had no way of knowing that nVidia or any other GPU manufacturer would buy out Ageia and make it into something that can only be used by one side.
Mhh.. 4 months or so after that I guess, the previous March target still seems to be in place. That is ofcourse if no respin is required.
According to my sources they're pushing for a december release. GT212 was resurrected for a while, but supposedly canned indefinitely because it couldn't keep up with Cypress. So they're putting all their effort into GT300 and partners should be getting designkits next month. If this is true, more info should be out in the next couple of weeks.
As has been said many times it's highly unlikely they resurrected at any stage a project that was cancelled a long time ago and its resources diverted elsewhere. No IHV is so dumb to have as many human resources wandering back and forth because someone heard something or saw a roadmap from the stoneage.
The only space something like GT212 got resurrected is in some folks imagination.
The only space something like GT212 got resurrected is in some folks imagination.
Lol actually I think your labelling of a private conversation between two individuals FUD, qualifies as even greater FUD. You know the definition of FUD isn't "something I don't want to believe"
A private conversation in which the PR FUDster is trying to influence the outcome of the article the other party is writing?
NV's spreading FUD behind the scenes this time, trying to get the journos to do it for them.
Doesn't make it not FUD.
LOl sorry don't know how I typed that
, Sampsa was one of the first guys to hint about the g80 was what I was trying to say.I agree that the simplest (and hence most likely) explanation is that this is just NVidia FUD. And I know that being optimistic about NVidia is a tad passe right now, but let's for the moment consider that they might have something.
How big would G300 have to be to warrant the kind of statement that's been quoted? If (big if) G300 ships in December, how much faster/better does it have to be to warrant passing on the ATI part? 3TFlops? more? Complete rearchitect of G80 that out-larrabee's larrabee? I dunno, I haven't heard any talk like that....
FWIW, the gents at nvidia seem to be burning the midnight oil of late (I still pass their campus, but now on the way to and from diving, not gymnastics
).-Dave
Nice comeback
Yeah, well - it's kinda easy and nice (PR-wise) to ride the open-standards wave.
I wonder why AMD hasn't bought all the rights to a proprietary technology with about 30% market share and then put it into public domain, making it accessible for everyone via Open Standards(tm). Havok* for example?
Because it's effectively that's exactly what those statements say about Nvidia and Physx.
They bought Ageia and Physx (an asset), invested (dunno how much) into it's further development and (i am inclined to think) a whole lot more into it's marketing and now want to earn money with it. I wonder why people think that's somehow unethical for a company.
[* yeah, i know, they're working on it with "Bullet". When I first saw announcements of running physics on GPUs it was in the days of the X1K-series - and still I have to see a shipping game ripping the fruits of these efforts.]
What's so damn amoralic of advancing technology and at the same time trying to earn money with it, if the alternative seems to be waiting for Godout?
edit:
Now having re-read AMDs statements: What's the "industry standard" physx-middleware they are claiming to be necessary for game physics to be fully embraced?
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough. edit: Just found this: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16640 cannot be so closed down after all… Why then didn't AMD turn their attention and ressources to bullet-physics also "a long long time ago" but are announcing it only just now, as Nvidia seems to push their physx-stuff in earnest?
Or did they just wait for the right Open Standard(tm) like OpenCL to show up? If so: why wasn't that a factor in their engagement with havok?
I mean, you can wait forever for something to happen or just do something yourself. Personally, I don't feel punished (as AMD puts it) by smoke and papers in Batman: Arkham Asylum (the first title IMHO which makes fairly decently use of physics) even if my HD 5870 arrives in hopefully a few days.
Didn't David Hoff state that their team is working with Havok as well?, it's not only Bullet/Pixelux. HavokFX was something of a different magnitude I reckon.
ah yes....
http://www.rage3d.com/previews/video/ati_hd5870_performance_preview/index.php?p=4
AMD working with Bullet isn't new either: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41857/135/
http://docs.google.com/present/view?skipauth=true&id=dcphzzkx_1076cnwxq7gd <- That's their GDC slides saying
It only goes to show AMD doesn't have a well greased fud machine for picking that up.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know. I haven't the whole contents of the internet in my head.
But any way: It's good to hear that they now start pushing physics with Open Standards(tm). Any guess when the first titles would ship?There isn't much left ... Ageia got Novodex and Meqon, Havok got Ipion, Criterion got Karma and then NVIDIA, Intel and EA swallowed those up (with EA effectively killing Karma). There was lots of consolidation before AMD really was in the market for a physics engine, spending that much money when you don't even have significant market share was not an option ... Bullet was the only big thing left together with Vortex and Vortex doesn't even market to games developers.
It's not unethical, it just doesn't engender competition ... which in the end is always going to make things worse for us.
Havok FX project was closed down, not Havok as whole, and the work AMD has now done with Intel/Havok isn't the same as old Havok FX was
MfA,
I meant any proprietary technology, not just physics. I'm sure there are other middlewares as well, which gamers could profit from if they were to be used freely and no endangerments of competition.
If identifying a potential new market and trying to earn money from that in my book is a way of competition - the competition to enable new uses for existing technology.
With equal rights as AMD argues that proprietary physx hurts users (to which i obviously do not agree), one could say, it also hurts users to just wait an do nothing, thus keeping the (accelerated use of the) technology completely away from the market.
Again, in my books physics implementations in mainstream games up until now was almost non-existent (with a few notable exceptions like HL2 or Trespasser) or way overdone to a point where it seemed a bit silly (snowy white balls floating around in the UT3 maps). So developers also seem to need to go through a learning curve how to make just the right use of new technology. Nvidias Physx has, if nothing else, served well for this purpose - from which all gamers can profit, when Open Standards(tm) physics is enabled in the majority of games. Without it, even Open Standards(tm) physics would probably yield unsatisfactory results in the first and/or second wave of games to make use of it.
I meant any proprietary technology, not just physics. I'm sure there are other middlewares as well, which gamers could profit from if they were to be used freely and no endangerments of competition.
If identifying a potential new market and trying to earn money from that in my book is a way of competition - the competition to enable new uses for existing technology.
With equal rights as AMD argues that proprietary physx hurts users (to which i obviously do not agree), one could say, it also hurts users to just wait an do nothing, thus keeping the (accelerated use of the) technology completely away from the market.
Again, in my books physics implementations in mainstream games up until now was almost non-existent (with a few notable exceptions like HL2 or Trespasser) or way overdone to a point where it seemed a bit silly (snowy white balls floating around in the UT3 maps). So developers also seem to need to go through a learning curve how to make just the right use of new technology. Nvidias Physx has, if nothing else, served well for this purpose - from which all gamers can profit, when Open Standards(tm) physics is enabled in the majority of games. Without it, even Open Standards(tm) physics would probably yield unsatisfactory results in the first and/or second wave of games to make use of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status