PhysX

[TheCapulet]

Nvidia holds the performance crown so whatever but ATI sells more because they are cheaper.

That's the simple fact. If you're interested in pure performance (and things like PhysX) there is only one choice.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/..._nvidia_vs_amd

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...rifire_review/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...lowup_review/6

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/..._card_review/9

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ling,2865.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...fire,2878.html

If you need any more, just let me know. There are half a dozen other reputable tech sites that have posted the same results.

[Character Limit]

[BangTail]

Exactly. Fanboyism is something I personnaly profoundly despise.

I'm not a Nvidia fan since as I usually buy the brand with best value for money which has been ATI for quite a long time now... Still that since they are going to implement PhysX it would be retarded not to use Nvidia GPU's for hardware acceleration ... Too bad for ATI, I may buy Nvidia for my next computer.

Ditto, I've owned many AMD cards, some good some bad, same with the Green team.

The fact is that they are competitors and obviously they compete. Part and parcel of that is offering features that the other doesn't.

After Metro 2033, and as long as Nvidia remain competitive, I will not go back to AMD easily as the difference PhysX made was so noticeable. I'll grant you that there aren't that many games that make good use of it but there are a few and I'm really hoping ArmA 3 is going to be a good addition

[Hamm]

There isn't much point in implementing PhysX at all if they aren't going to implement it through hardware

Why do you say that? It's like saying the only point of implementing PhysX in ArmA3 is to appeal to Nvidia users, which is wrong. As has been said before it's a great and mature physics library regardless of wether it can run on a GPU or not.

PS: I like AMD just fine but I have heard too many AMD users talking about how useless PhysX is and the fact that they are now going to complain because they can't use it doesn't fly with me.

Either it sucks or it doesn't.

Your opinion about it is yours and that's okay but it's just irrelevant to both ArmA3 and any discussion of PhysX on here, and is frankly childish (on both sides, not just you). There's a word for it, fanboyism.

[BangTail]

[Character Limit]

Dual GPU cards don't count (and I don't say that to negate your argument as there are plenty of benchmarks where the 590 wins).

GPU vs GPU, Nvidia is the leader and that's all that matters. When you start convoluting things with those t00fer cards, there is always ambiguity because there is no baseline.

The 590 has less RAM so is limited at high resolutions etc.

When you use 3GB 580s in SLI, the performance king is clear.

You wont find me arguing about price vs performance, AMD wins there.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

Why do you say that? It's like saying the only point of implementing PhysX in ArmA3 is to appeal to Nvidia users, which is wrong. As has been said before it's a great and mature physics library regardless of wether it can run on a GPU or not.



Your opinion about it is yours and that's okay but it's just irrelevant to both ArmA3 and any discussion of PhysX on here, and is frankly childish (on both sides, not just you). There's a word for it, fanboyism.

I'm no fanboy bud, I've owned more AMD cards than you've had hot meals and I dont appreciate you calling me childish either.

[Dysta]

Making us have to use nVidia display card just like US marine forced to use M16A4 to the battlefield. Follow to survive, or die trying.

[Flogger23m]

most of us here that have ATI cards are "hardcore" enough to grab a cheap nvidia card for physx if it really is that big of a deal. I just hope they super optimize the coding.

Not everyone has SLI/Crossfire motherboards or can be bothered to "hack" the drivers to get the two to work. And not everyone has the money to upgrade to such a motherboard/driver.

I run Nvidia and I am leaning towards another Nvidia due to Physx. I wish Physx would run on AMD as well so we'd have more choices.

[DMarkwick]

Not everyone has SLI/Crossfire motherboards or can be bothered to "hack" the drivers to get the two to work. And not everyone has the money to upgrade to such a motherboard/driver.

I run Nvidia and I am leaning towards another Nvidia due to Physx. I wish Physx would run on AMD as well so we'd have more choices.

Well - I'd say you have about a year to make the switch

[Hamm]

I'm no fanboy bud, I've owned more AMD cards than you've had hot meals and I dont appreciate you calling me childish either.

All I'm saying is AMD vs. NVIDIA IS IRRELEVANT, but you seem to turn everything into AMD vs. Nvidia. Maybe you guys should open another thread just to measure your e-peen for choosing a video-card.

[TheCapulet]

Dual GPU cards don't count (and I don't say that to negate your argument as there are plenty of benchmarks where the 590 wins).
GPU vs GPU, Nvidia is the leader and that's all that matters. When you start convoluting things with those stupid t00fer cards, there is always ambiguity because there is no baseline.
The 590 has less RAM so is limited at high resolutions etc.
When you use 3GB 580s in SLI, the performance king is clear.

You missed a link then: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...rifire_review/

In this review, even in situations where the Nvidia GPUs were given specific situations where they weren't vRam bottlenecked, they consistently failed to outperform the competition, even when the competition was using higher settings. And in that competition, it was basically against three 6950's, since the 6990 uses the same clocks as the 6950 and forces the third 6970 down to it's clock range.

The GPU performance war is ever changing. But there's no use in denying that ATI has Nvidia firmly trounced this generation. Is that a bad thing for Nvidia users? Not at all, because it means that next generation, Nvidia will step up it's effort to beat the competition. And that's awesome for everyone involved.

[BangTail]

All I'm saying is AMD vs. NVIDIA IS IRRELEVANT, but you seem to turn everything into AMD vs. Nvidia. Maybe you guys should open another thread just to measure your e-peen for choosing a video-card.

Well, actually the choice isn't irrelevant if PhysX is implemented in hardware although I didn't start the argument, I merely pointed out that if it is, Nvidia is the better choice. It has little if anything to do with 'fanboyism' and everything to do with facts.

You're the one who is caught up in labelling it a measuring contest.

Let's move on

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

You missed a link then: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...rifire_review/

In this review, even in situations where the Nvidia GPUs were given specific situations where they weren't vRam bottlenecked, they consistently failed to outperform the competition, even when the competition was using higher settings. And in that competition, it was basically against three 6950's, since the 6990 uses the same clocks as the 6950 and forces the third 6970 down to it's clock range.

The GPU performance war is ever changing. But there's no use in denying that ATI has Nvidia firmly trounced this generation. Is that a bad thing for Nvidia users? Not at all, because it means that next generation, Nvidia will step up it's effort to beat the competition. And that's awesome for everyone involved.

This is not the place for this discussion apart from the fact you are wrong.

Anyway, time to get back on topic.