Criticism of Nvidia's TWIMTBP Program - HardOCP's Just Cause 2 Review

[newtekie1]

I agree with Wile E.

I also will add that I believe AMD buying ATi was a bad thing for the industry. Obviously, now that they are a CPU company that also makes Graphics Cards, it isn't in their best interest to move computing away from the CPU. This is why, I believe, they have been so slow to adopt it. When nVidia releases something like CUDA or PhysX, they make a big stink about how they are going to support something different that they say is better, but it has been well over a year with PhysX and we haven't seen a thing. They say they are going to support Havok to get it to the level of capability where PhysX is, and Havok still sucks. I play the latest Havok games and they are no where near where some of the PhysX games are. Theres no volumetic smoke, theres no things breaking in tiny realistic pieces when hit, none of that.

Though the physics argument might be a dying one now that it seems DX11 includes a physics engine. Hopefully now that we have something that will run on everything that is actually good can capable, we will start to see some good things coming down the line in games.

 

[cadaveca]

I agree with Wile E.

I also will add that I believe AMD buying ATi was a bad thing for the industry. Obviously, now that they are a CPU company that also makes Graphics Cards, it isn't in their best interest to move computing away from the CPU. This is why, I believe, they have been so slow to adopt it. When nVidia releases something like CUDA or PhysX, they make a big stink about how they are going to support something different that they say is better, but it has been well over a year with PhysX and we haven't seen a thing. They say they are going to support Havok to get it to the level of capability where PhysX is, and Havok still sucks. I play the latest Havok games and they are no where near where some of the PhysX games are. Theres no volumetic smoke, theres no things breaking in tiny realistic pieces when hit, none of that.

Though the physics argument might be a dying one now that it seems DX11 includes a physics engine. Hopefully now that we have something that will run on everything that is actually good can capable, we will start to see some good things coming down the line in games.

I think maybe things might change a bit when Llano becomes more prevalent. With a powerful gpu in the same socket as a cpu, working the gpu's grunt into cpu calculations will be much easier.

It takes deffered rendering to get all of this working properly in a 3D environment. There are a couple of caveats in the pc architecture that make this more difficult than it has to be, and 890FX's IOMMU will make this MUCH easier.

I really don't think hardware is ready for the fundmental change just yet, but it's getting there. Programmers are crying about the PS3, which only really works well with deffered rendering, and if you take a look at recent titles, does a pretty good job at giving decent graphics. Add in a more recent gpu, and it doesn't become easier...it simply has more capability.

 

[newtekie1]

I'm kind of hoping that once both AMD and Intel have integrated a GPU onto their processor packages, that programmers might start to use that GPU to do the calculations in games that CUDA and the like are doing on the main GPU right now. Leaving the main GPU entirely for rendering the graphics. Kind of like using the built in GPU as a co-processor...but maybe I'm just being to hopeful.

 

[Wile E]

I'm kind of hoping that once both AMD and Intel have integrated a GPU onto their processor packages, that programmers might start to use that GPU to do the calculations in games that CUDA and the like are doing on the main GPU right now. Leaving the main GPU entirely for rendering the graphics. Kind of like using the built in GPU as a co-processor...but maybe I'm just being to hopeful.

Straying a little off topic here, I really wish nV would sell some cards with no video outs and driver them as CUDA co-processors instead of a display device, and let them work on any platform. As a Co-processor, they would even work in Vista with an ATI card. Cake and eat it too, anyone?

 

[TheMailMan78]

No, they wouldn't optimize for either at all, and just let it happen on the driver level. Plus we wouldn't get any new features at all.

Sorry, I just don't agree that nV is making the gaming industry worse. If anything, their current practices should be kicking ATI's ass into gear offering useful development tools and proper support for the newer open standards, beating nV at it's own game.

I blame the current state of gaming affairs on ATI, for not adapting to the times, and offering better developer help and dev kits. If they would help devs more, we'd have none of this mess at all.

I love these GPGPU apps, and I really enjoy the little eye candy boost Physx gives in games that support it. Where is ATI's support or version of these? With the way things are going, I think my next card will be an nVidia card, because at least I get the new features, and not nothing at all. I hate some of their business practices, like disabling Physx in systems with an ATI card, but at least they are bringing new things to the table.

Your blame is wrongly placed. If anything you should point your hate at consoles.

 

[Wile E]

Your blame is wrongly placed. If anything you should point your hate at consoles.

While consoles do share in the blame, ATI still takes the majority of the blame in my book, as they just refuse to move ahead on the dev side.

 

[TheMailMan78]

While consoles do share in the blame, ATI still takes the majority of the blame in my book, as they just refuse to move ahead on the dev side.

Why should they? There is no need to push the envelope when most games are ports based off of 5 year old hardware. This has been my argument for a few years now on TPU.

TWIMTBP and ATI's lack of funding to me have nothing to do with the downfall of gaming. I mean when PC gaming was in its prime Nvidia and ATI were using the same business model. The only thing that HAS changed is the console market. In doing so developers are now making games for the lowest denominator because its the biggest cash cow. Good example is RAGE by iD. They are making thier new flagship engine on a damn 360 and then porting it over to PC. This is iD software! Makers of Quake and DOOM doing ports!

What they don't understand is that in another 5 years when people are sick of the same old graphics and turn to PCs for the "next big thing" Nvidia and ATI will say "Hey we have been following yalls lead.". Then and only they will people realize the damage consoles are doing to gaming.

We NEED TWIMTBP. We NEED ATI to get on the ball with physics and such. If anything these programs will save gaming. Not condemn it.

 

[Wile E]

Why should they? There is no need to push the envelope when most games are ports based off of 5 year old hardware. This has been my argument for a few years now on TPU.

TWIMTBP and ATI's lack of funding to me have nothing to do with the downfall of gaming. I mean when PC gaming was in its prime Nvidia and ATI were using the same business model. The only thing that HAS changed is the console market. In doing so developers are now making games for the lowest denominator because its the biggest cash cow. Good example is RAGE by iD. They are making thier new flagship engine on a damn 360 and then porting it over to PC. This is iD software! Makers of Quake and DOOM doing ports!

What they don't understand is that in another 5 years when people are sick of the same old graphics and turn to PCs for the "next big thing" Nvidia and ATI will say "Hey we have been following yalls lead.". Then and only they will people realize the damage consoles are doing to gaming.

We NEED TWIMTBP. We NEED ATI to get on the ball with physics and such. If anything these programs will save gaming. Not condemn it.

You just agreed with my stance. ATI is not doing enough to get the industry to move forward. Only nV is pushing things further, but it's not enough without ATI getting off their asses.

 

[TheMailMan78]

You just agreed with my stance. ATI is not doing enough to get the industry to move forward. Only nV is pushing things further, but it's not enough without ATI getting off their asses.

Nvidia isn't doing all that much ether. With the exception of physx Nvidia is just as guilty as ATI. Why? Because TWIMTBP system now just makes ports run better. No envelope there to push.

 

[Wile E]

Nvidia isn't doing all that much ether. With the exception of physx Nvidia is just as guilty as ATI. Why? Because TWIMTBP system now just makes ports run better. No envelope there to push.

That's where we disagree. At least they are pushing something PC only. Physx, better AA algorithms like in Batman, better, more realistic water effects in Just Cause 2, etc. These are things that PCs are capable of, but not consoles, so at least it's a small step forward. If ATI would join in the fray, it would all gain momentum, and we would see more significant advancements.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

That's where we disagree. At least they are pushing something PC only. Physx, better AA algorithms like in Batman, better, more realistic water effects in Just Cause 2, etc. These are things that PCs are capable of, but not consoles, so at least it's a small step forward. If ATI would join in the fray, it would all gain momentum, and we would see more significant advancements.

I agree that obviously Nvidia is pushing forward faster than ATi on all software dev fronts. Eyefinity is nothing new. The performance of their GPUs to be able to actually handle it is what is new. My only gripe with Nvidia is their pricing is still too high. ATi's 5970 is also a little too pricey too. That being said I had no intention of buying either GTX 480 or 5970 regardless of price unless they were in the a particularly good deal but I believe pricing should be a little lower for the most part. Lower pricing and make us find a reason to buy more often(advancements in tech).