Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 This entire thread on Project CARS and Nvidia Gameworks pretty much show what Nvidia and the lazy ass devs at Slightly Mad Studios care about the consumer. Not only is PhysX not optimized to run on the CPU or AMD cards, the devs are straight-up lying about it. This is gonna sound fanboyish, but Nvidia is gonna ruin PC gaming because they can fling money to devs to implement Gameworks (which is an unoptimized piece of crap even on non-Maxwell cards). If Nvidia keeps this up, the PC market is screwed. You'll have to upgrade every year to even play certain games properly. What do you think of this, am I overreacting or do you think Nvidia and Gameworks will screw up the PC master race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 > PhysX > AMD There's your problem. I'd love to see you optimize NVIDIA TECHNOLOGY for AMD GPUs. It's like asking a xbox to play playstation games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank mcdank Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (none) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 > PhysX > AMD There's your problem. I'd love to see you optimize NVIDIA TECHNOLOGY for AMD GPUs. It's like asking a xbox to play playstation games. No, I mean that not only does PhysX have the capability to run on AMD cards, you also could've been able to run an AMD main card and a dedicated PhysX card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 No, I mean that not only does PhysX have the capability to run on AMD cards, you also could've been able to run an AMD main card and a dedicated PhysX card. AMD does NOT have the ability to run PhysX. It's NVIDIA technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 AMD does NOT have the ability to run PhysX. It's NVIDIA technology. Okay, it does and doesn't. The only thing that legitimately stops it from AMD cards is driver support. Theoretically, any AMD card could pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Okay, it does and doesn't. The only thing that legitimately stops it from AMD cards is driver support. Theoretically, any AMD card could pull it off. So are you saying NVIDIA not being AMD's bitch and coding them drivers will be the downfall of PC gaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 So are you saying NVIDIA not being AMD's bitch and coding them drivers will be the downfall of PC gaming? No... wait why are we arguing about PhysX again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Not only is PhysX not optimized to run on the CPU or AMD cards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Not only is PhysX not optimized to run on the CPU or AMD cards okay let's get back on topic before this goes to gb/ga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŴƬЯ-A Vakume Kleener Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 i run on my phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Both ACIV and Watch Dogs (Nvidia optimised games) run perfectly fine on my AMD card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 So are you saying NVIDIA not being AMD's bitch and coding them drivers will be the downfall of PC gaming? pretty sure AMD is not allowed to make/distribute any drivers for that, as NVIDIA could take them to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Both ACIV and Watch Dogs (Nvidia optimised games) run perfectly fine on my AMD card. AC4 is different; to my knowledge, it doesn't use Gameworks. Watch_Dogs, on the other hand, runs like shit on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Lol, the "masterrace" is turning on NVIDIA now. Apparently the 970 is the worst card ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Lol, the "masterrace" is turning on NVIDIA now. Apparently the 970 is the worst card ever. It kind of is. Considering only 3584MB of the 4096MB framebuffer (3.5GB and 4GB respectively) ran at advertised speeds. Oh, the 56 ROPs vs. 64 advertised ROPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhuocheng Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 It kind of is. Considering only 3584MB of the 4096MB framebuffer (3.5GB and 4GB respectively) ran at advertised speeds. Oh, the 56 ROPs vs. 64 advertised ROPs. 970 still beats the R9 290x at 1080p. People are over reacting over the 3.5gb vram issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringelord Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Same with Crysis 2 in DX11. Barely visible rocks, planks etc got super tesseleation which nvidia cards handle perfectly in comprasion to amd. There's completely no visual gain from it, it was clearly made to degrade performance for amd. Look up "Crysis 2 bullshit tesselation" on youtube to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 970 still beats the R9 290x at 1080p. People are over reacting over the 3.5gb vram issue The 970 is supposed to be a mid-range 4k/high-ultra range 1080p card. While the 290X and 970 are closely matched in 1080p, the 290X destroys the 970 in 4k, especially in games that NEED the 4GB of VRAM. As for the 56 ROPs, it's not as useful as it should be in shit like Photoshop and Blender Cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhuocheng Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The 970 is supposed to be a mid-range 4k/high-ultra range 1080p card. While the 290X and 970 are closely matched in 1080p, the 290X destroys the 970 in 4k, especially in games that NEED the 4GB of VRAM. As for the 56 ROPs, it's not as useful as it should be in shit like Photoshop and Blender Cycles. no one would buy a 970 for 4k, the difference in 4k is only a few fps, and you shouldnt get a 970 for work or photoshop. R9 290x and 970 isn't designed for 4k. Differences between the 2 in 4k are minimal. GTX 970 does have 4 gigbytes of VRAM, its just that the 512mb of VRAM is 1/7 of the speed compared to the 3.5gb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringelord Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 And to all those saying: "It's nvidia technology, why would it work on amd?" - amd's eqalement of physx (tressfx) runs fine on nvidia. So yeah, the only reason it doesn't work on amd is nvidia's greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tea Overlord Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 So are you saying NVIDIA not being AMD's bitch and coding them drivers will be the downfall of PC gaming? It's much more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 It kind of is. Considering only 3584MB of the 4096MB framebuffer (3.5GB and 4GB respectively) ran at advertised speeds. Oh, the 56 ROPs vs. 64 advertised ROPs. Yep. We were lied to. It's still a ridiculously fast card at a ridiculously cheap price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yep. We were lied to. It's still a ridiculously fast card at a ridiculously cheap price. >ridiculously cheap >avg. $329 >r9 290 $299 Yup. Ridiculously cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawko Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 You should understand that the future has no place for hefty huge PC setups Everyone will only have tablets or phones, PC's will have no use at that time. The only people who will have PCs are gamers, that's literally it. It's a mobile world now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.