The Return of Supersample AA

Over the years, the methods used to implement anti-aliasing on video cards have bounced back and forth. The earliest generation of cards such as the 3Dfx Voodoo 4/5 and ATI and NVIDIA’s DirectX 7 parts implemented supersampling, which involved rendering a scene at a higher resolution and scaling it down for display. Using supersampling did a great job of removing aliasing while also slightly improving the overall quality of the image due to the fact that it was sampled at a higher resolution.

But supersampling was expensive, particularly on those early cards. So the next generation implemented multisampling, which instead of rendering a scene at a higher resolution, rendered it at the desired resolution and then sampled polygon edges to find and remove aliasing. The overall quality wasn’t quite as good as supersampling, but it was much faster, with that gap increasing as MSAA implementations became more refined.

Lately we have seen a slow bounce back to the other direction, as MSAA’s imperfections became more noticeable and in need of correction. Here supersampling saw a limited reintroduction, with AMD and NVIDIA using it on certain parts of a frame as part of their Adaptive Anti-Aliasing(AAA) and Supersample Transparency Anti-Aliasing(SSTr) schemes respectively. Here SSAA would be used to smooth out semi-transparent textures, where the textures themselves were the aliasing artifact and MSAA could not work on them since they were not a polygon. This still didn’t completely resolve MSAA’s shortcomings compared to SSAA, but it solved the transparent texture problem. With these technologies the difference between MSAA and SSAA were reduced to MSAA being unable to anti-alias shader output, and MSAA not having the advantages of sampling textures at a higher resolution.

With the 5800 series, things have finally come full circle for AMD. Based upon their SSAA implementation for Adaptive Anti-Aliasing, they have re-implemented SSAA as a full screen anti-aliasing mode. Now gamers can once again access the higher quality anti-aliasing offered by a pure SSAA mode, instead of being limited to the best of what MSAA + AAA could do.

Ultimately the inclusion of this feature on the 5870 comes down to two matters: the card has lots and lots of processing power to throw around, and shader aliasing was the last obstacle that MSAA + AAA could not solve. With the reintroduction of SSAA, AMD is not dropping or downplaying their existing MSAA modes; rather it’s offered as another option, particularly one geared towards use on older games.

“Older games” is an important keyword here, as there is a catch to AMD’s SSAA implementation: It only works under OpenGL and DirectX9. As we found out in our testing and after much head-scratching, it does not work on DX10 or DX11 games. Attempting to utilize it there will result in the game switching to MSAA.

When we asked AMD about this, they cited the fact that DX10 and later give developers much greater control over anti-aliasing patterns, and that using SSAA with these controls may create incompatibility problems. Furthermore the games that can best run with SSAA enabled from a performance standpoint are older titles, making the use of SSAA a more reasonable choice with older games as opposed to newer games. We’re told that AMD will “continue to investigate” implementing a proper version of SSAA for DX10+, but it’s not something we’re expecting any time soon.

Unfortunately, in our testing of AMD’s SSAA mode, there are clearly a few kinks to work out. Our first AA image quality test was going to be the railroad bridge at the beginning of Half Life 2: Episode 2. That scene is full of aliased metal bars, cars, and trees. However as we’re going to lay out in this screenshot, while AMD’s SSAA mode eliminated the aliasing, it also gave the entire image a smooth makeover – too smooth. SSAA isn’t supposed to blur things, it’s only supposed to make things smoother by removing all aliasing in geometry, shaders, and textures alike.

8x MSAA   8x SSAA

As it turns out this is a freshly discovered bug in their SSAA implementation that affects newer Source-engine games. Presumably we’d see something similar in the rest of The Orange Box, and possibly other HL2 games. This is an unfortunate engine to have a bug in, since Source-engine games tend to be heavily CPU limited anyhow, making them perfect candidates for SSAA. AMD is hoping to have a fix out for this bug soon.

“But wait!” you say. “Doesn’t NVIDIA have SSAA modes too? How would those do?” And indeed you would be right. While NVIDIA dropped official support for SSAA a number of years ago, it has remained as an unofficial feature that can be enabled in Direct3D games, using tools such as nHancer to set the AA mode.

Unfortunately NVIDIA’s SSAA mode isn’t even in the running here, and we’ll show you why.

5870 SSAA



At the top we have the view from DX9 FSAA Viewer of ATI’s 4x SSAA mode. Notice that it’s a rotated grid with 4 geometry samples (red) and 4 texture samples. Below that we have NVIDIA’s 4x MSAA mode, a rotated grid with 4 geometry samples and a single texture sample. Finally we have NVIDIA’s 4x SSAA mode, an ordered grid with 4 geometry samples and 4 texture samples. For reasons that we won’t get delve into, rotated grids are a better grid layout from a quality standpoint than ordered grids. This is why early implementations of AA using ordered grids were dropped for rotated grids, and is why no one uses ordered grids these days for MSAA.

Furthermore, when actually using NVIDIA's SSAA mode, we ran into some definite quality issues with HL2: Ep2. We're not sure if these are related to the use of an ordered grid or not, but it's a possibility we can't ignore.

4x MSAA   4x SSAA

If you compare the two shots, with MSAA 4x the scene is almost perfectly anti-aliased, except for some trouble along the bottom/side edge of the railcar. If we switch to SSAA 4x that aliasing is solved, but we have a new problem: all of a sudden a number of fine tree branches have gone missing. While MSAA properly anti-aliased them, SSAA anti-aliased them right out of existence.

For this reason we will not be taking a look at NVIDIA’s SSAA modes. Besides the fact that they’re unofficial in the first place, the use of a rotated grid and the problems in HL2 cement the fact that they’re not suitable for general use.

Angle-Independent Anisotropic Filtering At Last AA Image Quality & Performance


View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    And what was the 8800 GTX Ultimate other than a pathetic clock-speed bump? After that we waited for the GT200 series which launched at $600. It took ATI to bring the price down, just like it took NVIDIA to bring the ATI prices down.

    NVIDIA stagnated while they were on top, just like ATI with the 9700/9800. NVIDIA made a huge misstep with the FX 5800 series, and ATI did the same thing with the X1800 series (and to a lesser extent the X800 parts). All companies have good and bad times. (Pentium 4 ring a bell? What about the Phenom?)

    Your posts on this article have contributed nothing whatsoever other than ranting. Paper or hard launch? Paper is when *nothing* is out for a few weeks (or longer). If NVIDIA "launched" GT300 today, that would be paper. ATI has 5870 parts, albeit in limited quantities. GTX 275 certainly wasn't any better than this, but long term it all evens out.

    And who cares about how long a company produced the better product? What matters is what they have now. Pentium 4 stunk in comparison to Athlon 64; does that mean no one should even consider Core 2 or Core i7? According to your "logic" that's exactly what we should do. Give it a rest; when NVIDIA launches GT300, we'll see what it can do. We'll also see if it can compete on pricing. Being fastest is only part of the battle, and anything over $300 is going to be a lower selling part.
  • SiliconDoc - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Well you are ABSOLUTELY LYING about the GTX275 availability, PERIOD.
    Next, you didn't refute a single thing I said, but more or less came closer to agreement in many ways, but were WRONG, too.
    Now you've decided you can half heartedly claim both sides do the same thing, and even throw in AMD and Intel, let's get to your continuing bias.
    You couldn't resist "pathetic clock increase" for the GT8800 Ultimate (would love to see where you said that about the 4890, or the HD2900XTX) , failed to note the OVERPRICED ati card I pointed out, and in your absolute ignorance and CYA, think "stagnation" is something that occurs when "on top" instead of just the natural time it takes to move forward with new technology, after having just completed a round of it.
    Once a company makes it "on top" they HAVE SPENT their latest and greatest new tech, and IT TAKES TIME TO GET TO THE NEXT LEVEL.
    However, in YOUR MINDS, that is "stagnation". You offer ABSOLUTELY NO TIMETABLE TO EVEN REMOTELY "PROVE" your insane assertion.
    You simply want it "ACCEPTED", which is about the DUMBEST theory one can imagine anyway, and I already pointed out EXACTLY why it is SO STUPID.
    Let me tell you again, so IT CAN SINK IN FELLA!
    When a company "makes it on top" they have just spent their latest greatest newest wad of technology" - AND IT TAKES TIME TO IMPROVE ON THEIR OWN ACHIEVEMENT !
    In fact, they, having just OUTDONE the competition, are to be expected to "NOT COME UP WITH SOME MASSIVE NEW WIN" for the second time, in a row, and "quickly" - the SECOND time, as you fools expect, and even SAY SO, without direct words, because of course, you are FOOLISH and have BOUGHT THE SPIN, like 3rd graders who cannot think for themselves.
    You basically "expect the impossible" - another leap forward right after the one just accomplished, before anyone else can even catch up.
    YES, IT IS IMMENSLY IDIOTIC! Now you know!
    You finally come to your senses a bit with: " All companies have good and bad times."
    YES THEY DO. But not in your paranoid, conspiractorial, world of "stagnation" - once the top is reached. No, you expect a second miracle, in short order, and say so.
    You also excuse ATI's bad times I pointed - by kicking yourself in the face doing it, negating your OTHER conspiracy rant " And who cares about how long a company produced the better product? "
    Well, if that were actually the case for you, you wouldn't have screamed about stagnation once a company is on top, because obviously YOU DEEPLY CARE ABOUT WHO HAS THE BETTER PRODUCT, AND FOR HOW LONG.
    Not only that, you claim, once they are there, they turn flaccid and lazy.... and boy it burns you up !
    ROFL, you CONTRADICT YOURSELF, and haven't got a clue you're doing it. That of course, means, that I have just made a major contribution TO YOU, straightening out your wacked conspiracy thinking, that no doubt was induced and locked in by the constant red fan hatred for nvidia, here at this site, over several years, and on the net widely, as well. Not like here is unique.
    Now, if you had sense, you'd be more likely to wonder why when some company is on top, that their competition cannot pass them up, or equal them, not "why they sit there stagnating" - meaning, in another sense, one we all relate to, it just drives you nuts the next thing isn't here already - because you, we, everyone wants the next greatest, and so, you BLAME the top dog for not fufilling your wish immediately, when, they just had, in fact, done so....
    Yeah, there is NO END to how insane that rant of yours is, that the reds, widely repeat against Nvidia, and there is absolutely NO BASIS FOR IT AT ALL in reality.
  • Voo - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Come on Jarred arguing with someone who actually believes

    "If either company dies, the other can move on, and there's very little chance that the company will remain stagnant, since then they won't sell anything, and will die, too."

    won't do any good. I mean even my 13 year old nephew understands the basics of economy better than this guy.
    I think every one in their right mind agrees that competition always leads to lower prices and more innovation.

    Also I can't see where there should be any bias - things like the temp of the 2 ati cards are clearly stated in the article and everyone who can read graphs and the text should be able to get a clear picture of the new card.

    Just because some people just read every other sentence doesn't mean the review is biased..
  • SiliconDoc - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Here, let me point out another problem with your "basic understanding", which is the point you start at, remain at, and finish at:
    " won't do any good. I mean even my 13 year old nephew understands the basics of economy better than this guy.
    I think every one in their right mind agrees that competition always leads to lower prices and more innovation. "
    LET'S TAKE A CURRENT EXAMPLE: PhysX vs Havok vs Bullet Physics vs Pix - all various forms of in game "physics".
    Well, what competition done with this ?
    You might call it "innovation", but in this case, it should be called FRAGMENTATION, and STAGNATION - due to your "basic understanding" in economy, you can't fathom such a thing, because it doesn't apply to your pat cleche, which you can ATTACK unfairly with.
    Now, if there was a MONOPOLY, ( which is what the red fans have been screaming for, a SINGLE STANDARD, thrust down the throats of all the card makers and game makers, they claim, "open standard" is the very best!), a real monopoly, not an EDICT from a "standards board", why we'd already havce advancement far beyond what we currently do with the fragmented players and implementations.
    So, NO competition does not always lead to BETTER END USER expereince or FASTER technological implementation.
    So much for you and your 13 year old's "understanding".
    In this case, competition has led to fragmentation, and lack of implementation in games, and slower advancement, due to the competing players.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    That was the worst "counter" to an argument I've ever read. Standards are not the same thing as a monopoly, and I don't even need to use all caps to get that point across. Standards are what we have with memory types, interfaces, and yes even graphics. A "monopoly" on graphics that has everyone move to one standard can be beneficial; certainly having four competing "standards" doesn't really help.

    Eventually, the market will select what works best. There used to be a question of OpenGL vs. Direct3D, and that discussion has all but ended. MS put the money and time into DirectX and actually improved it to the point where most programmers stopped caring about using the alternative.

    That's why PhysX isn't gaining traction: it has to compete with Havok, which the vast majority of content creators appear to prefer. So NVIDIA can pay companies to use PhysX in games like Batman, but until they actually get people to willingly use their stuff instead of Havok (by improving PhysX), it's not going to "win". And what the companies really want is a standard that works on all hardware, so we're more likely to see OpenCL or Direct Compute take over instead of a proprietary PhysX API. Hence, our discussion in this article about how OpenCL and Direct Compute are promising APIs.

    It's not fragmentation, any more than a choice between Chevron, Philips, BP, Texon, etc. is "fragmentation" of the oil industry. Just because one implementation isn't dominant doesn't mean the problem is because of competition. Eventually, some implementation will actually get it right and companies will go that route. Clearly that hasn't happened yet, and your beloved PhysX (two titles where it actually matters so far: Mirror's Edge and Batman) is losing based on merit and nothing else. If it was better, people would use it. End of discussion. I guess all the hyper intelligent programmers making amazing games are too stupid to realize how awesome PhysX is without getting help from NVIDIA. It's so great that they'll pay money to Havok to license that API rather than use PhysX for free.

    A monopoly on hardware is a different matter, and again no one is screaming for a monopoly except perhaps for you. Nice job trying to add weight to your position by being a rabid fanboy and accusing the opposition of doing exactly what you're doing. If there is only one hardware vendor, what drives them to improve? Nothing but themselves, which leads to stagnation. It really is basic economics that's apparently too much for a fanboy to grasp. I'd like to see more CPU and GPU vendors (well, *good* vendors), but it's difficult to do properly and thus we remain with the current status quo.

    Tell me this: how would it hurt anyone for Company X to enter the graphics market and make something that is clearly superior to ATI and NVIDIA offerings and is 100% compatible with current standards like DirectX and OpenGL? The only people that would potentially hurt would be ATI and NVIDIA employees and shareholders. Similarly, how would it hurt for Company Y to come out with a new API for physics that is clearly superior in every way to PhysX, Havok, etc? If it's better, it would become the new de facto standard. Having competition isn't the problem; the problem is competition between lousy options (i.e. GMC, Chrysler, Ford, and Chevy) when what we want is something better.

    Now go ahead and use half-coherent ranting and capitals while you ignore everything meaningful in this post and put up another tirade about how stupid and horrible I am with no clear comprehension of reality. I'm done.
  • SiliconDoc - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    What brought this on, dummy ?
    " A "monopoly" on graphics that has everyone move to one standard can be beneficial; certainly having four competing "standards" doesn't really help. "
    Your sainted competition brought it on, you fool. You go on to claim "eventually one standard will be adopted", but by then the MONOPOLY POWER will have won in it's forcing it's choice DOWN EVERYONE ELSE'S THROAT.
    The problem YOU HAVE, is you want YOUR MONOPOLY choice, and you want to claim, as you did, the "competition" isn't innovation, it's just plain bad, and for you, that is of course, being the reg rager you are, PhysX, which is clearly superior to any of the others.
    BUT, you want YOUR CHOICE FORCED on EVERYONE ( like MSFT and it's xbox pushing that has driven the console implementations with a giant was of cash! LOL ), then you can blandly call it "a standard", and claim it's "the best choice", because "the market decided" in your brainwashed moron manner (because you don't like NVidia pushing but pretend when another player does so "it's innocent and natural" and "happened without such preszure".
    ROFLMAO - boy you are sure a tool.
    The funniest part of your current STUPIDITY, is that MICROSOFT THE MONOPOLY, has decided to push HAVOK for it's 360 and as competitive lockout against Larrabee competition, hence you LIE as a MONOPOLY uses power to force more crap into the developer channels. roflmao
    But of course, the mind controlled by the standard lies is all you've shown in all your commentary.
    Here are the 2 games, BTW.
    Game Title Developer Platform
    2 Days to Vegas Steel Monkeys PC
    10 Balls 7 Cups Graveck iPod
    50 Cent: Blood on the Sand Swordfish Studios PC
    Adrenalin 2: Rush Hour Gaijin Entertainment PS3, X360
    Age of Empires III Distineer Studios PC, Mac
    Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties Distineer Studios Mac
    Age of Empires III: The WarChiefs Distineer Studios Mac
    Age of Pirates: Captain Blood 1C: Sea Dog PC, X360
    Aliens: Colonial Marines Gearbox Software PC, PS3, X360
    Alliance of Valiant Arms Redduck PC
    Alpha Prime Black Element Software PC
    American McGee's Grimm Spicy Horse PC
    APB Realtime Worlds PC, PS3, X360
    Army of Two Electronic Arts PS3, X360
    Auto Assault Net Devil PC
    AutoFans AP-Games PC
    B.A.S.E. Jumping Digital Dimentions PC
    Backbreaker Natural Motion PC, PS3, X360
    Beowolf Ubisoft X360
    Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon Kylotonn Entertainment PC
    Bet on Soldier: Blood of Sahara Kylotonn Entertainment PC
    Bet on Soldier: Blood Sport Kylotonn Entertainment PC
    Big Fun Racing Decane iPod
    Bionic Commando GRIN PC, PS3, X360
    Bionic Commando: Rearmed GRIN PC, X360
    Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War Koei PS3, X360
    Borderlands Gearbox Software PC, PS3, X360
    Bourne Conspiracy High Moon Studios PS3, X360
    Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway Gearbox Software PC, PS3, X360
    Buble Bang Decane iPod
    Caribbean Legends Seaward.Ru Team PC
    Cellfactor: Combat Training Artifical Studios, Immersion Games PC
    Cellfactor: Revolution Artifical Studios, Immersion Games PC
    Champions Online Cryptic Studios PC
    City of Villains Cryptic Studios PC
    Clive Barker's Jericho MercurySteam Entertainment PC, X360
    Cluth Targem Games PC
    Cosmosis Midnight Status iPod
    Crazy Machines II FAKT Software PC
    Crusaders: Thy Kingdom Come Neocore PC
    Cryostasis Action Forms PC
    Dark Sector Digital Extremes PC, PS3, X360
    Dark Void Airtight Games PC, PS3, X360
    Darkest of Days Phantom EFX PC, X360
    Debris Midnight Status iPod
    Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon Sandblast Games X360
    Divinity 2: Ego Draconis Larian Studios PC, X360
    Dracula Origin Frogwares PC
    Dragon Age: Origins EA PC
    Dragonshard Atari PC
    Driver :: Test Squad Interactive Media PC
    Drop Point: Alaska Bongfish Interactive Mac
    Dungeon Hero Firefly Studios PC, X360
    Dusk 12 Orion PC
    Empire Above All IceHill PC
    Empire Earth III Mad Dog Software PC
    Empire Total War The Creative Assembly PC
    Entropia Universe MindArk PC
    Evil Resistance: Morning of the Dead Openoko Entertainment PC
    Fahr Simulator 2009 Astragon Software PC
    Fairy Tales: Three Heroes Cats Who Play
    Fallen Earth Icarus Studios PC
    Fatal Inertia KOEI PS3, X360
    Frontlines: Fuel of War Kaos Studios PC, PS3, X360
    Fury Auran Games PC
    G.B.R. The Fast Response Group OPenoko Entertainment PC
    Gears Of War Epic Games PC, X360
    Gears of War 2 Epic Games X360
    Gluk'Oza: Action GFI Russia PC
    GooBall Ambrosia software Mac
    Gothic 3 Piranha Bytes PC
    Grind iPod
    GTown Interactive Community 2.0 PC
    Gunship Apocalypse FAKT Software PC
    HAZE Free Radical Design X360
    Heavy Rain Quantic Dream PC
    Helldorado: Conspiracy Spellbound Entertainment PC, PS3
    Hero's Journey Simutronics PC
    Hour of Victory nFusion Interactive X360
    Hunt, The Orion PC
    Huxley Webzen, Inc PC, X360
    I-Fluid Exkee PC
    Infernal Metropolis Software PC
    Inhabited Island: Prisoner of Power Orion PC
    Joint Task Force Most Wanted Entertainment PC
    Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom Blueside Inc. X360
    Kran Simulator 2009 Astragon Software PC
    Kuma\WAR Kuma Reality Games PC
    Landwirtschafts Simulator 2008 Astragon Software PC
    Landwirtschafts Simulator 2009 Astragon Software PC
    The Last Remnant Squre Enix PC, X360
    Legend: Hand of God Anaconda Games PC
    Legendary Spark Unlimited PC, PS3, X360
    Lost Odyssey Mistwalker X360
    Lost: Via Domus Ubisoft PC, PS3, X360
    Mafia 2 Illusion Softworks PC, PS3, X360
    Magic ball 3 Alawar Entertaiment PC
    Magic ball 4 Alawar Entertaiment PC
    Mass Effect BioWare PC, X360
    Medal of Honor: Airborne EA Los Angeles PC, X360
    Metal Knight Zero Online ObjectSoftware Limited PC
    Metro 2033 4A Games PC
    Minotaur China Shop Flashbang Studios PC
    Mirror's Edge DICE PC, PS3, X360
    Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire BEC PS3
    Monster Madness: Battle for Suburbia Artificial Studios PC, X360
    Monster Madness: Gravedigger Artificial Studios PS3
    Monster Truck Maniax Legendo Entertainment PC
    Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe Midway PS3, X360
    Mascow Racer IRS Games PC
    Myst Online: URU Live Cyan Worlds PC
    Need for Speed: Shift Electronic Arts PC
    Nights: Journey of Dreams SEGA Wii
    Night of a Million Billion Zombies PowerUP Studios PC
    Nurien Nurien Software PC
    Open Fire BlueTorch Studios PC
    Parabellum ACONY PC, PS3, X360
    Paragraph 78 Gaijin Entertainment PC
    Physix Michael Wuhrer iPod
    Pirate Hunter DIOsoft PC, X360
    Pirates of the Burning Sea Flying Lab Software PC
    Point Blank Barunson Interactive PC
    Prey 2 Human Head PC, X360
    PT Boats: Knights of the Sea Akella PC
    Pyroblazer Eipix PC, Wii
    QQ Speed Tencent Inc. PC
    Rail Simulator Kuju Entertainment Ltd PC
    Red Steel Ubisoft Paris Wii
    Rise Of Nations: Rise Of Legends Big Huge Games PC
    Rise of the Argonauts Liquid Entertainment PC, PS3, X360
    Roboblitz Naked Sky Entertainment PC, X360
    Rocket Bowl 21-6 Productions X360
    Rock'n'Roll Dice 3DA Interactive iPod
    Rush Hour: Streets of Moscow Gaijin Entertainment PC
    Sacred 2 ASCARON Entertainment PC
    Shadow Harvest Black Lion Studios PC, X360
    Shadowgrounds Survivor Frozenbyte PC
    Shattered Horizon Futuremark Games Studio PC
    Sherlock Holmes vs. Arsene Lupin Frogware Games PC
    Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened Frogwares Game Development Studio PC
    Showdown: Scorpion B-COOL Interactive PC
    Silverfall Monte Cristo PC
    Silverfall: Earth Awakening Monte Cristo PC
    SkylineBlade Midnight Status iPod
    Sledgehammer Targem Games PC
    Sovereign Symphony Ceidot Game Studios PC
    Sonic and the Black Knight SEGA Wii
    Sonic and the Secret Rings SEGA Wii
    Space Race SARGE Games iPod
    Space Siege Gas Powered Games PC
    Spectraball Flashcube Studios PC
    Speedball 2 Kylotonn Entertainment PC
    Squashem Jelly Biscuits iPod
    Stalin Subway, The Orion PC
    Star Tales QWD1 PC
    Stoked Bongfish Interactive Entertainment X360
    Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien Bongfish Interactive Entertainment PC
    Streets of Moscow Gaijin Entertainment PC
    Strike Ball 3 Alaware Entertainment PC
    Stuntmanbob iPod
    Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle Psyonix Studios PS3
    The Swarm Targem Games PC
    Switchball Atomic Elbow PC
    Tank Universal Dialogue Design PC
    Tension Ice-pick Lodge PC
    Terminator Salvation GRIN PC
    Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter GRIN PC, X360
    Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 GRIN, Ubisoft Paris PC, X360
    Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas Ubisoft Montreal PC, PS3, X360
    Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2 Ubisoft Montreal PC, PS3, X360
    Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent (multiplayer) Ubisoft Shanghai PC, X360
    Tortuga: Two Treasures Ascaron Entertainment PC
    Trine Frozenbyte PC, PS3
    Tunnel Rats Replay Studios PC
    Turning Point: Fall of Liberty Spark Unlimited PC, PS3, X360
    Turok Propaganda Games PC, PS3, X360
    Two Worlds Reality Pump PC, X360
    Two Worlds: The Temptation Reality Pump PC, X360, PS3
    Underwater Wars Biart Studio PC, X360
    Ultra Tubes Eipix PC
    Unreal Tournament 3 Epic Games PC, PS3, X360
    Unreal Tournament 3: Extreme Physics Mod Epic Games PC
    Urban Empires Radioactive Software PC
    U-WARS Biart Studio PC, X360
    Valkyria Chronicles SEGA PS3
    Virtual Tennis 3 SEGA PS3, X360
    Viva Pinata: Party Animals Krome Studios X360
    W.E.L.L. Online Sibilant Interactive PC
    Wanted: Weapons of Fate GRIN PC, PS3, X360
    Warfare GFI Russia PC
    Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction Net Devil PC
    Watchmen: The End is Nigh Deadline Games PC, PS3, X360
    Way of the Samurai 3 Aquire X360
    Welkin 4591 Outpop Digital PC
    Winterheart's Guild Zelian Games PC, X360
    WorldShift Black Sea Studios PC
    X-Razer Rayd GmbH iPod
    X-men Origins: Wolverine Raven Software PC

    ROFLMAO 2 games...
    Larrabee will use the x86 instruction set with Larrabee-specific extensions
    Larrabee will include very little specialized graphics hardware, .... using a tile-based rendering approach
    Larrabee's early presentation has drawn some criticism from GPU competitors. At NVISION 08, several NVIDIA employees called Intel's SIGGRAPH paper about Larrabee "marketing puff" and told the press that the Larrabee architecture was "like a GPU from 2006".[8] As of June 2009, prototypes of Larrabee have been claimed to be on par with the nVidia GeForce GTX 285.[9]">
    So in this case we have 3 warring parties (your beloved "beneficial" competition), and endless delays, lack of game developement and content because of that, and the score won't be settled till the MONOPOLY POWER sets "the standard" (opencl you hope it seems/ aka JAVA for physx, or anything so long as it isn't PhysX, right?) as you call it, and even then, with the nature of game coding, it is highly likely that more than one type and implementation will widely survive. The "market competition" picked VHS over BETA, and nearly everyone calls that a mistake to this day (psst, their were powerful players behind the scene just like in the physics game wars).
    What really happpens in what we're talking about is POWER picks what is brought forth for all, and you should well know instead of pretending the lie that you have, that OFTEN in this computing world something worse is shoved down everyone's throats because of that.
    Your infantile "pure minded rhetoric" is just that, a big pile of BS, as usual.
  • SiliconDoc - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    PS - I quite understand in your "only framerates matter" deranged high end video red rager gaming card mindset, THE ONLY GAMES THAT MATTER FOR YOU IN YOUR BS ARGUMENT are PC games that wind up on ANANDTECH PC videocard reviews. ROFLMAO
    Hence "two games!", only for PC, nothing else, is "your standard".
    And IT'S DERANGED, given the facts.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Unlike you, obviously, I've tried NVIDIA and ATI, and both are fine. I've never suggested I want ATI to win, and I don't know why you continue to think that. PhysX is "used" in tons of games... where does it actually matter? How many of the games you list sold more than 100K copies? How many are actually good games? How often does it make a discernible and positive difference? (More trash flying around isn't really better.)

    Let's also not count chickens before they hatch and remove games that haven't even shipped. You know, sort of like removing GT300 from benchmark comparisons until it's actually available.

    That list includes games that had super lame PhysX (all the Tom Clancy titles for sure), games that are completely trivial (skeeball anyone?), games where it degrades performance relative to not enabling it (umm, that's most of the titles). Unreal Tournament 3 has PhysX support... but only on the released-after-the-patch levels, and even then only the Tornado level is actually impressive visually. Almost no one played/plays these levels.

    Since you've got so much time to promote NVIDIA, tell us all which games on this list are "Must Haves" and make good use of PhysX. I said there were "two games where it has mattered: Batman and Mirror's Edge". Now put your fanboy hat on and tell us which games in that list. I'm sure that 50 Cent, 10 Balls 7 Cups, Jericho, Cellfactor, Rock'n'Roll Dice, and Untra Tubes are at the top of the sales/preorder charts!
  • SiliconDoc - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    The other SEVERE PROBLEM your massive bias holds is this:
    Just a few months ago, HERE, PhysX was given a run in Mirror's Edge, and NEVER BEFORE SEEN or IMPLEMENTED effects were present.
    Anand loved it, couldn't get away...from the computer, as he said.
    The Master declared it.
    But, when EMERGING TECHNOLOGY from the card company you must absolutely HATE comes forth, for you as a gamer, an advantage even, you have nothing but a big pile of dung for it.
    Get over there to the other fellow in the discussion and point out how competition brings innovation, right, and that PhysX IS INNOVATION !
    ( Oh, that's right, after your tagteam preached it, you already breached it, and blew cookies all over your economic lessons.)
    LOL -= hahahha -
    I guess this is another case of "NVidia stagnating" in BOTH your minds. (Yes, of course it is)
    I do hope your conditions clear up.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Actually, Anand said Mirror's Edge with PhysX was the first (and at the time only) title where it made a palpable difference to the point where turning it off made him miss it somewhat. Actually," target="_blank">here are his exact words. He also goes on to discuss such things as Havok porting to OpenCL and how that won't happen for PhysX. Thanks master of hyperbole; taking things out of context is the sure sign of a weak argument. But yes, NVIDIA was highly "innovative" when they bought out a competitor because they couldn't do any better -- a competitor that to date had released hardware no one wanted and a few titles that didn't matter.

    You're so set on making me an ATI fanatic and throwing about words like hate and sadness and whatever. It's pathetic and funny that you're so delusional that you could even pretend to think that way. I mean, obviously you don't really think that and you're just some troll trying to stir up crap, but it boggles the mind that you have this much energy to put into spewing vitriol.

    Love ATI? Hardly. I've ripped on their mobile components quite thoroughly for the past two years. After all, I review laptops so that's my area of expertise, and up until HD 46xx they had nothing compelling on laptops for years. Even the 4000 series on laptops is marred by their lack of mobile reference drivers, something I've praised NVIDIA for releasing (after saying it was absolutely necessary for the year or two before it happened).

    So yes, put your blinders on and act as though you have any idea whatsoever about what people think. Someone disagrees with you and they become spawn of satan, worshiping all that is ATI. It's a reflection of your own insecurities that you can't accept the good of the competitor while at the same time pointing out flaws. Go check into a mental institute, or head back over to nZone and be secure with others that can't be objective when it comes to graphics cards.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now