Why not run an nV card to cover PhysX and an ATi one for graphics?
Why not run an nV card to cover PhysX and an ATi one for graphics?
The way in which they portray no physx in that game is just sad.. how they show that without physx you cannot have ammo shells on the ground or even a very basic fog means without a shadow of a doubt that it is purposefully castrating non-nvidia hardware image quality to try to make physx look like the best thing since sliced bread. Even a 10 year old games can produce those effects without a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9616/80200050.jpg
Bullet physics could provide all of these effects without the need to isolate users.
If anything, this game is a great example of how we are NOT progressing in gaming quality because of proprietary standards.
cant say i have tried those physx games the first batman demo and mafia i think it was is all i have tried although i think metro uses it to some extent and i have played that a bit
the physx effects added in the first batman demo other than the fog were nothing i hadent seen done in other games with no physx
as for sli cant say i have noticed any better or quicker game support with it vs crossfire
as far as im aware nvidia still havent added a sli profile for heroes of m&m6 and currently having sli enabled cripples performance to below 20fps vs ~40fps with it disabled
which is not uncommon for new games its just annoying when the slightly less popular games or games the other brand amd\nvidia had some input into fall behind with updates for some time
the witcher 2 also took a fair few months for nvidia to get working properly with sli but finally it runs nice
i dont have a preference towards any brand
i like the amd cards for there value and efficiency and i like the nvidia cards for there uncompromising strive for top performance and normally swap from one to the other every year or two
You can believe whatever you want, but until I see the same level of Physx effects being utilized on AMD cards, then I have no desire to use them as the games I am playing right now are only doing Physx on Nvidia, and yes it makes a vast visual improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Attitude like yours makes nvidia believe the way they handle PhysX is fair and you contribute to castration of others visual experience who for whatever reason choose not to buy nvidia cards. I wish nvidia never bought ageia, we would all have physX now. Probably even running on CPUs just fine...
Wait, didn't batman get rave reviews on consoles which is the exact same game as the PC version without PhysX? Anybody who thinks the console version was castrated just to promote nVidia's proprietary PC tech needs to think again. nVidia doesn't have that much pull.
Physx is proprietary of nVidia - i doubt you'll ever see that on ATi cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
And the above users are right - those were castrated intentionally, as in Physx being used as the only engine to render those physics elements "WHICH AREN'T THAT IMPRESSIVE" - they just fooled you, since what can be seen there is - their physics engine vs "NO PHYSIC AT ALL". Havok could have covered that part (again - not something that impressive) and there are other engines more impressive like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPu9_OGFgc
....or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwvukCY5xok
... but they don't have a brand like Nvidia to promote them, wile AMD seems satisfied with Havok for most part... haven't seen them making a move that can prove otherwise.
The lagoa one looks very impressive and more realistic than the first one...
If Nvidia allowed users to have a dedicated Physx card working along an AMD card they would sell tons of extra cards.
Games with an "s"? Will you be playing Batman in a couple of weeks when this card is actually released. I'm sorry but there are legitimate reasons to buy Nvidia like 3d and transparency aa and sgssa but Physx is not one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Speaker of the truth. I've never objected NVidia monopolize Physx within their realm -their money, their investment, but monopolizing its implementation by restricting other rendering hardware working in conjunction, that's just flat out dumb arrogancy in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maņo
This has been explained almost every time the PhysX "monopoly" comes up in a discussion.
You can't officially support it, when the main card driver can break it with any future release. It has happened in the past, it can happen again and who will people blame, when the game works fine except the physics part?
Radeon HD 7000 Revealed: AMD to Mix GCN with VLIW4 & VLIW5 Architectures is the thread title here, the flaming in this this thread is making it look like notsoXtremesystems. If you don't like it don't buy it.
IMO it would be nice if game devs utilized the hardware and architecture of cards from both sides from 2 generations ago, but I dont think we will see that happen until console gaming changes.
When did it happen ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
I can only remember the problem having something to do with both AMD and NV drivers trying to use something just for themselves. I tried to google it, but it was a long time ago, I could only find this http://physxinfo.com/news/2032/hybri...d-display-fix/
As far as I know, and I might be mistaken, Nvidia never offered official support for Nvidia Physx + AMD graphics.
But the thing is Hybrid Physx is a Hack to begin and as NV set that NV card must do the rendering for Physx and that the driver does not see another NV card in the system then it will assume that its doing both the Physx and the rendering on the same card which would not be a problem if the restriction were not enforced in the NV driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
So you had to fool the NV card into thinking that it was doing the rendering.
So no there is no problem with Hybrid Physx functionality in any game thus far and the only problem is getting around the restrictions.
Its like blaming NV drivers and AMD drivers because you could not install both on Vista when it was the restriction enforced in Vista and someone made a hack with side effects, then Vardant says look that's why the restriction was in place because NV drivers and AMD drivers do work together.
Never a problem with ageia Physx because it never had that restrictions, and what i bet that those restrictions are not im place for CUDA or OpenCL that NV card must be doing the rendering.
Way to completely miss the point. This had nothing to do with being a hack, one Catalyst release broke it, then it went away. Obviously a bug, but if NV was offering official support for hybrid PhysX, it might have been a problem, where there would be no way around it, unless AMD would want it.
Nobody says there's a problem now...
Problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
This is what we have right now:
Legit users who first bought an Nvidia card, then bought and AMD card and now have a 100% perfect piece of hardware they can't use because Nvidia castrated it.
Gaming community divided because of propietary solutions.
Nvidia Physx users see their fine hardware limited to graphics because anything more exclusive than that would instantly lose a huge chunk of the audience.
And tons of Nvidia cards not being sold because of HJS's ego.
Like its been mentioned Physx 2.x.x is crap, 3.xx ain't that better either. Actually physx 3.x.x its what physx should have been from the start, but Nvidia has to milk it so they can sell more gpus..
Physx 2.x.x SDK code is inefficient single threaded most of the time, so they make you believe you actually need a separate gpu for it :ROTF:
Also there is a rumor Nv might be giving out cuda language, so if this really happens we could see amd gpus running physx via cuda -openCL ? language, but then again openCL Bullet is much better.
It is a perfectly valid reason if you've played any of the Physx games with Physx enabled using a dedicated card, and no longer want to go back to playing them without it. I dont see AMD cards currently supporting Physx effects or anything comparable in some of the games I have played, and I personally enjoyed the additional eye candy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
AA methods are not really a valid reason since AMD also have their own unique AA methods, and MSAA works on every card and in every game regardless. Physx however does not.
That would mean needing 3 GPUs and hacked / unofficial drivers to make it work if I also want to have a crossfire setup. Its nowhere comparable to going into Nvidia control panel, and simply flipping between SLI or Physx whenever required. I only want to use 2 GPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Even if it is, it isnt being used yet and wouldnt work in my Physx games.Quote:
Originally Posted by The|Hunter
Which games do you plan on going back and playing at any point soon? I played Mafia 2 and Cryostasis for the first time with an AMD card and didn't feel like I was missing anything. Physx in Alice was impressive but I wouldn't lose any sleep over not playing it again. To be honest losing 3d vision in most Alice, Batman, Mafia 2, and a bunch of other games would bother me far more than Physx. What games that use Physx do people even care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Both AMD drivers and updates NV drivers,PhysX could break the hack its nothing new and some people gave up because the hack needed updating when new PhysX updates came out because NV would try new things to block the hack. And i think its got to the point that users have to run old outdated PhysX versions because the hack has not been updated in a while which some games will not work with, as i said the only problem is the restrictions and getting around it which causes the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Not a single game displays any PhysX issues or glitch when the ATI card is doing the rendering accept for when NV released an update that gave reversed gravity and then turned off GPU PhysX when the hack was detected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2TOXo98l4aU
PhysX is no different than any other physics which are totally independent from the rendering as they are nothing but complex contact numerical coordinate calculations it does not matter if its done on the CPU or an independent GPU, only that the GPU is faster, the end results then get feed to whatever you like, even a text file, no different than maths coprocessor.
nVidia does handle PhysX in a fair manner. They paid for the technology and have spent large sums of money over the years improving and expanding the feature set. Anyone who believes nVidia should just "give" AMD this technology is either insane or has clearly never spent tons of their own time and money bringing a product to market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
If AMD wants to use PhysX, they can do what every other business has to do in these situations... PAY nVidia for usage rights.
On Alice and Batman AC Physx high will run CPU but you need some serious grunt to make it happen, a Q6600 ain't going to cut it. When running on a single 580GTX with a overclocked 3960X running Physx on CPU is faster than forcing the 580 to render and do physx at the same time. People with high end rigs and AMD GPU's don't need to worry so much.
Just so you have an idea of how much grunt is needed, a 2600k at stock won't be able to maintain 60 fps on Alice when calculating Physx, it'll run reasonably well for most parts but the fluid calcs will cause a drop. It shouldn't be too choppy for the most part, but fluid effect is used often enough for it to be a pain.