Printable View
Yep, that whole 15 seconds really affected the rest of my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
As for "ruffling the feathers", not really. If I really wanted to play this game, there's no reason that I couldn't go out, buy it, and play it the same as everyone else. I just don't care to shell out $100+ extra for a little eye candy that has no affect on the gameplay.
physx is like a gay barn animal... it needs to be put down.. havok ftw....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Bro, why do we have to go over this with you every time? People buy video cards, to displaying the game. Then... whatever idle power is left over, can be used to calculating PhysX, etc. Most games require all of your GPU.
Thus^, the whole idea of nVidia wanting you to buy another card as a stand-alone physx device.
That demo, was just that.. a demo. With no real game, or other players involved... running on a dedicating $499 GPU to simulate physics.
Ironic, when you consider AMD's new 6-core is $300 bucks. You don't think that exact same demo can be run on that, minus the nvidia "Physx" card?
Secondly, we are talking about GAMES... not scientific computing.
There doesn't have to be MILLIONS of particles. Here is an idea, why doesn't Nvidia reduce their "effects" by 99% and just show us a game with 100,000 particles/objects...?
Thirdly, do you even know what PhysX is...? Plz, tell us why it is more revolutionary than any of the other physics middleware? And if so, then why does it require a Video Card to have full effect, or be largely usable?
When in fact, the reality of the situation is that no matter what you think, there isn't one PhysX game out there, that can touch what Battlefield does. Then again, you don't play that game. SO that brings into question, what games ARE you playing, that need physics so much, that you base your whole buying decision around such technology?
For what it is worth, Battlefield explosion and deformable objects are not the only physics in the game. I can take a chair, Barrel, construction cone, and kick them all over the map. I can knock over a cone, spin it, flip it over, and right-side it.
Throw a grenade at the patio chairs and watch what happens. A very simple use of real world physics, yet to be usurped by PhysX in a game.
like it or not physics (not physx i mean all the physics engines) will run on gpus at the end. intel and partners wont compile havok on opencl before they destroy physx but once it is gone i am %100 sure we will see havok on opencl. the only way havok not destroy physx is nvidia opening it to everyone. nvidia wont do this before he feels he is in danger. this is the joker move for their plans. but havok wins or physx wins or another engine wins it doesnt matter at the end they will all run on gpus or any device that supports opencl
It took me 1 minute to realize that PhysX is complete garbage, at least on a high profile game like Batman. The ground fog really looked like a friggin JOKE, but was compute intensive to make even a GTX 480 crawl on its knees (35fps?). The "moving papers" looked OK but did little to add to the immersiveness and they are very compute intensive too.
As long as they dont gimp it for simple effects like they did with batman then i don't care (seriously, no FOG, removing FLAGS, moving rope, jesus christ).
It depends on the game. In a lot of games, there is still lots of GPU power left over to run physX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Buying a dedicated PhysX card isn't always necessary. I posted benchmarks the last time, demonstrating that depending on the resolution and settings you play at, you can easily play Batman AA on a single GTS 250 with full blown physX.Quote:
Thus^, the whole idea of nVidia wanting you to buy another card as a stand-alone physx device.
The demo was running on a single GTX 480, so it wasn't a dedicated PhysX card, and physics demos are typically a lot more demanding than "real games."Quote:
That demo, was just that.. a demo. With no real game, or other players involved... running on a dedicating $499 GPU to simulate physics.
Neither of us are software engineers, so I can't say for a certainty that Thuban could run the demo or not.Quote:
Ironic, when you consider AMD's new 6-core is $300 bucks. You don't think that exact same demo can be run on that, minus the nvidia "Physx" card?
What I do know, is that Thuban cannot hope to even contend with a lowly 130 USD GTS 250 when it comes to processing physics algorithims, much less a high end GPU..
You're acting as if Nvidia are the ones developing these games :rolleyes:Quote:
Here is an idea, why doesn't Nvidia reduce their "effects" by 99% and just show us a game with 100,000 particles/objects...?
PhysX is different because it's GPU ACCELERATED. It's the only hardware accelerated physics API available to consumers at this time.Quote:
Thirdly, do you even know what PhysX is...? Plz, tell us why it is more revolutionary than any of the other physics middleware? And if so, then why does it require a Video Card to have full effect, or be largely usable?
That alone makes it special..
What Battlefield does? :ROTF:Quote:
When in fact, the reality of the situation is that no matter what you think, there isn't one PhysX game out there, that can touch what Battlefield does.
As I've told you a thousand times, those big explosions you're seeing in BBC2 aren't even fully generated in real time. They are nothing more than scripted animations, so in effect, there is very little physics calculations occuring during those scenes.
Blow up a house, and you'll see that it blows up the same way every freaking time because CPUs can't handle the amount of processing required to do it in real time without a severe performance drop.
I don't base my buying decisions around PhysX. PhysX is just a nice bonus that I get for having Nvidia hardware in my system.Quote:
Then again, you don't play that game. SO that brings into question, what games ARE you playing, that need physics so much, that you base your whole buying decision around such technology?
With that said, Batman Arkham Asylum is one of my favorite games, and I couldn't imagine even playing it without the added PhysX effects. Mafia 2 will undoubtedly be awesome as well, and hopefully Batman Arkham Asylum 2 will feature hardware accelerated PhysX.
Metro 2033 supposedly uses hardware PhysX, but I haven't bought that one yet as I don't have much time for games these days and I already have plenty of games that I haven't even finished yet.
Thats simple rigid body physics and nothing special.Quote:
For what it is worth, Battlefield explosion and deformable objects are not the only physics in the game. I can take a chair, Barrel, construction cone, and kick them all over the map. I can knock over a cone, spin it, flip it over, and right-side it.
I see that you haven't commented on the video I posted showing incredible hair and cloth effects.
If CPU physics is all we need, how come we've never seen anything like whats in the above video before?
Now keep in mind that Mafia 2 will be the first game to feature that technology, so you can't say that PhysX isn't bringing anything new or revolutionary to the gaming industry.
If you had that big of a drop in frames, then something must be wrong with the setup, or more likely, the physX software/drivers still needs to be properly optimized for the Fermi line up.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
In fact, looking at the initial Anandtech review, the 480 and the GTX 285 offered similar performance in PhysX:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/n...5215/22213.png
What drivers did you use? The 200 series drivers due next month are going the be the first truly optimized drivers for Fermi, so they should rectify issues like this.
When I had my overclocked GTX 285, I could run Batman AA at 2560x1600 with 4xAA, maxed settings and PhysX set to high and my frames would be in the mid 30s for the most part....except during the Scarecrow levels.
So it's obviously a driver issue of some sort, because Fermi should obliterate a GTX 285 in PhysX.
you win the threadQuote:
Originally Posted by purecain
everyone stop arguing like teenage girls...
closed standards are crap and WILL be overtook..
PhysX cannot be blame for what the game developer uses it for, lack of ideas to implement PhysX would be the main cause here. I didn't go out and bought a dedicated PPU btw i just kept the card i had and used it as such.
But i have to agree that so far PhysX does not impress me one bit and on the other hand i'm not against it, i'm just hoping it gets better.
BTW No one is force to use PhysX on Nvidia as we all have the option to disable it.
It is funny to see everyone fighting for this subject, one thing is for sure that ATI fanboyism are pist that they can't use it and yet argue that it is bull banana while they are all happy to see a hack for it and downloading the supposedly crap feature they so hate cuz they can't use it and bla bla bla.
I think PhysX on a dedicated PPU is a great idea, but the lack of support and idea to implement it is very deceiving. CPU are already bottlenecking the today's GPU so i would rather keep the CPU processing capabalities to unbottlenek my hardware instead of taking its process capabilities to do something that can be achieve much more faster on a dedicated hardware.
It's ironic, because when PhysX was owned by Ageia, the main reason why people didn't like it was the need to buy a separate card for it.
It's a shame NVIDIA didn't have those ready when the cards were released back in Nov 09. Oh wait... :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Don't take the cake, you know full well that if it was calculated to 9.78 decimal instead of the intensive 9.786436492 decimal that everyone would notice the difference. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Its more the principle about how PhysX is marketed than actually wanting it because i would not give up needed GPU power for it & CPUs are not bottle necking GPUs most of the time & then the fact is that most of the core are idle, so it's not the case that the CPU is under strain & working its clogs off on all cores in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
If the CPU is lagging then its because its not being fully utilised.
I understand that the marketed business is questionable from the consumer point of view, but you and I have to know that Nvidia bought it to invest in it in order to profit them and their customer. They do not make CPU, intel could care less about it going on their own and they certainly not going to help their competition. There is nothing much to say about it.
And on the contrary CPU does bottleneck GPU it is just that the today's game need more Ghz and not more core, but hopefully the next gen of games will be programed to use all available core.
I ran a benchmark for FC2 today i had the same result with 1900x1080 and 1900x1200 if i had a quad core CPU i would certainly double the FPS i have an e8400 and a gtx470 when i OC my CPU to 3.6Ghz i only gain about 2 fps top. Before i had 2 8800gts (g92) and when i OC i was getting nothing at all with that benchmark and if i OC my GPU i get no performance increase.
Interesting. More and more games are starting to utilize Physx. While I do hate closed standards, it might be worth to start looking for a cheap GT240 for Physx. Can even be used on GPUgrid when I'm not gaming! :up:
Most games are GPU bottle necked & the odd game that is not does not change that & you have to take into account quality settings that few people can max out & hold 60fps on anything but the top end cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
And 1900x1080 to 1900x1200 is not drastic enough & no benching site would bother with & no you would not double your fps with a quad or more GHZ at that res.
NV profit by it when some buys an NV card, whether it runs alongside an ATI card changes nothing of the fact that a person still bought & NV card & ATi don't profit by PhysX working on the NV card while the game is running on the ATI card anyway its only the users who bought the NV card for PhysX that are losing out & not ATI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
The only way that ATI can profit from PhysX is for PhysX to run on ATI cards thus depriving the need to buy an NV card as that's how they make there money.
umm didn't know that Nvidia cards cannot be use along side with ATI cards. That is a very dumb marketing move.
Actually FC2 loves quad core and you might be right by saying it wouldn't double but i would gain a good 20 fps going from e8400 to q9650 at stock, this game is a quad core lover. another 4 fps if i was to OC it.
ATI + NV card does work but NV tries to block it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOXo98l4aU
http://www.geeks3d.com/20100422/hybr...-timebomb-fix/
FC2 is one example & a bad one as that would mean someone with a 480 & 480 SLI would get the same fps as you which i would doubt very much.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004
havok is a closed standard
But you see, it is not owned by NVIDIA and that's what really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
570091D You know what he meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Vardant.
And no its because Intel is not limiting it only for there hardware that's the obvious difference.
If havok could only run on Intel CPUs then you would have an apples to apples reason & your point would be valid.
physx runs on everything... the eye candy is nvidia only, and that really doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Well is doesn't & it does because its not about the physics properties at all really in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
I want hardware physics & not more hardware candy as gfx cards have been doing the candy for years already.