Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
Yeah, but how many people have hexcores? Probably 2% or less.

Like Vardant said, the majority of gamers still use dual core processors; although quad cores are catching up quickly.

And from a cost/performance perspective, GPUs absolutely obliterate CPUs when it comes to physics processing anyway.



I personally don't think Nvidia ever intentionally decided to hinder anyone's performance.

People often forget, that Ageia's physx was designed for hardware acceleration from it's inception. With that said, it makes sense that Nvidia would focus on making PhysX run on their hardware, rather than CPUs.

Anyway, by next year, this arguement will be moot, because Nvidia will release an updated version (3.0) that will include both multithread and SIMD optimizations to the PhysX code base, so everyone should be happy.
i wasnt trying to start a fight, just trying to point out the perspective that many of us have.

go look up steam hardware, lots of people have quads. and physics can be easily scaled across threads, so whats their excuse? not worth the investment, or were they paid by nvidia to reduce what they wanted for cpu physics to make physx look better? until the answer to that is known, its all just speculation. if my assumption is right, nvidia is hurting the gaming market. if your assumption is right, then developers are just flat out lazy.

btw after all the BS nvidia has pulled with physx, i honestly doubt that 3.0 will make everyone happy. i expect some kind of marketing circus again.