PhysX officially sucks.

[offi]

Originally Posted by sl0ppy_sec0nds

I am not impressed with physx. It sounded good on paper, but after playing GRAW 2's Ageia Island map, I didn't see anything in that map that Far Cry 2 couldn't do.

physx is good to inprove fps in games and faster game responce times.

[rombat]

I am not impressed either with PhysX, it would be great if it does not affect your speed in games. Every time it uses PhysX in the game is causes a slight slow down on your fps which I thought it would not since it is off loading the PhysX to your gpu. I usually just turn the option off now.

[SirPauly]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

According to polls: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3558

IMO NV should abandon it and focus more on the graphics end.

That depends on one looks at that poll but since you're a believer in polls how about this one:

http://www.driverheaven.net/polls/poll-1198-a.html


Personally voted "marginal" in Anand's poll and in no-shape-of-form do I look at PhysX as a negative like some try to portray and place "marginal" in the negative department. Marginal, with the context of a bonus right now while PhysX matures. I don't think many may argue what nVidia may need is more compelling content in more compelling titles -- to raise the views from marginal to a more positive view to more potential customers.

It was good to see "rhink" if this is the same poster I believed did go to Virginia Tech back in the day and talked back in the old 3dfx days?

Does PhysX Suck? To some; and opinions are like PhysX particles - there are so many!

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Exactly my point. The best physics game right now? All using CPU physics, not GPU. I have yet to see anything done on PhysX that couldn't be done with a CPU. All I've seen from PhysX is throwing a bunch of random crap around on screen, somehow thats great physics?

What we need is developers to use what they have now to do something cool with it, not add GPU physics when they aren't doing anything with physics on the CPU now, not to mention detracting from the graphics end to achieve it.

Yes because playing a t agme at 10fps is such a wonderful thing to do when the CPU is doing true physics in the game. Cryostasis benches show this to bare, GTX285 vs HD4890 with a Core I7 920, the GTX gets well over 30fps the HD4890, 12fps with real physics, not the i shot the wall and sparks fly, but i shot the wall, sparks fly, chunks go flying and interact with other parts of the sceen.

Hell GRAW2 with the physics patch for Nvidia cards looks and plays 10x better than without, atleast it looks more real when you shoot and blow **** up.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by agentkay

+1

Better than the vaporware that Havok/ATI promised all the years. Using PhysX and CUDA to close the gap until proper DX11/Compute Shader hardware by Nvidia is released, is a solid strategy. This approach beats the useless DX10.1 gimmick anytime.

Whats even cooler when Havok starts to appear in games for real physics, Nvidia will be able to run it as well. They have already shown working OCL drivers for CUDA using a Havok engine, so AMD/ATI wont have a leg up there, as Havok will also be running on Nv hardware aswell.

[Gregor976]

Originally Posted by offi

physx is good to inprove fps in games and faster game responce times.

I smell marketing win here, unless my sarcasm detector is broken today... If your post is serious I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but physx alone will never under any circumstances result in more FPS or change input response or server ping rate.

While physx allows more complex geometry the video card is shifting resources used for drawing in order to process that geometry, then it has to draw more on the screen with each FPS. That results in a drop in FPS any time it's implemented. You're just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Still, it does have potential, but it without support from ATI and with 8-12 core CPU's on the horizon what's really the point with offloading from the CPU?

Now, if Intel/AMD add extensions to all those cores which could support it directly, that would be spectacular.

Does anyone remember adding an FPU math coprocessor to their system? What ever happened to those? "They actually did give lots of DOS games a boost in FPS".

[Koko56]

sou srs

[SirPauly]

Originally Posted by Gregor976

I smell marketing win here, unless my sarcasm detector is broken today... If your post is serious I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but physx alone will never under any circumstances result in more FPS or change input response or server ping rate.

While physx allows more complex geometry the video card is shifting resources used for drawing in order to process that geometry, then it has to draw more on the screen with each FPS. That results in a drop in FPS any time it's implemented. You're just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Still, it does have potential, but it without support from ATI and with 8-12 core CPU's on the horizon what's really the point with offloading from the CPU?

Now, if Intel/AMD add extensions to all those cores which could support it directly, that would be spectacular.



Does anyone remember adding an FPU math coprocessor to their system? What ever happened to those? "They actually did give lots of DOS games a boost in FPS".

That's not necessarily true about improving performance because it actually does in my mind-set. You're gaining more performance when compared to the CPU -- so to say any time it is implemented - don't agree.

If the context is does GPU Physics take a performance hit when compared to no added advanced Physics? Then yes. But the point of GPU physics is to allow more advanced
Physic content considering the raw potential of stream processing when compared to the CPU.

PhysX/Apex is more than just GPU Physics but a Physic engine and tool set that is cross platform that caters to the CPU and GPU.

[Gregor976]

Originally Posted by SirPauly

That's not necessarily true about improving performance because it actually does in my mind-set. You're gaining more performance when compared to the CPU -- so to say any time it is implemented - don't agree.

If the context is does GPU Physics take a performance hit when compared to no added advanced Physics? Then yes. But the point of GPU physics is to allow more advanced
Physic content considering the raw potential of stream processing when compared to the CPU.

PhysX/Apex is more than just GPU Physics but a Physic engine and tool set that is cross platform that caters to the CPU and GPU.

Don't get me wrong. I like all the eye candy I can get. The FPS bottom line doesn't change though. Heh, a lot of us here have hellacious hardware, it's easy to forget that we're the minority.

It's a disservice and a lie to make a statement like the one I responded to earlier. PhysX has great potential, but it will never increase FPS or "response" in a game. If you have the hardware to run it without noticing the FPS drop, it looks great, but you will always see a drop in FPS. Always, no matter how it's implemented.

More eye candy always requires more hardware to maintain FPS. I don't care where the hardware is added. (CPU/GPU)

[Koko56]

Originally Posted by Gregor976

Don't get me wrong. I like all the eye candy I can get. The FPS bottom line doesn't change though. Heh, a lot of us here have hellacious hardware, it's easy to forget that we're the minority.

It's a disservice and a lie to make a statement like the one I responded to earlier. PhysX has great potential, but it will never increase FPS or "response" in a game. If you have the hardware to run it without noticing the FPS drop, it looks great, but you will always see a drop in FPS. Always, no matter how it's implemented.

More eye candy always requires more hardware to maintain FPS. I don't care where the hardware is added. (CPU/GPU)

Yeah, but of you has a dedicated GPU for physics, then the FPS can stay more or less the same.

Why did I say that...

[Slammin]

This a retarted thread.

[SirPauly]

Originally Posted by Gregor976

Don't get me wrong. I like all the eye candy I can get. The FPS bottom line doesn't change though. Heh, a lot of us here have hellacious hardware, it's easy to forget that we're the minority.

It's a disservice and a lie to make a statement like the one I responded to earlier. PhysX has great potential, but it will never increase FPS or "response" in a game. If you have the hardware to run it without noticing the FPS drop, it looks great, but you will always see a drop in FPS. Always, no matter how it's implemented.

More eye candy always requires more hardware to maintain FPS. I don't care where the hardware is added. (CPU/GPU)

I just don't agree about "never" increase FPS because it does when some may look at the GPU vs CPU context.