Physx Games Coming out?

[Vardant]

You said it yourself, it's a whole CPU against an add-on card...

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Vardant

You said it yourself, it's a whole CPU against an add-on card...

I thought you comparison was cost? Whats a whole CPU verses a whole GPU? If two socket boards were more common, this would probably be a major issue, NV is just lucky they aren't. In a year or two when more cores are common, there will be no reason for GPU only Physx, although I suspect by then it will be gone or have become open source by demand.

[Vardant]

This is now, after years of quad core CPU's being available for reasonable prices.




And you want me to believe, that somehow people will jump to 6 or more core cpu's in a matter of 2-3 years? Just forget about physics run solely on CPU already, it's dead. The future is either GPU only or a combination of CPU and a GPU, still with the GPU doing most of the work. Which PhysX already supports btw.

By the time everyone has 6 or more core CPU's, the min. for GPU physics is gonna be something much more faster than a 9600GT and you'll be right back at the beginning.

So no, the comparison is not just the cost, but it's cost, two sockets not being standard, people that upgrade GPU's much more often than CPU's and so on.

[JasonPC]

I have heard Mafia II will use physx but I haven't looked much into it. Is it confirmed that it will use GPU physx or will it just use the api and do CPU physx?

PS unrelated but I did not know Mafia II is also going to be dx10 only.

[noko]

Originally Posted by JasonPC

I have heard Mafia II will use physx but I haven't looked much into it. Is it confirmed that it will use GPU physx or will it just use the api and do CPU physx?

PS unrelated but I did not know Mafia II is also going to be dx10 only.

http://www.eurogamer.cz/videos/mafia-ii-pax-physx-video

[JasonPC]

He never specifically says if it will be GPU or CPU physx. I'm guessing it will make use of GPU physx but I'm not that impressed with what I see there. Seems like a CPU should be able to do that.

[john19055]

All the reviews I have seen a 8800GT or 9800Gt does the job of phys-X just as good as the higher end cards.They need to rewrite there driver so you can use a phys-X card with a ATi video card.This is another thing that made me mad at nvidia ,I am sure if ATi had Phys-X and nvidia did'nt they would let us use it with a nvidia card(Yea Right)They would do the same thing nvidia is doing.Neither company wants to help there competition.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Vardant

This is now, after years of quad core CPU's being available for reasonable prices.




And you want me to believe, that somehow people will jump to 6 or more core cpu's in a matter of 2-3 years? Just forget about physics run solely on CPU already, it's dead. The future is either GPU only or a combination of CPU and a GPU, still with the GPU doing most of the work. Which PhysX already supports btw.

By the time everyone has 6 or more core CPU's, the min. for GPU physics is gonna be something much more faster than a 9600GT and you'll be right back at the beginning.

So no, the comparison is not just the cost, but it's cost, two sockets not being standard, people that upgrade GPU's much more often than CPU's and so on.

GPU-based PhysX will never take off as long as it's proprietary. With the success of the 4*** and 5*** series, a good amount of the population now owns ATI cards, and developers aren't going to waste their time coding stuff that only 60-70% of the population can leverage or enjoy.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

This is now, after years of quad core CPU's being available for reasonable prices.




And you want me to believe, that somehow people will jump to 6 or more core cpu's in a matter of 2-3 years? Just forget about physics run solely on CPU already, it's dead. The future is either GPU only or a combination of CPU and a GPU, still with the GPU doing most of the work. Which PhysX already supports btw.

By the time everyone has 6 or more core CPU's, the min. for GPU physics is gonna be something much more faster than a 9600GT and you'll be right back at the beginning.

So no, the comparison is not just the cost, but it's cost, two sockets not being standard, people that upgrade GPU's much more often than CPU's and so on.

That chart isn't really representative as it most likely incorporates the entire PC market,and not the gamers or hardware enthusiats out there,who would be the users actually buying and playing those latest games,and pretty much all of them are using Quad core CPU's at least,and there's a lot to choose from at fairly low price points.


Heck,even my i7 920 cost me about 1/2 that one of my HD5970's did,and i got that sucker running at 4 Ghz with hypthreading enabled for an entire year now,and i'm only wating for Intel to release a 6 core/12 thread gulftown CPU that doesn't cost an arm and a leg,which is likely to happen in Q3 this year according to rumors.

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by shadow001

That chart isn't really representative as it most likely incorporates the entire PC market,and not the gamers or hardware enthusiats out there,who would be the users actually buying and playing those latest games,and pretty much all of them are using Quad core CPU's at least,and there's a lot to choose from at fairly low price points.

It's from Steam HW survey...

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

It's from Steam HW survey...

Steam isn't actually that accurate,as their own games can be run by fairly old hardware anyhow....They haven't released any game that can be really taxing on hardware in a long while,hence why dual core and even single core processors are still used.


If you look at the recommended specs on quite a few of the latest games released over the past few months,even publishers are starting to recommend Quad core CPU's to get the best gaming experience.

[XDanger]

Keeping a 285 just for physx is a really bad idea, SELL SELL SELL!!!