any consideration to PhysiX factor?

[nRollo]

There's really only one question that needs to be considered for the original post:

Are you willing to gamble that there won't be any games the OP would like to play launching with PhysX effects he/she would like to see for the lifespan the card purchased will have?

If he/she is willing to gamble "No there won't be" then the cards can be evaluated strictly on other factors.

There are many PhysX games coming this year, and the Physx versions will only be acceptably accelerated on one brand. CPU won't cut it.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah Rollo, did you report Keysplayr's last few posts there too? They have as much to do with the feature you insist on fluffing for here as WelshBloke's responses. :roll:

Seriously, no one is stopping you from evangelizing for your team here. If you would like to present any notable advantages to having PhysX support, then have out with it already. Having been running nothing but Nividia cards since PhysX support was added, I've yet to find any practical use for the feature. So, I'm quite interested in hearing whatever you think I might be missing out on.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: nRollo
There's really only one question that needs to be considered for the original post:

Are you willing to gamble that there won't be any games the OP would like to play launching with PhysX effects he/she would like to see for the lifespan the card purchased will have?

If he/she is willing to gamble "No there won't be" then the cards can be evaluated strictly on other factors.

There are many PhysX games coming this year, and the Physx versions will only be acceptably accelerated on one brand. CPU won't cut it.

There is no way in hell that game developers are going to design their games for G80 and up GPU's only.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah Rollo, did you report Keysplayr's last few posts there too? They have as much to do with the feature you insist on fluffing for here as WelshBloke's responses. :roll:

Seriously, no one is stopping you from evangelizing for your team here. If you would like to present any notable advantages to having PhysX support, then have out with it already. Having been running nothing but Nividia cards since PhysX support was added, I've yet to find any practical use for the feature. So, I'm quite interested in hearing whatever you think I might be missing out on.

PhysX would be great to have but by the time it's implemented (if it ever makes it "mainstream") I will need a better graphics card anyway so I fail to see why PhysX should be a factor in buying a card today.....

so Rollo, earn your keep and explain to us peons exactly how we're messing up by buying ATI cards since they're cheaper and preform just a well in the games we're playing right now.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
While currently physics isn't that big, I think we are asking the wrong question.

The question we should ask is: "can amd/ati provide hardware physics acceleration with the current hardware if driver enabled?".

We know ATi cards can handle GPU PhysX if they really wanted.
http://www.ngohq.com/images/physxonradeon.jpg

Has a driver been made for that already?

Not by AMD. Nor do they have any intention to do so if their actions are indicators. NGOHQ asked AMD for assistance. They refused. Nvidia was asked for assistance. They provided SDK's to them and I'm going to guess here and think they're probably was some support, however limited.

My point was that if amd/ati hardware can support it if they want, then there is no point choosing you hardware based on that.

If physX becomes a mandatory thing, amd/ati will have no choice but to enable it in their hardware.

Since they can, I don't see that at this moment physX will be the deciding factor between a 4850 and a 9800GTX+.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo
There's really only one question that needs to be considered for the original post:

Are you willing to gamble that there won't be any games the OP would like to play launching with PhysX effects he/she would like to see for the lifespan the card purchased will have?

If he/she is willing to gamble "No there won't be" then the cards can be evaluated strictly on other factors.

There are many PhysX games coming this year, and the Physx versions will only be acceptably accelerated on one brand. CPU won't cut it.

There is no way in hell that game developers are going to design their games for G80 and up GPU's only.

Do you know how many tens of millions of people that market includes?

Selling ONE million copies of a game is a very big deal to a developer. Might make it a little easier to get there if you put some code in that 30-40 million people can take advantage of and make the game look better.

Not too mention if the guys with the leading marketshare are offering lots of help to put it in the games.



In the business world, money drives decisions, and money only. Putting PhysX into games adds incentive for tens of millions of people to buy games, people buy high end vid cards in hopes of better gaming experience, and PhysX adds eye candy and new functionality.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
While currently physics isn't that big, I think we are asking the wrong question.

The question we should ask is: "can amd/ati provide hardware physics acceleration with the current hardware if driver enabled?".

We know ATi cards can handle GPU PhysX if they really wanted.
http://www.ngohq.com/images/physxonradeon.jpg

Has a driver been made for that already?

Not by AMD. Nor do they have any intention to do so if their actions are indicators. NGOHQ asked AMD for assistance. They refused. Nvidia was asked for assistance. They provided SDK's to them and I'm going to guess here and think they're probably was some support, however limited.

My point was that if amd/ati hardware can support it if they want, then there is no point choosing you hardware based on that.

If physX becomes a mandatory thing, amd/ati will have no choice but to enable it in their hardware.

Since they can, I don't see that at this moment physX will be the deciding factor between a 4850 and a 9800GTX+.

PhysX isn't a mandatory thing, it's a bonus only NVIDIA owners can run at this point in time.

AMD can't just say "OK we're turning on the PhysX now" - it's proprietary IP they had the opportunity to purchase and passed on.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: nRollo
There's really only one question that needs to be considered for the original post:

Are you willing to gamble that there won't be any games the OP would like to play launching with PhysX effects he/she would like to see for the lifespan the card purchased will have?

If he/she is willing to gamble "No there won't be" then the cards can be evaluated strictly on other factors.

There are many PhysX games coming this year, and the Physx versions will only be acceptably accelerated on one brand. CPU won't cut it.

There is no way in hell that game developers are going to design their games for G80 and up GPU's only.

Do you know how many tens of millions of people that market includes?

Selling ONE million copies of a game is a very big deal to a developer. Might make it a little easier to get there if you put some code in that 30-40 million people can take advantage of and make the game look better.

Not too mention if the guys with the leading marketshare are offering lots of help to put it in the games.



In the business world, money drives decisions, and money only. Putting PhysX into games adds incentive for tens of millions of people to buy games, people buy high end vid cards in hopes of better gaming experience, and PhysX adds eye candy and new functionality.

I know how many people it excludes, and thats enought to scare most developers off.

I'm sure I've heard you say on these forums to buy for what you want now not for the future, so what is hardware physX going to give me now?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Do you know how many tens of millions of people that market includes?

Selling ONE million copies of a game is a very big deal to a developer. Might make it a little easier to get there if you put some code in that 30-40 million people can take advantage of and make the game look better.

Or they could use Havok which everyone can use, so hundreds of millions would benefit.

Software Havok is actually quite excellent. Far Cry 2 uses it and it has amazing physics, especially when things blow up, and when vegetation sways in the wind. I can actually think of a large number of games that I play that use Havok and have great physics which everyone can use.

In the business world, money drives decisions, and money only.

In that case why implement a feature tens of millions can use when you can implement a feature everyone can use?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

Do you know how many tens of millions of people that market includes?

Selling ONE million copies of a game is a very big deal to a developer. Might make it a little easier to get there if you put some code in that 30-40 million people can take advantage of and make the game look better.

Or they could use Havok which everyone can use, so hundreds of millions would benefit.

Software Havok is actually quite excellent. Far Cry 2 uses it and it has amazing physics, especially when things blow up, and when vegetation sways in the wind. I can actually think of a large number of games that I play that use Havok and have great physics which everyone can use.

In the business world, money drives decisions, and money only.

In that case why implement a feature tens of millions can use when you can implement a feature everyone can use?

Heh- I like FC2- but the physics are not as notable as GPU accelerated physics.

CPUs don't have the power to do physics like GPUs can. I have the most powerful CPU available, and the most powerful GPU available, and it's not even close what the two are capable of.

Difference in PhysX CPU accelerated on a 3.3GHz i7 and with a $350 GTX280

It's pretty clear by the 11fps the 4870X2 card framerate compared to the 38 fps framerate the GTX280 gets the GPU is better suited for this sort of processing.

Developers want to bring higher levels of realism and immersion to their games and the CPU can't come close to providing it, even a $1000 cpu like mine.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: nRollo
There's really only one question that needs to be considered for the original post:

Are you willing to gamble that there won't be any games the OP would like to play launching with PhysX effects he/she would like to see for the lifespan the card purchased will have?

If he/she is willing to gamble "No there won't be" then the cards can be evaluated strictly on other factors.

That is obviously the only question you see any reason to consider, but again your arguments here hold as little weight for the PhsyX your benefactors support as the DX10.1 they don't.

Originally posted by: nRollo
There are many PhysX games coming this year, and the Physx versions will only be acceptably accelerated on one brand. CPU won't cut it.

How many won't need more GPU than the OP is considering to run those Physx effects acceptably? How many will meet their release dates? And how many will actually be worth playing? Those are questions you obviously don't care to acknowledge, and none of us can rightly answer, but they remain relevant to the discussion all the same.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: nRolloDifference in PhysX CPU accelerated on a 3.3GHz i7 and with a $350 GTX280

It's pretty clear by the 11fps the 4870X2 card framerate compared to the 38 fps framerate the GTX280 gets the GPU is better suited for this sort of processing.

What isn't clear is if a gtx280 can keep the framerate constantly above 30fps in the game at least without droping settings, let alone what it would take for the 9800gtx+ the OP inquired about to do so, or my 8800gt. It also isn't clear what the PhysX effects add to the game, or how well the various cards handle the game without them.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: BFG10K


Software Havok is actually quite excellent. Far Cry 2 uses it and it has amazing physics, especially when things blow up, and when vegetation sways in the wind. I can actually think of a large number of games that I play that use Havok and have great physics which everyone can use.

The other thing people often forget about Havok is that it can already run on a GPU. The reason it doesn't right now is that Intel made the decision not to. They , at the time, this was 2006, decided that the GPU was not powerful enough and added nothing and that it was better to stay with the CPU. There are still demos from 2006 showing Havok running off the GPU.

That has changed this year. There are already trials of Havok running off the GPU. I have Autodesk 3DSmax 2009 with Reactor, and alpha Havok plugins, that use a GPU.

My favorite is simulating 600 insects all running in real time with each its own behavior and physics running off the GPU, Nvidia cards at that .

 

[Atechie]

Well some delevopers don't mind using PhysX in a way that makes game crawl when no dedicated hardware is present to accelerate physics:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376657
(Hint the CPU physics numbers is what any ATI owner would get)

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
While currently physics isn't that big, I think we are asking the wrong question.

The question we should ask is: "can amd/ati provide hardware physics acceleration with the current hardware if driver enabled?".

We know ATi cards can handle GPU PhysX if they really wanted.
http://www.ngohq.com/images/physxonradeon.jpg

Has a driver been made for that already?

Not by AMD. Nor do they have any intention to do so if their actions are indicators. NGOHQ asked AMD for assistance. They refused. Nvidia was asked for assistance. They provided SDK's to them and I'm going to guess here and think they're probably was some support, however limited.

My point was that if amd/ati hardware can support it if they want, then there is no point choosing you hardware based on that.

If physX becomes a mandatory thing, amd/ati will have no choice but to enable it in their hardware.

Since they can, I don't see that at this moment physX will be the deciding factor between a 4850 and a 9800GTX+.

PhysX isn't a mandatory thing, it's a bonus only NVIDIA owners can run at this point in time.

AMD can't just say "OK we're turning on the PhysX now" - it's proprietary IP they had the opportunity to purchase and passed on.

Yes AMD/ATI doesn't want to pay nVidia and that's why their cards don't do it, not because their cards are incapable of doing it.

That is a big difference.

If PhysiX really becomes mandatory, as in every game and their mothers use it, AMD/ATI won't have any other solution but to enable it and pay what nVidia wants.

But, they are waiting on the market, because atm its only a bonus for a couple of games that adds barely anything to them.

Will have to see what happens to Havoc and what Microsoft does with DX11.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke


I know how many people it excludes, and thats enought to scare most developers off.

There are more PhysX capable GPUs than Xbox 360s, PS3s and Wiis.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: WelshBloke


I know how many people it excludes, and thats enough to scare most developers off.

There are more PhysX capable GPUs than Xbox 360s, PS3s and Wiis.

So? Put out a game that runs on the xbox, ps3, wii and PC and sales on the first 3 would dwarf the pc sales.

Developers are going to want to sell games not get into a pissing contest about what gpu's are out there.

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC:

OP what games are you into, what resolutions do you run and do you have a preference to vid card make?

 

[Keysplayr]

A PhysX F.A.Q. thread has been stickied for those of you who have some PhysX questions.
I have some updating to do for benchmarks especially with the new hardware that is out.
Any questions not answered in the FAQ, just PM me and I can post them in there.
Thanks to the stickifier!

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Heh- I like FC2- but the physics are not as notable as GPU accelerated physics.

CPUs don't have the power to do physics like GPUs can. I have the most powerful CPU available, and the most powerful GPU available, and it's not even close what the two are capable of.

Difference in PhysX CPU accelerated on a 3.3GHz i7 and with a $350 GTX280

It's pretty clear by the 11fps the 4870X2 card framerate compared to the 38 fps framerate the GTX280 gets the GPU is better suited for this sort of processing.

Developers want to bring higher levels of realism and immersion to their games and the CPU can't come close to providing it, even a $1000 cpu like mine.

That link is PhysX running on a CPU vs GPU, not physics. PhysX is not the general way of creating such effects, it's just *a* way of using the GPU to calculate it. There's no comparison showing that a Havok equivalent running on a CPU couldn't produce the same effects and have the same (or better) performance. Games using Havok do have excellent physics effects and can run on any GPU And have great performance too.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: nRollo
Heh- I like FC2- but the physics are not as notable as GPU accelerated physics.

CPUs don't have the power to do physics like GPUs can. I have the most powerful CPU available, and the most powerful GPU available, and it's not even close what the two are capable of.

Difference in PhysX CPU accelerated on a 3.3GHz i7 and with a $350 GTX280

It's pretty clear by the 11fps the 4870X2 card framerate compared to the 38 fps framerate the GTX280 gets the GPU is better suited for this sort of processing.

Developers want to bring higher levels of realism and immersion to their games and the CPU can't come close to providing it, even a $1000 cpu like mine.

That link is PhysX running on a CPU vs GPU, not physics. PhysX is not the general way of creating such effects, it's just *a* way of using the GPU to calculate it. There's no comparison showing that a Havok equivalent running on a CPU couldn't produce the same effects and have the same (or better) performance. Games using Havok do have excellent physics effects and can run on any GPU And have great performance too.

Ok then, what updates do you have for us showing Havoc on CPU producing the same effects and have the same or better performance. I'd like to see what is available.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok then, what updates do you have for us showing Havoc on CPU producing the same effects and have the same or better performance. I'd like to see what is available.

There are no games that you can choose to have either PhysX or Havok. Hence you cannot give a direct comarison. Which I clearly wrote in my post. However, for the games using Havok with great success...

- ever played Painkiller and shot its stakegun? or saw how your enemies react to some of the heavier guns in general? It's Havok in action.
- Star Wars: The Force Unleashed - excellent game, Xbox360 or PS3 only, however the way you can interact with the enviroment and how it reacts to your actions is awesome. Again, Havok in action. And it runs on the console's CPU.
- Soul Calibut IV - again, consoles only, however Havok is used for the clothes and armor there, to name two, excellent visuals.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah Rollo, did you report Keysplayr's last few posts there too? They have as much to do with the feature you insist on fluffing for here as WelshBloke's responses. :roll:

Seriously, no one is stopping you from evangelizing for your team here. If you would like to present any notable advantages to having PhysX support, then have out with it already. Having been running nothing but Nividia cards since PhysX support was added, I've yet to find any practical use for the feature. So, I'm quite interested in hearing whatever you think I might be missing out on.

PhysX would be great to have but by the time it's implemented (if it ever makes it "mainstream") I will need a better graphics card anyway so I fail to see why PhysX should be a factor in buying a card today.....

so Rollo, earn your keep and explain to us peons exactly how we're messing up by buying ATI cards since they're cheaper and preform just a well in the games we're playing right now.

Here you go "peons":
(LOL-JK)

Now is the time it's being implemented, you can currently play GRAW2, UT3, Warmonger with PhysX in them.

Next month you'll be able to play Mirrors Edge, and in February you'll be able to play Cryostasis.

There are many games slated for launch this year, undoubtedly some will make it, some will not.

I agree that a 1GB HD4870 can be had for $25.00 cheaper on newegg, and that with the latest drivers that card has regained some parity with the GTX260C216.

So you ask "Why should I spend $25 more on a NVIDIA card?" Here's why I would:

1. $25 is pocket change in todays world, about half the cost of a game at launch. If even one game launches with PhysX effects that you want to play/enjoy, to me it would be worth $25 to see the game with the effects enabled.

2. CUDA- if you're not a scientist or programmer, CUDA might still be worth $25 to you to transcode your video faster (time is money!) or work toward cure folding faster.

3. SLi- now just plain better than CF. Available on Intel and NVIDIA chipsets, which are the market leaders, and offer much more driver support and flexibility. In general games don't launch without profiles due to the TWIMTBP program, and even if they did, with SLi you can create them.

4. Mystery upcoming tech that is going to change what gaming is for a lot of you very soon.

To be fair, if you opt to save the $25 to buy half a game with, or perhaps lunch, you will get a couple things you won't with NVIDIA:

1. DX10.1 - currently implemented in Stalker Clear Sky. Upcoming support in some big RTS titles.

2. Tesselator effects- currently not used, unaware of any upcoming.

3. Better 8XAA in some games, but for me this is offset by worse 8X AA in others, 8 & 16X CSAA on nV cards, and worse transparency AA.

In any case- everything else aside- it would be worth a measly $25 to me just to see the PhysX effects in one game. You buy good graphics cards for eye candy, and PhysX adds it to the game. (along with other aspect that affect playability)

Hope this helps, but like all forum opinions, no one should take it at face value. Read independent review sites to verify anything I've said that interests you. (you'll have to wait a very short time on one item)

 

[Keysplayr]

I loved Painkiller. Great game with great graphics and effects. So any system whether it be equipped with an ATI or Nvidia card can run Havoc Physics. That is great. So how does this effect us when it comes to the PhysX games now emerging? I'll tell you.
If it's a game based on Havoc physics, either system can run it. If it's a game based on PhysX, then only the Nvidia equipped system can run it until ATI gets on the ball and supports PhysX as well. Just the way it is. And with all these Tier 1 developers jumping in, I don't see the abandonment of PhysX anytime soon. ATI has been touting unified GPGPU for a long time now. It just seems a little odd now that they are going back to tout CPU physics ever since Nvidia purchased and incorporated PhysX technology into their GPU's. They flipped their switch so to speak. But at the same time, I see them attempting their "Stream" computing platform. So far, without very good results, but it's early yet.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Qbah
That link is PhysX running on a CPU vs GPU, not physics. PhysX is not the general way of creating such effects, it's just *a* way of using the GPU to calculate it. There's no comparison showing that a Havok equivalent running on a CPU couldn't produce the same effects and have the same (or better) performance. Games using Havok do have excellent physics effects and can run on any GPU And have great performance too.

This is sort of misleading, for a couple reasons:

1. Havoc physics don't "run great on any GPU" , they don't "run on GPUs" at all. The processing is not GPU accelerated, just a drain on the cpu like AI or motherboard sound.

2. "Excellent physics" is pretty subjective. A person can't really compare the UT3 Tornado level to Painkiller. Year sure Painkiller has the rag doll physics of yesteryear. The UT3 tornado has weather that alters the environment, damages the player, destructably environment, realistic cloth, dust in the air, etc..

There's a pretty huge difference, and I wouldn't call what Havoc adds "excellent". I'd call it, "err, ok, I can nail monsters to the wall and they fall limp" in Painkiller anyway.

If Painkiller is the "bright future" of CPU physics, I could go the rest of my life w/o it. OTOH, I wish every game implemented PhysX.

 

[rogue1979]

Based on the only game that I play with Physx, it isn't worth worrying about.

GRAW2 physx implementation is too wierd. You have the option to turn the physx setting to "extreme".

What does this add to the game? Explosions look a little more detailed as well as the debris field and some damage to the actual environment. But I turned it down to normal
because there were small bits of "stuff" constantly floating around on the ground and sometimes in the air. Way too distracting, it takes away from realistic gameplay.

Honestly, I noticed the extra eye candy only when stopping to "watch" an explosion. When I was busy fragging away I didn't notice anything except the distracting weird crap flying around.

I was using an overclocked 9600GT which handled the game just fine, even with physx turned on.

It was so important to me that I switched back to an overclocked HD 3850 which looks better to me in some older games...