Again, you made the point that Radeon + modern CPU can run the PhysX fully, which I said was wrong and demonstrated.
No such statement was made. I said you can run the game with Radeon + PhysX offloaded to the CPU. I never said you can run it with PhysX on High. However, if you can't show us that there is a visual between High and Low/Medium, then it doesn't matter if you have PhysX High on an NV card, does it?
I also contacted the TS author so that they can fix their article (I hope they do.) You were the one touting PhysX when you thought it worked flawlessly with a Radeon, now that you've been corrected it doesn't matter again.
He said it works well on Low and he couldn't tell the difference visually between running the game on PhysX Low via CPU vs. PhysX High via GPU. Sounds to me that the author is saying it works well without even needing an NV GPU to drive the PhysX. How much worse does the game look with PhysX Low / Medium vs. High? Can you take screenshots your 460 on PhysX Low vs. PhysX Medium vs. PhysX High so we can compare?
Your last post in this thread went on a rant how this game prevents people from upgrading their GPUs. How is that not contradictive to claiming you aren't pushing video cards?
This is not what I said at all. I said this is not the type of game that begs for a $400-500 GPU upgrade, like Far Cry, Doom 3, Crysis 1, Unreal did, etc. Not once did I say this game "prevents gamers from upgrading." What are you making this stuff up for? All I am saying is this game plays well on a $230 GTX660. So it's not that GPU demanding and it certainly isn't ushering us into the era of next generation graphics. I wish it was more GPU demanding, had DX11, or that NV at least showed huge improvements in PhysX, etc.
Even now, your follow up is supportive of pushing video cards. There is nothing wrong with it, I push upgrades all the time too if it benefits the end buyer.
No, my follow-up has nothing to do with me pushing or not pushing videocards. It's my reflection on the state of the PC gaming industry. The fact that this game was so hyped and then it ended up perfectly playable on a $230 GTX660 shows it's just a console port with pretty graphics but not much more. It's not a next generation game that needs a $500 GPU. Games like Crysis, Metro 2033, Witcher 2 EE were. This game had a huge amount of hype behind it and it did live up gameplay wise, but graphically/PhysX implementation wise this game doesn't appear to have lived up to hype preceding it. It even plays well on a GTX560Ti and is actually massively CPU limited. The graphics and PhysX in this game were overhyped that means since it doesn't even stress a $300 GTX660Ti at 1600P.
Ironically you went from PhysX is good on Radeons to it doesn't matter anymore, from ranting on this game is no better than BL1 and GPU stagnation continues (thus preventing GPU sales) to this stance.
PhysX was supposed to enhance realism in games. PhysX in this game has not at all improved on previous implementations of this technology on NV's part. This is why this game runs well on a GTX660Ti + PhysX. It's because there is hardly any worthwhile PhysX in it. So again, it didn't live up to the hype graphically, and specifically the PhysX is nothing special vs. the hype that was built up for how amazing BL2 will be due to PhysX. It's like Mafia 2 all over again. Had the massive NV marketing hype not preceded this game's launch, it would have been fine. NV overhyped the PhysX, but where are these revolutionary enhancements? Besides exaggerated pebbles/rocks/flying sparks and cloth physics, there isn't any new revolutionary physics implementation here. At least I am not seeing any.
I already said what happens - PhysX Low looks the same on both since the CPU is doing the work. Look back at what I quoted you saying.
That's why I asked you the next question -- does this game look much better with PhysX High vs. PhysX Low / Medium? If so, how much better? If it doesn't look much better with PhysX High, then the PhysX High setting sounds more like marketing to me.
Again, you were wrong based on wrong information - there is nothing wrong with that. I was just telling you, and more so supporting my findings versus Tech Spot's.
I never disputed your findings. But if you turn on PhysX High and you have a huge performance hit on the CPU vs. an NV GPU, unless PhysX High actually looks much better, who cares? Let's quantify how much better PhysX H vs. Low looks.
You can keep avoiding my point and trying to turn this into a Radeon VS GeForce issue. If people want the feature - it is there for them to use.
No, you misunderstand what I am saying then. It has nothing to do with Radeon vs. Nvidia but everything to do with how much value is PhysX High (via NV GPU) adding over PhysX Low/Medium (via CPU)?
What I am really asking you is if you can play this game on PhysX Low/Medium + Radeon and it looks very similar (or almost the same) as PhysX High on a GeForce, then the PhysX High setting is irrelevant. If this is true, then you don't really need an NV card to experience PhysX in this game. If however, this game looks a LOT better with PhysX High vs. PhysX Low/Medium, then I can see how having an NV card helps. However, no one thus far has been able to show that PhysX High looks
much better. Does it?
And finally, many people have told you that a highly overclocked modern CPU can run this game on PhysX High + a Radeon GPU. You are saying this isn't really possible due to a very large performance hit that makes the game unplayable? It looks like you can get away without even needing an NV GPU for physics in this game, no?
"To summarize: Borderlands 2 is one of the first GPU PhysX titles, where presence of NVIDIA GPU is not a mandatory condition"
Doesn't this mean gamers can get away with PhysX Low/Medium without having to spend any $ on an NV GPU for PhysX? As Silverforce11 noted, this is great! NV should just drop the marketing gimmick and make PhysX work on the CPU. It'll still run faster on NV GPUs but I feel a lot more developers would be using PhysX if it ran on a CPU.
Facebook
Twitter