How much of a role will physx play

[Xarick]

That is my deciding factor on which card to buy. It seems nvidia is getting physx into a lot of games and there is no ATI equivalent. I kinda hate to give up physx by going ati, but how prominent will it be in the future?

 

[AndroidVageta]

Personally, I feel that Physx will be around for a while because its something that Nvidia feels like pushing.

However, I dont feel that Physx will ever be anything MAJOR just simply because of the fact that ATI cant use it. For example, a game will never be released that NEEDS Physx because that means that no ATI user will be able to play the game. All Physx effects are simply just enhancements to the game, but nothing that really changes game play...its all just there for looks.

So is Physx important? Well, that just depends on how you look at it...sure it can make games look better and more "alive" but it won't change how the game is actually played, meaning you arent going to come across a puzzle or something that uses Physx exclusively because ATI owners wont be able to get past that level!

I will say that Physx really wont go further than it has already...with ATI supposedly supporting Intel Havok (which is a physics engine that can easily be done on the CPU) and things like OpenCL, Physx isnt going to blow up in use anytime soon.

If you are looking to get a new video card however and Physx is important to you, then sure, go ahead and get a GTX480 or what not, theres no problem with that!

 

[Apocalypse23]

It's been 4 years since Ageia released CellFactor: Combat Training demo to show off PhysX...and not much has changed at all so far...PhysX will always be an iffy subject, it's nice to use but really not so noticeable in many games, the few that do support it, still don't make users turn heads I think.

 

[AndroidVageta]

I know that in Metro 2033 for instance (which can run Physx on the CPU quite well) I didnt even notice the difference with it on or off as I started with it on then accidently turned it off...didnt even notice it til I was looking in the options again.

Simple things like that...some pretty smoke here and there...some debris on the floor...Physx really is one of those things that if you dont know what you are looking for, you arent going to miss it. Its all marketing, I just dont believe in Phsyx...seeing all that the Havok engine can do (like Half-life 2 or Red Faction Guerrilla) I simply dont believe that Physx is as intensive as Nvidia makes it out to be...I dont know, what ever floats your boat!

 

[zerocool84]

Phsyx looks cool in demos but fails in games. It's just some eye candy right now and doesn't look like it's going anywhere at all. They promised it'd change the way we play games but we're still waiting for that. I personally think the single and only reason it hasn't taken off is cus it only runs on Nvidia hardware. If they allowed everyone to use it, it'd be much bigger. Look at Havok and what it's done for games already??? It's worlds ahead of Physx. People will always tout that Nvidia Physx can do more on paper but until we actually get something meaningful, it's still all just on paper.

I don't miss Physx at all but if you really want it then get an Nvidia card. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[gorobei]

it isn't a major factor and won't be one, just because real time dynamics can be done by cpu.

the ghostbusters game engine is cpu based and does stuff that actually affects gameplay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbs4_3MBnCs&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdZN4myeuDc&feature=channel

even the old valve particle benchmark showed linear scaling of cpu physics.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/video_player.html?id=JSZhkjeq5b4EvzPe

cpu's can handle physics right now. maybe not as efficiently as a raw power gp-compute card, but certainly within the 'good enough' realm. We have plenty of cpu power to spare in current and future games. There is no reason to divert graphics power to physics when we still cant max out crysis. Cpu's handle the complex single threaded computations, gpu's handle the simple, massively parallel work. Now that the cpu makers are shoving gpu style circuits on cpu's, they will eventually be able to do both types. As long as intel and amd keep pushing towards the APU paradigm,
gpu physics will become less and less important.

 

[sandorski]

If NVidia was smart, they'd quit blocking ATI Users from using an Nvidia card for PhysX only operation. They'd Sell more Cards and control the Physics Market in no time. Instead they got greedy and made a Play for total Video/Physics domination, but that play has been stagnant and alternate Open Physics standards are catching up and will become the Physics standard.

Fail Nvidia.

 

[konakona]

If NVidia was smart, they'd quit blocking ATI Users from using an Nvidia card for PhysX only operation. They'd Sell more Cards and control the Physics Market in no time. Instead they got greedy and made a Play for total Video/Physics domination, but that play has been stagnant and alternate Open Physics standards are catching up and will become the Physics standard.

Fail Nvidia.

Yeah, but realistically speaking you could argue those do know and care about physx would hack it to work with ati cards, the rest wouldn't even have a clue what it is anyhow. I agree that their methodical and intentional banning really wouldn't do any good for them. Nice sig btw (the bolded part)

 

[tweakboy]

Depends a lot on what CPU you have... Its needless you make a card phsyic

The CPU is already doing algorithms.. gl For a weaker CPU then yes you need physic card,, gl

 

[Genx87]

If NVidia was smart, they'd quit blocking ATI Users from using an Nvidia card for PhysX only operation. They'd Sell more Cards and control the Physics Market in no time. Instead they got greedy and made a Play for total Video/Physics domination, but that play has been stagnant and alternate Open Physics standards are catching up and will become the Physics standard.

Fail Nvidia.

Or ATI could sign onto PhysX and let gaming progress.

Fail ATI

 

[Maximilian]

When games use physx does that replace the havok thing that games usually use?

What can physx do that havok cant?

 

[NoQuarter]

Or ATI could sign onto PhysX and let gaming progress.

Fail ATI

Makes no business sense for ATI to adopt a technology 100% controlled by the competition. If ATI adopted Physx and it took over the market then Nvidia could turn around and jack up licensing fees to ATI and they'd have them by the balls.

 

[sandorski]

Makes no business sense for ATI to adopt a technology 100% controlled by the competition. If ATI adopted Physx and it took over the market then Nvidia could turn around and jack up licensing fees to ATI and they'd have them by the balls.

Not to mention that the competitor would also end up dictating your Hardware requirements.

 

[lifeblood]

Or ATI could sign onto PhysX and let gaming progress.

Fail ATI

According to ATI, they tried to and nVidia told them to pound sand.

 

[TemjinGold]

OP: Think of it like an alternate costume for a game character that's REALLY similar to the original costume.

 

[Golgatha]

If NVidia was smart, they'd quit blocking ATI Users from using an Nvidia card for PhysX only operation. They'd Sell more Cards and control the Physics Market in no time. Instead they got greedy and made a Play for total Video/Physics domination, but that play has been stagnant and alternate Open Physics standards are catching up and will become the Physics standard.

Fail Nvidia.

This. I'd probably get a G92 based card for physics only.

 

[Magusigne]

Yup.

I never have noticed physx being on or off in most games. Sure in the tech demo's batman kicking around newspapers looked cool..but I really didn't notice the difference throughout that game at least. (Arkham Assylum).

Maybe in a few more years...for now it's just bloatware.

 

[RussianSensation]

1. You can buy a 5850 for $280 and GTS250 1GB for $100. Since 5850 is very close in performance to GTX 470, you'll have GTS250 dedicated to PhysX. I doubt the power consumption numbers will be much different.

2. Alternatively, since hardware prices generally tend to drop over time, you could pick up a graphics card for today's games. When the game you like has PhysX that actually makes a difference, you can pick up a used GTX260 card for $100 perhaps in 6 months.

3. You can just buy a GTX470/480 but then don't expect the same framerates as you would get from a 2-card setup where one card is dedicated to PhysX. The problem is, both of these cards consume a lot of power. As long as you have a good PSU to handle it, you can get a GTX470+GTS250 for example for PhysX

However, hardly any games that make use of PhysX are worth an extra graphics card for it. Therefore, I'd only get 1 graphics card and see what happens with this feature down the line.

 

[Genx87]

Makes no business sense for ATI to adopt a technology 100% controlled by the competition. If ATI adopted Physx and it took over the market then Nvidia could turn around and jack up licensing fees to ATI and they'd have them by the balls.

So why did ATI sign onto Havok?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And ATI could enter into an agreement with Nvidia that would shield them from such an aggressive manuever.

 

[Genx87]

According to ATI, they tried to and nVidia told them to pound sand.

I find that hard to believe. Nvidia has on several occasions publicly asked ATI to sign on.

 

[Outrage]

So why did ATI sign onto Havok?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And ATI could enter into an agreement with Nvidia that would shield them from such an aggressive manuever.

They helped Havok/Intel to port some functions over to OpenCL. Amd has stated that they will try to push for open standards. If OpenCL havok would be released, it would work for all gamers with any cpu/gpu that supports OpenCL.

 

[Genx87]

They helped Havok/Intel to port some functions over to OpenCL. Amd has stated that they will try to push for open standards. If OpenCL havok would be released, it would work for all gamers with any cpu/gpu that supports OpenCL.

Right, I am sure Intel cant wait to let their Physics API run on GPU's from their competitors when they lack such a device themselves and want to push multi-core CPU's.

 

[Daedalus685]

Right, I am sure Intel cant wait to let their Physics API run on GPU's from their competitors when they lack such a device themselves and want to push multi-core CPU's.

Which is a likely contributing factor as to why we don't have it on open CL yet...

It has not been owned by Intel all that long really, their purchase likely killed any chance of a speedy open standard emerging though.

It will likely take a developer studio creating their own physics (or using something like bullet exclusively) before we get an open standard. It benefits the software folks far more than the hardware side.

Havok FX (the gpu one) was talked about in 2005, a couple years before intel took over. Has there been work on it since they came in?

 

[Xarick]

You have to have a multi GPU motherboard to support two cards. I don't have that personally.

 

[Wreckage]

Plenty of games are still coming out with PhysX like Dark Void and Metro 2033.

I think it will be a very prominent feature in games from now on.