Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Some of these arguments against physx are interesting. Imagine if all 3D games were rendered in grayscale only but then one of the two GPU makers figured out a way to render in color.
Would you turn it down just because it (color) wasn't necessary to play out the games at the time? Would you refuse to accept that playing a game in color just simply looks cooler and feels more awesome than playing in BW?
I'll admit I don't play any of the games you all talk about here, I play games about 2-3 yrs from the leading edge. NWN2 was my most recent game just to give you an idea. But when I look at the videos of these games and I see the special effects involved from physx I can't help but be a little bit in awe at just how darn cool it looks to me.
To debate whether flittering cloth or funky looking raindrops are neat or not just seems weird to me in an enthusiast forum. You don't have to be excited about it, but to go to a forum where most people are enthusiasts meaning they are eager and excited to see where the next-gen stuff is headed and then to try and proceed to convince those people they are wrong to care about where the next-gen stuff is headed...just seems weird.
For example I could not care less about the current marketscape for pickup trucks, but I own one. Further I am not about to join a pickup truck forum where the vocal crowd is excited about the features of the 2010 models and features, etc, only to proceed to argue with those folks that just because I could not care less about the features of a 2010 model pickup that they too should stop caring about it.
If physx is nothing of value then history will bear that out as the number of games to incorporate it will be negligible. I won't know for another 3 yrs or so when I start to play these games of hot debate around here. :laugh:
It's entirely weird. Goes against a gamers soul if you ask me. New technology? "Give it to me NOW" it what I'd expect to hear from every single solitary enthusiast gamer.
Not happening here. But, they won't have a choice soon. ATI is still continuing with their same architecture and throwing tons of shaders at the problem. But they don't understand ( or maybe they do and they're working on a new arch for 3 years down the road HOPEFULLY) that the architecture IS the problem. Even throwing double the shaders they have now into a core will only net them 320 shaders if Vec5 isn't properly coded for. And it won't be if it hasn't by now.
No matter how much you tell me Physx is some kind of must have new technology, my opinion of it is that as of now, it is not.
If everything else was equal, if every single feature AMD currently has was available on an equivalent Nvidia card, if they cost pretty much the same, if the performance was pretty much the same, if the bundles/warranty/power usage characteristics (if that's important to you) were the same, but on top of it Nvidia cards supported Physx, than why not get an Nvidia card? It would make perfect sense.
But the truth is that AMD and Nvidia both have some unique features. There is certain technology that you get with an AMD card that you do not get with Nvidia, and vice versa. Depending on your resolution, the games you are most interested in, and the price point one companies card may be a far better choice than the other. From what I've seen of Physx, from what I've read of Physx, and from my limited first hand experience with Physx I would not pay more for an Nvidia card in it's current state. If the Nvidia card was the better buy for what my needs were, then I'd buy it, but I would not buy it because of Physx.
In the future, that could very well change. If Physx continues to mature, games are built from the ground up with it's capabilities in mind - and those capabilities truely offer a much better gaming experience that you just can't have at the same level with out Physx - and it's competitors fail to impress or never materialize, than that could change. Physx could be a 'must-have'. I just do not see it as that right now. And by the time it could be I doubt we'll be wanting to run it on the games that are current at that time on todays video hardware.
If Physx was a must-have now, I don't think it would need so much cheerleading from the pro-Nvidia camp. I would think it would easily stand up on it's own. When C2D launched it did not need people associated with Intel or Intel fan boys to convince those with no affiliation or AMD fan boys that they needed to experience computing on a C2D. Obviously it's easier to compare benchmarks and pretty hard to argue with numbers, so it's not a true apples to apples comparrison. But, it's easy to see what Physx currently has to offer, there are articles and videos all over. It's easy to form an opinion on it just the same, so that's why I chose that as a comparrison.
Facebook
Twitter