Opinion - Nvidia for PhysX or ATI?

[Phanuel]

Physx being graphics card dependent will mean it will never gain traction in usage. You're continuing a monopoly on a feature set which is a death sentence to that feature set if at least 50% of your user base can't even use it.

Why is Physx GOOD for us, the user, if it limits our hardware choices?

 

[SirPauly]

But it's 50 percent that can. Why on Earth does it have to be all? I couldn't use MLAA on everything on nVidia products or multi-monitor gaming for some time -- how dare AMD offer features for only their cards and should wait for nVidia.

 

[Phanuel]

But it's 50 percent that can. Why on Earth does it have to be all? I couldn't use MLAA on everything on nVidia products or multi-monitor gaming for some time -- how dare AMD offer features for only their cards and should wait for nVidia.

As a developer I don't need to waste money on MLAA, that's a driver specific feature for rendering AA (a hardware post processing filter independent of game code).

I do however have to spend time and money on a feature that less than 50% of my target audience can use, and of those who can, usually the performance hit without a second card is substantial enough that it is turned off.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think Physics is very relevant now and going to be more relevant in the future.

I dont know mate, the adoption rate of hardware physx seems to be pretty low and showing no signs of picking up.

 

[happy medium]

The other guys won't let you use this awful feature!"

Since when is a free feature ( for any product) awful?

 

[SirPauly]

As a developer I don't need to waste money on MLAA, that's a driver specific feature for rendering AA (a hardware post processing filter independent of game code).

I do however have to spend time and money on a feature that less than 50% of my target audience can use, and of those who can, usually the performance hit without a second card is substantial enough that it is turned off.

Your original context was for us, the users, and now is a developer context.

 

[happy medium]

I will be expecting to SLI or CF whatever setup to make sure to get the best performance/graphics I can regardless of how stupid you think it is.

OK , I would suggest a gtx580 3gb and sli it later. If you want to turn on Physx, go ahead, if not, dont', but at least you have a choice.

 

[Phynaz]

Since when is a free feature ( for any product) awful?

What makes you think it's free? Did Nvidia pay for the Physx aquisition with pixie dust? Are the software devs working for free?

The cost of the above are built into the cost of Nvidia chips.

What could those resources be used on instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

 

[happy medium]

What makes you think it's free? Did Nvidia pay for the Physx aquisition with pixie dust? Are the software devs working for free?

The cost of the above are built into the cost of Nvidia chips.

What could those resources be used on instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Show me some official evidence thats its not.
Just like I would consider HAVOC free for AMD physics.

To me, its free, unless theres some special chip for it on the board.

Back to the question , since when is a free AVALABLE feature , that gives you a choice awful?

 

[Blazer7]

Any royalties, or added cost, devs are paying for PhysX has an impact to the game's retail price and in the end you can guess who is gonna pay for it. Nothing is free nowdays.

IMHO PhysX is a bonus feature rather than a reason to base your choice on it.

 

[96Firebird]

What makes you think it's free? Did Nvidia pay for the Physx aquisition with pixie dust? Are the software devs working for free?

The cost of the above are built into the cost of Nvidia chips.

What could those resources be used on instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

You're right, R&D costs are factored into the price of the card. Just like AMD cards have Eyefinity which adds to their cost. But since he said he might use PhysX, but won't use Eyefinity, which seems like the better cost?

 

[happy medium]

IMHO PhysX is a bonus feature rather than a reason to base your choice on it.

Well said.:thumbsup:

 

[Jionix]

Since when is a free feature ( for any product) awful?

My whole post went over your head.

Keys arguement was "good or bad" the added feature was free and therefore a bonus to the buyer. I wasn't debating whether physx was bad, but just the absurdy of his arguement.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ha, ha, is that your arguement? It doesn't matter how good OR bad it is, at least you can turn it on?

"Look, this thing is awful, but hey, at least you CAN turn it on! The other guys won't let you use this awful feature!"

Laugh it up. That is as good as an argument gets. Having the option to use it seems to be superior to never being able to use it.

And what about the games that "ARENT" awful as you put it? Alice is pretty cool. I am playing that right now actually. Wouldn't you like to be able to tell me if you like the PhysX or Not in this title?

 

[Keysplayr]

My whole post went over your head.

Keys arguement was "good or bad" the added feature was free and therefore a bonus to the buyer. I wasn't debating whether physx was bad, but just the absurdy of his arguement.

So...... Logic is absurd to you. Ok then.

 

[Grooveriding]

Here is all you need to know about Physx:

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

That's every gpu physx game ever released, there are 18 of them. 75% of them are utter trash, some of them are free demos, one of them is only using physx in a single level of the game.

That's 4 games a year for every year it's been around and even that is being generous considering some are free demos or it only works in a single level of one game (UT3) Two of them are sequels Hot Dance Party 1 and ... Hot Dance Party 2! lol


In short, physx is worthless trash and not worth considering when you are buying a video card. Innovative games like BFBC2, Crysis/Warhead and the upcoming BF3 continue to do impressive physics effects on the CPU.

Basically the superior price/performance of a $300 6970 that is 90% the speed of a $500 GTX 580 is worth a lot more than the 2 good games ever released that use physx. And don't forget you will take about a 35% framerate hit just to turn on the useless feature.

Physx wll disappear in a few more years if the notion of running physics on the GPU takes hold as a universal standard that works on any card emerges, likely openCL.

 

[Keysplayr]

Here is all you need to know about Physx:

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

That's every gpu physx game ever released, there are 18 of them. 75% of them are utter trash, some of them are free demos, one of them is only using physx in a single level of the game.

That's 4 games a year for every year it's been around and even that is being generous considering some are free demos or it only works in a single level of one game (UT3) Two of them are sequels Hot Dance Party 1 and ... Hot Dance Party 2! lol


In short, physx is worthless trash and not worth considering when you are buying a video card. Innovative games like BFBC2, Crysis/Warhead and the upcoming BF3 continue to do impressive physics effects on the CPU.

Basically the superior price/performance of a $300 6970 that is 90% the speed of a $500 GTX 580 is worth a lot more than the 2 good games ever released that use physx. And don't forget you will take about a 35% framerate hit just to turn on the useless feature.

Physx wll disappear in a few more years if the notion of running physics on the GPU takes hold as a universal standard that works on any card emerges, likely openCL.

Hey Groover! You might want to compare that 6970 to a GTX570 instead. Price/performance is a lot closer than say a GTX580.
PhysX aside completely, either Nvidia or AMD/ATI will do nicely. But being able to turn on a feature that the other one can't, for the same price? Why not? LOL

And that PhysXinfo site is great!!! There are many side by side comparison videos that you could watch showing with and without PhysX. Pretty Kewl.

 

[Phanuel]

Hey Groover! You might want to compare that 6970 to a GTX570 instead. Price/performance is a lot closer than say a GTX580.
PhysX aside completely, either Nvidia or AMD/ATI will do nicely. But being able to turn on a feature that the other one can't, for the same price? Why not? LOL

And that PhysXinfo site is great!!! There are many side by side comparison videos that you could watch showing with and without PhysX. Pretty Kewl.

Because the developer has to code for it, and why spend time and money coding for something that <50% people will use?

Oh right, logic apparently doesn't work in this thread. That opportunity cost link was pasted around here somewhere...

 

[Blazer7]

Having the option to use an extra feature is always a plus but the performance hit and the small number of supporting games take a lot of the value of PhysX away.

Havok OTOH has far more titles under its belt and it's been establishing a foothold on every portion of the market not just pc gaming. This can very well become the decisive factor as to which standard will prevail.

ATM things for PhysX look grim.

*** edit ***

IMO PhysX is becoming less competitive and as that less important.

http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-in-the-movies

http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=available-games&hl=en_US

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/05/havok-physics-engine-comes-to-android-2-3-demoed-on-xperia-play/

 

[Jionix]

So...... Logic is absurd to you. Ok then.

Yes... Logic. Logic such as: Why would you want to use a detrimental feature? That's logic.

Logic does not = "Hey, I will turn on this bad feature which makes the user experience worse, just because I can. That's a bonus!"

You're idea of logic is warped.

 

[tviceman]

Physx wll disappear in a few more years if the notion of running physics on the GPU takes hold as a universal standard that works on any card emerges, likely openCL.

OpenCL.... how long has there been talk about that? How long? And how many products delivered that use it? How many?

 

[happy medium]

Hey, I will turn on this bad feature which makes the user experience worse

Says who?
I think it looks cool in Mafia 2.

 

[SlowSpyder]

In the rankings of what I take into consideration when buying a graphics card, Physx scores a few slots below the box are in importance. In other words I wouldn't factor it into my purchasing decision at all.

I think it was 2006 when Ageia launched their PPU card and Nvidia bought them in 2008. After this many years now it still has had very, very little impact on gaming. I just do not see hardware Physx taking off.

 

[apoppin]

. . . Nvidia bought them in 2008. After this many years now it still has had very, very little impact on gaming. I just do not see hardware Physx taking off.

Wow, back in 2008? Can we remember that far back? When i asked Nvidia about PhysX at Nvision08, they said all that they did was port Aegia PhysX to CUDA. Basically, they did nothing with it until 2009 - when they went to their dev partners. And it takes about 3 years to make it from concept to finished game.

Alice: Madness Returns is impressive with PhysX on high. i am interested in seeing what Batman Arkham City brings.

 

[tviceman]

PC gamers complain that most games are straight up console ports.
Nvidia helps developers add extra graphical effects into games.
PC gamers complain about extra graphical effects in games.


GO FIGURE.