Physx - Are you interested in it? Have your say! VOTE!

[wand3r3r]

It also drops to slideshow FPS in single player with PhysX on high in certain locations, so what's your point?



Wrong. You've shown that you don't understand the relationship between CPUs and GPUs in games. Just because PhysX uses the GPU for calculations, doesn't mean the CPU has no part to play.

The CPU issues draw calls for everything that is rendered by the GPU on the screen. With PhysX enabled, the amount of draw calls is increased big time due to all of the added particles and effects.

The engine lacking multithreaded capabilities loads all of the draw calls on only ONE core, which isn't enough for PhysX on medium or high. So the CPU gets taxed to the limit (up to 100% usage on two cores on my 4.5ghz 3930K) and eventually gets bogged down when the draw call limitation is exceeded, which causes the GPUs to stop being fed data and the frame rate to plummet.



It does demonstrate it, you just don't understand it

Gearbox should never have used DX9 for this game. DX9 uses a single core for rendering if I'm not mistaken, which destroys performance in a big game like BL2 with massive draw distances and detail.

Are you a game developer who also works with physx?

Until then I don't take an avid physx/nv fans word for why physx doesn't work in bl2.

I understand the CPU and gpu are working in sync etc. but your explanation falls short when the other games are at 100% load and don't falter (as bad afaik).

 

[Scheeringa]

Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up

 

[SirPauly]

1. No, it does not have a clear discrete leadership.

nVidia has clear discrete leadership!

2. More content? Did you peer into an alternate dimension where nvidia did not implement the DRM or even openly supported physX as a secardy card and observe fewer titles with GPU physX implemented in such dimensions then in our own dimension?

More GPU Physx Content -- for example: Borderlands 2, PlanetSide2, Hawken, WarFrame, Rise of the Triad, Metro Last Light, X-com, Batman Origins, Call of Duty, Witcher and potentially Everquest!

All PhysX is doing is driving people away so you claim -- yet nVidia has clear discrete leadership and more GPU PhysX content than past years!

 

[Carfax83]

Are you a game developer who also works with physx?

No, but you don't have to be a developer to understand this issue. I've spent probably over a dozen hours troubleshooting and researching this problem.

It's obvious that PhysX wasn't the problem because:

1) The dips and lags could occur when looking at certain areas with lots of buildings and detail and at longer view distances, even with PhysX on low, as said in the DSOgaming article.

2) No other PhysX game has this problem that I'm aware of, and I have most PhysX games.

3) During the dips and lags, GPU activity would nosedive so it's not as though the game was over taxing the GPU.

Until then I don't take an avid physx/nv fans word for why physx doesn't work in bl2.

You can believe whatever you like, but you haven't offered any well thought out reasons other than," In co-op mode the game lags with PhysX turned on so it must be the PhysX!"

I understand the CPU and gpu are working in sync etc. but your explanation falls short when the other games are at 100% load and don't falter (as bad afaik).

Of all the games I have, BL2 is the only one that consistently maxes out one of the cores on my CPU. Other games may hit 100% at times, but only momentarily.

Anyway, 100% load on a core isn't really a problem in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when the software cannot distribute the load across to other cores which are doing nothing, and ends up overworking the single core.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up

:thumbsup:

 

[Makaveli]

To me this poll makes no sense. PhysX can be turned on or off as desired. It is always better to at least have this option than to have no option at all for games that support it. The fact that ATI/AMD users (including the thread starter) cannot get GPU-accelerated PhysX but can vote makes this poll even more irrelevant.

ummm I disagree.

<---AMD/NV Physx user here!

And I agree with everyone So far Borderlands 2 without physx does look bland.

Batman AC I enjoy it there also.

 

[dguy6789]

I find it interesting that only people who were Nvidia fans before physX existed(or at least Nvidia owned it) are claiming physX is any good. I bet if you look back far enough you can find some of these exact same Nvidia fans not being as enthusiastic about the Ageia physX cards.

I am also not seeing any Nvidia fans who are saying physX is a waste of time. This makes me think their entire argument is simply Nvidia vs AMD agenda based and has nothing to do with the merits of PhysX itself.

PhysX is not physics. PhysX is a marketing device.

Pretty much all of the previous counter points to PhysX still stand. 1 It is well documented and proven that there are multiple games where PhysX being involved has made the hardware PhysX-disabled code path have artificially created far worse visuals than necessary. 2 Nvidia artificially blocks PhysX from working if I run both an AMD and Nvidia graphics card together. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is 100% sleaze. Nvidia got their money but still stops their customer from using their product.

<- Owner of Nvidia products

 

[wand3r3r]

No, but you don't have to be a developer to understand this issue. I've spent probably over a dozen hours troubleshooting and researching this problem.

It's obvious that PhysX wasn't the problem because:
<snip/>

You can believe whatever you like, but you haven't offered any well thought out reasons other than," In co-op mode the game lags with PhysX turned on so it must be the PhysX!"


<snip/>

Ok, so you are just making stuff up. There hasn't been any official confirmation, just lots of heads in the sand from BL2 and NV.
/Don here.

ummm I disagree.

<---AMD/NV Physx user here!

And I agree with everyone So far Borderlands 2 without physx does look bland.

Batman AC I enjoy it there also.

Yep, and he has the audacity to claim that the OP is an "amd" user as if he even has a clue, much less if it would even matter. I am a $/performance kind of buyer and that is consistent. I have had more NV cards this generation than most NV fans. (I'd say than that guy, but I don't know therefore I won't)

I find it interesting that only people who were Nvidia fans before physX existed(or at least Nvidia owned it) are claiming physX is any good. I bet if you look back far enough you can find some of these exact same Nvidia fans not being as enthusiastic about the Ageia physX cards.

I am also not seeing any Nvidia fans who are saying physX is a waste of time. This makes me think their entire argument is simply Nvidia vs AMD agenda based and has nothing to do with the merits of PhysX itself.

PhysX is not physics. PhysX is a marketing device.

Pretty much all of the previous counter points to PhysX still stand. 1 It is well documented and proven that there are multiple games where PhysX being involved has made the hardware PhysX-disabled code path have artificially created far worse visuals than necessary. 2 Nvidia artificially blocks PhysX from working if I run both an AMD and Nvidia graphics card together. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is 100% sleaze. Nvidia got their money but still stops their customer from using their product.

<- Owner of Nvidia products

Good points.

A percentage will obviously be pro/anti the brand, but looking in the middle there are a ton who are unimpressed, neutral, or consider it a nice extra. I would venture a guess that a considerable number of them voted honestly.

 

[BoFox]

I find it interesting that only people who were Nvidia fans before physX existed(or at least Nvidia owned it) are claiming physX is any good. I bet if you look back far enough you can find some of these exact same Nvidia fans not being as enthusiastic about the Ageia physX cards.

I am also not seeing any Nvidia fans who are saying physX is a waste of time. This makes me think their entire argument is simply Nvidia vs AMD agenda based and has nothing to do with the merits of PhysX itself.

PhysX is not physics. PhysX is a marketing device.

Pretty much all of the previous counter points to PhysX still stand. 1 It is well documented and proven that there are multiple games where PhysX being involved has made the hardware PhysX-disabled code path have artificially created far worse visuals than necessary. 2 Nvidia artificially blocks PhysX from working if I run both an AMD and Nvidia graphics card together. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is 100% sleaze. Nvidia got their money but still stops their customer from using their product.

<- Owner of Nvidia products

:thumbsup: Agreed! :thumbsup: Good point(s)! Now I'm reading it again!

 

[Carfax83]

I find it interesting that only people who were Nvidia fans before physX existed(or at least Nvidia owned it) are claiming physX is any good. I bet if you look back far enough you can find some of these exact same Nvidia fans not being as enthusiastic about the Ageia physX cards.

I was one of those guys that was firmly against Ageia PhysX cards, and even GPU PhysX in the early stages.

What changed my opinion was when I played Arkham Asylum with PhysX enabled for the first time. With PhysX turned on, the entire atmosphere of the game changed and it felt much more immersive to me.

Without PhysX, the game is utterly bland.

I am also not seeing any Nvidia fans who are saying physX is a waste of time.

Let me guess, you didn't bother to read the thread from start to finish, and jumped in at the end.... :sneaky:

Grooveriding is an NVidia user and he doesn't seem to care much for PhysX..

There are also AMD users that seem to enjoy PhysX a lot, ie Makaveli.

This makes me think their entire argument is simply Nvidia vs AMD agenda based and has nothing to do with the merits of PhysX itself.

There have been several valid arguments presented in favor of, and against PhysX in this thread. Perhaps you should try reading the entire thread...:hmm:

PhysX is not physics. PhysX is a marketing device.

PhysX uses physics based algorithms for games, whether on the CPU or GPU, so it's physics whether you like it or not.

1 It is well documented and proven that there are multiple games where PhysX being involved has made the hardware PhysX-disabled code path have artificially created far worse visuals than necessary.

Name specific examples. And don't bring up that crap about NVidia removing scripted effects from games and supplanting them with PhysX D:

That argument was destroyed when I posted video evidence contrary to that assertion.

2 Nvidia artificially blocks PhysX from working if I run both an AMD and Nvidia graphics card together. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is 100% sleaze. Nvidia got their money but still stops their customer from using their product.

NVidia claimed they did it for technical reasons. I'm sure there were some business reasons as well though.

 

[BoFox]

What changed my opinion was when I played Arkham Asylum with PhysX enabled for the first time. With PhysX turned on, the entire atmosphere of the game changed and it felt much more immersive to me.

Without PhysX, the game is utterly bland.

Utterly bland compared to the Xbox360 version (which does not use Nvidia hardware), which had beautiful environmental fog (although not dynamically interactive like when Batman swooped his wings, it would move the fog around). If Xbox360 could handle this static fog all over the cemeteries, etc.. then why did the PC version have to remove it altogether if GPU physX was disabled?

NVidia claimed they did it for technical reasons. I'm sure there were some business reasons as well though.

While Ageia didn't have technical (or "business" for that matter) reasons to exclude a certain brand... while NV has far more resources to provide support than Ageia ever did.

 

[ams23]

ummm I disagree.

<---AMD/NV Physx user here!

And I agree with everyone So far Borderlands 2 without physx does look bland.

Batman AC I enjoy it there also.

You have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX. The vast majority of AMD card owners do not have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX, and therefore do not have GPU-accelerated PhysX. That is why this poll is an absolute mess in my humble opinion (in fact, it reeks of a viral marketing research poll, but again that is just my opinion). The fact remains that PhysX is GPU-accelerated only on NVIDIA cards, and is a feature that can easily be turned on or off and therefore is just one of many ways to enhance in-game visual effects at the expense of raw maximum framerates if and when desired.

 

[Deders]

Utterly bland compared to the Xbox360 version (which does not use Nvidia hardware), which had beautiful environmental fog (although not dynamically interactive like when Batman swooped his wings, it would move the fog around). If Xbox360 could handle this static fog all over the cemeteries, etc.. then why did the PC version have to remove it altogether if GPU physX was disabled?

Prove it, Carfax posted a video on here of the 360 version and there was no fog in the cemetery. (5 mins in.)

 

[BoFox]

Man, I stand corrected - thanks - memory must've served me wrong. I thought remember seeing beautiful environmental fog somewhere like that.. or maybe it was at the catacomb-like/cave-like tunnel that is at the end of the benchmark in the PC version?? But if it's not there in the graveyard, then the X360 version must have not had fog like that at all... It reminds me that hindsight is only 20/20.. so, I stand corrected.

Edit, that's probably where I got confused a long while ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wD3VETIdTY (at exactly 24:10) Somehow, I thought there was more fog than that, and that the fog was completely non-existent in the PC version with disabled gpu-physx, but after checking again now, both appear to be the same. Sorry for not being perfect.

 

[myocardia]

My name has nothing to do with the AMD K6 processor, it existed long before the processor did.

You don't seem very good at this math stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K6 1997 was well before 2004.

 

[MrK6]

You don't seem very good at this math stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K6 1997 was well before 2004.

I've used the name K6 long before 1997. But since that has nothing to do with PhysX, you revived this thread just to fail or what?

 

[Makaveli]

You have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX. The vast majority of AMD card owners do not have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX, and therefore do not have GPU-accelerated PhysX. That is why this poll is an absolute mess in my humble opinion (in fact, it reeks of a viral marketing research poll, but again that is just my opinion). The fact remains that PhysX is GPU-accelerated only on NVIDIA cards, and is a feature that can easily be turned on or off and therefore is just one of many ways to enhance in-game visual effects at the expense of raw maximum framerates if and when desired.

i'm not disagreeing with you.

But the option is there if you want it and a AMD user.

People complaining about it won't change a thing.

Most of the comments are correct but I just work in the system and move on instead of trying to fight it.

We will probably never see physx on AMD.

 

[BoFox]

i'm not disagreeing with you.

But the option is there if you want it and a AMD user.

People complaining about it won't change a thing.

Most of the comments are correct but I just work in the system and move on instead of trying to fight it. We will probably never see physx on AMD.

Yep, that option is hybrid PhysX for dedicated Geforce cards alongside a primary Radeon card in the same system, even using the LATEST hacked drivers:

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/...with-latest-physx-and-geforce-285-solved.html

And while you're right that we'll probably never see PhysX running directly on AMD video cards, AMD might have a trick up their sleeve with their own physics running on Mantle API. I'd strongly recommend AMD to work as hard on this as possible, starting right now - if they haven't already started!!

 

[wand3r3r]

You have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX. The vast majority of AMD card owners do not have a separate NVIDIA card dedicated towards PhysX, and therefore do not have GPU-accelerated PhysX. That is why this poll is an absolute mess in my humble opinion (in fact, it reeks of a viral marketing research poll, but again that is just my opinion). The fact remains that PhysX is GPU-accelerated only on NVIDIA cards, and is a feature that can easily be turned on or off and therefore is just one of many ways to enhance in-game visual effects at the expense of raw maximum framerates if and when desired.

So only nv owners should vote whether they care about physx, then it wouldn't be a "viral marketing" research poll.

I'd venture a guess those with the biggest issues against having an open poll would be those who dislike the results. Only a small fraction apparently really care about physx enough to pledge allegiance to the company.