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

[MrK6]

How many times do I need to look at your sig and say "hmm...can't use physx anyway"?

The hardware being referred to matters. It's a graphical effect and people on this forum like to say "just turn off SSAA or turn down shadows and it will be fine". You can turn off physx and in some cases put it on low and that changes the performance hit.

Why do people want 60fps with a 2 year old card on the latest game with physx enabled but they don't expect the same with all the other effects? It's the same thing, a graphical effect you can turn off or down.

So then there's not "plenty of horsepower left." Point made, try to stay on topic.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So then there's not "plenty of horsepower left." Point made, try to stay on topic.

What? I never said a thing about that. I'm saying people seem to expect physx to not make the fps drop at all, but they are ok with shadow effects and AA doing the same. SO how about reading what I'm saying instead of making up your own argument.

 

[Final8ty]

So then there's not "plenty of horsepower left." Point made, try to stay on topic.

Indeed.

 

[Final8ty]

During this year’s PAX Prime, Nvidia showcased its Fur Tech that will be used in The Witcher 3. In this demo, Nvidia showcased what its latest tech looks like, however it seems that this particular technique will require a really high-end graphics card in order to be enjoyed.In fact, Nvidia demoed its Fur tech at a mere resolution of 1024×768 and the Titan card was able to only push 65fps when there were two wolves on screen.

Naturally, some may say that the performance is not so bad for such a wonderful technique but they are wrong. Without Nvidia’s Fur Tech, the demo (with one wolf) was running at 410fps. When Nvidia enabled its Fur tech, the framerate dropped to 140fps.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-w...most-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees/

http://www.overclock.net/t/1425282/...-will-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees

 

[Carfax83]

What? This is a ridiculous argument. The bottleneck in almost every gaming system is the GPU, so no, there aren't "quite a bit of spare cycles left over." If you were arguing for CPU based physics applications you might have a point.
Clothing that looks like fluid is just as ridiculous and unrealistic.

Right, and how many PhysX games have you played with PhysX enabled?

Out of all the PhysX games on my system, non come close to pushing my GTX 770s to 90%, much less 100% according to MSI Afterburner. Games like Batman Arkham City, Mafia 2 and Borderlands 2 are usually anywhere from 45 to 65% usage on my system, and this is at 2560x1440 with maxed settings with v-sync enabled.

I don't even need a dedicated PhysX card, but I like having it because I want maximum performance.

The only game I have that really stresses my cards is Crysis 3, where I usually get 99% activity on both cards.

As was mentioned by several other posters, simply removing effects instead of having them rendered in another method is also a laughable marketing scam, but some of you don't comprehend that either. The simple fact is that the GPU is already the most taxed part in most gaming systems. Running poorly optimized physics on them to further drag down performance is beyond asinine, yet some of you still seem to think it's a good idea.

Removing effects? Thats complete and utter nonsense, and you have not one single shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

If you want to see the BASE game for games like Batman Arkham City, Mafia 2 etcetera, look at the console versions. Last time I checked, the console versions had only very basic physics, with no advanced effects like simulated cloth, smoke etcetera..

PhysX is almost always added on afterwards, so saying the effects were removed from the main game is preposterous..

 

[Carfax83]

How many times does it have to be said that the context is not about if you throw enough hardware at it. You clearly have not been following.

If you can't understand that the performance of PhysX, like any other game technology, is determined by HARDWARE configuration, then you may as well bow out of this discussion because you're clearly out of your depth.

A mid range card likely isn't going to be able to max out PhysX and all the other 3D IQ settings at the same time. I'm sure there are select instances where it can however, because despite what you may think, not all PhysX games are resource hogs. The PhysX effects in Alice the Madness Returns for instance wasn't very demanding.

However, PhysX isn't magic, and like anti aliasing, ambient occlusion, HDR lighting etcetera, it does require computational power. But thats why it has different settings (including an off switch), so that gamers can choose appropriately depending on their hardware.

 

[Carfax83]

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-w...most-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees/

http://www.overclock.net/t/1425282/...-will-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees

Brand new technology that likely hasn't been completely refined and optimized.. I'm sure it will be by the time the Witcher 3 is shipped..

 

[psolord]

I tend to buy both AMD and Nvidia cards, in succession, but PhysX was never a priority for me. I do like my Physics, but Physics that actually affect gameplay. Physics as graphics effects are also welcome, but not as long as they bring a huge performance hit along with them.

Borderlands 2 is the only PhysX game that actually mattered for me but still I couldn't go above medium setting on my two 570s, if wanted to enjoy my game. Going to two 7950s for the new system, Borderlands 2 was the only game that felt like something was missing, but after the battle was heated I couldn't notice it anyway. On the other hand, again in the heat of the battle, I noticed that I had zero slowdowns, so I could actually perform better as a player.

If I would put a percentage of how much PhysX matters for me in the grand scheme of things, I'd say around 5%. Witcher 3 single handedly could add another 5% though, if its PhysX presentation is any good, but I will probably have two Maxwells by then, but that will only be by chance. It will be Nvidia's turn to get video cards from, at the time. If it would be AMD's, it would probably not affect my decision at all.

 

[Final8ty]

1)If you can't understand that the performance of PhysX, like any other game technology, is determined by HARDWARE configuration, then you may as well bow out of this discussion because you're clearly out of your depth.

2) A mid range card likely isn't going to be able to max out PhysX and all the other 3D IQ settings at the same time. I'm sure there are select instances where it can however, because despite what you may think, not all PhysX games are resource hogs. The PhysX effects in Alice the Madness Returns for instance wasn't very demanding.

However, PhysX isn't magic, and like anti aliasing, ambient occlusion, HDR lighting etcetera, it does require computational power. But thats why it has different settings (including an off switch), so that gamers can choose appropriately depending on their hardware.

1) I didn't claim anything of the sort so dont put words into my mouth.

2) People already lower settings as it is on mid range cards so as the point has already been made there is not horsepower to spare, no one was claiming that anti aliasing, ambient occlusion, HDR lighting etcetera didnt give a fps hit so that's purely a strawman attempt.

 

[Keysplayr]

1) I didn't claim anything of the sort so dont put words into my mouth.

2) People already lower settings as it is on mid range cards so as the point has already been made there is not horsepower to spare, no one was claiming that anti aliasing, ambient occlusion, HDR lighting etcetera didnt give a fps hit so that's purely a strawman attempt.

They do the same thing with different levels of AA and DoF and any other adjustable feature for FOREVER now. And big surprise, it depends on the level of hardware they have.

You're trying to say it's "different" because it's "PhysX" without any reason based in reality.
Man, just stop.

 

[Final8ty]

They do the same thing with different levels of AA and DoF and any other adjustable feature for FOREVER now. And big surprise, it depends on the level of hardware they have.

You're trying to say it's "different" because it's "PhysX" without any reason based in reality.
Man, just stop.

Yes it is based on level of hardware who said it was not, no one and that was not the point because we already know that already so it must be another point being made and it has been made already.

 

[Keysplayr]

So. Then you're in agreement then, that the level of hardware and particular game being played would determine whether or not the performance hit merited turning settings down?

 

[Final8ty]

So. Then you're in agreement then, that the level of hardware and particular game being played would determine whether or not the performance hit merited turning settings down?

I was never in disagreement with it, nothing i has said indicates otherwise, you clear just dont get the point and more strawman i will not be wasting anymore time with you in particular.

 

[tviceman]

The fps hit with Physx says otherwise.

Why should anyone have to turn it off if the claim there is plenty of horsepower left for it when your very comment proves my point.

How many times does it have to be said that the context is not about if you throw enough hardware at it. You clearly have not been following.

The very same thing can be said about other taxing graphical features like SSAA and HDAO. When done well, physx makes a much more noticeable graphical impact than any other graphical setting besides resolution. Your excuses can be applied to any other graphical feature that incurs performance hits (like SSAA, or HDAO). If we lived by your standards, then we'd still be running PC games at 720p console quality graphics, because adding new features incurs a FPS hit and the fact that anyone should have to turn down settings shows it's not worth it.

It's quite clear you're arguing because you dislike Nvidia, instead of arguing against the technical merits/drawbacks of physx. There is a very big difference and you make no qualms in showing it.

 

[Final8ty]

The very same thing can be said about other taxing graphical features like SSAA and HDAO.

Yes it can and how many time have i said that now.

And I sniped the rest because that is purely your opinion, It would make no difference if Physx was AMD, i would slam it the same.
If tressFX does not start to show worth while progress when/if its implemented in future titles it will get slammed too.

 

[Keysplayr]

You beat me to it Tviceman. If you tell him what you think he was saying or implying, he'll say "no, I didn't say that. I meant something else that you just aren't able to understand."
Getting old.

 

[wand3r3r]

Enough of the throwing mud on the posters.

Back on topic. Borderlands 2 was a game where I enjoyed the physx implementation. It was extremely overdone, but worked mainly because the game is so cartoonish and isn't so demanding for accuracy etc. Those type of effects are clearly just pasted on top of the environment, but they worked for that game. The performance impact was absurd though, the fact the top card at the time gtx 690 was a slide show in 4 player with lots of effects wasn't very nice. Either way, if it were an open standard and supported by both sides it would have a lot more going for it imo.

 

[SirPauly]

31 percent unimpressed -- not too bad! If nVidia continues to innovate, offer more content -- this may change moving forward!

 

[Carfax83]

Enough of the throwing mud on the posters.

Back on topic. Borderlands 2 was a game where I enjoyed the physx implementation. It was extremely overdone, but worked mainly because the game is so cartoonish and isn't so demanding for accuracy etc. Those type of effects are clearly just pasted on top of the environment, but they worked for that game. The performance impact was absurd though, the fact the top card at the time gtx 690 was a slide show in 4 player with lots of effects wasn't very nice. Either way, if it were an open standard and supported by both sides it would have a lot more going for it imo.

I agree that the over-the-top PhysX implementation in BL2 works for the game.

However, I have to say that the performance impact wasn't caused by PhysX per say, but by the fact that the game itself is HORRIBLY sub optimized for CPUs. There's a massive thread about it over at Gearbox forums, and that was the conclusion they reached after NVidia, and plenty of game owners (including myself) tested it.

The game engine does not scale to quad core and use modern CPUs effectively, although the game is very CPU bound. Turning PhysX on highlights this weakness in the engine because PhysX increases object creation big time, which the CPU is part of.

If PhysX was the reason for the lackluster performance, it would manifest in other PhysX titles but it doesn't. So the blame must go to Gearbox and not to NVidia.

Personally, I've had it up to here with Gearbox and their inability to fix their own freaking game! D: I really like BL2 but it ticks me off that Gearbox ruined the port with craptastic and inefficient coding..

 

[wand3r3r]

Call it what you will, it took FPS from 100 FPS to 10 FPS in heavy battles.

I personally would disagree, I'd guess it was simply because the screen was literally full of effects and it was overwhelming the hardware. With physx low, or medium and even in single player it never dropped that much. It was specifically when the screen was just 80% particles and droplets exploding everywhere.

tldr; overuse kills performance imo

 

[tviceman]

Yes it can and how many time have i said that now.

I think you would be much happier in the console forums. Getting extra graphics options and having to configure settings sounds like too much for you to happily cope with.

 

[Final8ty]

I think you would be much happier in the console forums. Getting extra graphics options and having to configure settings sounds like too much for you to happily cope with.

Clearly with that comment getting the point is to much for you, more strawman so i will not be wasting anymore time with you.

 

[Final8ty]

Double.

 

[Final8ty]

Call it what you will, it took FPS from 100 FPS to 10 FPS in heavy battles.

I personally would disagree, I'd guess it was simply because the screen was literally full of effects and it was overwhelming the hardware. With physx low, or medium and even in single player it never dropped that much. It was specifically when the screen was just 80% particles and droplets exploding everywhere.

tldr; overuse kills performance imo

My point :thumbsup:

 

[96Firebird]

Clearly with that comment getting the point is to much for you, more strawman so i will not be wasting anymore time with you.

I have read your posts, and they don't make sense. You claim stawman and people just not getting it, how about you explain it better?