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

[Final8ty]

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?

The amount of performance hit for phyisx compared to other similar effects hence the videos i posted, but of course they tried to change the point to well you can turn it down which we all know already, the point was not whether you could turn it down, the performance hit is still disproportionate in my opinion and others have also posted to that effect as well even NV owners. http://www.overclock.net/t/1425282/...-will-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees

There are other things in the gaming world that also have a disproportionate performance hit for what you get, no one said otherwise [ hence strawman], but we are talking about Physx/ Physics.

Anytime you criticize something the canned response well you can turn it down turn/ off and seeing as you can do that with most things whats the point of any discussion, if that card is always going to pulled when some people dont like things being put down.

TressFX got criticized for many things and rightly so, that could also be turned off, that does not mean it cant be criticized because it can be turned off, people have a right to give there opinion on effects/physics and the performance..Period!

 

[wand3r3r]

It's funny how few people actually vote. This forum supposedly has like 300k members! It's only at 177.

 

[amenx]

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..

Fortunately the problem areas where fps takes a dive are few. 98% of the time I've had no issues even in heavy battles with physx maxed out. It was only 3 or 4 areas/battles where I recall it posed a problem for me. Have restarted the game to play coop with some friends and am at level 27 and no issues yet. I know they will crop up later on but it doesnt bother me, the hiccups will be over quickly and smooth going from there on.

 

[Deders]

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

Would that have anything to do with having to transmit the PhysX calculations over the net so each player got the same effects?

 

[serpretetsky]

Physx - "who" cares for it? And how much? Have your say! VOTE

Why did you put "who" in quotes? Sorry, I realize it's not the most interesting question. I'm just curious.

As for physx: doesn't provide anything revolutionary and isn't an open or at the very least, neutral, standard.

 

[wand3r3r]

The original title was "who cares?" but it wasn't meant to be like "who gives a whoot". I changed it to "who" (percentages/crowds etc.) to clarify it's about those who care (or don't) to speak out... This forum is a minefield so naturally some took offense and saw another meaning so I changed it.

I see the feature both touted and dismissed so I am curious about some actual statistics rather than a few outspoken posters claiming it is/isn't. Now we can discuss numbers (provided a substantial number of people vote).

 

[tviceman]

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

Clearly the ability to checkbox "off" in a game menu options is TOO much for you. It doesn't cost you any money and it's not forced upon you, yet you still find reason to complain about it.

 

[tviceman]

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

Overuse does kill performance, not arguing there. But HARDOCP never had spikes anywhere close to that low even with a "mediocre" gtx660ti @ 1400p and that was with actual scientific tests, not subjective observations how much of the screen was filled with particles and guesstimating frame rates. At the same time, I'd also like to add that since I use Vsync frame rates consistently dropping below 60fps would drive me nuts so I'd either be turning down physx, turning down the resolution, or turning off other features in tandem with physx on high to achieve better FPS than what HARDOCP's tests demonstrated on the various cards they ran with my link provided.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...gameplay_performance_iq_review/3#.Ui4Hlcash8E

To test Borderlands 2 we first played through the entire game, including as many side-quests and areas as we could find. We are looking for scenes, levels, or areas which produced lower framerates than others. Towards the beginning of the game there was one area that stood out to us that incorporated all of the graphics options the game has to offer.

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

I think the point is that those who don't appreciate PhysX strongly disagree with the part of your statement I bolded. PhysX is typically overblown and results in a tacky add on effect. It's actually immersion breaking because it stands out against the background of the rest of the game, rather than adding to the realism and drawing you in.

 

[Deders]

I think the point is that those who don't appreciate PhysX strongly disagree with the part of your statement I bolded. PhysX is typically overblown and results in a tacky add on effect. It's actually immersion breaking because it stands out against the background of the rest of the game, rather than adding to the realism and drawing you in.

Note the text you made bold text says "when done well". A few games have implemented it well, like Cryostasis, the Metro and Arkham series'.

I agree in other games it can look like unnecessary clutter

 

[wand3r3r]

Overuse does kill performance, not arguing there. But HARDOCP never had spikes anywhere close to that low even with a "mediocre" gtx660ti @ 1400p and that was with actual scientific tests, not subjective observations how much of the screen was filled with particles and guesstimating frame rates. At the same time, I'd also like to add that since I use Vsync frame rates consistently dropping below 60fps would drive me nuts so I'd either be turning down physx, turning down the resolution, or turning off other features in tandem with physx on high to achieve better FPS than what HARDOCP's tests demonstrated on the various cards they ran with my link provided.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...gameplay_performance_iq_review/3#.Ui4Hlcash8E

All of my "guesswork" is clearly documented and the only guess was the 80% of the screen. Did they test 4 player? I doubt it, conveniently for NV anyways.

I had a thread about it with FRAPS etc. so there was no guess work, nor can you pretend to ignore the fact it's a dog on performance in 4 player in the big battles. I already said single player wasn't affected etc. There are plenty of people who admit the FPS drop like a rock in 4 player and physx on high.

Anyways this is about peoples views on physx. Not BL2's bad implementation which has already been discussed plenty.

 

[Rvenger]

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

If it hasn't by now, it never will. Sorry to say. There's only a whopping 11% that absolutely have to have it according to above.

 

[tviceman]

All of my "guesswork" is clearly documented and the only guess was the 80% of the screen. Did they test 4 player? I doubt it, conveniently for NV anyways.

I had a thread about it with FRAPS etc. so there was no guess work, nor can you pretend to ignore the fact it's a dog on performance in 4 player in the big battles. I already said single player wasn't affected etc. There are plenty of people who admit the FPS drop like a rock in 4 player and physx on high.

Anyways this is about peoples views on physx. Not BL2's bad implementation which has already been discussed plenty.

My bad, didn't see your fraps graphs and what not. I'm sure with 4 people playing simultaneously, the extra effects that could add up with other players would tax the system. I've mostly viewed physx effects (as a graphical enhancement) as usually a single-player graphics options despite the recent MMO's that have physx built in, simply because competitive multiplayers usually turn off anything that can hurt frame rate (AO, AA, etc.) and/or other affects that may impede their ability to see/win (motion blur, physx, etc.)

But again, turning it off or down to medium is a very trivial task and it's nice to have the option rather than having a straight up console port.

 

[KyleGates]

Physx - what's that?
Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed)
Physx - neutral
Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up.
Physx - factors in the decision...
Physx - must have!

I think that when PhysX is done right (or in the right game) it can be GREAT. Take Borderlands 2, play it with no PhysX then turn PhysX on.....make the game quite a bit ...better/cooler looking. Doesnt affect much beyond that but, still cool.

 

[tviceman]

If it hasn't by now, it never will. Sorry to say. There's only a whopping 11% that absolutely have to have it according to above.

More games have come out in the 12 months supporting GPU physx than in any other year since it's inception. Metro 2033, X-Com Declassified, Hawken, Planetside, Borderlands 2, Warframe, Rise of the Triad, and maybe a few others I might have missed. On the horizon is Batman AO, Call of Duty Ghosts, and Witcher 3 - all three very big games. People on here have been saying for years that physx would slowly die, but in fact it's starting to pick up steam. And when UE4 games come out, it'll probably continue this momentum even more so.

I don't absolutely have to have it either, but I definitely appreciate the option.

 

[Final8ty]

Clearly the ability to checkbox "off" in a game menu options is TOO much for you. It doesn't cost you any money and it's not forced upon you, yet you still find reason to complain about it.

I checkbox things off all the time.
Where is it officially written that anything you can turn off means you are not allowed to have an opinion on, because that pretty much means no one has a right to one.

 

[tviceman]

NEEryI

I checkbox things off all the time.
Where is it officially written that anything you can turn off means you are not allowed to have an opinion of, because that pretty much means no one has a right to one.

So because you checkbox it off means it sucks and that the features shouldn't be offered or is there just maybe a slight chance it's not for you but it's good to see something other than straight up ports with no added graphical features? Call it an upgrade all you want, but there is a very minimal difference between these latest high end DX11 games sporting DX11 features and their console equivalents once resolution and texture size has been stripped from the equation.

On your line of thinking, I think performance killing versions of ultra-quality AO are ridiculous, unnoticeable, and not needed but I also realize this is just my opinion and I have never for a second said that it's a waste of time for developers to implement these abilities and/or explore other ways to improve fidelity.

 

[Final8ty]

So because you checkbox it off means it sucks and that the features shouldn't be offered or is there just maybe a slight chance it's not for you but it's good to see something other than straight up ports with no added graphical features? Call it an upgrade all you want, but there is a very minimal difference between these latest high end DX11 games sporting DX11 features and their console equivalents once resolution and texture size has been stripped from the equation.

On your line of thinking, I think performance killing versions of ultra-quality AO are ridiculous, unnoticeable, and not needed but I also realize this is just my opinion and I have never for a second said that it's a waste of time for developers to implement these abilities and/or explore other ways to improve fidelity.

I didn't say or claim anything you just said.
I gave my opinion on Physx and it's performance and nothing else.

 

[Saffron]

I voted for "Factors in the decision."

Up until about a year ago when I purchased the GTX680 for my desktop, the last NVidia GPU being the FX5200, I've always had an ATi/AMD GPU. Because of this I have never experienced any PhysX until now. I do have to say that the few games the implement it relatively well have been pretty awesome with PhysX enabled, at least in my opinion.

I don't think I will ever purchase another AMD GPU again, and not just because of PhysX but other reasons that I won't go into. Having PhysX is just icing on the cake. I figure if the feature is there and you have the ability to use it, Why Not?

 

[tviceman]

I didn't say or claim anything you just said.
I gave my opinion on Physx and it's performance and nothing else.

OK :thumbsup:

 

[Final8ty]

OK :thumbsup:

Yeah it took you long enough because of all the assumptions you made of things that I had not said and assumed I was thinking. The sky is the limit when people read what they want and not what was said.

 

[Carfax83]

I already said single player wasn't affected etc. There are plenty of people who admit the FPS drop like a rock in 4 player and physx on high.

That's not true. Single player is affected. I get huge dips in frame rate in certain locations in the game, regardless of whether I'm using my dedicated GTX 650 Ti PhysX card, or even if I've disabled SLI and am using a GTX 770 for PhysX..

It's definitely a game issue.

Huge thread over at gearbox forums

 

[Jimzz]

it never sways me when buying or planning to buy a card,but a nice extra i guess which is what i voted for.

Same here.

My last card was a GTX460 and replaced it with a 7870 tahiti card.

I always buy the best bang for the buck. I'm not a fanboy to one or the other.

 

[3DVagabond]

More games have come out in the 12 months supporting GPU physx than in any other year since it's inception. Metro 2033, X-Com Declassified, Hawken, Planetside, Borderlands 2, Warframe, Rise of the Triad, and maybe a few others I might have missed. On the horizon is Batman AO, Call of Duty Ghosts, and Witcher 3 - all three very big games. People on here have been saying for years that physx would slowly die, but in fact it's starting to pick up steam. And when UE4 games come out, it'll probably continue this momentum even more so.

I don't absolutely have to have it either, but I definitely appreciate the option.

GPU PhysX will be in every game nVidia writes the code and pays the dev to have it. How many games does it end up in that aren't nVidia sponsored?

 

[Carfax83]

The amount of performance hit for phyisx compared to other similar effects hence the videos i posted, but of course they tried to change the point to well you can turn it down which we all know already, the point was not whether you could turn it down, the performance hit is still disproportionate in my opinion and others have also posted to that effect as well even NV owners. http://www.overclock.net/t/1425282/...-will-probably-bring-your-gpus-to-their-knees

I've already said that the PhysX hair and fur tech are brand new and haven't been optimized yet The Witcher 3 will be the first game to utilize it.

There are other things in the gaming world that also have a disproportionate performance hit for what you get, no one said otherwise [ hence strawman], but we are talking about Physx/ Physics.

Anytime you criticize something the canned response well you can turn it down turn/ off and seeing as you can do that with most things whats the point of any discussion, if that card is always going to pulled when some people dont like things being put down.

A lot of your criticisms come from ignorance though. You've likely never even used PhysX or played a game with it turned on to completion..

Simulation of cloth, fluid, hair etcetera has ALWAYS been computationally expensive....too expensive in fact for a CPU to run. That's why they've never been a part of PC gaming until PhysX/DirectCompute, where you could use a GPU which is many times more powerful.

So you're seemingly oblivious to gaming history in that regard, and think that these features can easily run on a CPU, when the truth is they cannot.