Quick PhysX Question

[zubbs1]

Can you run a physx Nvidia card if your primary gpu is an AMD, or do they both have to be Nvidia?

 

[borisvodofsky]

Yes, but it's a hassle in terms of compatibility. A REAL hassle, and you can't use the latest graphics drivers, you have to used the ones that people have already tweaked.

I tried doing this. took me 8 hours getting the whole setup to work.

At the end of it, I was like, just kill me, I didn't even feel like playing the game.

I was using it for the new Alice game.

 

[Annisman*]

2 years ago I successfully used a 9800GT as a Physx card in my 5870 CF rig, all I had to do was install ATI drivers, then install a specific Nvidia driver that played well with the ATI ones. It was very easy, and quite compatible. But as it was a while ago, possibly things have gotten more complicated ?

 

[lavaheadache]

2 years ago I successfully used a 9800GT as a Physx card in my 5870 CF rig, all I had to do was install ATI drivers, then install a specific Nvidia driver that played well with the ATI ones. It was very easy, and quite compatible. But as it was a while ago, possibly things have gotten more complicated ?

still very easy to do.

I run a MSI GTX 460 Hawk with MSI Lightning 7970. The only thing that can be tricky is getting Batman AC to use the physx card.

This thread has all the answers you need.

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff-176.html

If you need help pm me.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Physx is a joke on the end user consumer whom uses it.

Enough with the trolling, Gordon
-ViRGE

 

[Annisman*]

Physx is a joke on the end user consumer whom uses it.

Maybe on the end user who purchases their video card soley on the intent of Physx support, but other than that, USING Physx is a nice added bonus that I would take any day.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Maybe on the end user who purchases their video card soley on the intent of Physx support, but other than that, USING Physx is a nice added bonus that I would take any day.

Look up a few videos of physx vs no physx, those kiddy effects are totally NOT worth the trouble. :whiste:

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm with you B, physics had such huge promise but in reality it adds next to nothing. Now card makers want us to use two cards for physics. Even if an old card is lying around it adds heat & power.

 

[psolord]

Maybe on the end user who purchases their video card soley on the intent of Physx support, but other than that, USING Physx is a nice added bonus that I would take any day.

I understand that it is a matter of personal taste, so I cannot really say who is wrong or right here, but speaking for myself, I do avoid physx and I am running 570 SLI here.

Games run 50% faster without it and you get that hit for what? Some really silly particle/smoke/cloth effects, which I am pretty sure could have been put there in a simpler form, without the physx hassle and performance hit.

 

[SirPauly]

You have that choice but for me PhysX or GPU PhysX is getting the ball rolling, trying to establish robust tool sets so physics may be implemented easier for developers.

I don't see them as silly particle/cloth/smoke effects but simply more dynamics that help improve fidelity and immersion.

There is no right or wrong for all but there is choice for gamers if they choose to use the feature or not to use the feature. Just desire to see more GPU Physic content from nVidia and AMD.

 

[SirPauly]

Physx is a joke on the end user consumer whom uses it.

Quite the joke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU

 

[psolord]

You have that choice but for me PhysX or GPU PhysX is getting the ball rolling, trying to establish robust tool sets so physics may be implemented easier for developers.

I don't see them as silly particle/cloth/smoke effects but simply more dynamics that help improve fidelity and immersion.

There is no right or wrong for all but there is choice for gamers if they choose to use the feature or not to use the feature. Just desire to see more GPU Physic content from nVidia and AMD.

I do not have a problem if a developer tries to deploy all the effects of the world in a game, trying to make it as immersive as possible. What I do have a problem with though, is when a specific IHV, buys an API and instead of properly developing and improving it, they transform it into a hog.

PhysX in its current form is badly programmed. Either that, or the gpus are not cut out for this kind of workloads and Nvidia forces them to be. I don't have the technical know how to know if that's actually the case, I just see that it does not bring the visual rewards it should, compared to the performance hit it brings.

Countless games have managed to be immersive, based on simple (or complex) ideas and good execution, without the need of hardware accelerated PhysX. Witcher 2, Max Payne 3, Skyrim, Risen 2, Alan Wake, Battlefield 3, to name but a very few.

Contrary to the above, one of the most impressive showings of PhysX was Cellfactor, which Nvidia just left to die, after it acquired Ageia. Geforce cards, never supported Cellfactor's physics either. Also quite noteworthy is the fact that the non hardware accelerated levels of Cellfactor, were heaps more impressive than anything Physx has to show in recent years. They scaled great with better cpus as well (my 860@4Ghz was 50% faster than my Q9550@4Ghz, with the same video card), which was to be expected considering the rigid bodies the engine implemented.

For me, physics only affect games when they add to the gameplay. That's why I called the various effects that Nvidia now promotes as silly.

Ageia should have been left alone man. Probably we would have a card ten times more powerful than the Ageia P1 and some physics implementations that would blow our minds.

I honestly don't understand why on earth nvidia does not make a new dedicated hardware physics card, which would be available for everyone. At the very least, if they want to avoid the extra latency, why don't they hardwire a proper physics circuit and leave the poor shaders alone.

From were I'm standing, Nvidia just bought a box gimmick from Ageia, back in 2008.

 

[Annisman*]

I think what most people here are upset about is that Physx as it is now, is nowhere near what it could have been, and that it isn't that game-changing as they would like. But again, I say, as somebody who wants absolutely all the eye candy I can get, I have no problem with using Physx in a game, so long as it keeps my fps playable.

 

[thilanliyan]

I honestly don't understand why on earth nvidia does not make a new dedicated hardware physics card, which would be available for everyone. At the very least, if they want to avoid the extra latency, why don't they hardwire a proper physics circuit and leave the poor shaders alone.

Exactly, I would not give my money to nvidia for a gpu since I mine bitcoin, but I would certainly buy a separate card for physx as long as it played nice with any configuration.

You hear me nvidia!!! Take my money, but give me what I want!!

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Physx is not at all worth it in the leased bit.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The PhysX implementation in Batman: Arkham City is really nice, with the volumetric fog and particle effects. But apart from that, I haven't seen an instance of PhysX which really improved anything or justified the performance hit. I would imagine that's just as much at the hands of developers who don't want to add a whole bunch of features that well over half their users will never be able to experience, either because they run AMD or because their single Nvidia card isn't powerful enough to do 3D acceleration with PhysX enabled. It's a nice idea, but there's just not enough of a market for it to justify wasting time on it.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Maybe on the end user who purchases their video card soley on the intent of Physx support, but other than that, USING Physx is a nice added bonus that I would take any day.

It add nothing to the game what you experience is a placebo cause you have been marketed to by nvidia and played for thy foo.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

The PhysX implementation in Batman: Arkham City is really nice, with the volumetric fog and particle effects. But apart from that, I haven't seen an instance of PhysX which really improved anything or justified the performance hit. I would imagine that's just as much at the hands of developers who don't want to add a whole bunch of features that well over half their users will never be able to experience, either because they run AMD or because their single Nvidia card isn't powerful enough to do 3D acceleration with PhysX enabled. It's a nice idea, but there's just not enough of a market for it to justify wasting time on it.

PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE.
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/nvidia-purposefully-hobbles-physx-cpu/

 

[SirPauly]

I do not have a problem if a developer tries to deploy all the effects of the world in a game, trying to make it as immersive as possible. What I do have a problem with though, is when a specific IHV, buys an API and instead of properly developing and improving it, they transform it into a hog.

PhysX in its current form is badly programmed. Either that, or the gpus are not cut out for this kind of workloads and Nvidia forces them to be. I don't have the technical know how to know if that's actually the case, I just see that it does not bring the visual rewards it should, compared to the performance hit it brings.

Countless games have managed to be immersive, based on simple (or complex) ideas and good execution, without the need of hardware accelerated PhysX. Witcher 2, Max Payne 3, Skyrim, Risen 2, Alan Wake, Battlefield 3, to name but a very few.

Contrary to the above, one of the most impressive showings of PhysX was Cellfactor, which Nvidia just left to die, after it acquired Ageia. Geforce cards, never supported Cellfactor's physics either. Also quite noteworthy is the fact that the non hardware accelerated levels of Cellfactor, were heaps more impressive than anything Physx has to show in recent years. They scaled great with better cpus as well (my 860@4Ghz was 50% faster than my Q9550@4Ghz, with the same video card), which was to be expected considering the rigid bodies the engine implemented.

For me, physics only affect games when they add to the gameplay. That's why I called the various effects that Nvidia now promotes as silly.

Ageia should have been left alone man. Probably we would have a card ten times more powerful than the Ageia P1 and some physics implementations that would blow our minds.

I honestly don't understand why on earth nvidia does not make a new dedicated hardware physics card, which would be available for everyone. At the very least, if they want to avoid the extra latency, why don't they hardwire a proper physics circuit and leave the poor shaders alone.

From were I'm standing, Nvidia just bought a box gimmick from Ageia, back in 2008.

I was convinced early on with the work that ATI and nVidia did with HavokFX but obviously this doesn't translate into everyone. nVidia seems to have a lot more work to do to convince some.

 

[ocre]

PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE.
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/nvidia-purposefully-hobbles-physx-cpu/

this wanna-be reporter in the link reminds me of a raging lunatic. His satire articles are like tabloids trying to sell papers. They say whatever they can to get attention.

You have already stated you dont like physx, you will never use it, you dont care about it, so why are you taking so much of your time on this thread. You say its joke but obviously its made you full of motivation. so much that your plastering the walls with a negative campaign. This topic is on something you find is "not worth it" , "adds nothing" and yet you have repeatably returned to this topic to. 4 post from you and we havent even got to page 2 on the subject. Repeating how its not anything, its nothing but obviously it energies you. How strange.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

this wanna-be reporter in the link reminds me of a raging lunatic. His satire articles are like tabloids trying to sell papers. They say whatever they can to get attention.

You have already stated you dont like physx, you will never use it, you dont care about it, so why are you taking so much of your time on this thread. You say its joke but obviously its made you full of motivation. so much that your plastering the walls with a negative campaign. This topic is on something you find is "not worth it" , "adds nothing" and yet you have repeatably returned to this topic to. 4 post from you and we haven't even got to page 2 on the subject. Repeating how its not anything, its nothing but obviously it energies you. How strange.

The difference here is that the article I linked is full of substantiated facts about Phsyx and not frivolous opinionated biased based upon non other than frivolous opinionated biased. You come in here and comment on an article you did not like posted by a member that you clearly do not like the posting style he displays and to your logic that vailidates you blatantly calling someone a "Lunatic". Bravo & come back when you have some hard facts and keep your opinions to yourself specially when they are based upon ad hominem attacks and personal opinion not facts

 

[SolMiester]

this wanna-be reporter in the link reminds me of a raging lunatic. His satire articles are like tabloids trying to sell papers. They say whatever they can to get attention.

You have already stated you dont like physx, you will never use it, you dont care about it, so why are you taking so much of your time on this thread. You say its joke but obviously its made you full of motivation. so much that your plastering the walls with a negative campaign. This topic is on something you find is "not worth it" , "adds nothing" and yet you have repeatably returned to this topic to. 4 post from you and we havent even got to page 2 on the subject. Repeating how its not anything, its nothing but obviously it energies you. How strange.

+1

 

[bootymonkey]

I'm not well-versed at all on how PhysX works in conjunction with the GPU (I'll have to look that up here in a minute). What I wonder is if the developers simply don't want to have to do even more work for something that, in the end, is really arbitrary. Yes, the Arkham City implementation was pretty neat but I wonder what kind of work they had to do in addition.