Your Take on PhysX

[geokilla]

So what's your opinion on PhysX? Would you purchase NVIDIA GPUs solely because it can run CUDA and PhysX?

I tried typing my opinion twice, but my opinions are mixed. Why? Simple. It's because my computer idles more running F@H than I do spending the time gaming. For that reason, my purchase will probably always be NVIDIA. However, if I was a more serious gamer, I'd purchase whichever card offered better bang for buck, whether it's an ATI GPU or NVIDIA GPU. I could care less whether the GPU supports PhysX or not because there's only so many good games out there.

Mods merge this to the ATI 4890 vs NVIDIA GTX275 thread if need be. I think it deserves its own thread though.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I could care less about PhysX But I have and will purchase cards solely for CUDA/openCL support

 

[akugami]

ATI will support OpenCL but there really is no reason for them to support CUDA or PhysX. It is probably better from a business and competitive standpoint for them not to support CUDA and PhysX. I am agnostic towards PhysX (and for that matter Havok) and CUDA. I feel neither is mature enough to be thought of as a true selling point.

Now, in Anandtech's Mirro's Edge review, a video can be seen showing some very cool PhysX effects but one has to get through the marketing and understand that these are physics acceleration effects and should be achievable with an ATI/Havok implementation. Granted PhysX seems further along on some physics acceleration front than Havok, neither can be said to be the market leader.

I am excited by the prospect of physics acceleration in games but at this point, it's a non-issue to me because it's simply not there yet. The same thing can be said of CUDA. I'm not a programmer or developer. I am an end user. At this point, there is simply no compelling reason for a consumer to buy an nVidia card simply because of CUDA or PhysX (or Havok).

 

[Munky]

I primarily buy what gives me the most performance for my dollar. At the moment I happen to have an NV video card, and even so, I couldn't care much about PhysX support because there are no games out there that would make me want to use that feature. Buying a NV video card for PhysX right now would be like buying a geforce 6-series card for SM3 support a few years back.... the HW feature looks great on paper, but doesn't offer much benefit in actual use at the time, and I definitely wouldn't buy the slower card for that feature.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: akugami
ATI will support OpenCL but there really is no reason for them to support CUDA or PhysX. It is probably better from a business and competitive standpoint for them not to support CUDA and PhysX. I am agnostic towards PhysX (and for that matter Havok) and CUDA. I feel neither is mature enough to be thought of as a true selling point.

Now, in Anandtech's Mirro's Edge review, a video can be seen showing some very cool PhysX effects but one has to get through the marketing and understand that these are physics acceleration effects and should be achievable with an ATI/Havok implementation. Granted PhysX seems further along on some physics acceleration front than Havok, neither can be said to be the market leader.

I am excited by the prospect of physics acceleration in games but at this point, it's a non-issue to me because it's simply not there yet. The same thing can be said of CUDA. I'm not a programmer or developer. I am an end user. At this point, there is simply no compelling reason for a consumer to buy an nVidia card simply because of CUDA or PhysX (or Havok).

yeah AMD can't support cuda nomore than nvidia can support brooke+ (without substantial effort atleast)

that's the whole point of opencl, i'm looking forward to it

 

[roid450]

Physx is bull right now, unless u play Mirros Edge, GRAW2 with the Island level add on, I used to run a 9600GT for physx when I bought my GTX260 and noticed no gains in Unreal 3 Physx levels from running the 9600gt for physx, and using the GTX to do both. Ill wait a few yrs to get a dedicated GPU for physx, or until almost every game has Physx in it.

 

[Red Storm]

I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

 

[dguy6789]

PhysX isn't important at all to me. The Ambient Occlusion feature seems more useful and important than PhysX is.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I see it as an utter gimmick. AMD cards for me.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
PhysX isn't important at all to me. The Ambient Occlusion feature seems more useful and important than PhysX is at this point in time.

Fixed it for ya. And yes, I'm quite surprised that Ambient Occlusion isn't in games already. I honestly thought it was already present.

I wouldn't discount physics acceleration but at this point in time, it's simply not there. We need implementations that actually changes how we interact with games and not simply more sparkles, though there is nothing wrong with added graphical effects.

 

[Cometer]

If you got two equally matched graphic cards at the same price range then I would pick the NVIDIA one. It is an extra.
I do want more games to use hardware accelerated physics. Be it using Physx or Havok. But there is no way NVIDIA is going to have major support for a closed proprietary solution that functions only on their hardware. Developers and customers want standards and if NVIDIA wants to see Physix as a valid solution for hardware accelerated physics it will have to port it to an open standard such as OpenCL. In fact I think they are already doing that, but for business purposes they won't announce it yet.

What you have now is the ability to experience a bit of what is coming in the next year when physic solutions can all be hardware accelerated with OpenCL or Directx 11 computer shaders.

 

[SirPaulie]

It's not the most important thing but something to look forward to as time passes. As with anything it may take content and maturity to change minds about the prospect of GPU Physics to some mind-sets.

The way I look at is it's free and adds more value and doesn't suck to have the ability now and moving forward.

 

[angry hampster]

I played Mirror's Edge without Physx and loved it. From the lateset AT review, it didn't add *that much* to the game. It's simply not a selling point to me.

 

[taltamir]

physics doesn't look right, its not realistic, the cloth for example: 1. looks like crud. 2. clips

 

[plion]

I just wished dawn of war 2 used physx in some way instead of the weaker than coh physics they got running..

 

[cmdrdredd]

I like the potential for Physx. I'm glad someone kept it alive as long as it has been around. If Nvidia continues to support it it will make its way into games. It does add a slight upgrade in immersion and feel, but isn't a make or break venture for developers.

I am interested to see what you can do in the future with Physx titles.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I like the idea of hardware accelerated physics, whoever, whatever that ends up being.

But, I would not in any way shape or form base my purchasing decision on Physx where it is now. I'd still go by bang for the buck performance in a price range I'm looking at.

With that said, if the next card I buy would happen to be from Nvidia I certainly would not mind having it for free to use on games that support it. Along those lines, I also would not buy games just for Physx if they supported it unless it was a game I wanted anyway.

 

[dflynchimp]

Here's to me still hoping that they port PhysX over to ATI hardware... I don't give a rats ass about company politics. I just want my flappy cloths and fancy shmancy debris on my 4870X2

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

 

[geokilla]

The only good thing I can seem to find about PhysX is that when it works, it works wonderfully, pretty much transforming the game into a whole new experience. Like Mirror's Edge. A great game by itself, but the use of PhysX seems to take it to a higher level, one that might not be able to reach because they lack support for PhysX. However generally as you guys said, PhysX seems to be a bit overrated.

I understand why NVIDIA is pushing so hard bout how their cards support CUDA and PhysX, but ultimately I believe it's up to the developers to determine whether they want to take advantage of this or not. And if they do, are they doing it correctly?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Physx is a non-issue for me, went with the GTX260 over the 4850 due to poor driver experiences with my AMD AGP x1950 Pro in Linux. I consider myself a gamer.

 

[chizow]

I think hardware accelerated physics is the next big thing for PC games, and will certainly be a feature that significantly increases the visual quality gap compared to consoles. Last week's GDC demonstrations only affirmed my initial impressions and I'm glad to see cross-vendor and cross-middleware support looks to be coming for both Havok and PhysX. The sooner everyone gets on board with it, the sooner we see it in games, its really that simple.

Here's a quick compilation I put together using two of the more practical AND impressive demonstrations I saw from last week's demonstrations:

Capes in WoW

Capes in LOTRO

Capes in WAR

---------------------------

Capes with Havok (hardware accelerated)

Capes with PhysX (hardware accelerated)

So ya, I'd say claims about "eye-candy" only effects not being worth it are a bit short-sighted. Better graphics and more realistic simulations increase immersiveness whether they're interactive, dynamic, impact gameplay or not. That kind of eye-candy sells games and subscriptions. That kind of eye-candy could sell a PhysX or Havok-enhanced cape for additional money. That kind of eye-candy might even sell video cards.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

 

[josh6079]

Thread should have had a poll.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
...I would not in any way shape or form base my purchasing decision on Physx where it is now. I'd still go by bang for the buck performance in a price range I'm looking at.

:thumbsup:

For me, it's the following in order:

1. Price/performance
   Image quality
   Heat
   Power consumption
   THEN any other goodies like PhysX or CUDA

I admit, PhysX did factor into my purchase, but I didn't base my purchase on it. I based my purchase off of what a video card upgrade is supposed to be based on - gaming performance and image quality.

I just considered the fact that in the future I would have a CUDA/PhysX capable piece of hardware. It was pretty much a check-box feature for me.

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

Game play > Graphics... any day, any time.

A terrible game with poor visuals is a terrible game. A terrible game with nice visuals is still a terrible game.