Graphic Cards Ground reality of Physx!!

T

tajendra

Disciple
Hy Guys,

I recently read about Nvidia lifting the restriction on Physx with ATI cards.

So now we can use a secondary Nvidia card for Physx with a primary ATI card without having to use any mod of some kind!!

What im confused about is, do we realy need a nvidia card for Physx, i feel except for some selected games we dont.

Reason why i am saying is that i have played lot of games, if i say all the recent(1 year) popular and good games i will not be wrong, ya didnt completed most of them. And except Batman Arkaham Asylam there was no other game that required a dedicated physx gpu, all other games like metro 2033, Mass effect 2 etc. with physx were fine with cpu processing physx and i played them with physx on with my 5770.

Plz correct me if i am missing something here.

Thanx
 
Physx or not- its an explosive topic. It can start a flame nerdwar. Please search the same forum for various topics on the subject (I remember makin some posts on the same issue). In a nutshell, physxis only supported by 5 6 games and its not at all spectacular. It can not offer anything that havok cant. And havok runs on CPU (try red factions: Guerilla and you will know). Go to wikipedia nadsearch for havok and most of your doubts will be cleared.

Mods, please close the thread.
 
tajendra said:
Hy Guys,

I recently read about Nvidia lifting the restriction on Physx with ATI cards.
.
.
.
Plz correct me if i am missing something here.
Thanx
Click to expand...

The restriction has not been lifted. It was a bug in their latest drivers which allowed this and this has been fixed.
The drivers which had no restriction can still be used but you can't update them. Search for unrestricted drivers and you will find them.
 
bug or not, it is still possible by other methods/paches, i tried both however it is more convinient with the latest beta driver!!
 
It's such a load of crock. A dedicated 8600GT level GPU should be capable of amazing PhysX effects. Greedy nVidia executives :|.

Also PhysX should be renamed to GimmX, because that's what it is.
 
tajendra said:
i dont know why people dont talk about havok, split second is an example of how good havok is !!
Click to expand...
I agree buddy ..!!

Though i would like to enjoy good physx effects too . .

Can any of you suggest a card can handle physx smoothly ??

Dont want to start a new thread for that so posting here :p
 
tajendra said:
i dont know why people dont talk about havok, split second is an example of how good havok is !!
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the two, primarily, Havok is rendered via the CPU, while nVidia PhysX utilizes an accelerator.
 
physx can do a lot more than havok. i don't understand why people throw around examples like red faction 3 or bad company 2 and then say.. "look look, physx sucks because it can't do that". you have to understand that developers cannot afford to use a physics solution that ati does not support. to see physx at work properly you should check out the games that are made for it. the nvidia levels for unreal tournament 3 for example... they have realistic destruction which is miles ahead of the canned animations in bad company 2 or guerrilla. heck, in red faction, the physics are so unrealistic that you can blow up the foundation of a tower and it will still stay up supported by a single wire! or cryostasis which does water better than any other game out. the upcoming mafia 2 will make pretty heavy use of physx too. but since ati will never have physx, developers limit their use of it to things like particle effects, cloth simulation etc. so while it's use will never be game changing, it will always provide the best game experience possible for games that have it enabled.
 
^^ Exactly. Role of GPU accelerated Physx will be limited to improving eye candy since ATi does not support it nor does the consoles in this era of multi-platform games. So It well never be used for game play effecting physics. No one will take the risk of developing an nVidia only and PC game. On the other hand Havok can be used to implement game play effecting physics on any of the platforms and I guess developers find Havok a better choice over CPU Physx. So I guess till the time MS implements a common physics standard in DirectX, Havok will remain the more practical physics solution of the two.
 
Havok is owned by Intel now, so I suppose it will scale well with multiple processors. There is a good chance that the Havok's engine would have improved taking account the massive under utilized multi CPU cores today...
 
ya i agree with you, at present any game with physx could be played with physx on or off its only used as eye candy,

but physx is also done by cpu, in metro 2033 i was able to turn on advanced physx with my 5770 only.
 
tajendra said:
in metro 2033 i was able to turn on advanced physx with my 5770 only.
Click to expand...

wow...! Did not even know Metro 2033 had such an option. Just fired it up, and it is there. What happens then, the CPU has to process it for non-nVidia cards..? How bad is the hit on performance vs. keeping it off..?
 
its in game options, and game ran just fine no performance hit, i tried same thing with my 9500gt as physx gpu with latest beta driver and belive it or not it was slower than the time when i did it without 9500, also when i turned advanced physx on, some features like foldable cloths were turned off!!:huh:

may be it happened due my card is not able to handle that or may be its nvidia driver, i have no idea?

but its just fine without the 9500, i tested it for initial part of the game to be able to compare the difference with or without dedicated physx gpu.

but yes when i ran future mark cpu physx there was significant improvement in ops/s form 16ops/s with only cpu to 50ops/s with cpu and 9500 as physx gpu.

and fluid mark is also showing improvement of 9fps to 13 fps
 
Back
Top