PhysX worthless with ATI?

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: taltamir

DX10.1 support matters, and likely will in games that will be played for a decade or more into the future, such as Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

Yes... i intend to use my video card for the next DECADE... mmmm hmmm, no upgrading here...

No, but when those games are released.. and many people will be using ATI 4xxx hardware, they will be able to reap the benefits immediately.
As stated in this thread many times, Nvidia's solo effort is meaningless versus DirectX/AMD/Intel.

If you don't want to upgrade for a decade, and continue to play those games with more than acceptable framerates, and full DX10.1 support the whole time.. then you can.

With Nvidia, you'll have to upgrade if you want the DX10.1-only features.

So yes, you will have a reason to upgrade if you only enjoy those games (as millions of gamers solely play a few AAA titles such as Blizzard's) and you're on Nvidia. You'll need the 10 series. Or you could buy an ATI card today, and have less worry and waste less money on buying a GF8 series, then buying another Nvidia yet again when one of the AAA DX10.1 titles comes out and you want to experience it as well.

The 4870 is the way to go. That's why I find this debate ridiculous, which is pointless because we all know that truth. Just depends if you want to play devil's advocate and try to justify Nvidia's existence right now in the gaming card market.



The best choice for today and tomorrow is the new ATI cards.
Fastest video card on the market, with the most features (DX10.1, 7.1 audio, etc), higher double precision performance, best Video Processor, and best performance per dollar on the market.

The guys rooting for Nvidia need to just drop it. For a long time there was no reason to promote ATI, yet people did it. Now is the time when there is no reason to promote Nvidia (unless they are paying you directly or indirectly), and most reasonable consumers are going to buy ATI's product.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Obsoleet, why do folks say, "The fact of the matter", and then follow it up with BS? Smokescreening? Which do you think is more of a smokescreen? DX10.1 with a whopping 0 games supporting it? Or PhysX with 3 games having PhysX content?

And do either of those credentials lend themselves to saying "Purchase card A over card B"?
Keys: Is that what we are talking about? Which card to purchase, A or B?
Since you're going there, which card would you rather own? A card with a feature that is not even being demonstrated let alone used? Or a card with a feature that is currently being used? For same money and similar performance, would you rather own a DX10.1 card, or a PhysX able card? If you had been paying attention to the PhysX FAQ, you would see the list of announced games growing. From the time I started the FAQ, til now, there have been 5 additional game announcements supporting PhysX. We now have a total of 11 titles including the ones that have been benched by me. Why don't you start a DX10.1 FAQ and list all the current and upcoming games supporting it. That would actually be a useful thing to do.

Certain Nvidia fans are hyping PhysX as the next best thing to sliced bread.
Keys: You mean most Nvidia fans and a lot of ATI fans, right?

Right now, however, neither PhysX nor DirectX 10.1 is being utilized to any meaningful extent.
Keys: At the very least PhysX IS being used and gaining dev support. This cannot be said for DX10.1.

You can point out the future titles that may or may not use PhysX in some manner as a reason to purchase an Nvidia card.
Keys: Yes I can. Why wouldn't you recommend a card that can run PhysX over one that cannot for the same money and regular performance level?

In response, it could also be said that DirectX 10.1 titles are inevitably going to be released as a reason to purchase ATI cards instead.
Keys: Can you say that? We can also inevitably land a man on mars. At least PhysX supported games have been announced and on the way.

But until either system reaches a decent market penetration, they can be considered only a checkmark feature.

Keys: PhysX is already on it's way. I consider having a PhysX able card a + over not having one, because I can see what already here as well as what is coming. Games that support PhysX are on the way. It's not a big mystery. Dev's have announced them. Go look at the short list in the PhysX FAQ.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
You're gaming on Microsoft's platform, they make the standards, not Nvidia.

Exactly which standard of Microsoft is Nvidia going against? Are they going against Direct X? No. PhysX is not in direct competition with DX nor was it ever designed to be.

I believe he was referring to DX11. When DX11 is released, PhysX will be in direct competition with it as DX11 will contain its own shader-based physics calulation feature. And what will happen to PhysX or Havok FX then? I would imagine that DX11 will become the dominant physics system and any proprietary hardware based physics systems such as PhysX or Havok FX will disappear. No developer is going to want to have to code for two separate proprietary physics systems since any card that wishes to be DX11 compliant will have to allow DX11 physics as well.

Keys: If this were true, then neither Nvidia, ATI nor Intel would be bothering with Physics whether it would be Havoc, PhysX or whatever Intel ends up calling what they are attempting to do.

 

[MarcVenice]

wow keys, you're losing credibility here. A lot of ATI fans? So why did ATI's sales go up, if ATI fans think Physx are so important, why aren't they dumping their ati cards and buying nvidia cards? Why aren't nvidia's videocards out of stock!? Come on man, you can do better then that.

DX10.1 is being used keys, didn't you know both SC2 and Diablo III will be making use of it? That's roughly as much triple A titles you can name that will be making use of hardware accelerated physx. Neither of which I think are important btw, it's just to show you how blatantly you're spinning things out of proportion.

Since when do a HD4850 and 9800gtx+ cost the same? GTX280 vs HD4870X2 ? Come on now, only the gtx260 is somewhat of a good buy, but so is the HD4870, flip of a coin I'd say.

It's easy keys, your perception about nvidia has been altered, you don't see things like 'neutral' people do, it's all covered in a VERY thin layer of nvidia green. Not blaming you, nor am I faulting you, that's just what happens, I've owned samsung phones for a long time now, chances are the next phone I buy is going to be a samsung, that's how it works. Just like with advertising, in a unknowing kind of way our perceptions and attitudes get changed.

I'm going to say it again, again and again, untill you finaly understand. As much as warmonger sucks, it's the ONLY title with complete physics in it. Does it really alter things that much? How are physics going to play such a big role in those upcoming games? Like mirror's edge and bionic commando. Doesn't Crysis have decent physics, does it need physx acceleration? I agree, sometimes it really looks stunning, but in redfaction ( old game ) we used to be able to shoot walls and stuff like that, it reminds me very much of warmonger. In warmonger you could shoot walls, that CAN be gameplay altering, but the same could be done without physics. Btw, shooting walls in warmonger did NOT look good imo. The only funny thing was the cloth and the way it moved. But you couldn't shoot holes in the cloth, not like you could shoot holes in wood in GRAW2. But then again, you can shoot through objects in CoD4, so how exactly is this the next best thing since sliced bread? So yeah, I'm actually DOWNPLAYING physx as a feature, because it's a) not far enough, it's nothing like in the waterdemo, where water acts as real water, and b) there are basicaly no games that can not be played without a nvidia videocard. In fact, I think ALL the physics in those games will be pretty simple, because they have to run on ATI cards as well. I bet they will be able to run on the CPU just fine. And here you are, touting physx to be the reason to buy nvidia over ati. Come back in 8 months or so, when we get triple a titles with physx like stuff, like in the UT3 map, or warmonger game, where nvidia videocards ARE needed, otherwise you lose out on a lot of gaming fun.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
You're gaming on Microsoft's platform, they make the standards, not Nvidia.

Exactly which standard of Microsoft is Nvidia going against? Are they going against Direct X? No. PhysX is not in direct competition with DX nor was it ever designed to be.

I believe he was referring to DX11. When DX11 is released, PhysX will be in direct competition with it as DX11 will contain its own shader-based physics calulation feature. And what will happen to PhysX or Havok FX then? I would imagine that DX11 will become the dominant physics system and any proprietary hardware based physics systems such as PhysX or Havok FX will disappear. No developer is going to want to have to code for two separate proprietary physics systems since any card that wishes to be DX11 compliant will have to allow DX11 physics as well.

This is absolutely incorrect. MS will release a DirectX API for hardware accelerated physics, but if you read the early discussions, it sounds an awful lot like CUDA-based PhysX. The underlying tech is the same, if anything all it will require is a simple wrapper to convert DX physics to CUDA PhysX and vice-versa similar to what is already being used for GPU instead of PPU acceleration. Any proprietary API will still be more full-featured than a generic DX bundled API, which is why PhysX is clearly the best solution.

And before you make any more assumptions about what devs will and will not do to make their games more enjoyable, you need to look no further than EAX which has continued to thrive despite increased hostility towards Creative and decreased market-share of Sound Blaster products. Its also another example of how a proprietary API can easily co-exist with Microsoft and DirectX and provide a much grander gaming experience.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
wow keys, you're losing credibility here. A lot of ATI fans? So why did ATI's sales go up, if ATI fans think Physx are so important, why aren't they dumping their ati cards and buying nvidia cards? Why aren't nvidia's videocards out of stock!? Come on man, you can do better then that.

DX10.1 is being used keys, didn't you know both SC2 and Diablo III will be making use of it? That's roughly as much triple A titles you can name that will be making use of hardware accelerated physx. Neither of which I think are important btw, it's just to show you how blatantly you're spinning things out of proportion.

Since when do a HD4850 and 9800gtx+ cost the same? GTX280 vs HD4870X2 ? Come on now, only the gtx260 is somewhat of a good buy, but so is the HD4870, flip of a coin I'd say.

It's easy keys, your perception about nvidia has been altered, you don't see things like 'neutral' people do, it's all covered in a VERY thin layer of nvidia green. Not blaming you, nor am I faulting you, that's just what happens, I've owned samsung phones for a long time now, chances are the next phone I buy is going to be a samsung, that's how it works. Just like with advertising, in a unknowing kind of way our perceptions and attitudes get changed.

I'm going to say it again, again and again, untill you finaly understand. As much as warmonger sucks, it's the ONLY title with complete physics in it. Does it really alter things that much? How are physics going to play such a big role in those upcoming games? Like mirror's edge and bionic commando. Doesn't Crysis have decent physics, does it need physx acceleration? I agree, sometimes it really looks stunning, but in redfaction ( old game ) we used to be able to shoot walls and stuff like that, it reminds me very much of warmonger. In warmonger you could shoot walls, that CAN be gameplay altering, but the same could be done without physics. Btw, shooting walls in warmonger did NOT look good imo. The only funny thing was the cloth and the way it moved. But you couldn't shoot holes in the cloth, not like you could shoot holes in wood in GRAW2. But then again, you can shoot through objects in CoD4, so how exactly is this the next best thing since sliced bread? So yeah, I'm actually DOWNPLAYING physx as a feature, because it's a) not far enough, it's nothing like in the waterdemo, where water acts as real water, and b) there are basicaly no games that can not be played without a nvidia videocard. In fact, I think ALL the physics in those games will be pretty simple, because they have to run on ATI cards as well. I bet they will be able to run on the CPU just fine. And here you are, touting physx to be the reason to buy nvidia over ati. Come back in 8 months or so, when we get triple a titles with physx like stuff, like in the UT3 map, or warmonger game, where nvidia videocards ARE needed, otherwise you lose out on a lot of gaming fun.

Take the high road Marc.

 

[v8envy]

I have proof PhysX is unimportant to me.

I own an 8 series GPU which supports PhysX, and I have exactly *ZERO* titles in which PhysX support is improving my gameplay. Of the titles I'm interested in before my card becomes useless exactly *ZERO* will have fundamentally gameplay altering support for PhysX.

The same can be said for DX10.1 support.

If I were buying a card today PhysX support would rank right down there with the color of the box the card comes with in influencing my decision.

 

[ZimZum]

I'm assuming there was a memo handed down by some corporate/marketing higher ups to push the Physx angle.

Because it seems like pre ATI 4xxx series no one was talking about physx. Even in the the NVidia camp. Then ATI comes out with a competitive product line, so much so that it forced nVidia to completely restructure their pricing model. Now all of sudden every other post is about how we cant live without physx.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: ZimZum
I'm assuming there was a memo handed down by some corporate/marketing higher ups to push the Physx angle.

Because it seems like pre ATI 4xxx series no one was talking about physx. Even in the the NVidia camp. Then ATI comes out with a competitive product line, so much so that it forced nVidia to completely restructure their pricing model. Now all of sudden every other post is about how we cant live without physx.

Physx is so great and important, that I'm replacing my 8800GT with a ATI 4870.

I doubt from the fervor of the Nvidia focus group, that I'm the only one hurting Nvidia's bottom line.

If Nvidia is reading this, they should really realize that the extent some of your focus group members go to defend your product is actually a bit souring to some of us.
And I've purchased more than my fair share of Nvidia products. I've bought 2 ATI products in my life (an ATI tv wonder and a 9800 Pro). I've filled Nvidia's coffers x50 what I've given ATI but between the driver quality dropping on the NV side (they used to dominate there), and all this FUD coming from your marketing partners..
yeah, it's just time to go AMD/ATI for video. And that's beyond the obvious dominance they have in today's market.

Things change. I know it's hard to compete with ATI's latest offerings but the smokescreening gets old to us unbiased consumers pretty quickly. Compete on price, not on "physx" support. I realize this is inconvenient, but..

As ZimZum said, no one cares about Physx and the strategy to push it is just not working. Truform 2.0 is what we have here.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: taltamir

DX10.1 support matters, and likely will in games that will be played for a decade or more into the future, such as Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

Yes... i intend to use my video card for the next DECADE... mmmm hmmm, no upgrading here...

No, but when those games are released.. and many people will be using ATI 4xxx hardware, they will be able to reap the benefits immediately.
As stated in this thread many times, Nvidia's solo effort is meaningless versus DirectX/AMD/Intel.

This is MORE pertinent for physX games. PhysX gives you something extra, has existing games, and has more games in development...

I seriously doubt I will need the extra FPS on SC2 and D3 considering blizzard is a sensible company (aka, Any med-high range nvidia card will not need them).

However, DX10.1 WILL help owners of lower end HD3xxx series owners, who would need an FPS boost in those games.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: ZimZum
I'm assuming there was a memo handed down by some corporate/marketing higher ups to push the Physx angle.

Because it seems like pre ATI 4xxx series no one was talking about physx. Even in the the NVidia camp. Then ATI comes out with a competitive product line, so much so that it forced nVidia to completely restructure their pricing model. Now all of sudden every other post is about how we cant live without physx.

Physx is so great and important, that I'm replacing my 8800GT with a ATI 4870.

I doubt from the fervor of the Nvidia focus group, that I'm the only one hurting Nvidia's bottom line.

If Nvidia is reading this, they should really realize that the extent some of your focus group members go to defend your product is actually a bit souring to some of us.
And I've purchased more than my fair share of Nvidia products. I've bought 2 ATI products in my life (an ATI tv wonder and a 9800 Pro). I've filled Nvidia's coffers x50 what I've given ATI but between the driver quality dropping on the NV side (they used to dominate there), and all this FUD coming from your marketing partners..
yeah, it's just time to go AMD/ATI for video. And that's beyond the obvious dominance they have in today's market.

Things change. I know it's hard to compete with ATI's latest offerings but the smokescreening gets old to us unbiased consumers pretty quickly. Compete on price, not on "physx" support. I realize this is inconvenient, but..

As ZimZum said, no one cares about Physx and the strategy to push it is just not working. Truform 2.0 is what we have here.

What you don't seem to get is, I don't care if you buy an ATI, Nvidia, or no card at all.
I'm here talking about technologies, and you tell me you'll buy a ATI card out of spite?
Way to go. Buy what you want, but I think that you should rethink your communication methods in here. I'm a focus group member, but long before that, since the beginning, I've always preferred Nvidia products over ATI's. Now I'd appreciate it if you would discontinue throwing that up in my face from now on, and just discuss the topics at hand. Because you see, when you bring this up, as Marc has done, it shows some sort of desperation to really enforce a point your trying to make, although unfounded. So I ask respectfully, to KNOCK IT OFF. There are other ways to make a point without going after a particular poster.

Keys

EDIT: Just added two more (correction, now three more) PhysX titles. And yes, while I have no definite launch dates "yet" I did receive word about the "Holiday Season" availability. And yes, I mean 2008.
Futuremark's "Shattered Horizon" Looks pretty interesting. Actually scary if you picture that really happening.
1C's "Cryostasis"
Aliens: Colonel Marines

That's an additional 3 games announced in as many days. Still think PhysX isn't going anywhere? A checkbox feature? You let me know when you think the games announced reaches a satisfactory number. We went from 3 (UT3, GRAW2, Warmonger) to 14 in less than two weeks. But, you let me know.

 

[evolucion8]

Keys, you should understand that since you belong to a "focus group", automatically you will loose credibility as an unbiased person, and that's understandable, and you should understand it. But for me and for many unbiased people here, PhysX is not a reason to buy an nVidia card, the only reason to buy a card is because it offers most bang for the buck in the performance department, it matters even more than feature set in most cases, look at the X800XT which simply outsold and outperform the 6800 Ultra, and now, nVidia lost the crown of performance/price/feature set against ATi, and nVidia will simply have to lower prices or launch another GPU, but feature sets doesn't tell the whole story, Did DX10.1 made the HD 3800 outsold the GeForce 8 series? No, it sold well because of it's performance/price ratio, it's was much cheaper, still didn't outsold the GeForce 8.

 

[Creig]

The only person who seems to be desperately trying to enforce a point here is you, keys. Current Nvidia 8 series card owners are telling you in this very thread that PhysX doesn't mean much to them, but you don't seem to see it.

First of all, announcing games that will use PhysX does nothing for us right now. It just means that these games MAY include PhysX. Developers can and do change their minds, projects get canceled, etc. Until the game is actually out and actually does use PhysX, it's just a nice little list of possible PhysX titles.

Secondly, simply saying that a game will use PhysX is likewise pointless. We don't know to what extent that particular title will use PhysX. Will it make a meaningful contribution to the game, or is it so insignificant that it was simply included so that Nvidia could list that particular game as a PhysX title? Until each game can be tested, we won't know. So continually telling us that "Game X" and "Game Y" will use PhysX is useless. Also, is PhysX being used to actually improve the physics of the game, or is it simply there to allow more particles to go flying around when something blows up? Because that seems to be its primary use up until now.

Thirdly, is the whole GPU based physics calculation idea itself. Is the time even right for GPU based physics, or will CPU based physics continue to dominate? Crytek seems to feel that CPU based physics calculations are still their preferred method:

When we asked the guys about Nvidia's and Havok's physics we were told that for the time being they don't need them or want them. You can destroy just about anything in Crysis from trees to vehicles with very realistic movement of their own, and gunshot physics are impressive, too. Crytek usually does all physics on the CPU, but it might do some things on a GPU.

In the future Crytek might consider going after Nvidia's approach and physics, but only if it makes sense. Currently they are happy with their own physics and when they sell their engine, they sell it with their own physics. The good thing is that the customer can further adjust the physics for its needs.

If PhysX can make a meaningful use of actual physics in games (not just prettier explosions) with performance that can't be duplicated any other way, then I will sit up and take notice. But there are competing products already out there doing their own method of physics. Until PhysX can prove itself to be head and shoulders above the rest of the physics crowd, going on and on about how great it is with only 2.5 titles actually released only makes you look desperate in trying to use it as a selling point.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ZimZum
I'm assuming there was a memo handed down by some corporate/marketing higher ups to push the Physx angle.

Because it seems like pre ATI 4xxx series no one was talking about physx. Even in the the NVidia camp. Then ATI comes out with a competitive product line, so much so that it forced nVidia to completely restructure their pricing model. Now all of sudden every other post is about how we cant live without physx.

Maybe because a CUDA PhysX driver enabling GPU acceleration wasn't available until June 25th, after the 4000-series launched with the 174.39 Beta Driver? There were numerous discussions about PhysX prior to that here and elsewhere but keep in mind NV only acquired Ageia around 6 months ago so their release of a working CUDA PhysX driver that worked in lieu of the PPU was earlier than expected.

Originally posted by: evolucion8
But for me and for many unbiased people here, PhysX is not a reason to buy an nVidia card, the only reason to buy a card is because it offers most bang for the buck in the performance department, it matters even more than feature set in most cases

And no one is telling you to make purchasing decisions based on PhysX or any feature set alone......but that doesn't diminish the importance and potential of GPU accelerated PhysX at all. By the same token, most unbiased people would say "hey if I'm not interested in it and my card can't use it, I'm just going to move along" instead of feeling the need to linger and crap all over the place.

Look at some of the contradictory arguments even in this thread. If GPU accelerated physics are so meaningless, why is Microsoft's plan to implement hardware physics in DX11 even an issue or talking point? Its pointless when NV is pushing it but suddenly its going to become a great feature because MS puts it in their DX library for free? The difference folks, is you don't have to wait for that functionality, because its available today and more than likely will be better supported and more robust than anything MS offers for free in a year or two.

In other news..... Fud all buddy-buddy with Roy Taylor at Nvision, discussing PhysX: 25 titles before X-mas, 25 in Q1 '09

Will be interesting to see how many use hardware PhysX and how many are just software.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
By the same token, most unbiased people would say "hey if I'm not interested in it and my card can't use it, I'm just going to move along" instead of feeling the need to linger and crap all over the place.

So when somebody expresses an opinion that differs from yours, it's called crapping all over the place? Nice to know.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are 8800 owners in this thread who express the same opinion as evolucion8.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: chizow
By the same token, most unbiased people would say "hey if I'm not interested in it and my card can't use it, I'm just going to move along" instead of feeling the need to linger and crap all over the place.

So when somebody expresses an opinion that differs from yours, it's called crapping all over the place? Nice to know.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are 8800 owners in this thread who express the same opinion as evolucion8.

Nope, I don't have any problem with people expressing their opinion if it differs from mine, if I did had a major problem with what was said I would've addressed it directly. But continually stating PhysX is pointless or unimportant simply because they do not care about it or because they don't have hardware/software that takes advantage of it is crapping, imo.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Keys, you should understand that since you belong to a "focus group", automatically you will loose credibility as an unbiased person, and that's understandable, and you should understand it. But for me and for many unbiased people here.

Just because you are NOT in a focus group doesn't mean you are unbiased... you seem far more biased then keys.

Crytek seems to feel that CPU based physics calculations are still their preferred method:

Crytek doesn't know business, doesn't know how to design games, and doesn't how to fess up. They should also be named crybabytek because they cry and bitch and moan about selling only 1 million copies (thats 50 million dollars) of their crappy "game".
And blaming piracy (and not, you know, the fact that nobody could run the damn thing).
It might look good at slideshow speeds. But at playable FPS UE3 looks better, which is why it is in tons of games and crytek fails.

Also, this statement they made is absolutely wrong.



As for the "people here say they don't care"... who cares if there is a person who doesn't care. We are looking for reasons why something is, or isn't useful. An opinion in a vaccum like "don't care" doesn't apply.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: chizow
By the same token, most unbiased people would say "hey if I'm not interested in it and my card can't use it, I'm just going to move along" instead of feeling the need to linger and crap all over the place.

So when somebody expresses an opinion that differs from yours, it's called crapping all over the place? Nice to know.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are 8800 owners in this thread who express the same opinion as evolucion8.

Nope, I don't have any problem with people expressing their opinion if it differs from mine, if I did had a major problem with what was said I would've addressed it directly. But continually stating PhysX is pointless or unimportant simply because they do not care about it or because they don't have hardware/software that takes advantage of it is crapping, imo.

Physx is cool & neat. However, Ageia & Nvidia cannot compete against M$, Intel & AMD/Ati. If you read into Phsyx vs. Havok, you can see the way this is panning out.

 

[taltamir]

you know what... now that i think about it... how long since nvidia aquired ageia? a few months...
how long since official GPU physX were released? less then a month!

All the CURRENT physX titles were made with the ageia PPU in mind... something that was really REALLY limited in scope.
nvidia made WHQL drivers giving a wife variety of cards GPU physX have been out for mere weeks. so to say "there aren't games" yet is a bit misleading, there aren't games because there was no hardware... this is why i like to give dollar value to features... its a bit of a bet... will i be getting a game that uses it before i replace the card to something better? time will tell.

 

[hooflung]

When PhysX is a serious player, I'll take a look. Even though my machines are all runnning Nvidia now I could care less. If I was to buy a new card, it would be a 4870.

 

[Creig]

I honestly do hope that hardware physics becomes a reality. Not the "more stuff flying around on the screen" physics, but actual physics calculations that will make a game more realistic. Realistic physics that will make game developers say "We had no idea that a person could bypass this ambush by destroying a water tower which in turn fell on a building, thus creating a way around the enemy blockade". If PhysX can eventually enable this to happen, more power to them. I might go back to Nvidia for my next card(s) should they be the source for that level of reality in games. But it is still WAY too early to be basing current (or future) video card purchases on PhysX.

 

[taltamir]

good point creig... i wonder how soon will that be possible. physX already does water and human body, but the scale you describe is pretty intensive.

Using a spare GPU for only physX might do it. If next gen games offered same graphics as today, but with this kind of physics it would be awesome. I'd be a next gen GPU to use solely for physics while keeping my current gen for graphics for this level of gameplay.

I would be interested in some games that demonstrate such capbilities. From what I understand so far the individual components are there. I wonder how it will work with current gen cards with two cards: a card dedicated to physX and a card dedicated to graphics.

But would you take NOTHING in between what you described and what we have today? What you described is the difference between second order (crap flying on the screen), and first order (creative use of resources because the game is more open).

In GRAW, today, you can break off a specific plant in a fence when using physX on GPU, and fire through the hole, thus gaining cover (and remaining hidden to other human players, i don't know if the AI sees you), and supposedly the AI does it too. This is the most impressive example of first order physics I have seen to date. where physX is actually affecting gameplay.

Sure its not blowing up a water tower and have the water drown knock down the patrol... but it is in between that and what we have without physX today.

 

[MarcVenice]

Talt, you don't NEED physx acceleration on the GPU to shoot a hole in something and use it as cover ... That's the whole frigging point. Either you go all the way, which warrants physx acceleration through the GPU, or you don't! The way you could shoot holes in flags in warmonger also completely sucked.

You are pretty much on the money, the hardware has only just arrived, let's wait and see what happens, but right now there's nothing that makes physx on nvidia's videocards a musthave, a reason to discard anything the competition has to offer. And I think, but I could be wrong here because this is pure speculation, that most other ppl agree with me, or they'd all be buying nvidia, which they aren't.

EDIT

This is exactly the kind of vagueness I'm talking about: "Shattered Horizon has a real space setting that offers gameplay, tactics, and freedom of movement that cannot be found in any other shooter," said Jukka Mäkinen, Head of Futuremark Games Studio. "PhysX is essential in helping our game designers create a realistic and fun zero-gravity combat experience."

They are talking Physx as the 'realism' physics adds, the proprietary software it is, and it's owned by Nvidia. Nowhere does it say it needs hardware physx acceleration. And it being a multiplayer makes that very hard to believe. And I think this is the case with many of those 'physx' titles.

 

[Creig]

taltimir, I pretty much have a minimal interest in video game "physics" unless it somehow involves making games more realistic. The "more stuff flying around on the screen" physics is not what I thought in-game physics is supposed to be about. I realize the scenario I described with the water tower is probably not something we're going to see for awhile yet. For now, however, I will be happy just seeing a few more in-game items behave as they do in real life. If developers will do that with PhysX, then great! If the developers decide do it through the CPU, then great! I'm simply opposed to the few people here who keep claiming that PhysX is the undisputed best way to achieve more realism in games when it is currently being used in only 2.5 games. Once we have a good sample of PhysX games out, I'm sure there will be articles out there comparing PhysX to Havok to proprietary physics engines. Then we will get a true idea of how developers intend to use use PhysX (realism or simply more particles), if it is that much faster than using the CPU and if it is easy enough to program for so that developers will actually want to use it.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Keys, you should understand that since you belong to a "focus group", automatically you will loose credibility as an unbiased person, and that's understandable, and you should understand it. But for me and for many unbiased people here.

Just because you are NOT in a focus group doesn't mean you are unbiased... you seem far more biased then keys.

For me, you are even more nVidia biased than keys, and I was talking about him, not about you or myself, so I don't know where do you want to go with this. Just because I admited that ATi currently offers the best bang for the buck, has the fastest videocard on the market is the real truth and not some lie. DX10.1 clearly benefits gamers with it's image quality improvements and performance, PhysX will not impact your gameplay but your performance when GPU limited, having 2 GPU's on a system is not what I like, of course PhysX are great, but not a sale point to buy inferior hardware, not even a 2 years old technology in which the GTX 280 is based. I own this ATi card because nVidia never launched a 8800GT on AGP, I just buy the best card in it's category. 9700PRO was my first card and was clearly faster than any GeForce FX, then my X800XT PE which was clearly faster than any GeForce 6800 Ultra, then my X1950XT which was clearly faster than any 79XX series of card, and now the HD 3850 which is not faster than the GeForce 8. Since DX10.1 is a standard and the nVidia PhysX is not, it's just a gambling using it as an excuse to acquire an nVidia card just for it or to justify it's purchase. So seems that you need to learn a bit about the definition of bias before pointing your finger pointlessly.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Talt, you don't NEED physx acceleration on the GPU to shoot a hole in something and use it as cover ... That's the whole frigging point. Either you go all the way, which warrants physx acceleration through the GPU, or you don't! The way you could shoot holes in flags in warmonger also completely sucked.

You are pretty much on the money, the hardware has only just arrived, let's wait and see what happens, but right now there's nothing that makes physx on nvidia's videocards a musthave, a reason to discard anything the competition has to offer. And I think, but I could be wrong here because this is pure speculation, that most other ppl agree with me, or they'd all be buying nvidia, which they aren't.

EDIT

This is exactly the kind of vagueness I'm talking about: "Shattered Horizon has a real space setting that offers gameplay, tactics, and freedom of movement that cannot be found in any other shooter," said Jukka Mäkinen, Head of Futuremark Games Studio. "PhysX is essential in helping our game designers create a realistic and fun zero-gravity combat experience."

They are talking Physx as the 'realism' physics adds, the proprietary software it is, and it's owned by Nvidia. Nowhere does it say it needs hardware physx acceleration. And it being a multiplayer makes that very hard to believe. And I think this is the case with many of those 'physx' titles.

The hardware for PhysX is nowhere near "new". The software, OTOH, is (in terms of running PhysX on a GPU). Software tends to be a game of control; we'll see who wins. I personally hope they can roll it into OpenGL and finally open up Linux and the Mac for proper gaming.

You seem cynical in terms of what hardware physics can do. Have you not watched any of the AGEIA demo videos? I've read a fair bit of commentary suggesting that the GPU naturally lends itself to physics calculations.

In terms of your quote, it's neither here nor there; NV is boasting about vaporware and you're playing fortune-teller, suggesting that it's all hogwash. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (however you could very well be right).