PhysX or Eyefinity

Which would you rather have?

  • PhysX

    Votes: 37 12.9%

  • Eyefinity

    Votes: 210 73.2%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 40 13.9%
  • Total voters
    287
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty sure you can use Eyefinity in many more/better games than PhysX, plus it gives a much better immersion factor IMO.

Vote Eyefinity! :D

But kind of a pointless poll. Green will have "nFinity" sometime soon, right?

I think you already know the outcome of this poll, hah.
 
Last edited:
none, Physx is a gimmick and eyefinity is too expensive to adopt...
 
The one which the game is not gimped when a competitor card is used...
 
86 5.0L said:
none, Physx is a gimmick and eyefinity is too expensive to adopt...
Click to expand...

You should always take these polls/Qs as if money is not a factor, unless otherwise specified. It's simply "which one would you rather have if you could have one". So I would count your vote as Eyefinity :p.
 
But kind of a pointless poll. Green will have "nFinity" sometime soon, right?
Click to expand...
Unless they support different-sized monitors I doubt you'd want nFinity, seeing as you'd need SLI to get the 3 monitors AMD has now.
 
Eyefinity. Even though I'm running SLI right now I'd love to have it. Also another desk but thats another thing entirely.
 
I don't care really. 3 monitors takes up a lot of desktop space and the bezel thing is still a problem. Physx....meh.
 
Eyefinity. There is much more of an immersion factor. While PhysX is cool and all, and realistic physics in a game is great and all, I don't think that it helps as much as eyefinity does. Eventually we will have the equivalency of both and on an exponentially larger scale. But for right now? Eyefinity; no doubt about it!
 
Are we asking about concepts here or the actual implementations? Native multi-monitor support yes, Eyefinity in it's current hacky state no. Hardware accelerated physics yes, current lame PhysX effects no.
 
I'm waiting for Nvidia Surround / PhysX. OR, if that phails, Eyefinity with some haxxored PhysX. Either way!
 
Just a simple question. Don't read too much into it.
 
Going to have to go with eyefinity here, hoping physx crap dies out as it can just be done by software imo.
 
Both. Though if I had to pick, Eyefinity. I don't see PhysX as being anything other than a small stepping stone in the long run. It will die out soon enough and something better (read: Not limited to one vendor) will take its place.
 
Until I see a game blow me away like 3x or more monitoring, I'll stick with eyefinity
 
if i had the money for more monitors Eyefinity till then Physx it really was a dick move of nV kill it if your not running an nV card for video
 
I'd rather have Eyefinity, but I would like to see ATI update the drivers so 120Hz LCDs are supported.
 
with some creativity, the bezel problem can be limited. I want both, sorry Kyle. We deserve all of it for the money we spend.
 
Well I tried the triple monitor gaming and really didn't like it, so ...:)
 
Pkirk618 said:
with some creativity, the bezel problem can be limited. I want both, sorry Kyle. We deserve all of it for the money we spend.
Click to expand...

+1 this is true should be able to do both on one card
 
Eyefinity is a neat technology, it's nice to see it finally arrive in an easily workable format.

I voted for that mostly because PhysX is such a bad idea, all implimentations of PhysX to date have been simply to tack on a few bits of eyecandy, when we finally do find games that do use physics engines to really effect core gameplay, like BFBC2, they're certainly not using PhysX :)
 
Honestly, neither one is all that important to me. I would go mad with the bezel thing on eyefinity (don't try to convince me that I won't see it either - I do and I will) and I don't play enough games that have physx to really want it. Just give me a good video card that can drive my single, big honkin' monitor (and maybe one of those little 7" ones if they ever become a good buy) for cheap and I'm good.
 
Eyefinity because it can be applied to almost any game. Like Age of Empires 2
 
Money not a factor? PhysX done correctly (IE: make a game that uses it for more than particles)

Which do I have? Both

I think in the long run neither one will reach a particularly high level of integration anyway, so I'll enjoy them if they're supported, and not worry about it if they aren't.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Eyefinity is a neat technology, it's nice to see it finally arrive in an easily workable format.

I voted for that mostly because PhysX is such a bad idea, all implimentations of PhysX to date have been simply to tack on a few bits of eyecandy, when we finally do find games that do use physics engines to really effect core gameplay, like BFBC2, they're certainly not using PhysX :)
Click to expand...

Physics in BC2 is all prerendered preprogrammed rail based physics, there is nothing new about it. its been done in the past and will be done the same in the future. Physics that actually has some realisim to it where things react much the way B:AA physics has been done will be ideal.
 
BC2's physics isn't all pre-made, go back to your bridge.

Eyefinity gives me the advantage of more pixels, and in triple landscape mode, a broader field of view that in MW2 gives me a crazy clear advantage over other players.

PhysX gives me what?
 
MrLonghair said:
BC2's physics isn't all pre-made, go back to your bridge.

Eyefinity gives me the advantage of more pixels, and in triple landscape mode, a broader field of view that in MW2 gives me a crazy clear advantage over other players.

PhysX gives me what?
Click to expand...

You wish it wasn't. Play the same field multiple times, destroy the same build from different points/angles using different weapons as I have. Guess what, IT IS ALWAYS THE FUCKING SAME! IE: Preprogrammed not true physics crap. Sure it looks nice, but it isn't true physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top