![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
4890 with 8800gts 512 for physx? (win 7)
- Thread starter N3mi5is
- Start date
PhysX is not useless, it just has a limited number of titles that make meaningful use of it. If you do have it available, it is nice to have in supported games.
been using in 2 game so far...
Cryotasis, which is a complete shit game that I am glad I only paid 12 bucks include tax and shipping..
Mirror's Edge, eh...ok...the blue cover thing in the construction yard....that is a good visual effect I assume?
have you been using it? I seriously doubt it..
or you are just another "OH!!! THE PLASTIC BREAK LIKE REAL!!!!"
what does physX benefit you? slowing down FPS?
and what does it bring? Fake looking plastic flying? or some particle flying that can easily be done with any engine?
you are contradict yourself there....not me....
Great! Too bad 1) Infernal/Velocity is not a free physics engine, 2) no one is comparing PhysX to a custom software engine that has typical lame (very low) physics interaction and 3) 80%+ of gamers don't have quad core CPUs.
Didn't you wonder why the game doesn't have anywhere near the level of interaction with even the minimum "one thousand objects" from the physics tech demo? It's because the game physics are scaled down to meet the realistic hardware that is available to most gamers.
A good summary from the GB testing thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033981667#post1033981667
Geez, enough with the "I can't run PhysX, so it's useless" f-boys already.As far as I know it works:
http://www.nervousenergy.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=519&t=1326&start=10
Someone in [H] should test this out.
PXC is right. People thar criticize physx cards are the ones that don't have them/never tried them/ are jealous about them.
It seems that if one person says something on a forum, everyone jumps blindly on the bandwagon in trying to own someone.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
It seems that if one person says something on a forum, everyone jumps blindly on the bandwagon in trying to own someone.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Physx is useless. The new Ghostbusters benchmark review proves a quad core PC can do phyisics perfectly fine.
Its just a marketing gimmick from Nivdia.
IMO Sell the 8800GTS and make a few extra bucks
It seems you don't know what PhysX is and what it offers. Neither do you know what Ghostbusters offers. The Ghostbusters physics effects are not very far from those we've seen in many games past Doom 3 and Half Life 2. You can destroy much more things, that's a given, but they are not realistic effects. PhysX as a physics API, not only can do that too, but also provides ways for realistic physics effects such as cloth, hair, fire and water simulations. This can only be achieved with the use of GPUs, because CPUs just can't handle those effects in real time.
As a case in point, when you fire your weapon in Ghostbusters toward a towel on a table, the towel quickly turns to black, with no realistic burning effect. Through fire simulations, that can be achieved with proper effect. Comparing the two effects doesn't even make sense, because one physics engine is processing a few hundred objects, while the other is easily doing thousands.
You should be able to...eventually. IIRC, it wasn't possible to do it in Vista and Windows 7 is not very different from Vista, so I'm guessing you might not be able to do it right now. It was possible on XP though.
GPU PhysX can demolish a CPU doing the same thing-
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_physx_performance/page4.asp
GPU gives you lower FPS than normal when it is doing extra effects with PhysX enabled not when you are switching the duty from CPU to GPU.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_physx_performance/page4.asp
GPU gives you lower FPS than normal when it is doing extra effects with PhysX enabled not when you are switching the duty from CPU to GPU.
The problem with doing it with the CPU is that none of the physx games are made for using more than two CPU cores, sometimes barely that. The CPU physics would be alot closer to the GPU physics in performance if they actually programmed it to fully utilize all four cores of high-end CPUs.
Great! Too bad 1) Infernal/Velocity is not a free physics engine, 2) no one is comparing PhysX to a custom software engine that has typical lame (very low) physics interaction and 3) 80%+ of gamers don't have quad core CPUs.
Didn't you wonder why the game doesn't have anywhere near the level of interaction with even the minimum "one thousand objects" from the physics tech demo? It's because the game physics are scaled down to meet the realistic hardware that is available to most gamers.
A good summary from the GB testing thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033981667#post1033981667
You have no idea what you are talking about..
what physX have offer you can simply see in some game without physX..
please list at least one thing that CPU physics cannot handle or not seen in other engine..
I been using physX since 8800 GTX, there is NOTHING!! as NONE that is truly bring something interactive ..
and that lame post you show, I seriously doubt he is a game programmer..
as a programmer myself and my friends, they have no consideration of using physX.
not just because it use GPU that makes graphic intense game dramatically slow down, but because it simply not offer what it should bring while compare to other Engine or self made ..
LGabrielPhoto
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,240
been using in 2 game so far...
Cryotasis, which is a complete shit game that I am glad I only paid 12 bucks include tax and shipping..
Mirror's Edge, eh...ok...the blue cover thing in the construction yard....that is a good visual effect I assume?
have you been using it? I seriously doubt it..
or you are just another "OH!!! THE PLASTIC BREAK LIKE REAL!!!!"
what does physX benefit you? slowing down FPS?
and what does it bring? Fake looking plastic flying? or some particle flying that can easily be done with any engine?
you are contradict yourself there....not me....
There is some tough competition in this thread but I have to say you take the Award for the most clueless poster so far regarding this topic.
How the hell does it slow down FPS? The idea is to use a second card to take care of the effects. Of course if you are using the same card which is already pushing a lot of pixels to do Physx then yes FPS will drop...newsflash!
So I guess, AA and AF are also useless because they lower FPS...wait a minute, then using High res textures, high resolution, OMG everything is useless as it lowers the FPS!
BTW, if you really think a CPU can match a GPU for Physx or pretty much any type of calculation maybe you should check a little thing called Folding for example.
LOL.... I'm an ATi fanboy and I can honestly say that PhysX isn't a huge deal... right now. If nVidia sticks with it, I'm sure that they can make Ageia PhysX worthwhile. I own the BFG PhysX card, and have noted some improvements in certain cases.
An nVidia based GPU is just more powerful than a CPU in certain instances, nVidia/Ageia PhysX processing is one of them.
And shansoft... pxc is in the top 3 percent of the most knowledgeable posters on HardForum. He has more than an idea of what he's talking about.
An nVidia based GPU is just more powerful than a CPU in certain instances, nVidia/Ageia PhysX processing is one of them.
And shansoft... pxc is in the top 3 percent of the most knowledgeable posters on HardForum. He has more than an idea of what he's talking about.
gasp people still use that relic
Show me another choice with WIndows Vista and an HD4870X2, and I would use it.
sarcasm?
None.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,124
even a 16core cpu would get crushed by an 8800GTX for physics, EVEN IF the game was programmed for it, it's not simply the amount of cores, it's the type of processor =) the gpu would suck at doing 99% of simple calculations where as the cpu sucks at doing complex calculations since it has only 2/3 floating point processors per core.
The gpu is technically a whole whack load of specialized vector processors(part floating point units?) correct if I'm wrong on this one
Nvidias next gpu is rumored to be, well 512 FPUs on a chip =P
as a programmer you are clueless
Just because you know how to read and write code in different languages, has 0 effect on your knowledge of complex math calculations, and which processor can do them better.alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
PhysX is not useless. It is useful, but only in these games:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1429094
For other games, PhysX is useless
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1429094
For other games, PhysX is useless
to all the people crying jealousy physx has some nice demos, I can run them, I have yet to actually play a game that use it. mirrors edge just didn't need it as it doesn't really add much of anything, crywhatyoucallit isn't worth buying given the way it runs (really it doesn't look all that good to start with, the water and such looks more like rolling marbles)
If Nvidia could get the AO to be playable then we would have something to brag about
If Nvidia could get the AO to be playable then we would have something to brag about
ElMoIsEviL
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 792
Great! Too bad 1) Infernal/Velocity is not a free physics engine, 2) no one is comparing PhysX to a custom software engine that has typical lame (very low) physics interaction and 3) 80%+ of gamers don't have quad core CPUs.
Didn't you wonder why the game doesn't have anywhere near the level of interaction with even the minimum "one thousand objects" from the physics tech demo? It's because the game physics are scaled down to meet the realistic hardware that is available to most gamers.
A good summary from the GB testing thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033981667#post1033981667
PhysX is useless. I've been hoping it would be good ever since I purchased my first PPU (Ageia). I now have a PCI, PCIe and a bunch of nVIDIA cards that can be used as PPUs cept all the games that utilize PhysX suck.
The one game where the Physics is nice and doesn't bog down framerates is Ghostbusters and it uses the CPU.
I'm no fanboi like you're accusing the masses of being. I just tell it like it is. You, on the other hand, have been a HUGE PhysX fanboi (especially since nVIDIA came into the arena). Pot calling the kettle black?
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
Prototype also has nice physics effects.
Sure, PhysX is great, but does it support jazzhands in Stalker?
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,476
Dude, PhysX can only be used in a few *good* titles. Crysostasis was one of the few that could fully utilize it. That feature was nice, but the game itself was pretty lame.
A few older games like City of Villains could use it, but honestly, it just isn't worth it, whether you are using an 8400GS or a GTX280 for PhysX.
If you have an extra card laying around though, then go for it.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,476