Borderland 2 with Physx... AMD owner woes :(

P

PnkPwrRngr

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
852
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/16/borderlands-2-bundled-with-geforce-gtx-660-ti-nvidias-cheapest/

I've already pre-ordered BL2 and I knew it would be an 'Nvidia' title, but it didn't really matter all that much to me with how much I enjoyed the first BL. Batman: AA had physx support, and I loved that game even though I couldn't enjoy physx based debris...

But this... seems like real physx support. Anyone else feel like it's worth jumping jumping out of the AMD boat and swimming for the Nvidia yacht?
 
That's want they want you to do. Don't give them the satisfaction of letting this closed API shit win. You're probably over-estimating its importance anyhow.
 
If you have a spare pci-e 8 or 16 slot, just buy a gt 430 and use the hyrid physx patch.
 
Majinhoju said:
If you have a spare pci-e 8 or 16 slot, just buy a gt 430 and use the hyrid physx patch.
Click to expand...

I would love to do that... but last I heard, the hacked drivers that were needed to do this were... hacked drivers.

Wasn't there some big virus scare from that too?
 
I'm not planning on a new video card for at least a year. I don't see why I "need" physx for this game
 
it is pretty gimmicky anyways ;P


although this is the first time ive seen it implemented and thought it was cool, like the particles when you use nades
 
Using ITX here...so only one video card. Wonder if my GTX 580 can handle it...

Looks good too, really nice cloth and fluid effects.

And I have to agree with eloj...however, I will say I did look towards Nvidia not only due to gaming performance, but CUDA as well. Now I know its a closed API, but hell, for the time being its certainly the most common and wide spread so I gotta do what I gotta do. Something like Physx support is strickly secondary, but hey its there!

Plus, I think OpenCL and the like aren't catching on for AMD because they don't seem to be pushing GPU physics like Nvidia, so it almost seems like a "your fault" kinda thing. I mean, with the launch of the 7970 I would have showcased some bad ass physics demos to show off what the AMD GPU's could be capable of. Would definitely be a push in the right direction, get people interested.

But then that brings up bigger points like why isn't OpenCL being used just freely by developers since all GPU's could use it, how there seems to be little to no interest in Nvidia's Physx unless Nvidia themselves sponsor the game, how there seems to be little interest in realistic physics in games to begin with, etc...
 
Unfortunate, but not a biggie.

With all the new upcoming consoles seeming to have AMD gpus, the shift to OpenCL seems very likely given how much AMD is pushing it.
 
not surprising since the first game was a nvidia title as well so its what i expected with BL2. but given how little developers add to games physX wise it probably won't matter at all to the actual gameplay. even though i use nvidia cards i never turn physX on so meh.


PnkPwrRngr said:
I would love to do that... but last I heard, the hacked drivers that were needed to do this were... hacked drivers.

Wasn't there some big virus scare from that too?
Click to expand...

no the file that comes up as a virus is a generic virus warning because its required to modify a system file virus scanners detect it as a generic trojan virus even though its not.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are that I do not necessarily care for Physx but it is a nice bonus when implemented.
 
JoeUser said:
Using ITX here...so only one video card. Wonder if my GTX 580 can handle it...

Looks good too, really nice cloth and fluid effects.

And I have to agree with eloj...however, I will say I did look towards Nvidia not only due to gaming performance, but CUDA as well. Now I know its a closed API, but hell, for the time being its certainly the most common and wide spread so I gotta do what I gotta do. Something like Physx support is strickly secondary, but hey its there!

Plus, I think OpenCL and the like aren't catching on for AMD because they don't seem to be pushing GPU physics like Nvidia, so it almost seems like a "your fault" kinda thing. I mean, with the launch of the 7970 I would have showcased some bad ass physics demos to show off what the AMD GPU's could be capable of. Would definitely be a push in the right direction, get people interested.

But then that brings up bigger points like why isn't OpenCL being used just freely by developers since all GPU's could use it, how there seems to be little to no interest in Nvidia's Physx unless Nvidia themselves sponsor the game, how there seems to be little interest in realistic physics in games to begin with, etc...
Click to expand...

Proper GPU physics are somewhat costly to implement in a game, even using OpenCL. Most devs will use something like Havok because it is easy to use and works fine for what it is.

Most implementations of Physx are basically fluff that doesn't affect gameplay, so devs will only use it when Nvidia pays for it.

I think the closed API model turns potential PC gamers off PC gaming. Just another thing to add confusion to those that don't research it.
 
you think a 260GTX would be enough to handle the Physix? looks very nice with the physix enabled
 
Betauser said:
you think a 260GTX would be enough to handle the Physix? looks very nice with the physix enabled
Click to expand...

it says a 660ti gets 78 average fps with everything maxed.

that might help you get an idea of what you might need
 
Betauser said:
you think a 260GTX would be enough to handle the Physix? looks very nice with the physix enabled
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is if you mean as a secondary card purely for Physx processing. The GTX 260 is generally considered the lowest you can go before you can start having performance issues with current Physx enabled games. Meaning, its way powerful for Physx and as long as there is a fix for it to work with AMD cards I don't see it becoming slow in that regard any time soon.

Now if you mean is a GTX 260 enough for Physx AND graphics then maybe? With low graphics settings and resolution most likely. I mean, the GTX 260 is still no slouch over all. Played Cryostasis with Physx on one long ago just fine...however even my GTX 580 can't do Batman: Arkham City with max Physx at all high settings either...sooooooo who knows? :confused:
 
MavericK96 said:
Wow, I am really digging those effects. Can't wait!
Click to expand...

the nade is the coolest, i always see particles in the demos for engines but its never implemented like that, so im excited for this game. actually the physX is what has peaked my interest .. the first one was cool but got boring at times
 
Yeah, the "vortex" grenade is really cool. I also just like seeing fluid physics and tons of particles flying off enemies as you blow them apart. :D
 
So if I run physx will I get injured from the flying shrapnel/acid/debris?

if the answer is "no" then I don't see it being useful at all.
 
I thought PhysX can run on CPU?

That's what I set to in the drivers as I only have one GTX680. Then again I've yet to test it out in any games that utilizes Physx
 
Hornet said:
I thought PhysX can run on CPU?

That's what I set to in the drivers as I only have one GTX680. Then again I've yet to test it out in any games that utilizes Physx
Click to expand...

your 680 can run physx and max settings on any game that has it or is going to have it for awhile
 
I personally like physx very much...much more immersive! Looking forward to purchasing a 660ti FTW!
 
Vantec89 said:
I personally like physx very much...much more immersive! Looking forward to purchasing a 660ti FTW!
Click to expand...

even if its priced at 350? i would just swoop on a 670 for that price. lots of speculation on pricing right now
 
this game better be as awesome as the first one. hopefully SLI-480s will be able to max it out at 1680x1050 and keep me happy.
 
JoeUser said:
I'm sure it is if you mean as a secondary card purely for Physx processing. The GTX 260 is generally considered the lowest you can go before you can start having performance issues with current Physx enabled games. Meaning, its way powerful for Physx and as long as there is a fix for it to work with AMD cards I don't see it becoming slow in that regard any time soon.

Now if you mean is a GTX 260 enough for Physx AND graphics then maybe? With low graphics settings and resolution most likely. I mean, the GTX 260 is still no slouch over all. Played Cryostasis with Physx on one long ago just fine...however even my GTX 580 can't do Batman: Arkham City with max Physx at all high settings either...sooooooo who knows? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm using the 260GTX for PhysX only as I have 580GTX Extreme as my main GPU. I'll try w/out it first and enble the PhysX and hopefully still playable
 
Hornet said:
I thought PhysX can run on CPU?

That's what I set to in the drivers as I only have one GTX680. Then again I've yet to test it out in any games that utilizes Physx
Click to expand...

it can but its nerfed to hell and nvidia forces game developers only to support gpu accelerated physX so the cpu support is useless which is why cpu physX still only supports 1 core. nvidia removed multi core support in physX when they bought it.
 
I thought batman looked cool with it enabled as well. Borderlands 2 is the first game im excited to play and will be bummed i cant run the extra special effects though. Oh well, who has time for borderlands when you play world of warcraft anyway.
 
Looks like I'll be picking up a dedicated physx card to go with my 7970... Batman: AC and Borderlands 2 are on my list to play this year, and having the full play experience would be nice.
 
buttons said:
I thought batman looked cool with it enabled as well. Borderlands 2 is the first game im excited to play and will be bummed i cant run the extra special effects though. Oh well, who has time for borderlands when you play world of warcraft anyway.
Click to expand...
other then the cloth stuff the rest is just meh.. the completely unrealistic looking fluid on the ground. i can definitely do without that.
 
dremic said:
your 680 can run physx and max settings on any game that has it or is going to have it for awhile
Click to expand...

Arkham City becomes a stutterfest with PhysX on on my system (2500K @ 4.6, GTX 680, 2560x1440)
 
Daggah said:
Arkham City becomes a stutterfest with PhysX on on my system (2500K @ 4.6, GTX 680, 2560x1440)
Click to expand...

I have a similar set up and AC has pretty poorly implemented tesselation and physX I'm pretty sure most reviews on the game reflect on this. That is not a limitation of your hardware by any means.
 
dremic said:
I have a similar set up and AC has pretty poorly implemented tesselation and physX I'm pretty sure most reviews on the game reflect on this. That is not a limitation of your hardware by any means.
Click to expand...

The Tesselation doesn't do much for it and all it does is kill the frame rate. It went from being totally unplayable to fairly smooth on a single Radeon HD 7970 when I turned it off. And that's at 7680x1600.
 
Boy that PhysX really brightens the colors up too compared to the non physx vid.
 
September is going to bad for my work productivity....specially now that I work from home..
 
LOL @ all the hate for Physx from AMD owners while deep down they wish they could go into the video options and enable those yummy particle effects. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top