Is Physx a factor in games anymore?

H

hcforde

Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
694
The title really says it all. I am curious because of the computing power of the new R9 290 AMD cards. Also ther is not much mention of it in games or reviews. Any thoughts?
 
Physx? It's okay. But not a major selling point. The games that come to mind most quickly with physx are all of the batman games, borderlands 2, cod: ghosts, and witcher 3. It's pretty neat, but I don't think it's "mind blowing" or anything like that; i've never bought an NV GPU just for physx alone. That said, I do think that nvidia's software/drivers are hands down superior to AMD in terms of regular performance drivers for new games, new features, and general quick fixes to any possible bugs.

The thing I like about nvidia is that they update their features on a regular basis - they added adaptive vsync, downsampling, FXAA (driver level), TXAA, monitor overclocking, driver ambient occlusion, among many other things to their driver just in the past two years. Meanwhile, AMD hasn't added anything to note since 2009 to my recollection. There's Mantle but nothing is using it yet, and that doesn't enhance older games - whereas nvidia has much more fine tuning and better drivers overall.

Just my opinion. I think sotware wise, that nvidia is very much better than AMD, and I say that as someone that came from 7970CF prior to nvidia. The 7970CF was just....well, rife with issues once I started dabbling with surround and all that sort of thing, it was just maddening. And then AMD also has bugs such as framepacing on the old 79xx cards which still isn't fully fixed after all of these years. I don't think i'd get a 290 unless it was: 1) A custom cooled card and 2) near MSRP. Right now, that's a pretty difficult proposition due to crypto coin mania - nvidia cards in NA generally seem to be a better value and easier to obtain.

TL'DR:

290 could be worth it if you can get a custom cooled card near MSRP. Otherwise, nv is just a better buy.
Nvidia does have better software, but physx isn't a major selling point (IMO). I certainly WOULD NOT buy based on physx.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty good in Borderlands and Batman but that's about all I can think of.
 
naticus said:
It's pretty good in Borderlands and Batman but that's about all I can think of.
Click to expand...

Agreed. On the other hand, it was downright terrible in AC IV.

I do prefer nvidia over AMD, but physx really isn't the reason why. I've seen some great physx games and some others that are well...not so great like AssCreed 4. So I think it's pretty uhm..."neat" to have but I certainly wouldn't make a buying decision based on that alone. I like NV for other reasons.
 
It's pretty epic in borderlands. Ads so much to the game. Looks fake as hell but so cool. Not like borderlands is supposed to be realistic. I tried getting a dedicated physx card yesterday actually in the form of a gt 640. Guess what ? DOA so pissed gave me code 43 in device manager and computer would either lockup or bsod when tried to install drivers. So many drops in framerate with physx set to high tho. Even my old 780 couldn't handle it. Heard it's an issue with 600/700 series cards as the cuda cores are designed differently but a dedicated card is supposed to fix it. O well...

If you play a ton of borderlands like I do, or batman. You'll love physx.
 
It's really good when developers implement it well, but very few games actually implement it in a fashion that benefits the gaming experience.

To me personally it's not a selling point. If you really enjoy the Batman and Borderlands games, and play them regularly, then maybe it would be for you. Otherwise, no, PhysX isn't a big factor.
 
hcforde said:
The title really says it all. I am curious because of the computing power of the new R9 290 AMD cards. Also ther is not much mention of it in games or reviews. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's not a selling point as much as it used to be. So I wouldn't entirely base my decision on it. I also haven' had any driver issues with either AMD or Nvidia. So I have no real preference outside of price/performance/efficiency. Though the peripherals do play a small role if I'm pressed to make a decision.
 
As everyone else has said it is a nice feature of NV cards but shouldn't be the only reason to choose NV over AMD. It great when games have it just as an added bonus.

physxinfo.com has a list of current and future projects using GPU physics in case there is a specific game you are looking for.

Playing with a 290X recently it is a very impressive card in terms of max FPS but I did miss some of the features and smoothness of my oc'd 780. PhysX was one of those features.

Then again I am currently playing Batman, AC:IV, and especially coop BL2. PhysX missing from BL2 was pretty striking. Even when adding it onto the CPU through the ini edit I missed it on the GPU. CPU PhysX performance hit probably wouldn't be as noticeable on a high end I7.

I personally didn't have issues with running the latest Catalyst drivers. Only issue I had was going back to NV after I yanked the 290X. Even with driver sweeper the Cat drivers were a PITA to clear.

Good luck on your choice! Both NV and AMD make some great cards! Just find a card that fits your style of gaming and budget.

Mantle may be out this week on BF4 so if you got a week or two I would possibly wait and see what early performance is like with/without mantle.
 
Last edited:
Phsyx is overrated IMO, sure it's nice to have semi-realistic reactions on in-game objects but there's not a lot of games fully uses the said feature.


And the difference in the gaming experience between Physx on and off is little to no difference at all. who spends their gaming time watching rocks fall like they were real? LOLOL
 
pcjunkie said:
Never was a factor...
Click to expand...

x2


That said, I don't mind when developers use it... and I took advantage of it when I owned a nVidia GPU, but it didn't really add much to the game experience. It certainly wasn't enough to keep me a customer. Compared to a Titan or 780, the price drop on the 7990 was too great a deal to pass on.

I'd gladly get another nVidia GPU in the future for Physics processing, but there isn't much out there that really uses it unfortunately. It's a shame too because the nVidia demos were super cool (I liked the smoke and fluid).. borderlands 2 use of it was pretty cool (and batman with the fog).
 
It isn't huge, but looking through my library, I have 8 games that use it. In those 8, it makes a pretty striking visual difference in at least 4 of them.
I'm not sure it's make or break in an AMD vs. Nvidia decision, but with all other things equal (or close) I'd rather have it than not.
 
Yes if you have a backlog of games you intend to play which support PhysX.
 
Back when I had a 580 and 450 it was nice. My main intention for purchasing the 450 was for folding so the physx was a side benefit that I rarely used.
 
Thanks for the answers. I have recently upgraded from the system in my signature to a new system which has an i5-4670K, R9 290. I still have the other system but have also gained a few other components such as a 460GTX & 460GT. I also have a couple of R9 290X DC2OC cards on order from amazon that are to arrive by late Feb. (I got the R9 290 when it first came out at MSRP and Amazon is selling the ASUS R9 290X DC2OC cards at MSRP but you have to wait for them.)

One of the reasons for asking the question was a few years ago you could get the drivers to work if you had a Nvidia card in your AMD system. I was researching it and found that the better the AMD cards in your system the better your dedicated PHYSX card needed to be or it would slow down your FPS.

It seems that in the reviews of new games PHYSX is not mentioned any more. So I am wondering if it would be worth the trouble to TRY to get the 470GTX it working with AMD cards.(Has Nvidia locked out the hack on the newer drivers?) OR use the 470GTX as a main card and the 460GT as a dedicated PHYSX card in my older system.

I am going AMD because of the 3D system it has and not being locked to Nvidia approved monitors. I have a 4K monitor/TV and I want to run 3D on it. PLUS I want to keep AMD in business to keep Nvidia pricing competitive. LOL

I will not say $$$ is no object but I have my own quirky preferences.
 
Physx was also good in Alice: Madness Returns and Metro Last Light. It's a nice plus to have but not the main factor for choosing a video card.
 
PhysX isn't a factor in gaming now.
There was a dev kit requirement change from Nvidia to AMD for some of the builds I worked on last December.
 
Buy AMD and use an nvidia gtx460/480 for cheap for physx.

Buy nvidia and use that for physx or buy an 460/480 for cheap for dedicated physx (adjustable in nvidia control panel settings).
 
hcforde said:
The title really says it all. I am curious because of the computing power of the new R9 290 AMD cards. Also ther is not much mention of it in games or reviews. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I remember in batman it was really good. But it dropped my FPS to 50% and I had to disable it. But it was never a factor in my decision in purchasing a video card. The Force Unleashed series really spoiled my with their nice physics, made me realize GPU physics isn't all that great.
 
Haven't really noticed a difference and wouldn't factor it into future purchases. On the other hand, password/hash recovery and crypto currency mining rates are more beneficial.
 
I actually feel like it detracts more often than it adds. I couldn't tolerate it in Borderlands 2, they implemented it in such a manner that it didn't fit the aesthetic of the game, and showcased how gimmicky it feels to begin with.
 
DOOMHAMMA said:
I actually feel like it detracts more often than it adds. I couldn't tolerate it in Borderlands 2, they implemented it in such a manner that it didn't fit the aesthetic of the game, and showcased how gimmicky it feels to begin with.
Click to expand...

Your on crack. Implemented perfectly. Fits in so well with the crazy random characters and crap you run into. Takes away so much from the game not having physx.
 
DOOMHAMMA said:
I actually feel like it detracts more often than it adds. I couldn't tolerate it in Borderlands 2, they implemented it in such a manner that it didn't fit the aesthetic of the game, and showcased how gimmicky it feels to begin with.
Click to expand...

Huh? Granted, not all Physx implementations are great (such as AC IV or Mafia 2) but Borderlands 2' physx implementation was fantastic IMO. Batman: AC and Origins also have great implementations.
 
Last edited:
Quick question, are there any physx 3.x games out there?

I keep hearing about how 3.0 physx should be usable for CPUs only but I somehow doubt it.
 
hajalie24 said:
Quick question, are there any physx 3.x games out there?

I keep hearing about how 3.0 physx should be usable for CPUs only but I somehow doubt it.
Click to expand...

You need to remember there is hardware accelerated PhysX (NV GPU) and CPU Physx.

Bioshock Infinite, ARMA 3, and PlanetSide 2 run PhysX 3.X on the CPU. Witcher 3 and Theif are rumored to run PhysX 3.X CPU only. Star Citizen will get GPU acceleration.

Here is a list of all CPU PhysX games (incl consoles):
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=cpu

There are 31 PhysX games in dev with only 8 rumored to be hardware accelerated (GPU).
 
Looks like I made a mistake in my post, I meant should be usuable for CPUs also. If Witcher 3 runs on the CPU only I'd be happy, that's the one game that made me seriously think about buying a nvidia GPU for dedicated physx.

So there are no 3.x PhysX games yet? Just wondering how performance would be when using just the CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top