nVidia, ATi, PhysX & Upcoming Games

[Slachtbeest]

The topic of PhysX has come up often regarding it's use, relevance in general and the "fight" between nVidia's "proprietary" usage of the technology and working with developers specifically to enhance performance and even to utilize PhysX specifically to create effects that ATi is not capable of rendering.

After giving some thought to this, and some upcoming games that are using PhysX specifically, such as the AAA title Mafia 2, it's given me pause in whether or not I should stick with ATi, or remain with nVidia, though I'm not too impressed with Fermi's performance or price/heat output/power consumption ratio.

The problem is two-fold: 1) developers are not working with ATi to be able to develop something allowing them to create the same effects (generally speaking); 2) developers continue to work with nVidia and utilize PhysX, which allows for some greater effects and a more in-depth experience.

Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not... however, it does force the consumer into a corner when it comes to wanting to play games that utilize PhysX, due to ATi not being able to render the same effects.

Not every game or every engine utilizes PhysX, but there are some rather big titles for PC that do, and if you're running ATi, even if you install PhysX manually and/or utilize a PPU, it does not render the same, if at all, and/or ends up having problems in working together. Of course, nVidia put a "block" on PhysX being utilized when detecting another brand of GPU, which doesn't help matters.

I myself have been with nVidia for quite some time, having moved from the x1900xtx long ago, to the 8800GTX, then the GTX 280, but recently moved to ATi's 5870 which, as good as it is, I'm not terribly impressed with, to be honest.

After giving some thought to performance and tech between the two camps, I started also looking into games that will will specifically utilize PhysX for certain effects, which add to any game's depth, and realized that there are quite a few upcoming titles that will be utilizing PhysX to create some rather important graphical effects in-game.

Mafia 2 is one of those games, and a title I've been waiting for a very long time. Here's a vid explaining just how much is based on PhysX in Mafia 2.

Just as with the recently released Just Cause 2, except far more in-depth, Mafia 2 is utilizing PhysX specifically to create effects that ATi will not be able to render on it's own, if at all, which would mean getting a much less in-depth experience and truly missing-out on half of what the game has to offer.

While I certainly have no problem with any given hardware company utilizing their own proprietary technology, for ATi users, developers working specifically with nVidia to use PhysX in order to create specific effects in their games, does sort of present a problem of "cornering" people into either going with their GPUs, or missing out on a great deal of what any given game using PhysX has to offer.

Many people "dump on" PhysX, stating that it's "not really relevant", but in truth, it is a technology that does indeed allow for things that ATi cannot offer at the moment, and the more impressive the effects in any given game, the more in-depth and impressive it becomes, which will lead people to wanting to move to/stay with nVidia, which I've seen said by countless people in many places, who are frustrated by the situation.

Truth be told, I believe I'll be sticking with nVidia, due to the fact that there are too many things that ATi cannot replicate/run regarding such as what PhysX has to offer, that actually does add to a game, especially one that utilizes PhysX as heavily as Mafia 2 and it's destructibility etc.

Certainly not here to start a war between the camps, but it is a rather interesting, and somewhat frustrating, situation for many PC gamers, so I'm curious as to how others feel about the situation.

PhysX seems to be extremely relevant in some rather big games/titles, and may continue to be so in the future, from what I've found thus far. That being the case, I might indeed be upgrading to Fermi now, in order to have better performance (of course) but also to take advantage of PhysX (as well as CUDA) in order to not miss out on anything any upcoming games might have to offer.

So, how relevant will PhysX continue to be in the future? How many other developers are utilizing PhysX for their upcoming titles?

If you are with ATi at the moment, would you consider moving to nVidia to get a better gaming experience with games you're interested in that utilize PhysX?

Just curious as to the opinions of those around here, regarding the situation and how, if at all, it affects them and their decisions regarding what hardware to go with.

 

[dr.stevil]

I am, personally, a fan of physx. I use it when I can, but I probably wouldn't buy hardware JUST for that if I owned an ATi card. It's more of a bonus to nvidia users, IMO, than a must have feature (for now at least)... same with 3D vision.

I do believe that we'll see more titles using it (hardware accelerated or not) in the years to come. I would like to see ATi license it out (if they can) so developers can do some cooler stuff with it (like destructible levels and such that effect gameplay, instead of eye candy & visuals) and see hardware enabled physics become more mainstream

 

[TehQuick]

I doubt PhysX will get traction in PC gaming until nVidia relaxes restriction on its use, licensing etc. Who in the sane mind would develop games just for a portion of PC users? nVidia bribes its way to the game programmers by pouring millions of dollars into the TWIMTBP program and that's the only way they manage to keep PhysX somewhat relevant

 

[yimingwuzere]

Physx is a bonus, nothing more.

And BTW, ATI rejected Nvidia's offer of CUDA/Physx support on radeon cards back in 2008. And ATI also threw money to Codemasters to make Dirt 2 the showcase game for Evergreen's DX11 features.

 

[kllrnohj]

To me whether or not a card supports PhysX doesn't matter. The number of games that support GPU PhysX is still incredibly small, with Batman: AA and Mirrors Edge still being the only two worth talking about as far as I know.

I do like the idea of GPU physics, but so far it just hasn't done much. ATI is now pushing Bullet physics, which uses OpenCL (or DirectCompute, one of the two), and will work with Nvidia and ATI cards. So I'm still of the "wait and see" mentality. So far I haven't seen anything really worthwhile with PhysX. So to me Eyefinity > PhysX as far as vendor specific features go.

Oh, and Just Cause 2 doesn't use PhysX, it uses Havok.

 

[Breath_of_the_Dying]

Business is business. Both nVidia and ATI do what they can to make money. When it comes to proprietary technology, nVidia has been recently notorious with physx and CUDA. On the other hand, ATI has been pushing open standards, but they're doing it just so they dont have to pay for physx/CUDA licensing (hence the birth of openCL).

Personally, I'd want open standards across software technology. Let the war between ATI and nVidia stay on the hardware field rather than this out-to-make-money-at-the-cost-of-the-consumers approach. I love eyefinity, and I want nVidia's adoption of surround gaming to take off without a hitch. The bigger percentage use surround gaming, the more likely developers are to support it correctly. I love me some BC2 in eyefinity, but I wish borderlands supported it correctly . If only I could say the same for physx becoming the norm, but exclusivity will prevent that.

If I had to choose between eyefinity and physx at the moment, I'd chose eyefinity. Even if everything was all things equal except nVidia had physx, I wouldnt get it since I just got a new card. If down the line, all other things being equal (surround,price/performance,drivers), I'd gladly pick up a 580 or whatever comes down the line.

 

[Slachtbeest]

I would like to see ATi license it out (if they can) so developers can do some cooler stuff with it (like destructible levels and such that effect gameplay, instead of eye candy & visuals) and see hardware enabled physics become more mainstream

Well, that's the thing... it's a little more than just a "bonus", since games such as Mafia 2, for example, are using it for those very things, massively destructible environments etc. Since its such a massive part of the game, I feel that makes PhysX a little more than just a "bonus", as it's basically the "backbone" of the game, in terms of the visuals.

I too would like to see more use of it, though I know in terms of utilizing ATi's GPUs, that it's been quite an issue for many people.

Physx is a bonus, nothing more.

And BTW, ATI rejected Nvidia's offer of CUDA/Physx support on radeon cards back in 2008. And ATI also threw money to Codemasters to make Dirt 2 the showcase game for Evergreen's DX11 features.

Who knows why ATi rejected it (which I did not know), but as you've pointed out, both companies have had "their hands in the pots" in throwing money at certain developers to work with their tech.

But, as I stated to the above reply, when PhysX is used as the backbone for the effects in any given game, such as the destructibility featured in Mafia 2, it becomes a little more than just a "bonus" for some eye candy; it basically almost (or outright does) make it a necessity, in order to even see half or more of what the game has to offer visually.

I doubt PhysX will get traction in PC gaming until nVidia relaxes restriction on its use, licensing etc. Who in the sane mind would develop games just for a portion of PC users? nVidia bribes its way to the game programmers by pouring millions of dollars into the TWIMTBP program and that's the only way they manage to keep PhysX somewhat relevant

I agree, who indeed would develop games just for a "portion" of PC gamers? Well, given that nVidia does indeed have their hands in many cookie jars, the truth is, there are more people running nVidia than ATi, and since nVidia has the tech with PhysX that ATi does not, their choice or not, that gives nVidia the "upper-hand" in ways. Certainly not that I'm "on their side", as "brand loyalty" is ridiculous. I'm just being objective.

When I see a game such as Mafia 2 using PhysX literally as the backbone for the amazing effects they've created, it makes me think that it's getting a bit more "traction", as you say, in PC gaming already. There's already a rather large list of games, past, present and future that are utilizing PhysX for some serious effects which ATi is not capable of rendering, and that list seems to be growing.

In-turn, I wonder if people would simply skip on those games due to running ATi, and miss out on a potentially great experience, or how many would consider moving to/sticking with nVidia, despite their price points and Fermi's current "power hungry blast furnace" state (heh), in order to have "the best of all worlds".

I've always admired ATi's slightly better color and rendering of AA, but nVidia is not really any "worse" with those things these days. There are some games where it's noticeable a bit (such as HL2; far better AA with ATi), and others where it's not. So, with PhysX on the table with upcoming games such as Mafia 2, and the recently released hit Just Cause 2 (which I've read in multiple places is actually utilizing PhysX, so I don't know), again, it does make me think about these things and how it effects the consumer's decisions, experiences, opinions on the situation in general etc.

I'm not for/against either camp. Just think this issue is becoming more relevant as things are moving forward, and I'm seeing it talked about a lot more recently.

 

[TehQuick]

nvidia might edge out ati in the number GPUs sold by a percent or two but the lion's share of the market is still in Intel's hands, which still means it's a very limited market for PhysX-heavy titles. I do not see PhysX any more than just a showcase feature, and I'm sure Mafia 2 developers will make sure that some of the PhysX will be done via CPU rather than GPU alone unless nvidia pays them a hefty sum of money

nvidia is gonna lose, badly, when Intel and AMD come out with their next-gen CPUs with integrated graphics (intel does it already!) and no amount of PhysX promotion is gonna help them. PhysX is doomed unless nvidia lifts the restrictions.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Any titles that MUST have nvidia proprietary standards to run properly will not be purchased by me, and I will also not go back to buying nvidia cards until that kind of shit is stopped. Alienating 1/2 of the population of PC gamers just so they can rule the market is not consumer friendly in the long run.

Also, why would AMD pay licensing fees to nvidia for physx, which AMD would have no control over? Open standards ftw. The more physx we see in games, the more you will have to pay for hardware to run it, and you will only have 1 choice as to which hardware you can buy. Why paint yourself into that corner?

 

[Ryan45]

Just use ATI+Nvidia Physx. Works for me and others as well.

 

[coldstorm]

amd does support 3d it mainly third party while nvidia it there own. so that kinda mute on either. well until nvidia have public models for people to buy ati currently ahead in 3d area. as for phyx is really a benefit for nvidia cards not a game changers at least with current games and some future games. really anything nvidia can do ati can do as well just need the proper coding done for it. look at cryengine 3 physic demonstration that is most likely doing physic on the cpu so why should phyxs is really not that impressive i think . when physic like bullet is available for both cards then it ok otherwise it just personal choice on what you want and what extras you can get.

 

[martinmsj]

Physx is a bonus, nothing more.

And BTW, ATI rejected Nvidia's offer of CUDA/Physx support on radeon cards back in 2008. And ATI also threw money to Codemasters to make Dirt 2 the showcase game for Evergreen's DX11 features.

To be fair, Dirt 2 features used to showcase DX11 may have been paid for by ATI however there is nothing purposely blocking the features from NVidia's DX11 hardware.It may seem similar because only up until recently did NVidia release their DX 11 hardware.

 

[trinibwoy]

it is a technology that does indeed allow for things that ATi cannot offer at the moment

Well that pretty much sums it up when you get past all the arguing and semantics. It's all that really matters at the end of the day. It's just a case of product differentiation but people get too caught up in the fanboy wars to grasp the simple concept.

 

[Brackle]

I do not think Physx from Nvidia is worth it.

Just look at Bad Company 2. Great physics in the game, and its used by Havok....which its open to everyone.

Why stick with Nvidia physx, which only works with Nvidia cards (unless you use hacked drivers).

It's just another way of ripping people off, so they can make money.

There is no test to show that a CPU can do the same amount of physx as an Nvidia card...They purposely do not code to use more CPU power.

IMO it is useless to stick with nvidia for this reason only

 

[TehQuick]

Well that pretty much sums it up when you get past all the arguing and semantics. It's all that really matters at the end of the day. It's just a case of product differentiation but people get too caught up in the fanboy wars to grasp the simple concept.

Well, technically Betamax also had some nice features to offer over the VHS, and where is it now? Or the same thing with the more recent HD-DVD. THere's a difference between 'product differentiation' and commercial success, and in my opinion, PhysX is doomed to oblivion unless nVidia opens it up to be used on other hardware.

 

[aweusx2]

Is it just me or did those kinda things already happen in games with out physX? Seems like games have explosions and everything blasts to bits with shells hitting the ground etc on games before PhysX was even around, am i mistaken? mafia 2 does look cool but im SURE 100% sure that stuff will still blow up and all with out PhysX it just wont have a few extra sparks right? Also another guy said you can still use PhysX with ati cards that true? Ive never used Cuda and i do alot of encoding i might look into it but after 8800gts i have gone ati every time.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I wouldn't mind physx, if NV let me run it without having to use hacked drivers while I use an ATI card, I would have kept / purchased a card just for physx.

 

[TehQuick]

I wouldn't mind physx, if NV let me run it without having to use hacked drivers while I use an ATI card, I would have kept / purchased a card just for physx.

Ditto. It's pretty much retarded on nVidia's part to implement that stupid driver block.

 

[Balthazor]

I wouldn't mind physx, if NV let me run it without having to use hacked drivers while I use an ATI card, I would have kept / purchased a card just for physx.

Amen, brother.

 

[MrLonghair]

Wouldn't be surprised if they had the PC version of Mafia 2 remove most of the effects unless you had the latest PhysX drivers (ie the ones you cannot hack if I see things right) and an Nvidia card in your system while letting consoles do it on their CPUs just fine.

Support fair business, support the future of PC gaming, support AMD.

 

[Xzyrus]

I want to see what Mafia II looks like on the AMD GPUs/without physX. I remember seeing the side by side comparisons for Batman AA and Metro 2033 which appeared quite nice, but once I got down to playing Batman AA, I kind of forgot about the extras PhysX would have given me.

 

[Slachtbeest]

Well that pretty much sums it up when you get past all the arguing and semantics. It's all that really matters at the end of the day. It's just a case of product differentiation but people get too caught up in the fanboy wars to grasp the simple concept.

Thanks, that is indeed the only point I'm making which, whether people like it or not (not that I do) is just the way it is, unfortunately.

Hence why I'm curious as to just how much it does affect people/things, due to certain AAA games having used it recently, such as Mass Effect 2, upcoming Mafia 2 etc.

Just use ATI+Nvidia Physx. Works for me and others as well.

If you mean simply downloading and installing PhysX, I've tried that... was actually forced to do that just to get Mass Effect 2 to run... though I cant speak to whether or not it actually worked.

There's no effects such as destructibility etc. in ME2 that shows whether or not having PhysX installed did anything more than allow me to run the game.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to work for something such as Mafia 2, which has full-world destructibility on a massive, and very detailed level.

Is it just me or did those kinda things already happen in games with out physX? Seems like games have explosions and everything blasts to bits with shells hitting the ground etc on games before PhysX was even around, am i mistaken? mafia 2 does look cool but im SURE 100% sure that stuff will still blow up and all with out PhysX it just wont have a few extra sparks right? Also another guy said you can still use PhysX with ati cards that true? Ive never used Cuda and i do alot of encoding i might look into it but after 8800gts i have gone ati every time.

Sure, there are plenty of games where everything can be blasted to bits, but when utilizing PhysX heavily for effects, it could be a bit more than just shell casings hitting the ground... and that's my concern.

Sure, I'd hope it would be as you've said, and ATi users would simply be missing "just a few extra sparks", but what if that's not the case? Sure, you'd think the devs would be "smart" enough to not alienate other gamers and figure out how to get the same effects working without PhysX on ATi GPUs, but what if they haven't bothered?

I'm sure it will be playable, certainly, but at what cost? The game is specifically touting it's world destructibility as offered a far more in-depth experience. If that is somehow hampered and looks like garbage, then that lessens the experience for ATi users, for whom it will probably end up looking just like "the same old" in terms of destructibility.

That's the problem... no way of knowing exactly until someone makes a comparison, unless developers do something to "even the playing field" and get the same effects on ATi.

 

[mdk30]

Just make me a single DX11 card that can support 3 monitors (EyeFinity style) +1 for looking shit up online at the same time, 3D visuals (3D vision style), AND physics acceleration (PhysX style) and you've got yourself a sale. I don't care who makes it as long as you can give me all those features for $500 or less. Get on it.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Mass Effect 2 does not utilize Physx, but the engine it was written for does. That is why you needed to DL it.

 

[BravO)))]

I bought a gt240 for physx to run with my 5850... Now I am wondering why the hell it was so hyped. Out of the 60 games installed on my computer only one runs it... and I don't even play it.

 

[TehQuick]

Sure, I'd hope it would be as you've said, and ATi users would simply be missing "just a few extra sparks", but what if that's not the case? Sure, you'd think the devs would be "smart" enough to not alienate other gamers and figure out how to get the same effects working without PhysX on ATi GPUs, but what if they haven't bothered?

Don't worry, this would not happen outside of the TWIMTBP program. No other game developer will invest much of their time into creating PhysX-heavy games because that will mean a very limited audience for their game. Games are not created for particular hardware, they are created for an audience and if the target audience has access to some sort of specific hardware, it'll be supported, not the other way around. TWINMTBP pours money into the development to make up for the losses in the market share of the TWINMTBP game. And like I said twice before, the PhysX audience is gonna shrink, not grow in the future unless nvidia releases its hold over it, which means that fewer, not more games are gonna utilize it in any meaningful way.

 

[WBurchnall]

I think the problems regarding PhysX seems to be the performance hit. I know the OP considers PhysX to add more depth to his gaming experience but I wonder how the OP feels about PhysX versus say 2xAA or 4xAA. Or gaming with PhysX on and 30 fps average versus PhysX off and 50 fps average.

Alternatively, Gaming with PhysX at 1280x720 /w 50 fps versus PhysX off at 1920x1200 with 50 fps. If you had to A. Turn of anti-aliasing, B. Turn down your resolution, C. Live with the performance hit PhysX provides or D. Have an SLI setup in order to enable PhysX effectively doubling your GPU cost, is PhysX still worth the more in-depth gameplay?

I agree that PhysX does seem to add more depth and I'm a bit torn too. My factors for considering the GTX480 basically are the following:
GTX480 has a 1.8GB(roughly) of on-board memory. I think its possible that the GTX480 might have more longevity than a 5870 due to the larger amount of memory. For example, maybe on some TWIMTBP games 'Very High' texture quality will start requiring just over 1GB of memory such as 1.2GB to artifically limit certain 5xxx series cards but not the 470/480 . Not that nVidia would ever do that. Nope. Never.
GTX480 has PhysX(which might not be practical in new games could help in old games? like Dark Void, Batman AA, etc?)
The downside is the GTX480 runs hot comparatively to the 5870 and in terms of hardware reliability, I generally think components running hotter die sooner. So maybe it will be more future-proof but would spend an larger amount of time in RMA?
Drivers may be more mature for the 5870 as they have been being tweaked and improved for over 9 months since release of the 58xx whereas the GTX480 is still in its 'first' month. 5870 has Eyefinity for what it's worth if your willing to invest in triple monitors and accept lower quality settings for the triple-monitor view.
The 5870 runs cooler so I imagine there's a bit more overclocking room and/or it should possibly have more reliability running cooler.

Really, the only pro I can see for the GTX480 is PhysX + more memory. When comparing the GTX480 to the Eyefinity 6 2GB edition though, the only difference comes down to PhysX and plus or minus a few fps depending on which title your looking at. PhysX eye candy on though is not always an advantage if its requires you to turn off other eye candy in favour of it. In that case, ATI has its advantage of improved IQ /w respect to avg fps, resolution and possibly AA. nVidia has the advantage of improved IQ /w respect to Physics 'effects/eye candy'.

 

[sethk]

There is little doubt in my mind that Nvidia could grow PhysX usage if they did the following:

1. Create and open-source (or semi-open source) a reference OpenCL based implementation that had decent performance on all hardware (including CPUs, by default). Clearly a closer to the metal / more optimized CUDA implementation should have no trouble beating the competition, but it would probably go a long way towards convincing game developers to use it. Open source would also mean Linux and other *nix OS support. The critical step here would be to not cripple this implementation (if it was open-source, inspection of the code would defeat most 'crippled' arguments.)
[This part is really unlikely]: They should also move to make this a standard through Microsoft, the OpenGL committee or ISO / IEEE. Standards tend to have much longer shelf-lifes compared to proprietary standards.

2. Officially allow / support mixed Nvidia / non-Nvidia systems, with a Nvidia GPU for PhysX (doubling as an extra card for more monitors in non-gaming use) plus a non-Nvidia GPU for gaming. If anything, they'd probably sell more hardware, because people might consider buying both cards and not selling old cards (with the assumption that a used card sale blocks the sale of a new card).
If they had a reference OpenCL wrapper, you may even see an older ATI card being used for PhysX and a newer Nvidia GPU being the main gaming card.

The more PhysX was adopted, the more people might care about who had the fastest PhysX card, which would always be Nvidia. Since PhysX generates more objects in game that require shading / texturing, it would also go a long way towards enticing people to buy cutting edge GPUs, whereas now many users (including myself) question the immediate need to rush out and pay early adopter tax for new GPUs when slightly older GPUs are hardly running out of steam in most games. It would have a snowball effect.

The PC is no console and there are honestly no games today that utilize as much of the theoretical power of the PC as console games do. Building a common base of functionality would probably allow developers to think about trying to stretch the capabilities of their PC game engines, instead of just porting / neutering their existing console game engines to the PC with slightly jacked up resolutions and textures.

Not only would these steps improve PhysX developer take-up, it would also generate a lot of goodwill in the marketplace towards Nvidia and deflate most anti-PhysX rhetoric. Of course actions like these take a real forward-thinking mindset, of the kind that Google has, and clearly most other IP-hugging tech companies don't.

 

[RamonGTP]

I agree with those saying Physx is a nice bonus. IMO, Mafia 2 using it doesn't change that. I don't think any one game is enough to make a technology a "must have" option and Mafia 2 is hardly the biggest title around.

While Physx does have a performance hit, I don't think that's a reason to discount it. Every option that adds or improves visuals has a performance hit, this is no different. My gripe with Physx is that:

1) It's proprietary to nVidia
2) It hasn't really been implemented the way I'd imagine. it's been used primarily for eye candy instead of actual physics.

 

[WBurchnall]

Just make me a single DX11 card that can support 3 monitors (EyeFinity style) +1 for looking shit up online at the same time, 3D visuals (3D vision style), AND physics acceleration (PhysX style) and you've got yourself a sale. I don't care who makes it as long as you can give me all those features for $500 or less. Get on it.

You'll be waiting 1-2 years I'm afraid. That exists right now but requires SLI'd 480GTXs or SLI'd 280s, etc. You'd have four outputs which once nVidia' drivers support's there Stereo3D, you'd be able to have 3 monitors displaying a 3d imagine(assuming that the monitor's are all 120hz and you have goggles), PhysX support and possibly the fourth output could be used for intenret surfing/what not on your desktop.

The problem is that there's no way SLI'd 280s are going to be producing anywhere near 120hz /w 3x1920x1080 so you'd need to turn off vsync in hopes of getting over 60Hz to avoid headaches which will feel like half the fps as the fps are devided into each eye. In that case, you now have to put up with screen tearing! In order to achieve over 60 fps in a new game like Metro 2033, your going to need to turn your quality settings to low, especially if you want to use PhysX. So its going to look like crap. However, you'd have your desired features and your desired price point of $500.00 pending nVidia releasing their drivers that support Stereo3D.

What you are asking for though is possible if you roughly double to triple your budget to $1000.00 - $1500.00 and go for Dual or Tri SLIed 480s.

 

[The Cobra]

IMHO PhysX is just a gimmik any more. I was an early adapter of the Ageia/PhysX Card when it was first released. I was hoping to be bowled over in UT3 when that game was released. I ended up laughing at the setup. It was nice for a while when Nvidia let both cards play nice together. Now, they just borked their drivers to not support an Nvidia card when it detects an ATI card. There never has been that "Killer App" released for PhysX. The Batman game was "Cute" but again, not a "KIller App" I was expecting. I have an Ageia card sitting around if anyone want's to buy it

 

[JCDenton]

I like it. I had played through Batman halfway on my GTX280s but I quit when I got my 5xxx series cards because it just wasn't the same. Now I'l finish it with my 480s.

Ultimately though a lot of what physx does could easily be done by the CPU, which is underutilized in a lot of games for those of us with OCed i7s. Mirrors Edge doesn't have anything we haven't seen from CPU physics. Batman on the other hand has more refined effects than what you typically see done on the CPU, but it could probably still be done on the CPU if coded well.

It's definitely a value-added feature, but how much is it worth? Definitely $20? Maybe $50 or so? I'd definitely pay another $50 if there are a few more games that use it like Mafia 2 that I'll play during the card's lifespan. Add in the other benefits of a 480 and it's definitely worth $100 more than ATI's card if you don't care about heat/power, I'd even say $150. But just because it's the best thing right now doesn't mean you should buy it. The time to buy was 6 months ago when the 5870 dropped, or 6 months from now when next gen cards are out. It's not smart to be buying into either GPU halfway through a generation when the cards cost more than they did at launch. I was already invested in ATI's 5xxx series with a 5870+5970 so to move over to GTX480 sli is a sidegrade that I may get a bit of money back on, but I wouldn't be buying new cards right now if I still had my 280 sli.

This has been a weak generation of graphics cards. The 5xxx series didn't give a big enough gain over gtx280/285 and was mainly praised due to lack of competition, and now the 480 is only "good" because it's slightly better than a mediocre card. If I could do it all over again I'd have just dropped a third 280 into my system and called it a day.

 

[InvisiBill]

There is little doubt in my mind that Nvidia could grow PhysX usage if they did the following:

1. Create and open-source (or semi-open source) a reference OpenCL based implementation that had decent performance on all hardware (including CPUs, by default). Clearly a closer to the metal / more optimized CUDA implementation should have no trouble beating the competition, but it would probably go a long way towards convincing game developers to use it. Open source would also mean Linux and other *nix OS support. The critical step here would be to not cripple this implementation (if it was open-source, inspection of the code would defeat most 'crippled' arguments.)
[This part is really unlikely]: They should also move to make this a standard through Microsoft, the OpenGL committee or ISO / IEEE. Standards tend to have much longer shelf-lifes compared to proprietary standards.

I think Nvidia will need to do this to keep PhysX alive. If it comes down to proprietary Nvidia PhysX vs. an OpenCL-based alternative that can run on any modern GPU or even the CPU, I think most publishers will choose the open one simply because it allows them to actually take advantage of it without alienating potential customers. With OpenCL and DirectCompute taking off, I really see PhysX/CUDA/STREAM as being on the way out - why write something that only works on specific hardware when you can do the same thing but in a universal way? If Nvidia doesn't open up PhysX, someone else will write an OpenCL implementation or come up with an OpenCL alternative. I think we're at a point analogous to when websites realized it was better to code for standard HTML rather than specifically for IE6 (even if it meant a little extra tweaking to get it to look right in IE6).

One major issue is that an open PhysX may run much better on an ATI card. I don't know all the details of PhysX vs. CUDA vs. STREAM, but the temporary HD5770 in my system is actually triple the speed of my GTX285 for dnetc. No typo there, 5770 == 3x285 (~900mk/s vs. ~300mk/s). I know that ATI and Nvidia do their shaders differently (i.e. X shaders on an ATI card isn't equal to X shaders on an Nvidia card), and while two cards may provide similar performance for gaming, they may perform very differently for some GPGPU tasks. What would happen to Nvidia's sales if a $135 HD5770 was four times as good (5770 == 3x285, 285 > 9800) as your $100 9800GT for PhysX?

If Nvidia were to open up PhysX and proceed to get demolished by ATI cards, then the people who were swayed to Nvidia because of PhysX would no longer be - it would come down solely to performance of the card, not artificial limitations added to them. I'm sure there are some people who are going GTX480 instead of HD5870/5970 just because of PhysX. If PhysX ran just as well (or even better) on ATI, those people wouldn't be "forced" to get a GTX480, hurting Nvidia's sales. I know there are a number of people out there boycotting Nvidia because of the blocking crap, but there are probably more people choosing Nvidia because PhysX does currently give Nvidia an exclusive advantage over ATI.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm upgrading from a GTX285 to an HD5870. My own testing shows that my 9800GT will bottleneck even a 5770, but I'm keeping it instead of the GTX285. I'm betting that in the future, Nvidia cards will be less relevant as standalone PhysX cards, so I'll get more value out of selling the GTX285 than I would from upgrading my PhysX card and selling the 9800GT.

I like it. I had played through Batman halfway on my GTX280s but I quit when I got my 5xxx series cards because it just wasn't the same. Now I'l finish it with my 480s.

I agree with this. I played through Batman on my Nvidia cards. While doing my PhysX testing, the game without PhysX just seemed so bland. It completely changes the atmosphere of the game. But at the same time, my ATI+Nvidia system seems exactly the same as my Nvidia+Nvidia system. Heck, there are even hacks out there for running Batman's PhysX on the CPU which seems to perform ok on a good CPU. Batman is undoubtedly better with PhysX. However, it's better with Nvidia only because of artificial limitations, not because Nvidia is just amazingly better technology.

 

[Slachtbeest]

I agree with many of the responses and perspectives given here, as they very much echo things I've been thinking about that prompted me to start this thread.

When talking about this gen of GPUs and IQ, as per what I've seen over the years, ATi definitely has a bit of the upper-hand in general, with color reproduction and the rendering of AA/AF, which I feel has always been a bit better than nVidia.

Regarding nVidia, as mentioned by others, you have the eye candy created via PhysX, though on top of that, you also have some games that use it to implement to physics that ATi is not capable of on it's own without either the use of a PPU (which is no longer supported, as far as I know) or a game coded to use the CPU for the physics.

I like PhysX as well, for the games it's been actually implemented well/heavily for, though also as stated, that is not the majority of games. However, when they're games that are "AAA" titles or just titles you personally might really be interested in, if they end up falling short with anything but using an nVidia GPU for PhysX, that serious bothers me, also for the same many various reasons that others here have mentioned.

I too am a bit underwhelmed by this generation of releases. Though not terrible by any means, it's not like the days of moving from earlier gen to the 8800GTX, then the 8800GTX to the GTX 280, as an example.

How do I feel about the "performance hit" with PhysX "over" more AA/AF etc.? Well, I've never really noticed, but as someone else mentioned, when ever you enable/use any "extras", you're going to get a performance hit, even just by upping AA in-game.

As I said, and one or two others here have seemed to echo, I'm not "for" or "against" either camp. ATi has had some excellent offerings, as well as nVidia, and I (and apparently some others as well here) have been feeling a bit torn, due to the fact that there are some games that I'm personally into coming up that will be utilizing PhysX, that I'd rather see in all their glory, than a "lesser" version in any way.

PhysX does not always add to the depth or even quality of every game for which it's used, but sometimes it does, and that's what gets me.

Regarding something such as Mafia 2, all of the physics and eye candy are being created strictly with PhysX. It makes me wonder how much of a "lesser experience" it will be if using an ATi GPU, due to the fact that how they're using PhysX with Mafia 2 is not for just some "basic" or "small" effects. It's for massive amounts of realistic, "layered" destruction and particle effects, as well as the physics for things that are broken apart and blown-up.

Sure, you'll still see things break apart and explode using an ATi GPU, but I'm wondering how much you will not see/see properly when not using an nVidia GPU.

I'm just using Mafia 2 as an example of the problem many here seem to understand themselves, when "equal solutions" are not created for both brands of hardware. Since Mafia 2 is probably going to be an incredible and big-selling game, so it's the perfect example of taking a huge title and possibly "alienating" people, depending on just how much of a difference there is between what hardware you go with.

It's really quite aggravating. It only takes me literally five or ten minutes to blast-out all drivers and change-out GPUs, but I'm not going to switch between them for every game played. That would be ridiculous. So, as I said, it leaves the consumer in the position of having to decide what's truly "worth it" the most in comparisons between brands, what they might gaining, but also what they might be missing, even if it's just "that one title" that they were really looking forward to.

For the reasons I mentioned, as well as the post above me, I've been seriously considering moving to Fermi just to have the "overall", just in the event. Having moved to the 5870 from the GTX 280 was not nearly as impressive of an upgrade as it should have been, and it's certainly not the rest of my system that's holding anything back.

I will probably wait to see what happens with Fermi and ATi, wait for the "next gen" or "refreshes" and see what happens. Then, depending on how drastic the differences are in general performance and IQ in general and with certain games, make a decision around the time Mafia 2 is released, since that's right around the time when the "next batch" from both camps should be out.

Again, very frustrating to have to make a decision and keeping up with what you could be gaining or losing with either given manufacturer.

 

[Mr Mean]

So, how relevant will PhysX continue to be in the future? How many other developers are utilizing PhysX for their upcoming titles?

PhysX will be relevant as howmuch support/money the project will recieve.

I am still not impressed with PhysX even when I ran Batman AA with it enabled and disabled. I played it twice just to see howmuch of an impact it will make. Aslong as Nvidia has the funds to support PhysX, it will be here.

If you are with ATi at the moment, would you consider moving to nVidia to get a better gaming experience with games you're interested in that utilize PhysX?

Not at all. After playing battlefield bad company 2, I realize how good Havok is compared to PhysX. There is nothing that I can visually note that is vastly superior from using PhysX over Havok. From what I understand there is a new Havok version in the works that does physics on clothing also.

If Nvidia stops their stupid BS about not using an ATI card for primary display and use my old Nvidia card for PhysX I might reconsider using it. But for now I don't want to "hack" or emulate a Nvidia card on my ATI videocard to use PhysX. I just don't want to support it and let them see how the community feels about it. Most people like choice on what hardware they want. They don't want to be locked to a specific vendor.

 

[trinibwoy]

Hence why I'm curious as to just how much it does affect people/things, due to certain AAA games having used it recently, such as Mass Effect 2, upcoming Mafia 2 etc.

Nvidia users won't care since it's free. AMD users will diss it cause they don't have it. That's what it mostly boils down to (as evidenced in this thread).

I'm sure it will be playable, certainly, but at what cost? The game is specifically touting it's world destructibility as offered a far more in-depth experience. If that is somehow hampered and looks like garbage, then that lessens the experience for ATi users, for whom it will probably end up looking just like "the same old" in terms of destructibility.

That stuff will most likely run on the CPU anyway and be the same for Nvidia and AMD users. But you're right, no way of knowing for sure until the game is out.

There is little doubt in my mind that Nvidia could grow PhysX usage if they did the following

Nvidia is trying to sell graphics cards, not physics engines. PhysX is just one angle they're using to do so. Making PhysX more widespread by running it on the competitor's hardware doesn't generate any income for them so why exactly would they want to do that?

[edit] I get your argument that if it were to become more prevalent people would care more, developers would use it more and Nvidia's hardware would become more popular as a result. It sounds feasible on the surface but it's based on an assumption that lots of AMD users will go out and buy secondary Nvidia cards just for PhysX. I don't see that happening on any grand scale outside of the niche enthusiast market.

 

[TehQuick]

Nvidia is trying to sell graphics cards, not physics engines. PhysX is just one angle they're using to do so. Making PhysX more widespread by running it on the competitor's hardware doesn't generate any income for them so why exactly would they want to do that?

That kind of thinking will run PhysX into ground. If you don't care about spreading as wide as possible why bother with it at all? If history of computing is any indication, open source physics will take over and destroy PhysX simply because game developers will choose the former over the latter each time to gain access to wider audience unless they get bribed through TWIMTBP program. And how long nVidia is gonna be able shell out big bucks for that, is a question

I hear multiple references to AAA games but what is it, exactly? Apart from frequently mentioned Mafia 2 which is yet to published, I don't remember any wildly popular game which was heavily coded with PhysX. Yes, there's that Batman but I personally didn't like it and I do own nVidia gtx 285 (3 of them, in fact). ME2 as it was pointed out barely uses it. Mafia 2 is not out yet and so it's pure speculation whether or on its developers will actually shoot themselves in the foot by overemphasizing PhysX, and won't opt for other implementation of those effects instead. Don't forget, there's also a trend for using all those extra CPU cores floating around which render themselves nicely for exactly this type of thing.

In the end, as CPUs get more cores and get integrated GPUs, game developers will assign priority to tapping that potential rather than the proprietary standard which has been on decline ever since it was invented (anyone remembers Aegia? and where is it now?) Contrary to OP, I do not believe that PhysX will become ever more important, it'll die out: if, as the comment above states, PhysX is of no concern to nVidia itself, who else is gonna promote it?

 

[trinibwoy]

That kind of thinking will run PhysX into ground. If you don't care about spreading as wide as possible why bother with it at all? If history of computing is any indication, open source physics will take over and destroy PhysX simply because game developers will choose the former over the latter each time to gain access to wider audience unless they get bribed through TWIMTBP program.

I'm assuming you don't mean open source but based on a standard API. Yes one day someone will write an OpenCL physics library. But that day isn't here yet and Nvidia is making hay while the sun shines. A hypothetical future has no bearing on whether PhysX makes business sense today.

 

[yimingwuzere]

To be fair, Dirt 2 features used to showcase DX11 may have been paid for by ATI however there is nothing purposely blocking the features from NVidia's DX11 hardware.It may seem similar because only up until recently did NVidia release their DX 11 hardware.

But considering the hype for the game amongst racing gamers, and the lack of Nvidia competition it's marketing aim is just the same as say, adding CUDA-powered effects in JC2.

Anyway my point is both companies will pay or lend support to encourage developers to optimize their games or add extra effects that give an advantage to their cards over their rivals. It's just that Nvidia has been doing better on this front till recent times.

Anyway I find AMD's stance on being a pusher of open standards a bit funny, isn't their DX11 pitch on Evergreen's release pushing a closed standard? At least they got OpenGL 4 support first.

 

[BravO)))]

Anyway I find AMD's stance on being a pusher of open standards a bit funny, isn't their DX11 pitch on Evergreen's release pushing a closed standard? At least they got OpenGL 4 support first.

/facepalm

Nvidia's launch of Fermi was supposed to have been at the same time of the 58xx series. You saying the way ati launched the dx11 capable cards way ahead of nvidia is pushing closed standards is just retarded.