Pardon my ignorance regarding physx...

A

Aaron Harmon

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
82
It's been a few years since I've upgraded, but I recently bought a GTX 470. A friend of mine strongly recomended Nvidia becuase ATI lacks Physx support. What exatcly does that mean?

When I read reviews of the newer cards, they never even mention Physx though my friend believes is a strong selling point for Nvidia.

I watched a video of Mirrors Edge with and without Physx and to be honest, it looks like a big deal. Do ATI cards simply not display those things, or are they emulated in software? If ATI does emulate, does it come at a hit to performance?

Thanks

Aaron
 
your friend might be a fanboy.
In theory, physx is a good selling point, but in practice, it is isnt. When you consider the "exclusive" business model that works against progress, the really really limited number of games supporting hardware physx in a useful way and the performance hit/cost for a seperate nvidia card, physx isnt hot.

I had a gtx 460 for a brief period, and the physx aspect of it was rather unimpressive - Id grab an AMD card for the MLAA over an nvidia one for physx now
 
Last edited:
Aaron Harmon said:
It's been a few years since I've upgraded, but I recently bought a GTX 470. A friend of mine strongly recomended Nvidia becuase ATI lacks Physx support. What exatcly does that mean?

When I read reviews of the newer cards, they never even mention Physx though my friend believes is a strong selling point for Nvidia.

I watched a video of Mirrors Edge with and without Physx and to be honest, it looks like a big deal. Do ATI cards simply not display those things, or are they emulated in software? If ATI does emulate, does it come at a hit to performance?

Thanks

Aaron
Click to expand...

that is a loaded question. is it a selling point? that depends mostly on you. I can count the number of games that physx matters in on one hand. and then its not a deal maker on any but one or two. if you have a favorite game that uses it then yes it might be a selling point. but to be honest a lot of times using physx on a single card can mean having to lower other settings or in the case of mafia not being able to run AA (not the fault of physx though). is it nice to have? yes. would I buy a card on that? no.

and physx is actually one of the less popular physx engines. Havoc and some others have done more. (been used more I should say) its made some inroads though.

bottom line I would not have bought a card for that. some people do love it though. and if you happen to play a game that makes good use of it (about 4 games that I can think of) it might be a good deal.

as for the 470GTX, if you got it at a low price its probably worth it, but given how hot and power hungry it is compared to the 6870 (or even the higher clocked 460GTX) it needs to be priced below both
 
So are those things really missing on an ATI card? The flowing curtains etc. I mean? I'm referring to mirrors edge video.
 
PhysX is nvidia only because nvidia owns it and they made it that way. If you have a AMD maincard there's a workaround to use a nvidia secondary card for dedicated physx.

As for if PhysX is a 'big deal' ... The vast majority of people couldn't care less. If you play the ... few games... that actually matter with PhysX then I guess it's a big deal.

If your friend suggested the 470 as well, then you better have bought it for a great price considering there are better options from both camps...
 
There are only a handful of games that have hardware PhysX support. If you happen to play those games, then it may or may not be a big deal depending on user preference. The rest of the games that advertise "PhysX", use CPU physics. In that situation, it doesn't matter what graphics card you use as all the physics calculations are done on the CPU. I believe the number of games using hardware PhysX support is in the realm of 15-20...most of them being older. 99% of everything else simply uses CPU physics.

Now, if you use windows 7, then there is a way to run an ATI card with a dedicated Nvidia Physics card. But anyways, the lack of PhysX support isn't that big a deal...assuming you don't play a hardware supported PhysX title.
 
You can always get a cheap nvidia card and run physx on that. Usually physx takes a huge hit on performance when the main card does it.
 
The only game that actually shows a change is Batman AA, other than that, NO... nothing more than just lagging the crap out of you, especially Mirror's Edge.
 
Valset said:
that is a loaded question. is it a selling point? that depends mostly on you. I can count the number of games that physx matters in on one hand. and then its not a deal maker on any but one or two. if you have a favorite game that uses it then yes it might be a selling point. but to be honest a lot of times using physx on a single card can mean having to lower other settings or in the case of mafia not being able to run AA (not the fault of physx though). is it nice to have? yes. would I buy a card on that? no.

and physx is actually one of the less popular physx engines. Havoc and some others have done more. (been used more I should say) its made some inroads though.

bottom line I would not have bought a card for that. some people do love it though. and if you happen to play a game that makes good use of it (about 4 games that I can think of) it might be a good deal.

as for the 470GTX, if you got it at a low price its probably worth it, but given how hot and power hungry it is compared to the 6870 (or even the higher clocked 460GTX) it needs to be priced below both
Click to expand...

I got a fair price on it. Its watercooled and runs very cool with extra voltage and a decent OC. I'm not unhappy with the card, I just wondered wether or not I should rule out ATI in the future. If I had to make the purchase again, I dont know that I would go the same route. People seam to be pretty impressed with the current ATI cards.
 
Aaron Harmon said:
It's been a few years since I've upgraded, but I recently bought a GTX 470. A friend of mine strongly recomended Nvidia becuase ATI lacks Physx support. What exatcly does that mean?

When I read reviews of the newer cards, they never even mention Physx though my friend believes is a strong selling point for Nvidia.

I watched a video of Mirrors Edge with and without Physx and to be honest, it looks like a big deal. Do ATI cards simply not display those things, or are they emulated in software? If ATI does emulate, does it come at a hit to performance?

Thanks

Aaron
Click to expand...

When Batman Arkham Asylum used Physx, I wasn't too terribly impressed by it. Some of the fog effects were neat but it wasn't a game breaker to me. Some people just loved while some don't.

ATI/AMD card can't do it at the moment is because AMD didn't pay Nvidia a license fee for Physx. They're doing an open format physics. Nvidias physics is proprietary API and isn't open. I assume ATI/AMD wants Nvidias Physx to die so Nvidia will abandon it focus on an open Physics platform instead. The Physx you're seeing in games now is pretty much coming out of Nvidias pocket to the developers to add Physx in their game.

Now for games, what games do you play? If you like Physx and want this feature then yes you will probably want it. The ideal setup is primary nvidia card for display and secondary nvidia card for Physx calculations. You can't have a primary ATI/AMD card and a secondary Nvidia card by default because Nvidia do not want their users doing that. But some smart people have figuredout how to do it (google it if you want to find out more).
 
Mr Mean said:
When Batman Arkham Asylum used Physx, I wasn't too terribly impressed by it. Some of the fog effects were neat but it wasn't a game breaker to me. Some people just loved while some don't.

ATI/AMD card can't do it at the moment is because AMD didn't pay Nvidia a license fee for Physx. They're doing an open format physics. Nvidias physics is proprietary API and isn't open. I assume ATI/AMD wants Nvidias Physx to die so Nvidia will abandon it focus on an open Physics platform instead. The Physx you're seeing in games now is pretty much coming out of Nvidias pocket to the developers to add Physx in their game.

Now for games, what games do you play? If you like Physx and want this feature then yes you will probably want it. The ideal setup is primary nvidia card for display and secondary nvidia card for Physx calculations. You can't have a primary ATI/AMD card and a secondary Nvidia card by default because Nvidia do not want their users doing that. But some smart people have figuredout how to do it (google it if you want to find out more).
Click to expand...

So, could I mismatch cards? like use an older 280 for physx and the 470 for display?
 
Aaron Harmon said:
So, could I mismatch cards? like use an older 280 for physx and the 470 for display?
Click to expand...

yes.and it will prevent you from taking such a big performance hit on your 470.

and to answer your questions yes the curtains would be missing in ME, but they are only added into that game so they could make it a physx title. it doesn't affect game play. Mirrors edge is a poor example of physx really, all that stuff you see was simply added so it could use it, likely a marketing afterthought. in other words if you play that game and the curtains does it for you then its a good deal.
 
I have a gtx 580, and i kept my old gtx 260 to use as a PhysX card. In my experience, I wouldn't go out out of my way to acquire a card purely for physX. I think the only time it really makes sense to have a dedicated card is if you already have an nvidia card and you then upgrade to a newer & faster card, and keeping the old card for Physix. This is what I did.

Even then, it usually would make more (financial) sense to sell the old card. For me I didn't need the money (or hassle) from selling, so I just kept the old card in there.

I haven't tried different games with physx on and off, so I can't directly comment on gameplay experience. The gtx580 can already run every game I've thrown at it at 1920x1200 with max settings. I would need to find a game that specifically has PhysX to test play and compare differences to. Everyone mentions Batman Arkham Asylum as being great looking, but I already have it on ps3 and don't want to rebuy it. Hopefully some new games will use physX and I'll be able to get some better comparisons.

Short version: I have a physX card and can't really tell if it's doing anything special... I wouldn't worry about it much.
 
avatar[djedi];1036792204 said:
I have a gtx 580, and i kept my old gtx 260 to use as a PhysX card. In my experience, I wouldn't go out out of my way to acquire a card purely for physX. I think the only time it really makes sense to have a dedicated card is if you already have an nvidia card and you then upgrade to a newer & faster card, and keeping the old card for Physix. This is what I did.

Even then, it usually would make more (financial) sense to sell the old card. For me I didn't need the money (or hassle) from selling, so I just kept the old card in there.

I haven't tried different games with physx on and off, so I can't directly comment on gameplay experience. The gtx580 can already run every game I've thrown at it at 1920x1200 with max settings. I would need to find a game that specifically has PhysX to test play and compare differences to. Everyone mentions Batman Arkham Asylum as being great looking, but I already have it on ps3 and don't want to rebuy it. Hopefully some new games will use physX and I'll be able to get some better comparisons.

Short version: I have a physX card and can't really tell if it's doing anything special... I wouldn't worry about it much.
Click to expand...

this is the quintessential physx experience here. I am going to save this for reference. it all boils down to the same, nice to have if it comes your way but otherwise...
 
avatar[djedi];1036792204 said:
I have a gtx 580, and i kept my old gtx 260 to use as a PhysX card. In my experience, I wouldn't go out out of my way to acquire a card purely for physX. I think the only time it really makes sense to have a dedicated card is if you already have an nvidia card and you then upgrade to a newer & faster card, and keeping the old card for Physix. This is what I did.

Even then, it usually would make more (financial) sense to sell the old card. For me I didn't need the money (or hassle) from selling, so I just kept the old card in there.

I haven't tried different games with physx on and off, so I can't directly comment on gameplay experience. The gtx580 can already run every game I've thrown at it at 1920x1200 with max settings. I would need to find a game that specifically has PhysX to test play and compare differences to. Everyone mentions Batman Arkham Asylum as being great looking, but I already have it on ps3 and don't want to rebuy it. Hopefully some new games will use physX and I'll be able to get some better comparisons.

Short version: I have a physX card and can't really tell if it's doing anything special... I wouldn't worry about it much.
Click to expand...

When I had Physx enabled it cut my frames in half. I assume with a dedicated Physx card this wouldn't be an issue?
 
Mr Mean said:
When I had Physx enabled it cut my frames in half. I assume with a dedicated Physx card this wouldn't be an issue?
Click to expand...

Would depend on the second GPU you use. If you used a high-end cards, there should be a very small drop in framerates. If you use a slower cards, like a 9800GT or lower, the drop would be larger as it can't process the physics scene fast enough and the rendering cards has to wait. But it would still be faster than just running one GPU for both.
 
only issues i had with running the Nvidia/AMD combo was it seemed to negatively effect FPS in other non physx games, removed the Nvidia card a the FPS went up quite dramatically in some titles, especially BFBC2,WIC and Mafia 2 (running no physx)
 
Is there anyone has a video for game with physx off and on for compare ?

I'm getting curious on how this physx will improve picture quality on games and to see whether it is worthed or not
 
There are very selected games that offer physx support.
I noticed the difference while playing Batman AA. But I only went for physx cox I had 260 lying around and resale would have been lower than I want. Right now, I won't recommend physx card, unless you get a 260gtx for 50-60$.
 
Mr Mean said:
When I had Physx enabled it cut my frames in half. I assume with a dedicated Physx card this wouldn't be an issue?
Click to expand...

there will be far less of a hit. there is always a hit though. but if you get a good dedicated card it will go a long way to negating it.
 
dewi_imut said:
Is there anyone has a video for game with physx off and on for compare ?

I'm getting curious on how this physx will improve picture quality on games and to see whether it is worthed or not
Click to expand...

I think Cryostasis had pretty good Physx built into it. Keep in mind, I dont even think the watergun appears if you play without physx - they certainly didnt try to make it look good physx-less :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_11T0jficE
 
dewi_imut said:
Is there anyone has a video for game with physx off and on for compare ?

I'm getting curious on how this physx will improve picture quality on games and to see whether it is worthed or not
Click to expand...

Mr Mean posted some videos. but remember that they aren't showing anything exclusive really. They are showing a lack of eyecandy due to not implementing features in order to sell cards. batman can run in fact on a cpu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOr4cFWY-s and Crysis does pretty much everything they show in those videos without it. Mostly you will find that what little it usually adds is not worth the performance hit. its usually nothing more then added curtains and fake looking water effects.

to be fair in a few games it DOES add to the game play. Gain batman with physx is better played then without. and that is without counting the missing effects. so if you have game that really like and it uses physx its worth considering. beyond that I wouldn't bother.
 
PhysX is a way the hell over hyped Fanboy's wet dream that came true long enough to sell a couple of million old outdated nvidia cards that they couldn't give away when AMD/ATI took care of DX 10.1 & 11 first. Now it is the promise of empty dreams after the emptying of your wallet. Don't drink the Kool Aid dude. Just go get a good video card and call it done. It is less headaches all the way around. Putting a PhysX card in your box is like putting a turbocharger on a push mower. No real point in it unless you like spending money on pointless ventures.
 
nikhil pali said:
There are very selected games that offer physx support.
I noticed the difference while playing Batman AA. But I only went for physx cox I had 260 lying around and resale would have been lower than I want. Right now, I won't recommend physx card, unless you get a 260gtx for 50-60$.
Click to expand...

You used gtx260 just for physx ?
And does the gtx260 slowing down your primarily card ?

Hedghawg71 said:
PhysX is a way the hell over hyped Fanboy's wet dream that came true long enough to sell a couple of million old outdated nvidia cards that they couldn't give away when AMD/ATI took care of DX 10.1 & 11 first. Now it is the promise of empty dreams after the emptying of your wallet. Don't drink the Kool Aid dude. Just go get a good video card and call it done. It is less headaches all the way around. Putting a PhysX card in your box is like putting a turbocharger on a push mower. No real point in it unless you like spending money on pointless ventures.
Click to expand...

A lot of people saying it like you did, I think physx is more acceptable for people who like to see "more" of their nvidia card, nvidia card has that feature so why don't it bein used.
But anyway, just like you said, in general terms I think physx is just nvidia marketing campaign. And in the end, it will friendship war among Nvidia and ATI with game developer, if Nvidia win, a lot of games will use physx, if ATi win, the physx is dead.
 
well the current issue is GPU's still aren't powerful enough to handle Physics and scene rendering off a single card. So CPU based physics just seems like it would have a broader market then expecting everyone to run 2 graphics cards.
 
Wow, opened a can of worms here. Can anyone give me an idea of what kind of performance boost I would get pairing my 470 with a physx only card, lets say a 260 for example?
 
Aaron Harmon said:
Wow, opened a can of worms here. Can anyone give me an idea of what kind of performance boost I would get pairing my 470 with a physx only card, lets say a 260 for example?
Click to expand...

In almost all games, you'll only get more power usage and higher temperatures, since almost all games doesn't support gpu accelerated physx and the card would still be running even though it doesn't do physics calculations. So, basically, you won't see any performance boost in general.

In the few games that do support PhysX, it would depend on the game what performance boost you'll get. Any game in particular you are thinking about?
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
In almost all games, you'll only get more power usage and higher temperatures, since almost all games doesn't support gpu accelerated physx and the card would still be running even though it doesn't do physics calculations. So, basically, you won't see any performance boost in general.

In the few games that do support PhysX, it would depend on the game what performance boost you'll get. Any game in particular you are thinking about?
Click to expand...

this only in physx games will you see a boost. well boost being the wrong word. you will take far less of a performance hit for using, sometimes nil
 
Valset said:
this only in physx games will you see a boost. well boost being the wrong word. you will take far less of a performance hit for using, sometimes nil
Click to expand...

Did you quote the wrong post? :) Thats what I said as well in other words.
 
Let's put it this way, I have a HD5870 main card and a 9800gtx+ for physx in my gaming rig. The 9800gtx+ was a leftover from a Hybrid SLI Gaming HTPC setup that I upgraded to a HD5770 last year (HD-Audio built in). I threw the 9800gtx+ in my gaming rig just to see what all the fuss is about, as it cost me nothing but a little extra time to setup the drivers correctly to run the combo together. After doing all this extra work, I'm very close to spending even more time pulling it out. It's just really not that impressive to be worth the extra hassle of adding the second card (heat, power, potential future drive upgrade issues).
 
dewi_imut said:
A lot of people saying it like you did, I think physx is more acceptable for people who like to see "more" of their nvidia card, nvidia card has that feature so why don't it bein used.
But anyway, just like you said, in general terms I think physx is just nvidia marketing campaign. And in the end, it will friendship war among Nvidia and ATI with game developer, if Nvidia win, a lot of games will use physx, if ATi win, the physx is dead.
Click to expand...


If it was just a feude between nvidia and amd, it would be better. But a big part of the problem is that nvidia has more or less denied cpu physx on pc - theoretically, if nvidia dropped their gfx physics monopoly and optimized physx for SSE and cpus in general, it would run faster on a a modern 4 core and multithread cpu than on a graphicscard.

Intel is improving Havok all the time. If the graphiccard companies could stop dicking around with hyped monopolies and halfassed opensource support, maybe they could find a way to develope some competition for it.
 
I’ve got a GTS250 that I use for PhysX…just because I had one laying around and I figured I might as well. Batman’s the only game I have that uses it unless you count 3DMark.
In the case of Batman, when I turn PhysX off, I have a solid 60FPS guaranteed with a low of 59. With PhysX on I still have an average of 59FPS, although it can dip as low as 50’ish. Ironically enough using my older 5870 and the ATI PhysX hack I never got a dip below 55FPS….but I’d assume that’s just driver related.

In terms of PhysX and the future, I’m still convinced that it doesn’t have on in its current iteration. It’s been around for nearly a decade and it STILL hasn’t caught on. If something can’t gain any ground in that timeframe I don’t have much faith that it ever will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top