• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PhysX or Eyefinity

Which would you rather have?

  • PhysX

    Votes: 37 12.9%

  • Eyefinity

    Votes: 210 73.2%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 40 13.9%
  • Total voters
    287
Status
Not open for further replies.
PhysX, at least until Eyefinity is so ironed out that it works as natural in games as widescreen.
 
I don't get this "physics not real" crap. If you want real physics, you will bleed out in real life because of the explosion. After all, they are only a bunch of pixels programmed to look like "real" objects, I would rather see a non interactive water flowing smoothly than an interactive water that looks like goo.
 
Physx is just a gimic to me. It doesn't have a single "killer app" that would make me give 2 shits about it.
On the other hand.. extra monitors + just about any game + eyefinity = a significant improvement in gaming enjoyment across the board.

Edit: I think its stupid that people think you need +3 LARGE widescreen lcds for eyefinity to be worth it. I have seen a setup with 19" crts that was still very cool. The person already had 1 crt, and got the other 2 off of craigslist for $20. That plus the $20 in adapters and hes running a great midrange setup with his 5770.
 
I think eyefinity is better. Of course physx looks cool, but it will die soon enough. Eyefinity is much more immersive and worthwhile IMO.
 
I think a better comparison would be NV's 3D surround thing and Eyefinity. PhysX doesn't really compare all that well to Eyefinity.

Either way I'd have to vote for Eyefinity regardless since 3D is bullshit and PhysX fails.
 
Eyefinity.

I'd rather have the immersion than the hits to performance PhysX induces on a system.
 
Thinking on it I don't think it's a good feature comparison. 3Dvision or Eyefinity would make more sense. Either way I think I'd rather have Eyefinity.
 
piscian18 said:
Thinking on it I don't think it's a good feature comparison. 3Dvision or Eyefinity would make more sense. Either way I think I'd rather have Eyefinity.
Click to expand...

Well, eyfinity and Physx exist and their pros and costs are well documented. 3D vision is hard to compare since we only can assume costs, cons , pros and immersion factor.
 
Trolling thread - you can have physx, eye infinity and 3d all at the same time. It's not like they are mutually exclusive.

It's like saying do you want anti aliasing or anisotropic filtering? The answer is obviously both, but if you could only have one it's dependent on the game.

Equally by specifying ati multi-screen vs nvidia hardware accelerated physics you have stopped the answers even having anything to do with the technology - you might as well just have put "do you prefer ati or nvidia?".

I think you are missing out on a career as a political pollster with questions like that ...
 
EyeFinity for me. I like what PhysX can (theoretically) do for me, but I don't like being locked into a specific brand of GPU.
 
Mark_Warner said:
EyeFinity for me. I like what PhysX can (theoretically) do for me, but I don't like being locked into a specific brand of GPU.
Click to expand...

Not like eye infinity eh - good thing you can use any make or model of graphics card if you like that?
 
Last edited:
I'd be all for it if nvidia didn't shut out ati both in partnership and in drivers. I mean it's one thing to not coming to an agreement on porting to opencl, but when you disallow the use of both cards on the same system there's a clear winner.
 
sbuckler said:
Trolling thread - you can have physx, eye infinity and 3d all at the same time. It's not like they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Put that NVIDIA card in your Eyefinity rig and let me know how 3D and PhysX work out for you without hacking it.

And no, it is not a trolling thread. It is a poll gauging our readers interest so I will better know how to serve them.

If you have any more comments for me, please take them to PM.
 
EF, and for the love God Microsoft/AMD give us Portrait-Landscape-Portrait for those of use w/ 20x30x20 LCD's =P
 
CrimandEvil said:
Hey Kyle, how about redoing the thread to address a more accurate comparison? Make it between Eyefinity and 3D surround (or whatever it's called), maybe make it "3D surround + PhysX"?
Click to expand...

Doesn't 3D surround have a 2D mode that's essentially equivalent to Eyefinity? I suspect if/when that launches the question posted in the thread will become irrelevant.
 
trinibwoy said:
Doesn't 3D surround have a 2D mode that's essentially equivalent to Eyefinity? I suspect if/when that launches the question posted in the thread will become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about their stupid 3D thing. Their Eyefinity like feature isn't even out yet so why and/or how can anyone say which is better? :rolleyes:
 
I'd argue that this is a slightly unfair comparison.

Eyefinity takes a lot more money to obtain then PhysX. If we all had the chance, I'm sure a lot of us would pick 6,8, or even 3 monitors over an nVidia product.
 
i'd rather have a more visual experience, so I voted Eyeinfinity.
 
CrimandEvil said:
I'm talking about their stupid 3D thing. Their Eyefinity like feature isn't even out yet so why and/or how can anyone say which is better? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You said 3D Surround which is multi-monitor. The single monitor 3D is called 3D Vision. So roll your eyes in the mirror ;)
 
trinibwoy said:
You said 3D Surround which is multi-monitor. The single monitor 3D is called 3D Vision. So roll your eyes in the mirror ;)
Click to expand...

Whatever. I also said, many times in reference too it, "whatever name they gave their bullshit 3D thing."
 
Voted for eyefinity.

No need for physx anymore (play BC2 for Havok physics)
 
Personally voted for Eye Infinity or multi-monitor gaming because the added resolution abilities and the sheer potential of titles that may be enjoyed because of the feature. GPU Physics has upside and has compelling potential but when one compares the amount of titles makes it difficult to vote for PhysX in this specific comparison.

Eventually as time passes and the industry slowly moves to 120hz screens, the possibility of 3d stereo may be attractive for multi-monitor gaming, too, for some, as it matures. Kudos for Matrox, ATI raising the bar with Eye Infinity and nVidia, too, with 3d vision surround and nVidia surround for 2d, when it comes to fruition.

While some enjoy to say this one sucks or that one is great-- the key is the gamer has all this choice to bitch or get excited -- which makes it interesting on the forums at times. The key is choice to try to bring more immersion and improved gaming experiences to me.
 
I'd rather have physx on ati than eyefinity. Despite having several monitors I don't really see how you guys can play games on 3 screens and not be bothered by the bezels especially in fps. It would totally throw me out of the immersion.
 
sbuckler said:
Not like eye infinity eh - good thing you can use any make or model of graphics card if you like that?
Click to expand...

NVIDIA has their answer coming soon enough.

Now, personally, I think the burden is going to be on AMD to come up with a non-vendor-dependent physics solution. NVIDIA has their solution, annoying as it is. AMD and others have complained loudly that it is propriatary and not good for the industry. I think AMD needs to lead the charge to come up with a CPU-based solution or a DirectCompute based solution.
 
I think I'd have to go with Eyefinity/multi-monitor setups over Physx. Physx as it sits is a dead end as far as I can see. I guess it doesn't help that I don't really give a damn about how much better it might make something look as I would rather have it working on real physics with regards to things blowing up, how that affects other things and the fact that when shot from 500 yards away a bullet is not going to be on a perfect straight line trajectory to the target with the vast majority of guns.

Basically, I could get a hell of a lot more use out of a multi-monitor setup inside and outside of gaming than I ever could with Physx as it stands now.

 
Can someone explain to me or link me to something explains the difference between PhysX and the Infernal Engine? I'm a little clueless as to why PhysX is even a question now they've shown you don't Nvidia to get the same results?
 
I would rather have eyefinity but I just don't have money for 3 screens or the space on my desk.
 
I voted Eyefinity because whether or not it makes a difference, it's still pretty cool.
 
Mark_Warner said:
NVIDIA has their answer coming soon enough.

Now, personally, I think the burden is going to be on AMD to come up with a non-vendor-dependent physics solution. NVIDIA has their solution, annoying as it is. AMD and others have complained loudly that it is propriatary and not good for the industry. I think AMD needs to lead the charge to come up with a CPU-based solution or a DirectCompute based solution.
Click to expand...

imo it'll happen when the xbox 720 arrives which will almost certainly support direct compute, and hence we will get direct compute physics libraries - including I suspect physx. When the consoles support it every game will use it, until then fancy physics is going to be very limited.

Personally I think AMD need to fix what they've got before starting to worry about anything else - for eye infinity fix bezel management, angle management, hud in centre screen. Really the only way to do that well is to convince people like epic/valve to upgrade UE3/HL2 engine to have multiple render windows (i.e. you have the standard 16:9 centre view with hud, etc that everyone uses, but in addition the engine knows how to render additional views for the other screens in the correct 3d location - i.e. taking account of the screens relative positions). If the engine supported it then it would be much simpler to do eye infinity properly in games using that engine.

Unlike hardware physics, multi monitor gaming is not going to get supported by the next gen consoles (unless we start watching tv on 3 screens) hence the emphasis is very much on AMD to make it happen. Being as they haven't even added simple stuff like bezel management (all you do is up the horizontal resolution by a few pixels then chop out the bits behind the bezels before sending to the monitors) I don't hold out much hope.
 
I personally cant afford eyefinity right now with being laid off so ive never used it. i like the fact of eyefinity its a cool new technology
 
CrimandEvil said:
Whatever. I also said, many times in reference too it, "whatever name they gave their bullshit 3D thing."
Click to expand...

Hey GENIUS, that bullshit 3D thing as you so eloquently put it displaying your high level of culture, is actually the ONLY way right now to experience those wonderful 3d worlds developers have created in REAL 3D unlike what your Flatfinity which still makes you experience them in PLAIN OLD 2D.....I can draw some pictures if that makes it easier to understand for you...I am pretty sure that would help... :rolleyes:
 
shaolin95 said:
Hey GENIUS, that bullshit 3D thing as you so eloquently put it displaying your high level of culture, is actually the ONLY way right now to experience those wonderful 3d worlds developers have created in REAL 3D unlike what your Flatfinity which still makes you experience them in PLAIN OLD 2D.....I can draw some pictures if that makes it easier to understand for you...I am pretty sure that would help... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, 3D has been around for a while.. I don't remember people preaching it like they do Eyefinity... even though SoftTH and TH2G has been around forever. ATI did something awesome with just ONE card and still able to sustain pretty decent framerates. 3D as it is now is a gimmick.
 
shaolin95 said:
Hey GENIUS, that bullshit 3D thing as you so eloquently put it displaying your high level of culture, is actually the ONLY way right now to experience those wonderful 3d worlds developers have created in REAL 3D unlike what your Flatfinity which still makes you experience them in PLAIN OLD 2D.....I can draw some pictures if that makes it easier to understand for you...I am pretty sure that would help... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

3D is a gimmick and an annoying one at that. Does it give any additional game play advantage? Does it add anything to the experience? Do I still have to wear those stupid, crappy glasses? The answers are NO, NO and Yes.

NV's 3D thingy is nothing but fail. Utterly useless at best. There's nothing innovating about it. 3D has been around for a long time.
 
CrimandEvil said:
3D is a gimmick and an annoying one at that. Does it give any additional game play advantage? Does it add anything to the experience? Do I still have to wear those stupid, crappy glasses? The answers are NO, NO and Yes.

NV's 3D thingy is nothing but fail. Utterly useless at best. There's nothing innovating about it. 3D has been around for a long time.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't like 3d stereo!:) The key is the industry seems to be behind it this time and even ATI seems to have relationships with IZ3d and BitCauldron. 3d stereo is just a choice to consider for some consumers and eventually 120hz monitors or greater may have more flexibility and choice to add some more zing to multi-monitor gaming.
 
I voted for Eyefinity with my wallet. My GTX 260 has been retired to my wife's computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top