Actually nVidia has it set up so the cpu has trouble doing it, making the gpu the superior physx processor.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Ding ding ding!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually nVidia has it set up so the cpu has trouble doing it, making the gpu the superior physx processor.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Actually nVidia has it set up so the cpu has trouble doing it, making the gpu the superior physx processor.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
I have a similar setup to yours (i7 and GTX 275, everything stock).I have a single GTX 275 (along with a core i7), and I was shocked at the benchmark result. This was with everything set to the highest possible setting, including PhysX, and with 4X anti-aliasing, at 1920x1080.
Min: 20 fps.
Average: 35 fps.
High: 60 fps.
My frame-rate, by the way, was capped at 60.
Actually nVidia has it set up so the cpu has trouble doing it, making the gpu the superior physx processor.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
very true at least for some of the stuff we are seeing.
That's all fine and dandy and sounds neat but what are you gaining? Spending $100 on a second GPU for some extra fog effects and drapes? No thanks. I've seen that done on the CPU for years.So it actually works. Dedicating one card to PhysX had a pretty substantial impact the on the performance.
Bingo. And you know what? It's been perfectly satisfactory for my gaming experience. I've never once stopped in a game and said "you know what? I bet there's a way to make these drapes move with more fluidity."That's all fine and dandy and sounds neat but what are you gaining? Spending $100 on a second GPU for some extra fog effects and drapes? No thanks. I've seen that done on the CPU for years.
That's all fine and dandy and sounds neat but what are you gaining? Spending $100 on a second GPU for some extra fog effects and drapes? No thanks. I've seen that done on the CPU for years.
The point is that nobody gives a shit.No you havn't, you have seen scripted cloth and scripted fog, be honest.
The point is that nobody gives a shit.
That's quite a tangent you went on from one comment. Because no one cares about dynamic cloth vs. scripted cloth, we all want gaming to stagnate and never improve? Do you honestly think before you press the "Submit Reply" button?This is how technology moves forward
In 5 years time, if games had the same realism we have today, I can see you complaining that technology hasnt moved forward, so dont tell me you dont give a shit.
This is how technology moves forward
In 5 years time, if games had the same realism we have today, I can see you complaining that technology hasnt moved forward, so dont tell me you dont give a shit.
That's quite a tangent you went on from one comment. Because no one cares about dynamic cloth vs. scripted cloth, we all want gaming to stagnate and never improve? Do you honestly think before you press the "Submit Reply" button?
The point is, all these PhysX effects are gimmicks at best. If having a PhysX-capable GPU allowed you to blow something up and raze half the level - that would be sweet. But it doesn't. It's the difference between a banner rippling in the wind and a banner rippling in the wind more fluidly (whoop-de-doo). Of course, there's underhanded marketing bullshit like in Batman: Arkham Asylum in which they just flat-out remove the effect altogether to hoodwink customers into thinking PhysX is something more than it isn't.
Edios: "Alright, we are finished with these PhysX banner effects, now we need to add in some steam effects."
NVIDIA: "You can't render volumetric smoke without PhysX either." *slides large bag of money across the table*
Edios: *wink*
NVIDIA: *wink*
If developers weren't paid off and everything was equal, would PhysX have better physics presentation than going through the CPU? Sure, by design GPUs do some physics effects much better. Would it be different enough for people to give a shit? Nope, that's my point. Unless you go around through every level and poke each banner five times to see if it ripples differently, you wouldn't notice a damn difference in normal game play. If I had a choice to run higher AA or PhysX I'd run higher AA. If I had a choice to run higher (or better) AF than PhysX, I'd run better AF. It's the last thing on the list because it's inconsequential. The wonderful thing about the world is that due to the laws of physics, objects and the environment around us behave pretty predictably. That's why it's easy to run a script and get almost the same effect while focusing computing power on things that are much more critical to graphics quality and game immersion.
EDIT: The other thing is a lot of the PhysX effects are so overdone that they aren't realistic. A good example is the dynamic papers in Batman: Arkham Asylum. That is NOT how paper would behave, and looks more ridiculous than the papers just lying there stagnant.
the point wasn't that the realism was not important, it was that the method used to obtain it was not important. if scripted response work well enough and don't choke the performance like physx does then why bother? I have only played the demo but what little physx brings here is not worth the performance hit. I would much rather have the smother game play or better graphics for that type of cost.
That's all fine and dandy and sounds neat but what are you gaining? Spending $100 on a second GPU for some extra fog effects and drapes? No thanks. I've seen that done on the CPU for years.
I agree that things can be made to look nice using CPU Physics but it restrains developers from developing truly dynamic worlds and thus stunts the progress of realism in games.
Physics development needs to happen and is starting to look pretty good!
Some of the methods used arent very palletable, but thats another issue.
Note: I'm not having any problems getting Batman AA to run well on an E8400 + GTX260, no where near cutting edge and not expensive.
So because I disagree with you, I'm complaining? Are you five years old? I'm stating my opinion on the matter, quite like tens of other people in this thread have. If you can't deal with other opinions, unplug the ethernet cord.I'm not saying that there isnt some underhand stuff going on but I think you complain too much.
I think Batman AA looks fantastic, the complaints that the effects are 'unnecessary' are ridiculous.
If you would rather run higher AF, why not do it instead of moaning about how you cant, when you can?
I'm using an E8400 with GTX260 and found just that combo to give good performance in Batman AA at 1080p res with all quality options and PhysX maxed at decent AA levels. Adding an old 8800GT I have lying around improves it even further.
So it by no means needs killer hardware to get the effects.
Getting Physics right has to start somewhere yet it looks like you want to knock the advances, which.... "have" to start somewhere.
If you dont like the effects then dont use them.
Instead you create nuisance posts about having to use them when you dont.
Its very easy to not have a problem with PhysX effects.
"you doth complain too much".
No you havn't, you have seen scripted cloth and scripted fog, be honest.
So because I disagree with you, I'm complaining? Are you five years old? I'm stating my opinion on the matter, quite like tens of other people in this thread have. If you can't deal with other opinions, unplug the ethernet cord.
PhysX ISN'T getting physics right. Marketing a proprietary solution by buying off devs to gimp their applications on other hardware is just this side of illegal. If you so cared about "the advancement of gaming," you'd condemn such actions and support OpenCL and the like. Furthermore, NVIDIA isn't actually DOING anything with PhysX - everything they add to games is a superficial gimmick at best. Why? Because no dev is stupid enough to base their game design (and really cool physics, if PhysX can indeed deliver) on a proprietary solution.
The trouble with the PhysX API, is that, even though it offloads work to the GPU, it still sucks. Sure there are gimmicky things like cloth and particle effects, but there is nothing that makes you say "wow!' or meaningfully contributes to gameplay no matter how hard they try. The actual implementation of the effects is also lacking. Havok, while being CPU powered, has much smoother, far more convincing collisions than PhysX, and PhysX's deformation and cloth physics are just ugly. The accuracy of physics implementation is much more important than the extent of physics implementation. The fact that PhysX is so wanting in accuracy, while using such a vastly huger amount of processing power than Havok, suggests to me than it should be abandoned post haste.
I do look forward a time when physics plays a bigger role in our games, but I don't thing that halving your frame rate for a few buggy flags and inexplicably large numbers of apparently hollow styrofoam crates is what we're looking for. I don't think developers should even consider PhysX until it can do a good a job as Havok did in Half Life 2 at acceptable performance levels.
This is not even taking in consideration that fact that it is proprietary, which is a huge issue unto itself.
Yeah, but the unscripted cloth and fog looks so bad that the scripted version is preferable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZfXIFFmB7M
look at 7:30... is that really water effect or is it potato rolling on the table
sorry for physX lover, the thing just not working well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZfXIFFmB7M
look at 7:30... is that really water effect or is it potato rolling on the table
sorry for physX lover, the thing just not working well...
My sentiments exactly. Well said .The trouble with the PhysX API, is that, even though it offloads work to the GPU, it still sucks. Sure there are gimmicky things like cloth and particle effects, but there is nothing that makes you say "wow!' or meaningfully contributes to gameplay no matter how hard they try. The actual implementation of the effects is also lacking. Havok, while being CPU powered, has much smoother, far more convincing collisions than PhysX, and PhysX's deformation and cloth physics are just ugly. The accuracy of physics implementation is much more important than the extent of physics implementation. The fact that PhysX is so wanting in accuracy, while using such a vastly huger amount of processing power than Havok, suggests to me than it should be abandoned post haste.
I do look forward a time when physics plays a bigger role in our games, but I don't thing that halving your frame rate for a few buggy flags and inexplicably large numbers of apparently hollow styrofoam crates is what we're looking for. I don't think developers should even consider PhysX until it can do a good a job as Havok did in Half Life 2 at acceptable performance levels.
This is not even taking in consideration that fact that it is proprietary, which is a huge issue unto itself.
Yeah, but the unscripted cloth and fog looks so bad that the scripted version is preferable.
What issues do you think I'm mixing up? But hey, however low your standards are, or however you justify your being a fanboy, good for you.Dude, you are entitled to your opinion but when you make it you shouldnt mix up different issues.
PhysX is an evolutionary step as already mentioned and thank f someone is moving physics simulations forward at pace.
I didnt say it was done right, was the first rocket ever made done right, or the one ofter that.... ?
if you want perfection from the start, an even larger jump in hardware requirements will be needed and years more of development.
Surely then it needs to start making some progress?
Good job it is
If NVidia are doing something illegal it will come home to roost at some point.
To me this is just standard marketing and is no surprise, take for example Crysis and DX10.
It was later found that practically all of the "DX10" effects can be enabled in DX9.
In a very similar fashion, all the PhysX effects can be enabled to run on CPU.
Unfortunately it looks like it requires a strong CPU whereas hardware PhysX doesnt, so there is value in the NVidia solution still.
I agree that things can be made to look nice using CPU Physics but it restrains developers from developing truly dynamic worlds and thus stunts the progress of realism in games.
Physics development needs to happen and is starting to look pretty good!
Some of the methods used arent very palletable, but thats another issue.
Note: I'm not having any problems getting Batman AA to run well on an E8400 + GTX260, no where near cutting edge and not expensive.
I think we are a number of years away from PhysX or API's like it actually contributing to gameplay in a meaningful way. The technology is really in it's infancy compared to what it will look like in several years from now. Just because the technology doesn't contribute to game play in today's games doesn't mean that it should be dropped or done away with. It creates some cool effects and I think that's a good enough start for the time being at least.If game developers shy away from the technology because a bunch of geek's whine about not having the hardware to support it, or they bitch because it doesn't do enough yet then the technology might die off. I think in the long run, that would be most unfortunate. One day I think the technology will prove itself and provide ground breaking and game changing experiences but again we are a long way off from that day. If you can't see where this type of API could eventually lead then I think you are being just a bit short sighted.
If game developers shy away from the technology because a bunch of geek's whine about not having the hardware to support it, or they bitch because it doesn't do enough yet then the technology might die off.
I think we are a number of years away from PhysX or API's like it actually contributing to gameplay in a meaningful way. The technology is really in it's infancy compared to what it will look like in several years from now. Just because the technology doesn't contribute to game play in today's games doesn't mean that it should be dropped or done away with. It creates some cool effects and I think that's a good enough start for the time being at least. If game developers shy away from the technology because a bunch of geek's whine about not having the hardware to support it, or they bitch because it doesn't do enough yet then the technology might die off. I think in the long run, that would be most unfortunate. One day I think the technology will prove itself and provide ground breaking and game changing experiences but again we are a long way off from that day. If you can't see where this type of API could eventually lead then I think you are being just a bit short sighted.