This forum is dead

Well, I think the lack of interest in this topic speaks volumes about Nvidia's PhysX technology. We keep seeing games with great physics that don't use Nvidia's technology. They can keep their stupid proprietary junk.
 
pendinglf said:
I new here. Why this forum is completely dead
Click to expand...

Because PhysX is proprietary, expensive, and provides little benefit for the additional costs.

If NVIDIA were to open-source the code to work with AMD GPUs, which will work, then it would be no big deal and would most likely gain popularity.

PhysX was all the rage from 2006-2009, but since has died off in popularity with lack of supporting titles and purpose beyond gaming.

Really, there just isn't that much to talk about with it anymore.
 
Red Falcon said:
Because PhysX is proprietary, expensive, and provides little benefit for the additional costs.

If NVIDIA were to open-source the code to work with AMD GPUs, which will work, then it would be no big deal and would most likely gain popularity.

PhysX was all the rage from 2006-2009, but since has died off in popularity with lack of supporting titles and purpose beyond gaming.

Really, there just isn't that much to talk about with it anymore.
Click to expand...

Occasionally there is a title that benefits from it still, but usually that is not the case.

For instance, Red Orchestra 2 is unusual for a modern FPS title in that it is HIGHLY CPU dependent. The only way to consistently get 60+ FPS is with a iverclocked 2500K or 2600K.

My Phenom II X6 @4Ghz will sometimes get me 60+ FPS, but often droop into the 30's.

They have a lot of detailed objects, and since it is DX9 only (thus far, rumor has it they are working on a DX11 patch) all the draw calls hit the same CPU core.

The game aslo uses PhysX. So you can choose to do it on CPU (which exacerbates the CPU limited problem) or do it in hardware IF you have an Nvidia card. There is no option to turn physics off, like in some games.

This is one of the few modern titles where PhysX is really beneficial.

For the most part - however - PhysX is pretty much dead due to a combination of its proprietary GPU nature, and its legacy (slow and inefficient) X87 code when run on CPU's.
 
i think separate hardware for physics acceleration is dead in general. physics is just part of games now. it rarely added to gameplay in few games and no one builds a system with a dedicated ppu in mind anymore.

i would rather have a forum subsection devoted to stereoscopic displays / hardware. i think 3d will be here for a while now. and neither the video card forum or the monitor section seem appropriate.

stereoscopic conversations are splayed out everywhere: http://hardforum.com/search.php?searchid=18657241
 
Ocean said:
i would rather have a forum subsection devoted to stereoscopic displays / hardware. i think 3d will be here for a while now. and neither the video card forum or the monitor section seem appropriate.
Click to expand...

Meh,

I feel stereoscopic 3D in general is a fad, that will slowly fade away in both computers and TV's just like it has in the past.

I got a set of Asus VR-100 glasses free with my Asus Geforce 3 Ti500 about 10 years ago.

They worked well, but since they required double the frame rate to work properly, the compromise was too large and I rarely used them. Then LCD displays came around locked at 60hz and that killed them off all together.

The latter of the two problems has now been fixed with 120hz displays, but the fact still remains that it adds very little to the gaming experience, and comes at a high GPU computational cost.

I don't see stereoscopic 3d sticking around for the long haul other than as a rare gimmick.


I still have the things in a box somewhere.
 
Last edited:
^^ similar things could be said of dedicated physics processing, however. Eventually, IMO, many panels will have 3D (glasses free) built right into them, too.
 
The Physics forum is on life support because nothing is really happening. Two to three AAA titles a year have gpu accelerated PhysX, and Nv still has to code it in for them or the devs will not bother with it. Hell, anymore, it is hard to even get devs to bother with proper KB/M or anti aliasing support.


DeathPrincess said:
Open standards work so so well :p It would take years and years of bitching and moaning and pettiness for them to decide on anything, by which time it would be outdated nonsense where noone had any motivation to push it forward. Would be better for physx or something that actually works to be adopted by AMD and go forward from there, like they were offered, or something like directX.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this, "Nv offered PhysX to AMD.", BS. The offer was from some PR guy at an event, and not a genuine offer from Nv as far as I can tell. If I recall correctly, AMD denied that they were ever offered cuda/physx in any official way, and Nv said nothing regarding that claim.

Besides, from a business standpoint, it makes no more sense for AMD to support CUDA/PhysX, than it would have for Nv to support Glide back in the day.
 
Last edited:
I am disappointed to see high level physics taking a back seat in gaming.

What happened to Havok FX anyway? It was the most promising solution that could work no both nVidia and ATI cards I thought it would be a success.
 
Hornet said:
I am disappointed to see high level physics taking a back seat in gaming.

What happened to Havok FX anyway? It was the most promising solution that could work no both nVidia and ATI cards I thought it would be a success.
Click to expand...

I'm sure patent nazi's and lawyers had something to do with it.
 
Hornet said:
I am disappointed to see high level physics taking a back seat in gaming.

What happened to Havok FX anyway? It was the most promising solution that could work no both nVidia and ATI cards I thought it would be a success.
Click to expand...

Intel purchased Havok, and seemingly put an end to FX. Intel is not interested in offloading physics to the GPU. In fact, my opinion is that they most likely purchased it to stymie GPU accelerated physics. Selling ever more powerful CPU's is their business after all.

Between Intel's vested interest in the failure of gpu offloaded physics, Nv's proprietary marketing solution, and AMD's apparent apathy, I don't think we are going to see much headway in the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
GORANKAR said:
Intel purchased Havok, and seemingly put an end to FX. Intel is not interested in offloading physics to the GPU. In fact, my opinion is that they most likely purchased it to stymie GPU accelerated physics. Selling ever more powerful CPU's is their business after all.

Between Intel's vested interest in the failure of gpu offloaded physics, Nv's proprietary marketing solution, and AMD's apparent apathy, I don't think we are going to see much headway in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Intel doesn't want to offload the physics because it's not necessary. It's been shown that if properly coded, even PhysX can run excellent on a CPU.

Physics cards were only necessary in the time where CPU's were much slower. The days are long gone.
 
bigdogchris said:
Intel doesn't want to offload the physics because it's not necessary. It's been shown that if properly coded, even PhysX can run excellent on a CPU.

Physics cards were only necessary in the time where CPU's were much slower. The days are long gone.
Click to expand...

I agree. Back when discrete physics were new, CPU's didn't have a fraction of the computing power or efficiency, not to mention as many cores, as modern CPU's have.

Though running PhysX is neat, the cost outweighs the benefit for most.
 
So far the best PhysX games i've come to play with can be counted on one hand.
There is no incentive for developers to use it unless Nvidia pays them a lot of money.
Does physx still help sell video cards to have the luxury to pay the developers?
Don't think so
 
PhysX needs to run more efficiently. Havok needs to be less glitchy. When stuff flies across the screen and into the air like a pinwheel and won't come down..... Havok shows how glitchy it is.
 
We don't need even more CRAP to have to buy to play computer games.. its expensive and complicated enough as it is..

they need to get bought out by AMD/ATI or Nvidia..... otherwise they need to kindly GTFO :D
 
Greene420 said:
We don't need even more CRAP to have to buy to play computer games.. its expensive and complicated enough as it is..

they need to get bought out by AMD/ATI or Nvidia..... otherwise they need to kindly GTFO :D
Click to expand...

You trollin, or just drunk? A few posts, in a few threads, over the last few hours leave me wondering.

Nv did buy PhysX, and proceeded to use it in their, "there is no AMD, Intel is our bitch", marketing campaign.
 
Yeah Fallout 3 has some terrible physics glitches. That's not due to a lack of processing power though.

The people who settle for bland static environments can enjoy the current state of affairs. I don't care if it's done on CPUs or dedicated hardware but I definitely want to see more engaging and dynamic environments in games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top