Nvidia Releases PhysX 3.0

[Guest]

I'll admit, there are very few games to make it worth it, but Batman AA, Mafia II, and Mirrors edge all had some cool effects. Also, the ATI/AMD hack still works if you're willing to take the time to do it, go pick up a $75-range geforce and drop it in with your Radeon.

My rig uses a 5850 and geforce 250 gts. Assuming both cards are OC'd and the rest of the system is up to spec - seems to be a decent setup for playing games roughly maxed out, w/ physx on one 1080 monitor

 

[Guest]

I hate to admit this, but it sounds like a good idea for nvidia. They can push physX in tablet-land, where ATI has nothing to say about anything. And force more adoption of their API.

I'm an AMD boy all the way. Just getting tired of disappointment.

 

[tychoblu]

[citation][nom]ISSML[/nom]My rig uses a 5850 and geforce 250 gts. Assuming both cards are OC'd and the rest of the system is up to spec - seems to be a decent setup for playing games roughly maxed out, w/ physx on one 1080 monitor[/citation]
Thought I had read an article that said, "if you nvidea card detects an AMD card it disables physx".

 

[Flynn_Serlant]

[citation][nom]tychoblu[/nom]Thought I had read an article that said, "if you nvidea card detects an AMD card it disables physx".[/citation]

You read correctly, he's probably using the hack from NGOHQ.

 

[dlpatague]

Yep I've been using Hybrid PhysX Mod for quite a while now. Currently running 2 x 5850's CFX and a GTX460 1GB Dedicated PhysX. Works in Eyefinity and all. Why you ask? Because I can!

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]UnusedUserName[/nom]I'm an AMD boy all the way. Just getting tired of disappointment.[/citation]

Realistically disappointment is what you are more likely to get from the underdog.
I know every Hollywood movie would have you believe otherwise and that the unlikely underdog
always ends up on top but this isn't the fact of life. AMD is just not in good shape when it comes to CPUs and their purchase of ATi was the only reason why they could produce good GPU's.

Fact is before AMD bought ATi they were doing very poorly in sales and trying to compete against Intel. Soon after buying ATi for 5.4 Billion, AMD dropped less in worth with its newly acquired ATi than they purchased ATi for. Even years later today AMD is worth about 5.2 billion. It is clear that their purchase of ATi despite costly is what saved them in the end.
ATi can compete against Nvidia, AMD cannot compete against Intel. Do to this it saddens me to see that they have disbanded the ATi brand name. It is sad to see what was once ATi in the hands of a incompetent company.

 

[dlpatague]

Without the underdog there is no competition. Without the competition prices would be higher and technology wouldn't progress as quickly and you wouldn't have very many choices. Just because they aren't up to speed with Intel doesn't mean their product it worthless. They still have a good product. It is just behind.

So I'd suggest like them or not you should be happy they are here until/if something better comes up.

 

[BulkZerker]

[citation][nom]dlpatague[/nom]Without the underdog there is no competition. Without the competition prices would be higher and technology wouldn't progress as quickly and you wouldn't have very many choices. Just because they aren't up to speed with Intel doesn't mean their product it worthless. They still have a good product. It is just behind.So I'd suggest like them or not you should be happy they are here until/if something better comes up.[/citation]


But they aren't even trying to compete with INTEL or AMD directly with PhysX.PhysX was a, at the time, dick move pulled by Nvidia to get an easy FPS boost for users using their cards. Want that extra 10FPS? Well throw in a Nvidia card and free up some clock cycles on your CPU!

Now we have so many cores (and fake HT cores on Intel chips) on the average CPU that we are more limited by poor threading optimization than a lack of CPU power.

PhysX needs to die, has been needing to die since Nvidia bought them out. Less fractionation less BS.

 

[shin0bi272]

Ok people listen. Games use ONE (1) physics engine in them. So if a game is based on the nvidia physx engine that's whats handling all the interactions in the game. Those of you snickering about the 360 and their amd cards etc etc etc... if youve played any game on the unreal3 engine (http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3) Youve been playing a physx game. You might not get hardware acceleration like nvidia users do but you never the less ARE PLAYING A PHYSX GAME! So lighten up about it people... nvidia is offering something that can be (but doesnt have to be) hardware accelerated but only if you buy their hardware... which is capitalism at its best... you dont have to buy our card to make it work but if you do you get bonus features! Its the classic carrot and stick approach.

 

[eddieroolz]

I hope more developers begin using this. I think PhysX is better implemented than the competitors out there.

 

[roleki]

[citation][nom]BulkZerker[/nom]But they aren't even trying to compete with INTEL or AMD directly with PhysX.PhysX was a, at the time, dick move pulled by Nvidia to get an easy FPS boost for users using their cards. Want that extra 10FPS? Well throw in a Nvidia card and free up some clock cycles on your CPU!Now we have so many cores (and fake HT cores on Intel chips) on the average CPU that we are more limited by poor threading optimization than a lack of CPU power. PhysX needs to die, has been needing to die since Nvidia bought them out. Less fractionation less BS.[/citation]

PhysX has never been about gaining FPS, in fact, most games see a minor dip in FPS when PhysX is enabled. However, a sustained 60fps and PhysX is a much better experience than the same game with a sustained 120fps and no PhysX.

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]dlpatague[/nom]Without the underdog there is no competition. Without the competition prices would be higher and technology wouldn't progress as quickly and you wouldn't have very many choices. Just because they aren't up to speed with Intel doesn't mean their product it worthless. They still have a good product. It is just behind.So I'd suggest like them or not you should be happy they are here until/if something better comes up.[/citation]


Incorrect a underdog is not needed. In-fact a underdog just leaves the dominant force to settle for under achievements themselves. What is best for the consumers and for tech advancement is for strong performance from all the competitors. It's not a good thing that Intel's CPU's are like Olympics runners and AMD is like a fat slob trying to race along side it.

I would love to see AMD do better. I want to see a battle for the fastest and most cost efficient to both the corporations and consumers CPU's to be released. However that isn't whats happening, its not two bulls fighting its a bull and a bull and a half dead sheep going at it.
You can cheer on that sheep all you want but its not going to win or even provide a challenge.

So before you and the other idiot who voted me down perhaps you should actually look at the whole situation and what I am truly saying. If you really think that a constant underachiever who has to buy out others to even keep afloat is a good thing then please do not ever try to run a business. True competition is a good thing you would never want to pay for a fight between a heavyweight vs a featherweight would you? If AMD was capable of actually stepping up and holding its own the CPU's be releasing today from both sides would not only be better but cheaper as well and if you are against that than you are a fool.

 

[fir_ser]

A good move by Nvidia to support tablets and smartphones.

 

[fir_ser]

Hope to see games that utilize PhysX 3.