How much is PhysX worth to you?

[ccovemaker]

Hello all,

I've been a fan of AMD for sometime (mind you a sane one so no fanboi craziness). My systems have always been AMD CPU/GPU....

Well my Intel 3570K in on the way here and it has me considering other changes.

I game a lot.

I was looking at a higher end card to replace my XFX 7770 it will go in my GFs machine.

I am eyeing the 7950 vs 660ti.

I am just wondering your guys thought over all of PhysX as a system.

I watched some review of Borderlands 2 and the effect of PhysX on the game as was quite impressed.

I've never really had any problems with my AMD cards or XFX for that matter but PhysX is a Nvidia only thing so I am wondering if it is worth it.

Thoughts and comments are welcome.

Thanks

 

[bystander]

Like I mentioned before, it will depend on the game and how much GPU accelerated PhysX is used. Metro 2033 has the option, but is barely used, or at least not used enough that an AMD setup cannot use it, but Batman AA uses it a lot more and an Nvidia GPU will benefit greatly.

 

[sam_p_lay]

And anywhere I see that video posted, I'll be there to remind everyone that it's a marketing video that's only a half truth.

And everywhere you try to brute-force your opinions on everyone else, the video evidence will speak for itself. Everything that needs to be said has been said.

 

[4745454b]

The only issue I have with the six series is how much they butchered the compute abilities, 64bit specifically. If you need a compute card you are better off getting a GTX580 then the 680. And if in OpenCL the 7970/50 is the way to go. Sure Nvidia can compete here, but they force you to get their more expensive cards. That's the only "hate" I have there. I'm still not totally sure why they decided to not release GK110 as a consumer card and I'd love to know what happened to GK100, but I doubt we'll ever learn.

One thing I hope the OP takes away from this thread amongst the bickering is there are few games that can use PhysX. No matter how you feel about it there are very few that use it. If you have zero interest in those games, then it shouldn't even factor into your decision to buy it. I don't play batman. I couldn't care if its the best game to use PhysX since Mirrors Edge. (another one I have no interest in.) BL2 has some interest to me, but not enough to buy it. Sacred 2? Pass. Just scroll through the list of games that use accelerated PhysX and see if you even want to play them. If they don't matter to you, then don't worry about it.

 

[cc_moreau_cc]

I don't really see PhysX as a selling point for Nvidia, more as a little extra. The 660ti is a great card but it's really hindered by it 192-bit interface so, depending on what games you're going to be playing I would go with the 7950. It's also an absolute beast of an overclocker that will make sure you get your money' worth.

 

[jdw_swb]

One thing I hope the OP takes away from this thread amongst the bickering is there are few games that can use PhysX. No matter how you feel about it there are very few that use it. If you have zero interest in those games, then it shouldn't even factor into your decision to buy it. I don't play batman. I couldn't care if its the best game to use PhysX since Mirrors Edge. (another one I have no interest in.) BL2 has some interest to me, but not enough to buy it. Sacred 2? Pass. Just scroll through the list of games that use accelerated PhysX and see if you even want to play them. If they don't matter to you, then don't worry about it.

Agreed, the very small list of games (even smaller list of good games) hardly makes the purchase of a Nvidia card a better choice than a faster AMD card. Also, the list of upcoming games using physx is a not exactly extensive, being limited to a few free to play games.

The OP asked how much physx was worth in terms of being able to sway his decision either way regarding a 660 ti or 7950.

The 7950 is the faster card, especially when overclocked.

The idea of physx is one that is bad for PC gaming. anything that divides what we can play is never a good thing. Especially when many physx features in games could easily be replicated without the use of physx and the associated fps drop for thos who haven't paid the Nvidia ax.

 

[1zacster]

There will always be some badass nvidia sponsored game supporting physx.Current one is Boarderland2.Next big game will be metro last night.I will say physx looks awesome but its a performance hog.

dat flowing blood/water

 

[renz496]

heheh. this is interesting. personally i don't really care about physx. the fact is those gpu accelerated feature only provide eye candy. it does not change the game core gameplay or how you play the game. so for me if i don't have the grunt to run it then i just disabled it entirely. there is no need to look for low or medium level physx. if i cab tbe juat turn it on and play as usual. one thing that i have to admit though is those extra eye candy are fun to look at lol.

in arkham city if you want best performance without sacrificing the game look is simply disable dx11 and physx altogether.

this gpu accelerated topic are interesting. i don't really know which company comes with the idea first but this topic has been around for much earlier before Aegia starts selling physx ppu. back then it was to accelerate havok using gpu (something like nvidia havok fx). ati also said that you can accelerate gpu calculation using their X1000 series gpu on their website. but somehow in the middle havok got acquired by intel.

i think this might the reason why nvidia acquired aegia physx instead continue to invest thier tech with havok which is now owned by intel. in 2009 ati (amd) put their gpu accelerated tech into bullet physic basket but it seems it does not caught developer to integrate the tech into their game. afaik the only comercial program that using gpu accelerated bullet is 3dmark11. so in the end nvidia was the only company pushing gpu accelerated physx right now. but even looking at the selection of games that really take advantage of tech i don't think the tech was successful for nvidia. of cource this is not reflecting the software as a whole. physx outside the gpu accelerated stuff are doing just fine as alternative for those who seek physic engine other than havok (the same can be said for bullet physic engine)

 

[4745454b]

the fact is those gpu accelerated feature only provide eye candy.

For me that's a great reason to have it. I love being able to max out the games I play and wouldn't want to run them reduced. (My laptop needs to do that and I accept that because its a laptop. But I want my desktop to be powerful enough to play with highest settings the games I play.) If PhysX was much more popular and my games used it then I would make sure I run an Nvidia card. But as I've pointed out before none of the games interest me. The only game I can test PhysX on is Metro 2033, which I haven't even installed yet.

If buying a card by all means consider PhysX in your decision. Assuming those games interest you. If they don't, then who cares? When buying a card I consider price, performance, bundle, etc. I don't use any compute programs in any form so why should I consider that?

 

[Mahisse]

It's quite funny to see all these posts about people not caring about eye candy. I would think most people in this specific forum are here because they are interested in getting the best out of their graphics so I have to call BS on that.
That being said I own a HD7850 and I' quite happy with it but I really do wish that it supported PhysX because it just looks awesome and it DOES give more than just eye candy to the game. I mean it's ten times more fun to go around blasting things when the things you shoot at are more interactive. Even though it's not a 'must have' to enjoy a game it does add some extr flavour to the game.

 

[sam_p_lay]

It's quite funny to see all these posts about people not caring about eye candy. I would think most people in this specific forum are here because they are interested in getting the best out of their graphics so I have to call BS on that.
That being said I own a HD7850 and I' quite happy with it but I really do wish that it supported PhysX because it just looks awesome and it DOES give more than just eye candy to the game. I mean it's ten times more fun to go around blasting things when the things you shoot at are more interactive. Even though it's not a 'must have' to enjoy a game it does add some extr flavour to the game.

+1 to that. Interactive/destructible environments have been a big deal to me since I first saw smashable windows, bullet holes in walls etc in Duke Nukem 3D. I'd really like to start seeing bullet decals on enemy models as standard too. Introduced (as far as I know) in Quake 2 and then very rarely used since. It was stupid in the original Half-Life (one year later) to see a dead scientist slumped against a blood-drenched wall/floor in a spotless white lab coat.

 

[cooldudesubho]

I'm just going to be a broken record here and repeat a couple points:
-Unless your CPU is from the dark ages, you can still use PhysX (in the few games that have it) on an AMD rig. You may have to use it on low or medium if your CPU isn't awesomesauce, but it's not that dramatic a difference. Any Sandy/Ivy based build should be able to handle at least medium PhysX fine in a game like Borderlands 2. Same goes for Metro 2033.

-On an AMD rig, the only popular game you're definitely going to give up meaningful eye candy in is Batman:Arkham City.

Stop posting crap.Did you even play boraderland2 full?or did you just play for the first 2 hours?When you play it more physx effects get more demadning.GPU can handle water based physx which is in BL2.Before you post more BS i want a video from you showing cpu handling physx at least when robots are introduced ingame.

 

[bigshootr8]

I'm just going to be a broken record here and repeat a couple points:
-Unless your CPU is from the dark ages, you can still use PhysX (in the few games that have it) on an AMD rig. You may have to use it on low or medium if your CPU isn't awesomesauce, but it's not that dramatic a difference. Any Sandy/Ivy based build should be able to handle at least medium PhysX fine in a game like Borderlands 2. Same goes for Metro 2033.

-On an AMD rig, the only popular game you're definitely going to give up meaningful eye candy in is Batman:Arkham City.

I feel like these threads always muster really poor discussion points. I agree with you that if you have a modern day CPU that most likely you will do just fine with your CPU handling Physx however some games like the one you mentioned Arkham City gate you into having a Nvidia card maybe someones created a hack I have no idea. And I would hate to offload that data onto my CPU anyway why take a demanding game already and then make it more demanding by forcing a tech that my CPU wasn't intended to process onto it that is really the advantage of i tall pushing it onto the GPU.
Point being. Its a niche thing If you have games that use it then perhaps it may be of appeal to you if you do not then it will be of no value to you. It just comes down to what you do as it does with any computer component. I wish people would look at tech for what it is and not break it down into a debate over companies you use the tech or you don't. I don't see threads going off about how 3D with AMD is a hassle or less performing then a Nvidia solution or AMD having a far superior solution with multi monitor surround displays versus Nvidia's. People never look at what the person is doing they always look at what they are doing and what value it has to them and that is what causes so much bias on the forum and after a while it bugs.

 

[cooldudesubho]

That's rich coming from you.



Put 40 hours into it, a playthrough and a half, before I got bored. I've posted all over these forums that with high physx enabled I had minimum fps of around 30 - playable but not very smooth. I typically use medium PhysX because the visual difference is tiny but the performance boost is huge.

Video or it didn't happen.Also difference between medium and high is huge.I tested it.So MOSTLY LIKELY YOU ARE GETTING LIMITED PHYSX WHEN YOU USE CPU.

 

[manofchalk]

Why bother arguing anymore?
The topic is highly subjective and its obvious both sides aren't going to back down. No one will win from this.

 

[bigshootr8]

I agree with you manofchalk everything visually isn't going to appeal to everyone. And Mac to his credit has linked using borderlands 2 on high physx in the past. I don't know about frame wise. For Borderlands 2 I would expect there to be massive slow down on high if the cpu was involved medium tends to be the solid sweet spot for cpu processing of physx which doesn't provide all the details you receive on high. I normally get 80-120 frames in the game with physx on high and everything turned up shrugs massive change from 30 FPS (which is playable). I just really like I said before in my book of a post that BIAS really destroys these kind of discussions. And there are a lot of prominent thread commenters on this site who definitely. show BIAS. When commenting on things ask yourself who you are helping more yourself or the person you are helping if you placed our own opinion preface it.

 

[Guest]

physX is good but it's not good enough to make me choose a nVIDIA gpu over AMD.It's like buying a ps3 just for the sake of playing God of War

+111111111x111111111=12345678987654321

 

[sam_p_lay]

+111111111x111111111=12345678987654321

Interesting...

I think we have a best answer.

 

[bigshootr8]

Well don't troll my facts I have pics Also, my gpu has this quest (top right under mini-map) to say to those who use there CPU to render there physx 😛 Maybe you can assist me on this 😀

 

[bigshootr8]

Was just hoping you weren't talking about me 😛 I wasn't trolling you before. The number game they were messing with up there. I don't have a beef with you other than you are sometimes biased. I feel like I have to go on the defense every time I say I like Physx. And I was poking fun a little showing that I can get decent frames with the eye candy turned on all in good fun sir.

You have been very clear in your posts that you get playable frames with physx enabled on medium and that at times you can play with it on high.

The only dock I have against using Borderlands 2 as an example is that the physx in Borderlands 2 are under DX9 which is far less intensive then DX11 which the Batman Games go under.

 

[bigshootr8]

Lol! I see what you did there. Well before it gets out of control again. Just know that Physx again is a niche thing its something that adds to a game elements that some would prefer to have where as others could care less. Its a matter of opinion for everyone on both sides. For me it was the single reason why I didn't get a 7970 because 75 percent of the games I play on a daily basis use it sadly and I really enjoy the extra candy who doesn't love candy right? Well maybe the fat guy over there *points over there* shouldn't. If you can make use of it and enjoy the effects from it then I can see it being a valid option other than that get the best card at the price point for you. Screw AMD v Nvidia get the best for you team red or team green (team red because no matter how you slice ATi is what AMD should be called now <3)

 

[bigshootr8]

No that is fair criticism. When I see people name off a game that uses Physx its when I normally explain to them what they can have with the Nvidia product. And if the effects don't really hit there radar well then they can look at it from a strictly best performance point of view.

 

[bystander]

Well yeah - there is absolutely no reason to buy an AMD card if most of your games use PhysX.

Like I said in another post, my guess (and it is just a wild guess) would be that PhysX is meaningful to as many people overall as overclocking is. Overclocking is an AMD advantage at this point in time, and PhysX is an Nvidia advantage.

I don't really care that some people like PhysX or even that they buy Nvidia just to get PhysX. I only get fired up when people start acting like they're employed by Nvidia's marketing department about the whole issue and refuse to actually use their brains to ask what both sides of the coin are.

Considering some of the quote you've used in regards to Nvidia cards, the same might be said of you.

You call the 680 a piece of poo, you said their AMD is 30% faster than an Nvidia equivalent. You go on and on about how superior the AMD card is.

 

[bigshootr8]

Well to be fair I kind of think the 680 is a under-performing card at the price range as well. And he may be bias at times but I think he was attempting to be fair and that is all one can ask I wouldn't be overly facetious about it.

 

[bystander]

I think you expressed my point clearly.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Bigshootr is that the new DLC? "Clean urine splotches"? 😱