Nvidia Phsx with ATI Card

[Hatman]

Erm yeh to expand on the title a little bit.


Say I wanted to use a 4850X2 ( :



Could I still use say a separate 9600gt card for physx?






Thanks.

 

[speedbird]

No, because the drivers will conflict

 

[hairycat101]

I think newegg still has some physX cards on thier site. The original ones from Aiegia... <<< very likely misspelled all to hell.

 

[dagger]

No, because the drivers will conflict

Many people have gotten it to run without the ATI/Nvidia bloatware conflicting. There is nothing preventing it otherwise. Although I wouldn't think it's worth the effort.

 

[hairycat101]

Are any games actually running PhysX? Unreal III sure, but besides that? Any big name games?

 

[stoner133]

Ghost Recon 1 and 2 use it. I think Call of Duty 4 as well.

 

[hairycat101]

COD4 does not use PhysX. Yes to the Tom Clancy titles, though.

 

[spuddyt]

insofar as I am aware, it is theoretically possible to have the 2 drivers running in XP, but not in vista

 

[spaztic7]

Yes. There is a small gorup of people working on the cuda package for ATi cards, but they said they wont work on the 48XX series until ATi provides them samples.

So, yes, ATi cards can run Physx without a problem.



My question is how much longer until drivers have the Havok physics with the drivers for ATi.

 

[hairycat101]

Havok looks to be winning out in the bigger titles... How much longer will PhysX be relevant?

 

[emp]

Has Physx EVER been relevant?

 

[hairycat101]

Has Physx EVER been relevant at all?

I think pretty much only for benmarking software. 3D mark may not make games or any truely usefull aplications, but they do support PhysX with the new Vantag and 06.

 

[emp]

Yeah... but I think 3Dmark is even less important than Physx... if that's even possible.

 

[speedbird]

3Dmark is not really a reliable benchmark for Gaming performance anymore, but a handy benchmark to check that a machine is performing in line with other machines of similar spec.
I can see 3Dmark becoming totally irrelevant, as futuremark have decided to charge for Vantage

 

[wh3resmycar]

may be TC:endwar will use it

 

[dagger]

Are any games actually running PhysX? Unreal III sure, but besides that? Any big name games?

Here's the list:
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_good_company.html

It looks big, but most of them are obscure.

 

[hairycat101]

Here's the list:
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_good_company.html

It looks big, but most of them are obscure.

I should have been more clear. I have seen the list (although not lately) and to my recolection, the list didn't contain many names that I knew or cared about. The list of games using Havoc or some other physics engine based on the CPU is much larger and contains many more impressive games.

 

[dagger]

I should have been more clear. I have seen the list (although not lately) and to my recolection, the list didn't contain many names that I knew or cared about. The list of games using Havoc or some other physics engine based on the CPU is much larger and contains many more impressive games.

That just about sums it up. All the major titles with impressive physics effects such as Crysis use generic physics engine developed in house. Not really Havoc, but generic physics engines that runs only off cpu, and do not make use of gpu, Nvidia or ATI.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Could I still use say a separate 9600gt card for physx?

Yes in XP; but currently not very easily in Vista (they're monkeying with a hack) mainly due to WDDM driver limitation to one graphics driver.

 

[spaztic7]

Havoc is made by Intel. Not only games use this engine as the de-facto physics engine, but also Hollywood or anyone else who wants to use realistic physics in their presentation (of any sort).

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Yes the funny thing about that is that, while GRAW is a poster child for PhysX, Havoc was the underlying engine for the game physics (not the visual physics) and for UT3 it's Epic own physics engine.

Both Havoc and PhysX are good, just nothing from either has really been too exciting really. It's like arguing who has the bigger pile of dung, sure one may have better numbers, but it's still Cr@p !

 

[hairycat101]

Yes the funny thing about that is that, while GRAW is a poster child for PhysX, Havoc was the underlying engine for the game physics (not the visual physics) and for UT3 it's Epic own physics engine.

Both Havoc and PhysX are good, just nothing from either has really been too exciting really. It's like arguing who has the bigger pile of dung, sure one may have better numbers, but it's still Cr@p !

So then, where do you think physics engines will fit into to game devolpement in the future? If we can all see that PhysX (propriatary hardware based) isn't taking off, do you think it will be a software (thus CPU driven) item in the future?

 

[hairycat101]

I don't really care if there is a standard or if different deveolpers make their own. I just don't want to have to buy a speciallized piece of hardware for some games, but not most. If they want to standardize it to work with all modern gaming-level GPU's then that is fine.

 

[Hatman]

Well because 1. Cards that can be used for physx are cheap as chips 2. It dsnt matter coz I got a spare one here aniway 😛 and 3. It helps ni other things aside from gaming : )

 

[hairycat101]

Hatman... what the heck else does it help you with besides games?