Are physx cards worth it?

coyote · 1 Nov 2007 at 10:33

Just wondering if having a dedicated physx card is worth the cash?

Firstly, does it really add anything to games?

Secondly, are there many games that use them, or have I got the wrong end of the stick and all games can use them to some degree?

TIA

Will_3rd · 1 Nov 2007 at 10:38

No for £70 it is really not worth the cash.

No, tends to slow down performance on some games. Seen some of the psychics effects in some Tom Clancy game looked alrite but nothing that I haven't seen before.

There is a slender list of games which support it, games have to be coded to use it so most titles will ignore the card.

I'm sure Pottsey will be along with some more info (propaganda) at some point

mohawk · 1 Nov 2007 at 10:42

the 1 game that has been designed specifically for this card http://www.warmongergame.com/ has been delayed which cant be helping physx at all, UT3 will have some physx levels in it which apparently show off how good these cards can be, but at the moment i really dont think they are worth it.

ACESHIGH · 1 Nov 2007 at 11:14

Its most certainly NOT worth getting a PhysX card.

platypus · 1 Nov 2007 at 11:15

It's a nice idea, but as of yet hasn't been implemented at all well. I think it will be superceeded by the integration of CPU&GPU to be honest.

skullman · 1 Nov 2007 at 11:26

These are pretty much useless right now. With gfx cards its different - some are more powerful than others, but whether your playing with your gfx settings on low details or high, the core gameplay isnt actually affected, but physics cards have the potential to affect gameplay massively. However, no developer is going to write two versions of the same game, one for physics card users - one for everyone else. So until people are somehow forced to buy one (or the game is designed specifically for the card) they wont be used to their full potential.

I think it would have been more sucessful (and useful) in console gaming. They could have maybe done a deal with Sony, MS or Nintendo to have a PPU built into every machine.

Heatsinked · 1 Nov 2007 at 11:34

You will find some interesting debates on this already if you use the forum search function

Gimpymoo · 1 Nov 2007 at 12:48

Im getting one for £60. Depends what games you play to be honest.

Rail Simulator uses it and it seems to lighten the load on the CPU/VGA when bumping the scenery onto high detail so for me as I play that game, £60 isnt bad as it will be used more in the future.

Pottsey · 1 Nov 2007 at 13:00

The list of games is small what 30ish? And another 30 odd tech demos, home made games e.c.t

PPU's are worth it if you have/play lots of PPU games. Otherwise no its not worth it.

MR.B · 1 Nov 2007 at 13:50

Psyk · 1 Nov 2007 at 14:26

skullman said:
These are pretty much useless right now. With gfx cards its different - some are more powerful than others, but whether your playing with your gfx settings on low details or high, the core gameplay isnt actually affected, but physics cards have the potential to affect gameplay massively. However, no developer is going to write two versions of the same game, one for physics card users - one for everyone else. So until people are somehow forced to buy one (or the game is designed specifically for the card) they wont be used to their full potential.

I think the idea behind PhysX is that it's an API with both a hardware and software implementation. So in theory the same code could be used with or without a PPU. Of course the problem with that is the software version is much, much slower meaning any physics that affect gameplay must be simple enough for the CPU to handle at a decent rate. That's why at the moment any extra effects you get with a PPU are purely graphical eg. swaying grass.

skullman said:
I think it would have been more sucessful (and useful) in console gaming. They could have maybe done a deal with Sony, MS or Nintendo to have a PPU built into every machine.

Actually one of the physics companies does have a deal with sony (either Ageia or Havok, not sure which). The physics API is included with the PS3 sdk, and although it doesn't have a PPU, the Cell's SPEs are actually designed in a similar way to a PPU so they are pretty good at doing the same job apparently.

Pottsey · 1 Nov 2007 at 17:13

“That's why at the moment any extra effects you get with a PPU are purely graphical eg. swaying grass.”
But that’s not true the effects are not purely graphical.

Its Sony who have a deal with Ageia.

Psyk · 1 Nov 2007 at 17:47

Pottsey said:
“That's why at the moment any extra effects you get with a PPU are purely graphical eg. swaying grass.”
But that’s not true the effects are not purely graphical.

Ideally they should be, otherwise the game would play differently depending on whether you have a card or not, and generally devs try to avoid making gameplay hardware dependent as much as possible.

mmj_uk · 1 Nov 2007 at 18:07

What's funny though is people with quad core CPU's saying Physx is not worth it.

Physx probably has greater support than even dual core at the moment.

Sleepery · 1 Nov 2007 at 18:28

mmj_uk said:
What's funny though is people with quad core CPU's saying Physx is not worth it.

Physx probably has greater support than even dual core at the moment.

Ah, but Intel recently bought out the guys who do the Havok physics engine, which is used in hundreds of games. Expect them to get very much on top of farming physics off to a dedicated core over the next year or so, if they've any sense.

Energize · 1 Nov 2007 at 18:35

They are worth less than nothing, don't buy one.

MR.B · 1 Nov 2007 at 19:18

mmj_uk said:
What's funny though is people with quad core CPU's saying Physx is not worth it.

Physx probably has greater support than even dual core at the moment.

You assume people only use quads for games... did you not know you can do other things on a computer?

XtAsY · 1 Nov 2007 at 20:12

MR.B said:
You assume people only use quads for games... did you not know you can do other things on a computer?

Exactly, my quad core is a godsend. I use it to do CPU rendering inside of 3D content creation applications like Maya as well as using it for heavy multi tasking. Quad cores are deffinetly worth it for the right people, although the extreme edition wasn't worth it. I'm temped to sell it and get one of the Q6600 G0's although I'll probably wait for the new 45nm Core2's, and then wait again for them to come down in price.

PinkFloyd · 1 Nov 2007 at 21:01

mmj_uk said:
What's funny though is people with quad core CPU's saying Physx is not worth it.

Physx probably has greater support than even dual core at the moment.

Lol..... Nope.

More games make the most of a quad core than a physx card. Thats before you even look at other apps like video editing and 3d work.

Pottsey · 2 Nov 2007 at 07:00

“Thats before you even look at other apps like video editing and 3d work.“
I thought there are only 1 or 2 games that use Quad cores a lot less then Physx. Various none gaming apps like 3d work use the PPU as well.

Are you really sure there is more quad core support? Could you list some games? I am a bit out of date with quad core support so I could well be wrong.

“I use it to do CPU rendering inside of 3D content creation applications like Maya as well as using it for heavy multi tasking.”
I am pretty sure Maya user’s or has a plugin for Physx? Pretty sure it supports the PPU as well
EDIT: Sounds like Autodesk 3ds Max7 and Alias Maya 7 all support it. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=8616

“They are worth less than nothing, don't buy one.“
Please stop coming out with this rubbish you know that’s a flat out lie.