• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7950 OR 660Ti?

gregster said:
Sadly, I agree Arc :( Nvidia have something that can seriously make games look so much better with all those nice particle effects but just don't push this technology enough.

They would sell more Nvidia cards if every other game had these effects in them.
Click to expand...

Or, let AMD users run it too? I'm pretty sure gaming as a whole would improve with hardware accelerated physics.
As for hardware accelerated physics on the CPU, I know a lot of titles use a variant of PhysX which is pretty poor for CPU performance? Using archaic coding, not sure how the situation is on a game released right now with the latest iteration of PhysX and hardware accelerated physics.
 
Last edited:
weehamish said:
snip
Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding how PhysX works weehamish.

You can't run PhysX on the CPU on max in Borderlanda 2 with decent FPS without a nVidia card. Some points of the game will be fine; others unplayable.

Also, can you stop making every thread you post in a blog/help thread about your PC problems as well? Try to keep it at least loosely on topic or make a dedicated thread for them for discussion.
 
Last edited:
No rusty u cant run BL2 above low if you dont had an Nvidia card as its greyed out, my bro has a 580 and i had a 660.

My point is why does the 660 struggle with it on max with the Q9450 when the 580 is fine with the i7?

Im sure the 660 and 580 are nearly the same with some OC on the 660?

Im sure it could be done by AMD but Nvidia wouldnt let them as they put loads money into it?
 
From what I recall Weehamish you can alter a .ini to allow it to run on your CPU.
I've ran hardware accelerated PhysX on older CPU's in Mafia 2 and Batman AA, but as far as I remember they were using archaic code.

And with BL2, you always get hit and miss information, "Yeah it's running fine PhysX maxed out on my CPU", "No it's running like rubbish".
Pretty much the same lark you get when people say they're running X game with Y hardware at 60FPS maxed out perfectly fine, then you try it yourself with the same hardware and go "Lulwut".

580 and an i7 would be better than a 660 and a Q9450 too, moot point.
 
gregster said:
Sadly, I agree Arc :( Nvidia have something that can seriously make games look so much better with all those nice particle effects but just don't push this technology enough.

They would sell more Nvidia cards if every other game had these effects in them.
Click to expand...

This is my issue with PhysX. People don't really understand it.

nVidia don't actually have something that can seriously make games look so much better, you don't need a GPU to process the majority of the PhysX effects used in games.

As in, just because the games requires an NVidia GPU for the PhysX, it doesn't mean that those physics effects actually need a GPU (to the extent of not being possible otherwise) to have those sort of effects.

And the inclusion of PhysX is usually at the expense of those who DON'T have an nVidia GPU. Simply because nVidia pressure the developers to make the physics so boring and basic for those who don't have an nVidia GPU to make PhysX effects more pronounced.

This isn't slating PhysX, it's slating the way nVidia demand it's used.
 
Whatever happened to the open hardware accelerated physics AMD were behind? Bullet was it?

Why am I not surprised an open standard never happened >.<
 
I know the i7 system is better but the 660 and 580 are not much different, the 580 was the top card while the 660 is the low-med but when oced it produces similar results to the 580.

So are you saying the 580 can handle physx better? Even though the 660 is newer?
 
No the 570 competes with the 660. The 580 competes (sort of) with the 660TI. And CUDA, PhysX was better on the 5 series than the 6 series.
 
weehamish said:
No rusty u cant run BL2 above low if you dont had an Nvidia card as its greyed out, my bro has a 580 and i had a 660.

My point is why does the 660 struggle with it on max with the Q9450 when the 580 is fine with the i7?

Im sure the 660 and 580 are nearly the same with some OC on the 660?

Im sure it could be done by AMD but Nvidia wouldnt let them as they put loads money into it?
Click to expand...

Completely incorrect, when I first got Borderlands 2, I had the option to change the PhysX settings from low to high without editing the game at all.

As for nVidia not letting AMD use it, well that much is obvious, but nVidia want it all to to themselves because nVidia use it as a marketing tool above all else.

Martini1991 said:
From what I recall Weehamish you can alter a .ini to allow it to run on your CPU.
I've ran hardware accelerated PhysX on older CPU's in Mafia 2 and Batman AA, but as far as I remember they were using archaic code.

And with BL2, you always get hit and miss information, "Yeah it's running fine PhysX maxed out on my CPU", "No it's running like rubbish".
Pretty much the same lark you get when people say they're running X game with Y hardware at 60FPS maxed out perfectly fine, then you try it yourself with the same hardware and go "Lulwut".

580 and an i7 would be better than a 660 and a Q9450 too, moot point.
Click to expand...


The main issue is that PhysX has been gimped on purpose, to run badly on the CPU when GPU acceleration is available, by nVidia, to make it look like their cards are that much faster than a CPU for running physics processes.

They have seemingly realised that this is getting in the way of people taking PhysX seriously though, as it's always been pretty stale, very little even uses it, and out of all the games that use "PhysX" only about 10% of those games actually use GPU physics.

So apparently, PhysX 3.0 is coming soon and it has been re-written from the ground up to actually make proper use of CPUs. If this is true, then it could mean a big shake up in in game physics.
 
weehamish said:
I know the i7 system is better but the 660 and 580 are not much different, the 580 was the top card while the 660 is the low-med but when oced it produces similar results to the 580.

So are you saying the 580 can handle physx better? Even though the 660 is newer?
Click to expand...

The GTX580 is more capable of compute tasks than any 6 series card. A GTX580 is better than a GTX680 in compute tasks too.
 
Lol rusty, i just checked mine and i can enable high now also :\ it was defo patched in as it wasnt there before.

I have not changed ini file its defo patched in.

Now i know why i confused you rusty sorry i didnt make it clear, but yeah it was greyed out when it was first released.
 
weehamish said:
Lol rusty, i just checked mine and i can enable high now also :\ it was defo patched in as it wasnt there before.

I have not changed ini file its defo patched in.

Now i know why i confused you rusty sorry i didnt make it clear, but yeah it was greyed out when it was first released.
Click to expand...

You are the king of assumptions.

Can you say with any conviction that it was definitely patched in on the sole basis that you couldn't change it before?

I was able to change it upon release.
 
weehamish said:
Seems like a common problem some peoples was greyed others was not, go google it its everywhere.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. I was commenting on how you have an issue, and then make authoritative claims on what the issue is.

"I didn't have the option to change PhysX options in Borderlands 2, so they have definitely patched it in"

"I have an issue that I can't identify with my 7970s, it definitely must be driver issues"

To name two that come to my head.

Moral of the story? Stop with the assumptions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom