• 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.

GeForce 8 graphics processors to gain PhysX support

“Yup, in one of the games they showed "fluid" effects that looked more like blobs of jelly. From what i remember it was supposed to be blood.”
You mean the first gen games from over 2 years back? Come on things have moved on since then and anyway that fluid effect was way better then what the CPU did. The fluids are far better now.

So these effects are rubbish?

How can anyone say the new physics effects are rubbish?
Why do so many people judge PhysX by how it was 2 or 4 years ago, not how it is today? Lets all judge today’s Nivida cards on the FX series.
 
Pottsey said:
“Yup, in one of the games they showed "fluid" effects that looked more like blobs of jelly. From what i remember it was supposed to be blood.”
You mean the first gen games from over 2 years back? Come on things have moved on since then and anyway that fluid effect was way better then what the CPU did. The fluids are far better now.

So these effects are rubbish?

How can anyone say the new physics effects are rubbish?
Why do so many people judge PhysX by how it was 2 or 4 years ago, not how it is today? Lets all judge today’s Nivida cards on the FX series.
Click to expand...

I agree with you mate but i think that the fluid demo on the Physx website looks like crap, i can see the potential, i can see the technology needed for this and it's implications, but it needs to look like water/blood/whatever and not blobs of chemical waste, and before they show a really convincing demo of that people will have trouble looking forward to it, and those are the people who are the purchasers in the end.
 
“but it needs to look like water/blood/whatever and not blobs of chemical waste, and before they show a really convincing demo of that people will have trouble looking forward to it,”
But they have shown a really convincing demo. How on earth does this http://www.ageia.com/developers/index.html (Press fluids) look like blobs of chemical waste? Look at the water when the ball falls in the box or the paint being spayed at the end?

There are two short bits that look like bobs of chemical waste in the first half but that’s done on purpose and should look like chemical waste. The 2nd half looks like water and paint looks like paint.

Just struggling to believe anyone really believe's the ball falling into the water looks like crap or the paint. What’s wrong with it? Its 100x better then what the CPU does in real time.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter which bit of the hardware does the calculations as far as i'm concerned. There aren't enough games around at the moment that use it for anyone to notice.

They can bring out all kinds of hardware with all the bells and whistles they want but until some more mainstream games use it, not many will care.
 
We need something like PhysXmark08 to test those uber physX cars or even add PhysX support to the next 3DMark to boost everyones uber scores even more :cool:
 
“The Physx card is no where near capable of doing those water physics with the paint in an actual game.“
Your just makeing that up anyway the API is capable of doing that stuff which means it can be done on the GPU. The api physics is not rubbish like some are saying.
http://www.ageia.com/physx/screens.html
Look at image 13,15,27
When you blow up the wine box's it goes all over. Pretty good liquid effect.



“We've all seen how slow it is when doing (rubbish looking) debris or whatever,”
You mean fast considering how much faster it is over the CPU. Physics wise its not rubbish looking.
 
Last edited:
one thing people are missing is that it shouldnt, in theory, require two identical cards either. people are saying 'hmmm, physix or SLI' but what about a screaming 8800gtx and say....and 8600 doing physics?

thats physics, done cheaply, bought to the masses. think about it.
 
Pottsey said:
“We've all seen how slow it is when doing (rubbish looking) debris or whatever,”
You mean fast considering how much faster it is over the CPU. Physics wise its not rubbish looking.
Click to expand...
I just don't see why anyone should have to sacrifice any framerate to physics when they just bought a PPU that's supposed to do all the flashy physics itself.

I know that if I spent all that money only to find I got some crap looking debris and half the framerate I'd be miffed.

Oh well the PPU is dead now anyway, burn the witch and bring on the sensible solutions. :D
 
“I just don't see why anyone should have to sacrifice any framerate to physics when they just bought a PPU that's supposed to do all the flashy physics itself.”
No one does. You gain FPS. What sacrifice? Look at UT faster with a PPU then without.



“I got some crap looking debris and half the framerate I'd be miffed.”
But you don’t get half the frame rate and you don’t get crap looking debris you get nice wind and liquid effects and better debris. Take GRAW 2 better debris and other effects not worse. The PPU isn’t just debris and nothing else. Its more a case of minimum FPS without PPU 15, minimum FPS with PPU 35.




“Oh well the PPU is dead now anyway,”
It’s not dead it just gained tons of life. Now the Physx API is going be made useable by the GPU lots more game support should arrive for the PPU to use.




“Ermm those effects look like bump. Its even in a tight confined area with no enemies or decent textures.“
They don’t look like bump mapping. Since when does bump have liquid flying though the air settling down and dripping!!!

One was the liquid from a chemical grenade settling down and dripping. The other one was an action shot from a wine box exploding the liquid flying all over. It was in mid air in the screen shot for crying out loud. How can you have a bump mapping effect in mid air! Show me bump mapping that looks half as good as that wine.

Textures have nothing to do with physics or the PPU so textures are irrelevant here. As for tight confirmed area with no enemies well 2 screenshots where outdoors and if its the part of the game I think it was it had enemies. What on earth does tight confined area or enemies even have to do with liquid physics? Those liquids effects where from games. The liquid effects can happen with or without enemies around and in both open and tight areas. In fact one is chemical grenade so it’s going have enemies around. The emphasis was on the liquid. Not showing off the enemies and none liquid stuff.

You’re flat out wrong when you said the PPU cannot do liquids in games. The above screenshots prove you wrong.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
No one does. You gain FPS. What sacrifice? Look at UT faster with a PPU then without.
Click to expand...
It's easy to mince words. You gain marginally decent physics effects, you lose framerate.

Skipped your next point as I don't give a monkey's about GRAW2. The only PhysX enabled game I'd really be interested in playing right now is Unreal Tournament 3, and I've not exactly heard sparkling reports about the physics in that game as it is.

Again thought you went and minced words. For the performance hit you get with those effects you'd probably be better off not using the PPU enabled effects at all, especially in a first person shooter and especially if you're playing to win and not to look at mediocre debris and swirling wind.

Pottsey said:
It’s not dead it just gained tons of life. Now the Physx API is going be made useable by the GPU lots more game support should arrive for the PPU to use.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the PhysX API, I am talking about dedicated PPUs.
 
Last edited:
“It's easy to mince words. You gain marginally decent physics effects, you lose framerate”
That’s not been true for over a year now. None of the newer games lower FPS. Now the drivers have been optimised you gain FPS. UT being a prime example where sometimes the minimum FPS doubles and the average goes up as well. The minimum FPS going from 15fps to 35fps is hardly what I would call cuting FPS in half.

There was a bad performance bug in the 2 year old drivers but that was fixed a long time ago.



“I'm not talking about the PhysX API, I am talking about dedicated PPUs.”
I know. But like I said if the API becomes widely used due GPU support then the PPU can use that API as well boosting the PPU life.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
“It's easy to mince words. You gain marginally decent physics effects, you lose framerate”
That’s not been true for over a year now. None of the newer games lower FPS. Now the drivers have been optimised you gain FPS. UT being a prime example where sometimes the minimum FPS doubles and the average goes up as well. The minimum FPS going from 15fps to 35fps is hardly what I would call cuting FPS in half.

There was a bad performance bug in the 2 year old drivers but that was fixed a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Sigh are you still playing this "I can't imagine the game without the PPU effects so I'll bring up this same old tired PPU effects on the CPU argument to make it sound like there's actually a benefit" spiel?

I wouldn't bother trying to mince words with me, I can mince words with the best.

Pottsey said:
I know. But like I said if the API becomes widely used due GPU support then the PPU can use that API as well boosting the PPU life.
Click to expand...
What incentive will people have to spend money on a dedicated PPU once the PhysX API has been ported over to CUDA and can run on a GPU? For not much more than the cost of a dedicated PPU you not only get a card that can do PPU functions but also functions as an SLI counterpart.

(This is assuming one GPU can't do both things at once and maintain decent performance.)

The dedicated PPU is unpopular as it is without any competition.
 
Assuming that the dedicated cards had the feature of PhysX cards on them, and by having a seperate card it would take the load of the GPU, then I don't really see the problem. Once physx in games become established, would be like a high-end soundcard or co-processor. Use it if you want for example.

Matthew
 
its astounding that people will continuously bring up problems that were occurring well over a year ago as if its some sort of justification to drop physix all together now.

isnt it a case of 'i dont want to know, so i wont pay attention' ? people want it to fail, in any way, shape or form. thats blatantly obvious reading posts from certain people on the subject (physix as a whole, not just PPU's). i have always seen the benefits of offloading physics processing and i have seen up untill now that it has been poorly executed. all that i feel is about to be turned around. i cant wait to read what some of you will be writing then.

but of course, you'll still have something to complain about with pottsey. if it isnt him being right about physix, its his quoting. that seriously bugs me. he puts in the effort to make his post easily legible and you guys wil knock him regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom