Is PhysX important to you?

a03dugga · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:03

Hey guys, might be getting a new card soon and i was thinking, is having a card with PhysX important to myself?
I weren't sure, its a nice bonus i suppose, what do you guys think, would you rather one with PhysX or a more powerful card without?

opethdisciple · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:06

"more powerful card without"

But they arent mutually exclusive.

How about the option more powerful card with physx!

a03dugga · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:09

I'm in no way using exclusive terms here, i mean some amd cards have been really good lately, especially compared with some nvidia cards.

NightSt@lk3r · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:31

PhysX is far too under utilized to let it be a deciding factor in choosing a GPU IMO for me "more powerful card without"

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:34

a03dugga said:
Hey guys, might be getting a new card soon and i was thinking, is having a card with PhysX important to myself?
I weren't sure, its a nice bonus i suppose, what do you guys think, would you rather one with PhysX or a more powerful card without?

To give some context to your example a good battle would be the fairly reasonably priced 7950 vs the similarly priced 660Ti.

The 7950 is a good old bit faster (especially when overclocked) but with the 660Ti you get PhysX. The best thing to do is to look at the games which support PhysX and then watch some YouTube videos of the effects in those games which you play or intend to play and make a decision if you'd rather have the effects or the better all round performance.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:36

Rusty0611 said:
To give some context to your example a good battle would be the fairly reasonably priced 7950 vs the similarly priced 660Ti.

The 7950 is a good old bit faster (especially when overclocked) but with the 660Ti you get PhysX. The best thing to do is to look at the games which support PhysX and then watch some YouTube videos of the effects in those games which you play or intend to play and make a decision if you'd rather have the effects or the better all round performance.

But with that, a 660Ti WITH PhysX on will be even slower than a 7950 than it already is.

Omaeka · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:38

Surely a high end CPU like a 3930k or a 3570k can run PhysX through the CPU with a minuscule FPS hit? My ole FX-4100 used to do the PhysX in Borderlands 2 quite well, and that was a Bulldozer for god's sake.

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:41

spoffle said:
But with that, a 660Ti WITH PhysX on will be even slower than a 7950 than it already is.

Not necessarily. BL2 kills non nVidia GPUs if you apply PhysX

and really - IMO - that's the only game where the effects are pretty good.

Omaeka said:
Surely a high end CPU like a 3930k or a 3570k can run PhysX through the CPU with a minuscule FPS hit? My ole FX-4100 used to do the PhysX in Borderlands 2 quite well, and that was a Bulldozer for god's sake.

Maybe on Low-Medium (in places) but later on in the game where the effects become better performance really does nosedive on an AMD GPU even with an i7 3770K.

Omaeka · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:46

Rusty0611 said:
Maybe on Low-Medium (in places) but later on in the game where the effects become better performance really does nosedive on an AMD GPU even with an i7 3770K.

I had the entire game maxed at 1680x1050 I think with a 6850 at the time, lowest it got was about 25 or so fps in the sewer place, although I suppose that's considered bad?

AMD really need to come out with a PhysX equivalent tbh, that can process it perfectly through the GPU.

arc@css · 21 Jan 2013 at 18:51

It wouldn't be a purchasing factor for me, though there have been a few (and only a few) games I've played that I found that did benefit substantially from it. Even so, now I have a decent cpu, I could always fall back on that to at least deliver a reasonable experience if I really desired.

Rusty0611 · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:19

Omaeka said:
I had the entire game maxed at 1680x1050 I think with a 6850 at the time, lowest it got was about 25 or so fps in the sewer place, although I suppose that's considered bad?

AMD really need to come out with a PhysX equivalent tbh, that can process it perfectly through the GPU.

Yes. 25 FPS ain't really playable IMO.

I don't think PhysX really nets nVidia that many sales to be honest. If it was more widespread and in the form like it is in BL2 then yeah perhaps...

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 19:22

Rusty0611 said:
Not necessarily. BL2 kills non nVidia GPUs if you apply PhysX and really - IMO - that's the only game where the effects are pretty good.

Maybe on Low-Medium (in places) but later on in the game where the effects become better performance really does nosedive on an AMD GPU even with an i7 3770K.

It's not necessarily the GPU that's killed though, it's more overall performance.

The PhysX effects themselves aren't exactly GPU intensive, it's just that as before, PhysX is majorly gimped to run badly on anything non-nVidia (when it's GPU PhysX).

The CPU gets clogged up, pulling down GPU utilisation, thus pulling performance down.

Mr. May · 21 Jan 2013 at 20:04

It was the main reason I switched from 7970's to 670's as shift 2 supports it and runs like a dog with out and wont apply AA for ati cards and also for borderlands 2 which just looks simply epic with it on.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 20:24

Mr. May said:
It was the main reason I switched from 7970's to 670's as shift 2 supports it and runs like a dog with out and wont apply AA for AMD cards

*facepalm* nVidia have done this again?

I don't know how they didn't learn the first time with Batman AA.

weehamish · 21 Jan 2013 at 20:35

Thing with borderlands 2 is it will show decent fps with an AMD card, but its really not playable, its not smooth at all above low physx really. It will dip later on when hordes come after you and everything gets smashed up too and then youll wanna quit save and restart

One thing i have noticed is that all these Physx games are cheap as chips

Batman, both of them were a fiver each! Borderlands 2 was 15 quid!

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 20:37

weehamish said:
Thing with borderlands 2 is it will show decent fps with an AMD card, but its really not playable, its not smooth at all above low physx really. It will dip later on when hordes come after you and everything gets smashed up too and then youll wanna quit save and restart

One thing i have noticed is that all these Physx games are cheap as chips Batman, both of them were a fiver each! Borderlands 2 was 15 quid!

Is this an absolute claim, or are you talking about your own experience again?

As I have played a load of Borderlands with PhysX above low and it was smooth and fine.

Mal X · 21 Jan 2013 at 21:08

weehamish said:
Thing with borderlands 2 is it will show decent fps with an AMD card, but its really not playable, its not smooth at all above low physx really. It will dip later on when hordes come after you and everything gets smashed up too and then youll wanna quit save and restart

One thing i have noticed is that all these Physx games are cheap as chips Batman, both of them were a fiver each! Borderlands 2 was 15 quid!

Borderlands is a bit buggy anyway, but this is not be due to Phys x.... i.e it also suffers from screen tearing, well mine did, i researched it on their forum and managed to get rid of most of it.....

Phys X doesn't kill Borderlands 2, it's too much OCing that it hates, plus selecting the wrong FPS and finally old drivers !

Gregster · 21 Jan 2013 at 21:08

a03dugga said:
Hey guys, might be getting a new card soon and i was thinking, is having a card with PhysX important to myself?
I weren't sure, its a nice bonus i suppose, what do you guys think, would you rather one with PhysX or a more powerful card without?

Personaly, I like the effects of PhysX. The problem is the lack of games that have GPU PhysX. Here is a few examples.

and Unreal engine 3 using PhysX details (that AMD users will not see)

Just a couple of games I pulled from Youtube.

Is it worth the premium? I will leave that upto the OP to decide.

spoffle · 21 Jan 2013 at 21:16

Greg, most of those games can have the PhysX forced to run on the CPU, so it's not really the same as missing out on.

Twirlywoos · 21 Jan 2013 at 21:21

a03dugga said:
Hey guys, might be getting a new card soon and i was thinking, is having a card with PhysX important to myself?
I weren't sure, its a nice bonus i suppose, what do you guys think, would you rather one with PhysX or a more powerful card without?

It's not really important to me, but one of my favourite games coming out in March supports it hence why I went NVIDIA. Otherwise I heard that it will be handled by the CPU when the next SDK is released.