• 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.

Nvidia Physx

Just cause 2 don't use PhyX it uses Havok. you can see WHY it uses that instead of phyX as its game play mostly goes around physics. yes it does say nvidia cuda....but not phyX I may have misread through

it is a good idea in theory, but no one uses it as Nvidia kept it for themselves rightly so, but they have shot themselves in the foot, Cos soon Havok or any alike it will be able to run on the GPU rather than the CPU no matter who makes it than that will be the end of PhyX in games. No games Dev will favour a API like that cos it may mean they lose millions in sales of that game cos they effectively "cut off" ATI users, that is why open source is the way forward.
 
Last edited:
The useage of it in Mafia 2 looks interesting, if they can keep it sensible and use it at that level throughout the game rather than just the first few token areas and then forgotten about it could make an impact. I actually thought it had been dropped in Mafia 2 in favor of a custom ODE implementation but I guess not as that videos fairly recent.
 
Last edited:
straxusii said:
I reckon not mate! There's probably more DX11 titles now than Physx, and god knows how many more slated for this year.
Click to expand...

There are definitely more PhysX titles than DX11. And some DX11 games use DX11 a lot less than even Batman uses PhysX.

True DX11 games are a long way off, when we have DX12 capable cards we will rpboably see a good uptake of DX11 engines......


There are hardly any DX 10 games and even less that really take full advnatge of DX 10.
 
And èhysX is Nvidia proprietary in the same way DX11 is microsoft proprietary - You can license the software form Nvidia. ATI cliam they tried and Nvidia didn't let them.


We will never know the truth. Its probable that Nvidia tried not to give ATi a license, and there is no legal reason why they must. But I also don't think ATI tried very hard, they don't want to appear to be supporting Nvidia and would rather find their own GPU physics solution and try and screw Nvidia.
 
PhysX is nice when its used, but if games like BC2 can do awesome destruction without it, then it's tough to see the point unless THOSE could be accelerated with it for higher fps.
I'd LOVE more games to use it since i have a gts 250 specifically for it, but a physics solutions usable by all cards would be preferable
 
Last edited:
If PhysX gave Nvidia a huge advantage I think ATi would try to win a court case over unfair competition like it did to Intel and Intel had to pay billions to settle it, so I doubt Nvidia want it to go really big anyway for that reason.

ATi gain sales from a good price:speed ratio, and Nvidia generally gain sales because of PhysX and good drivers really..

I think a top speed is top priority for them both, but apparently ATi will be using some nice ray-tracing at real time pretty soon, then the competition will continue.

Anyway.. gone off subject, going back to the original post, the above post pretty much answers it, it will have some nice effects but you won't really notice that much of a huge difference, although given the choice, not that I have looked into it much, out of the 5870 and the 470, I'd go 470
 
Last edited:
AaronS said:
I think a top speed is top priority for them both, but apparently ATi will be using some nice ray-tracing at real time pretty soon, then the competition will continue.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold your breath. Even if ATI/Nvidia released cards capable of full real time raytracing at blistering framerates tomorrow, who would make the games to use it? The number of games made specifically for the PC nowadays are tiny, 99% of what we see is dictated by the consoles. The best we can hope for are ports with higher res textures and some DX11 stuff tacked onto the renderer.

Intel are pushing raytracing for gaming HEAVILY and they have spent a lot of money in recent years working on the software. But you are still left with the fact that nobody will develop a game for high end PC only. Project Offset (which is owned by Intel now and is expected to ship alongside Larrabee for promotional reasons) is not even using Raytracing apparently.

John Carmack from Id Software and Tim Sweeney from Epic Games are both talking about some really interesting stuff (REYES type rendering, sparse voxel octree geometry etc..) but this all depends on what the next consoles will be able to do. Until that next generation of consoles arrive we will just be seeing more of the same. Carmack has even said that he has several fallback plans because the next generation of consoles might not offer what is needed for a big shift in rendering technologies, and we could very well be stuck with rasterization for another full console cycle.
 
AaronS said:
If PhysX gave Nvidia a huge advantage I think ATi would try to win a court case over unfair competition like it did to Intel and Intel had to pay billions to settle it, so I doubt Nvidia want it to go really big anyway for that reason.
Click to expand...



A court case they are guaranteed to loose. ATI can in theory license PhysX from Nvidia and if Nvidia ever got a sniff of a legal case then they would put the physX license out openly with a high price tag.
 
Also bear in mind physx isnt optimised for multi CPU support when it runs in software mode, I'm sure most of the effects could be done almost as well using quad core cpus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom