PhysX Accelerators: Which games?
- Thread starter NickK
- Start date
looks like an absolute waste of money to me. Sure i can understand wanting the best from your gaming, but this is taking it too far. The money for this card could better be investing in a new gfx card or other components.
Solac said:
Depends on what game, and what settings you have that game on. They cant alienate the majority of gamers who wont have this hardware so will include options to reduce the physics in a game. Thus not having one does not speed up a game at all. Although, run the game with the extra physics options on and no physics card you may be in for a shock, the CPU will have to deal with way too many calculations and your FPS will drop like a stone.
So if you want fancy nancy physics all over the place wait till some of those listed games come out and try it with/without the extra options if you can, see how it affects you, then maybe buy one of these cards.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 742
- Location
- London
Complete rip-off! I could buy a 7800 or an X1800 for that price and it would be a lot more useful!I was looking forward to this until I saw the price
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 6,997
- Location
- Surrey
Looks like something that Crysis should make use of a LOT - specially looking at the folliage and buildings etc in the vids that are floating about at the mo 
There just aren't enough 
for some of the comments in this thread, its like a echo of the graphics card forum with just as much ignorance.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17560065
Please read every single post in this thread before further comments.
for some of the comments in this thread, its like a echo of the graphics card forum with just as much ignorance.http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17560065
Please read every single post in this thread before further comments.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
I really, really hope they don't take off...
Besides, CPUs will contain more and more parallelism in the future, so surely a 'physics processor' will be unnecessary.
Read them... I still don't think labelling them as a 'waste of money' can be described as ignorant. Two hundred pounds is a lot of money.
Besides, CPUs will contain more and more parallelism in the future, so surely a 'physics processor' will be unnecessary.
Noxis said:There just aren't enough
THREAD
Please read every single post in this thread before further comments.
Read them... I still don't think labelling them as a 'waste of money' can be described as ignorant. Two hundred pounds is a lot of money.
Last edited:
There are two questions I have about this card:
1. Is the API open to non-gaming physics/mathmatics computations (BOINC projects anyone
)
2. Does it saturate the bus... quad physics engines working on seperate areas of the environment.
Yes there's issues with gaming online with view distance (based off a simple bounding box):
a) network bandwidth synchronisation between players increases
b) graphics card needs more resources to render the larger world
c) CPU needs more power to process the additional volume of data
d) More system memory required to maintain additional object data, more simultaneous textures.. and it needs to be faster...
e) Finally the system buses linking between them have to transfer even more data at a faster rate...
However there are tasks that CPUs (which are generic) aren't good at - physics is one of them.
1. Is the API open to non-gaming physics/mathmatics computations (BOINC projects anyone
)2. Does it saturate the bus... quad physics engines working on seperate areas of the environment.
Yes there's issues with gaming online with view distance (based off a simple bounding box):
a) network bandwidth synchronisation between players increases
b) graphics card needs more resources to render the larger world
c) CPU needs more power to process the additional volume of data
d) More system memory required to maintain additional object data, more simultaneous textures.. and it needs to be faster...
e) Finally the system buses linking between them have to transfer even more data at a faster rate...
However there are tasks that CPUs (which are generic) aren't good at - physics is one of them.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 1,026
- Location
- Inverness Scotland
dave2k2005 said:
Likewise, what a rip off
Wang Computer said:
Two hundred pounds is a bit of cash - however I feel it would be better spent on a the Physx card rather than a second gfx card for SLI.
People seem incredibly confused - this IS NOT a gfx card replacement, it isnt designed to give you more FPS in current games it IS designed to make the entire gaming enviroment incredibly realistic.
http://physx.ageia.com/footage.html
Check out the Cellfactor high quality video divx download in that link, without the Physx card we would probably be about 3 - 5 years off having that amount of blocks and interaction.
These Physx cards really are the next big thing in PC gaming shoving it far far ahead of console's. Combined with DX10 the gaming enviroments are going to be incredibly realistic.
Think about say Battlefield3 (made up title) you can kill your enemy by making the building collapse on them because it is made out of individual blocks.
Glass shatters, wood splinters... even in HL2 which is pretty much the best example of this now - its uniform. You break wooden planks and they break the same every time - same with glass. With Physx it will be true dynmics coming into play with it different every time.
What these Physx cards are offering us in terms of realistic gaming enviroments are incredible.