Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Yes as ATi cards can't do PhysX, so the games would be a lot slower as the PhysX would have to be done by the CPU.
-
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.
Physx Card? - I don't know which one it is
- Thread starter Soldier786
- Start date
Yes as ATi cards can't do PhysX, so the games would be a lot slower as the PhysX would have to be done by the CPU.
The nvidia card runs my second monitor - I can have winamp visualisations or gpu accelerated video playing whilst I play games on my main monitor. It's a bonus that it'll also do GPU physx processing
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 688
Dunno. I'm trying the Crystatis demo, and it runs dog slow. Like 3FPS slow. On an XFX 4850 XXX card/Q660/8Gb RAM.
Only goes up to about 25-30 FPS when teh demo goes right up close to a wall.
Are games akers seriously optimising their games that much for Physx/Nvidia [as the benchmark above suggests] or is my card FUBAR? it also doesn't do the HDR/Bloom effects properly in that [although works in 3D mark vantage].
If so, what a ******* load of **** from the games coders, and they can go **** themselves if they think I'm going to pay good money for that sort of performance. I'll just get HL2 Orange Box and play that - worked fine on my X1650 Pro...
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 688
Buggery.
Well, screw 'em, I'm not paying £150 just to get a game [never mind a tech demo] working, not when it's not the GPUs fault. both cards have over a teraflop of processing power, they should be capable of finding a better workaround than 4fps software emulation IMHO.
Any game marked 'designed for PhysX will be on my 'screw you' blacklist from now on, methinks....
Oh, and I was going to have an early night tonight. I thought my GPU was shafted so been up trying this in Vista, Win7, with hardware Physx, without, high settings, low settings - it's literally only the physics it's having difficulty with. Shocking.
And I found my steam account detail. HL2 coming down now, going to get Orange box tomorrow. Never played Portal before.
reckon it'll get more than 4fps?
Well, screw 'em, I'm not paying £150 just to get a game [never mind a tech demo] working, not when it's not the GPUs fault. both cards have over a teraflop of processing power, they should be capable of finding a better workaround than 4fps software emulation IMHO.
Any game marked 'designed for PhysX will be on my 'screw you' blacklist from now on, methinks....
Oh, and I was going to have an early night tonight. I thought my GPU was shafted so been up trying this in Vista, Win7, with hardware Physx, without, high settings, low settings - it's literally only the physics it's having difficulty with. Shocking.
And I found my steam account detail. HL2 coming down now, going to get Orange box tomorrow. Never played Portal before.
reckon it'll get more than 4fps?
Nothing wrong with PhysX if it is implemented properly.
The 'problem' with physX is that it only works on nVidia cards, which mean half the market is left out in the cold, and not many games developers will want to shut out half of their potential sales. As such most go for other physics engines that can work well on both systems.
Until we have a unified physics engine game developers just aren't going to push the boundaries and implement the effects these cards are capable of.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Do you know a guy called Pottsey?
