I was tempted to get the new Spiderman but after seeing a trailer, I am glad I didn't. Could be fun but I think I will pass.
-
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 is it used much ?
- Thread starter 2013
- Start date
I was tempted to get the new Spiderman but after seeing a trailer, I am glad I didn't. Could be fun but I think I will pass.
Has you can see though I also get the same effects just you get better performance. I completed AC ages ago not a game I'll be playing anytime soon.
You don't. You don't get any GPU accelerated effects which a screenshot will not illustrate.
You would need to compare a maxed out video versus your own to see the difference. As what spoffle said above, nVidia do not allow these types of effects to be ran off the CPU. They could technically run on the CPU but they don't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
LOL
I have compared a maxed out Video and thats Nvidia's own video. Did you see the screenshots vs on and off plus look at gregs its the same effects.
What do you want me to do ? You still saying am not seeing the same effects that Nvidia shown in there trailer?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
I asked you this before. What should I be seeing then? point it out what I should be seeing? I recorded a video anyway so you can see it running in action on my phone.
Uploading
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Tell me what I should be seeing different? GPU or CPU PhysX on Batman is the same thing prove me wrong. The only difference is performance have the PhysX on the GPU helps with keeping the frame rate up. that is the only difference I have watched Youtube videos of people running it on PhysX high and I have just recorded this video on high also because I did notice a difference and I shocked seeing you know a lot about this didn't spot it
So what is it that Normal vs High PhysX missed? and i'll tell you one thing Performance wise normal vs high wasn't that much fps was still around 30fps avg
Batman Ultra setting - PhysX = High = Very playable on AMD/Intel System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX_r0Ex5cNg
Last edited:
Shankly, you're still not understanding where I'm coming from and you haven't answered my very simple and direct question as to whether you understand the difference between GPU accelerated and non GPU accelerated PhysX. The fact you keep talking about the difference in visual appearances between your own system and others suggests you don't and you aren't grasping the critical point.
GPU accelerated PhysX effects cannot be ran on the CPU because by definition they require the GPU. Don't confuse this with the fact they NEED a nVidia GPU because there is definitely more efficient ways of doing it but alas with the current implementation they require the nVidia GPU.
As there's obviously no point continuing because you're continuing to talk about things tangential to the point I have made since the beginning I have now given up (OK I said it before but I thought you might listen just a little
).
What I will say is that if Tommy is agreeing with me... ha ha.
GPU accelerated PhysX effects cannot be ran on the CPU because by definition they require the GPU. Don't confuse this with the fact they NEED a nVidia GPU because there is definitely more efficient ways of doing it but alas with the current implementation they require the nVidia GPU.
As there's obviously no point continuing because you're continuing to talk about things tangential to the point I have made since the beginning I have now given up (OK I said it before but I thought you might listen just a little
). What I will say is that if Tommy is agreeing with me... ha ha.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Shankly, you're still not understanding where I'm coming from and you haven't answered my very simple and direct question as to whether you understand the difference between GPU accelerated and non GPU accelerated PhysX. The fact you keep talking about the difference in visual appearances between your own system and others suggests you don't and you aren't grasping the critical point.
GPU accelerated PhysX effects cannot be ran on the CPU because by definition they require the GPU. Don't confuse this with the fact they NEED a nVidia GPU because there is definitely more efficient ways of doing it but alas with the current implementation they require the nVidia GPU.
As there's obviously no point continuing because you're continuing to talk about things tangential to the point I have made since the beginning I have now given up (OK I said it before but I thought you might listen just a little
What I will say is that if Tommy is agreeing with me... ha ha.
GPU PhysX will give better performance there is one difference. Is they anymore in terms of Batman AC?? yes or no if its something we cant see then whats the point? its not changing the fact PhysX can be run on the CPU and its Nvidia who choose to half the performance to benefit them selves.
You're misunderstanding something somewhere, because this is what Rusty has been saying.
PhysX CAN be ran on the CPU from a technical perspective, in fact, PhysX can't actually be ran entirely on GPU, as there are a number of things that will only run via the CPU, the GPU side is just highly parallel parts that can be accelerated by a GPU.
You need to research whether or not it's GPU accelerated or not for an answer to your question. There's no point me explaining it when you haven't listened to much else I've said. So your 'fact' is actually not a fact and is a manifestation of your own misunderstanding.
Simple answer: if it isn't GPU accelerated then it can be ran on the CPU; if it is then it can't.
Obviously irrespective of that it is faster ran on the GPU due to nVidia's implementation of it.
It's understandable where his confusion is coming from though, considering on a number of occasions, "High" PhysX settings that are usually locked to nVidia only graphics cards, have been able to be selected, and have ran on the CPU. Now we know this wasn't by design, and was in fact a big or an error, but it does confuse the situation for people somewhat, as it obviously demonstrates that you don't actually need an nVidia GPU to run these things from a technical perspective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
Indeed. A nVidia GPU isn't NEEDED as you say from a technical POV but just to have the GPU accelerated effects you do.
I like the effects but I wouldn't say they were memorable. That said on the games I have played with proper GPU accelerated effects I have enjoyed them. Wouldn't say it was a case of the game being better because of them though
So Shankly is right. There is no difference visually between GPU accelerated phsyx and physx done on the CPU. Any game that allows you to select the highest level of physx will have the same effects but performance will suffer if done on the CPU. But if a game doesn't allow you to select the highest level of physx when running without a Nvidia card, then you will lose the GPU accelerated effects.
An example of this is borderlands 2. You can edit the ini to run physx at the highest level and you get all the effects.
An example of this is borderlands 2. You can edit the ini to run physx at the highest level and you get all the effects.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,881
- Location
- Surrey
It runs poorly. I've seen it on Tahiti. Any complex physics or PhysX in this case on the CPU is extremely inefficient. The GPU is much better at it due to the huge number of cores and parallel processing.
I know what he's saying but that's different to what I'm saying. At the end of the day it all depends how the game developer has implemented it. But yes there's no technical reason why GPU accelerated effects MUST be done on the GPU - something I've maintained throughout.
Edit: He's right in that there's no visual difference between an effect ran on the GPU or CPU but I don't think anybody said anything to the contrary. The only point was that if there are GPU accelerated effects these can't be ran on the CPU due to nVidia's lockdown of it. And also it's inefficient of course. He was just confused between what can and can't be done literally and what the difference is between GPU accelerated effects and non GPU accelerated effects.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Depends on what you think as poorly. If 30fps is poorly then yeah. To me it's very playable I completed batman ac with Physx enabled. See my video above with it running high Physx.