Physx talk

littlepuppy · 2 Jan 2009 at 23:01

Got an ocuk voucher for christmas and decided to take the plunge and buy a second graphics card "just" for physx, went for the 9600gt which seemed like a good price performance compromise...

Question is, how many of you guys are running/plan to run physx on dedicated hardware?

Not sure if i needed to actually do this, was sort of just to see the software working fully lol and have a play at christmas, im obviously hoping it takes off now..

My favourite game is COH which I think could be excelent with more calculations on the explosions.. Dont know how much effort it is for developers though.

Geckovich · 2 Jan 2009 at 23:06

Even though Vista doesn't support display drivers from multiple vendors and I currently run ATI graphics I have kept hold of an old 8800GT to use for physX. I'll break this out either when Windows 7 is released or if I go back to the green team when the new cards are available.

Lightnix · 2 Jan 2009 at 23:11

Personally I'm not sure it's worth it just on the basis that:

1: The GTX280 should be man enough for most graphics and PhysX tasks that you throw at it bar the odd tech demo for future graphics cards.
2: I'm not even sure the 9600 GT's impact on performance would be that great because the GTX280 is a hell of a lot more powerful.
3: There aren't really that many titles, even ones that use PhysX, that will really take advantage of that extra card for PhysX (see point 2). Let alone good titles.

That said, according to Wikipedia at least, Company of Heroes (I presume that's what you mean by "COH"?) is NOT a PhysX title. It uses the Havok SDK for all things physics related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes

layte · 3 Jan 2009 at 00:04

Geckovich said:
Even though Vista doesn't support display drivers from multiple vendors and I currently run ATI graphics I have kept hold of an old 8800GT to use for physX. I'll break this out either when Windows 7 is released or if I go back to the green team when the new cards are available.

Does WDDM 1.1 used in Windows 7 allow for different graphics drivers to be loaded and the same time then, unlike Vista?

If so I'll give the beta a whirl and pick up a cheap card for CUDA stuff.

Revenant · 3 Jan 2009 at 10:52

As a long-time CoH player, it's definitely on the Havok engine and not PhysX. And therein really lies the problem - lack of titles supporting the tech.

Pottsey · 3 Jan 2009 at 11:43

I don't think a second graphics card just for PhysX is a good idea. A second graphics card with both cards doing both graphics and PhysX will work better. Having one card do PhysX only is a waste.

Lightnix said "That said, according to Wikipedia at least, Company of Heroes (I presume that's what you mean by "COH"?)"
I think he means City of Heroes as that has hardware only PhysX effects.

COH as in City of Heroes is definitely PhysX. If it's just for COH what about trying to get a cheap second hard PhysX standalone card? Will be much cheaper then a graphics card and work just as well for COH.

reflux · 3 Jan 2009 at 12:02

TBH I think you wasted your cash mate. There isn't a single game on the market that shows worthwhile gains from dedicated PhysX hardware, not to mention a single game that actually uses PhysX in a worthwhile way

Maybe Mirror's Edge will be the one.

Lightnix · 3 Jan 2009 at 12:15

Pottsey said:
I don't think a second graphics card just for PhysX is a good idea. A second graphics card with both cards doing both graphics and PhysX will work better. Having one card do PhysX only is a waste.

Lightnix said "That said, according to Wikipedia at least, Company of Heroes (I presume that's what you mean by "COH"?)"
I think he means City of Heroes as that has hardware only PhysX effects.

COH as in City of Heroes is definitely PhysX. If it's just for COH what about trying to get a cheap second hard PhysX standalone card? Will be much cheaper then a graphics card and work just as well for COH.

Bah, acronyms.

Pottsey · 3 Jan 2009 at 13:19

reflux said "There isn't a single game on the market that shows worthwhile gains from dedicated PhysX hardware, not to mention a single game that actually uses PhysX in a worthwhile way "
What about Cryostasis? Ok it's not out in the UK/US yet but it makes very good use of PhysX from what I can gather with the videos and demo, its out in Russia. From a PhysX point of few its one to watch out for, no idea if the game its self is any good. I am not into FPS games like that so not been watching it closely.

londonbairn · 3 Jan 2009 at 13:22

Take it back if you can, there is no killer app for PhysX, just things on the horizon, sub par games and tech demoes.

When (if) it becomes massive, we'll be using GTX 380s and 5870s.

Pottsey · 3 Jan 2009 at 14:12

Scared 2 wasn't subpar that alone made PhysX worth it for me.

reflux · 3 Jan 2009 at 14:14

Pottsey said:
reflux said "There isn't a single game on the market that shows worthwhile gains from dedicated PhysX hardware, not to mention a single game that actually uses PhysX in a worthwhile way "
What about Cryostasis? Ok it's not out in the UK/US yet but it makes very good use of PhysX from what I can gather with the videos and demo, its out in Russia. From a PhysX point of few its one to watch out for, no idea if the game its self is any good. I am not into FPS games like that so not been watching it closely.

Ah, not heard of that, I will check it out

Final8y · 3 Jan 2009 at 14:24

Cryostasis is not seen as a killer grade A title.
Cryostasis does not interest me in the least.
Every game that has used Physx that have been pushed as a main feature has been seen as mediocre.

Moderate games or even the one or two that are meant to be grade A have either a level/map to show off Physx or tacked on eyecandy if used throughout.

This had been the problem & the same arguments from when the Ageia physx come out, people where unenthusiastic then & their minds are still unchanged until they see results they are impressed by.

You can not tell people to be impressed when they can not perceive it for them self as few are interested in technical schematics & are only impressed by results.

londonbairn · 3 Jan 2009 at 15:42

Pottsey said:
Scared 2 wasn't subpar that alone made PhysX worth it for me.

Again not a killer app, actually an average game at best.

Anymore "blockbuster titles"?

kylew · 3 Jan 2009 at 17:50

layte said:
Does WDDM 1.1 used in Windows 7 allow for different graphics drivers to be loaded and the same time then, unlike Vista?

If so I'll give the beta a whirl and pick up a cheap card for CUDA stuff.

That's correct. You can load different graphics drivers in 7. So you'll be able to do ATi graphics and NV for physx.

Geckovich · 3 Jan 2009 at 18:15

kylew said:
That's correct. You can load different graphics drivers in 7. So you'll be able to do ATi graphics and NV for physx.

This is what I was hoping for, now all I need are some physx titles worth playing and I'm good to go.

littlepuppy · 3 Jan 2009 at 19:15

Cheers for the replies guys, I may well have wasted my money, I am a bit of a serial upgrader though and like having the two cards in the case lol...

Hopefully the new COH (company of heroes) will support real physx and I can get some use out of it. The replys on here would indicate not many rigs are primed for dedicated physx - YET! :0)

Snograt · 3 Jan 2009 at 19:32

Hmm, if PhysX support does become more commonplace, I might consider bunging the old 8800GTX in alongside the GTX260-216

Corona_Rex · 3 Jan 2009 at 20:03

My friend installed his 8600 as a physx card to run along side his Gtx 260. He said it caused his overall 3dmark score to drop over 1k points. Only thing is I don't know if 3dmark vantage stresses both the graphics and the physics processing at the same time so can't really tell if there would be an in game increase in performance.