-
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.
what do u think on physic x?
- Thread starter hobib_ali
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 482
EDIT: I just noticed Mass Effect is in this list. WTF? That game doesn't have any hardware physx effects. Please remove it and check the rest of the list properly ¬_¬
So how many games a year is that? And how many games a year that I actually care about?
Please compute this with the amount of extra I'd need to spend to purchase NVidia GPUs with the same performance as ATI GPUs. Please spread this over time since PhysX came out and do all the math for me.
Now tell me how much I'm spending to add usually fairly minor graphics to, what, 1 or 2 games a year?
I have a GTX 580 and PhysX is nice on some games. But I've literally only really used it on Alice and Batman. Borderlands 2 if that goes on sale any time soon. I don't think Alice should count as the physx effects are really unoptimised and are way over the top and I've actually been tempted to turn them off...
Seriously, physx is stupid. It's the same on the mobile phones with "Tegra enhanced" games. More NVidia bribery.
Physx is the only selling point Nvidia have, and so it gets ratcheted up as tho it's the only thing that maters, it's not, it's just all they have.
It's like me banging on about advanced,- AA, Lighting and a few other glossy eye candy effects AMD now have which run about as well on Nvidia cards as Physx runs on the CPU, i would not have thought Physx is difficult to replicate so we may well see that added to the Gaming Evolved list.
Then what? what do Nvidia have then to keep the prices so high?
It's like me banging on about advanced,- AA, Lighting and a few other glossy eye candy effects AMD now have which run about as well on Nvidia cards as Physx runs on the CPU, i would not have thought Physx is difficult to replicate so we may well see that added to the Gaming Evolved list.
Then what? what do Nvidia have then to keep the prices so high?
Last edited:
Nvidias 670's and 680's are as fast if not faster than 7950/7970 stock. People keep going on about how fast the amd cards are when overclocked but it should always be taken into account that every card clocks differently.
Obviously you have 3rd party clocked cards which cloud things abit but it all boils down to if you card is a good clocker. So if anything they're level pegging. Just the price separating them.
Obviously you have 3rd party clocked cards which cloud things abit but it all boils down to if you card is a good clocker. So if anything they're level pegging. Just the price separating them.
its not the only selling feature nvidia have. more stable drivers, not needing to wait until it gets a huge boost a month later etc.
but im not going to start a circular argument here so lets leave it as, choices are good to have, they are all valid.
I began playing borderlands 2 on my 6950 with physx on low, then I upgraded to a 670 and banged physx onto high. I cant say theres a massive difference either way and tbh theres parts of the game where the physx has caused me some pretty significant slowdown so my physx setting is now on medium because of it.
How far are you in? The effects later on are quite eye catching.
Nvidia's Drivers are no more stable than AMD's, so don't give me that.
Don't say you don't want to start a circular argument, while starting a circular argument.
Last edited:
Nvidia's Drivers are no more stable than AMD's, so don't give me that.
Don't say you don't want to start a circular argument, and then start a circular argument.
A few months after release AMD and Nvidia drivers are usually equal. I would have to say though that from experience, while both companies mess up, I would have to give nvidia the edge for stability with early driver releases. At this point in the current generation though the difference between the two is negligible
Well perhaps stable is the wrong word but until 12.7/12.8 performance was down on what it should have been (i.e. what it is now). I'm not speaking from experience of course but from what end users are saying in this forum.
Although for people buying now it makes no difference, what about all the 7970/7950 early adopters who are only now seeing their cards reach full potential whereas Kepler users (bar the stuttering bug) have had cards reaching full potential as exhibited by the lack of large improvements in many, if any games?
More playing devil's advocate rather than looking for a 4 page debate.
AMD got the whole support thing for the new architecture very wrong early on, yes absolutely.
Nvidia gave it more time, released later and ironed out the bugs before release, good for them.
What you can say to that is AMD rushed it to get in ahead of Nvidia.
All is well now, so in the here and now it's all that maters. It's not as if Nvidia have never suffered problems with their drivers, they have.
To cite AMD's past problems in that is just opportunistic, and circular.
@ Rusty0611, see this post
Last edited:
you can quote that from both sides, they have all had problems in the past and they will all have problems in the future.
What's the point? it's already going round in circles with you and me, there is no win in that argument, just mindless rhetoric.
While that may be true it just doesn't make sense to debate something only in today's terms when the past is just as relevant if not more so.
You might end up going round in circles but that is down to the style of debate and the people taking part rather than anything else. If you were debating in a proper manner, "going round in circles" would get stomped on.
Alas on a forum (especially a graphics card forum) the standard of debate is often poor.