No Physx really a disadvantage?

[FlashHeart]

Hey all,

I asked this in another thread but no replies - maybe no-one knows as yet?

Anyway - nVidia cards now have the option for Physx support, right? And nVidia are about to release drivers to enable that function, apparently.

So where does that leave ATi owners?

Is there a way that physx can be supported in the HD4000 series?

Surely it would just not make sense and would put developers in a dilemma as to whether to make a card supported by nVidia or ATi?

I know this happens to an extent already, but surely something as potentially game-making or breaking as GPU supported physx would need to be available to all customers for a developer to write it into their games?

It'd be like the old Spectrum/Atari/Commodore/Acorn days - you know, a game works on one, but not on the others. Okay, it won't be that drastic - but near enough.

[Infinite]

I think the new ATi cards already have physics stuff enabled, but not by the company PhysX. ATi have a deal with Intels HAVOK.

Correct me if i am wrong.

[directhex]

apps using the physx API won't be accelerated on ATI cards. full stop. whether other physics APIs may do so in the future is another issue

[chuckskull]

Not many games use PhysX and for those that do, generally most impressive thing accomplished is having lots of tiny bits of rock/metal/other, flying around which tends to ruin the framerate on all but the most hilariously expensive and overclocked setups, without much improvement in visual quality.

So in short; no it's not a disadvantage at all. It's a gimmick, maybe in a year or two it wont be, but for now it is.

[dangel]

Will devs invest in a niche physics solution? With AMD and Intel effectively going havok it makes physx the outsider..

[!TIMMY!]

The new Nvidia drivers seem to 'cheat' in Vantage, but in real works FPS there is only a little increase. I think ATI need to get Havok enabled to level the playing field with Nvidia.

[kalniel]

The new Nvidia drivers seem to 'cheat' in Vantage, but in real works FPS there is only a little increase.

What is your source for saying there's a little increase in FPS from the new nVidia physX in real works?

[!TIMMY!]

I was reading a review yesterday of the 9800GTX+ i think (read so many graphic card reviews yesterday), and it showed it with and without Physx enabled. I will try and find the review.

[Mblaster]

I thought that without a PhysX card or one of the soon to be compatible graphics cards you just can't run the extra capabilities in PhysX enabled games, because the CPU would not be able to handle the processing. The PhysX card and the nVidia GPUs can handle this because of their ability for extreme ammount of processing power for certain types of calculations.

So, if I'm right, having PhysX support on the graphics card will allow you to turn on some extra physics eye-candy in a few games (UT3 is the only one I know from memory), probably at the cost of framerate, since the graphics card has to process some physics as well as the standard stuff.

The preformance gains seen in 3D Mark Vantage are down to the graphics card using it's ability to process physics calculations to help out in the CPU tests where it's not really being stressed, increasing the overall score.

[nichomach]

The thought occurs that it may well be enabled, but so far as I'm aware it's enabled in CUDA, i.e. the development/scientific/GPGPU environment that runs on nVidia GPUs. Effectively, it's going to be competing for GPU cycles (unless either you're running multiple cards with a dedicated GPU for PhysX or I'm missing something) with the actual graphics rendering. I'm struggling to see how that's an advantage. Yes, more flying debris, sure, but your GPU(s)'re going to have to render it when generating the stuff's already leeching cycles off it/them?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

diddnt even know physicsX was an advantage period. who uses it? not many games use it

[FlashHeart]

Thanx for the replies.

No, not many games (ie just UT3 afaik) use it today - but this card will be lasting me 2-3 years, so I need to think about future releases. I thought this kind of physics api was supposed to be the next Big Thing in gaming....

[kalniel]

Havok might be - it's incredibly useful middleware that can control loads of things from physics to AI.

[FifthFreedom]

Yup. 9/10 modern games (Especially 360 games...) use Havok Physics.

I haven't heard of a separate hardware solution for Havok yet though.

Probably will happen soon rather than later...

[stormy]

Doesn't the same thing apply with Havok on ATI though, its still a software solution so if enabled might cost GPU power, not enhance it?

I think to be worthwhile its going to have to have some hardware onboard the cards at some point, be it Physx or Havok compatible.

[kalniel]

Doesn't the same thing apply with Havok on ATI though, its still a software solution so if enabled might cost GPU power, not enhance it?

Not yet it doesn't. AMD have signed up to Intel's Havok, basically it'll work on the CPU first (as if it didn't already) and maybe be accelerated by GPU in the future (as Larabee might too).