Is PhysX worth the extra?

[matty-hodgson]

So.. following on from the Fermi thread I thought i'd open up my own thread with 1 simple question; would you personally pay more for a NVIDIA card knowing that you get the PhysX with it?

This of course, is providing the cards are very similar in performance, but the NVIDIA is a bit more expensive due to the PhysX.

An explanation of why would be nice too

[aidanjt]

I voted no, simply because it's redundant and vendor specific.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I voted no too but you know my reasons already!

[Disturbedguy]

Voted no, just dont see that much need in it.

[shadowmaster]

Voted no, because I dont see any benefit of physx

[Ulti]

I voted no as I don't see any benefit of PhysX either.

InB4Rollo!

[Terbinator]

I don't think the poll is asking the right questions. PhysX isn't widely used enough to have a concrete view on it IMO, paid or otherwise.

[jim]

I would have paid maybe an extra £20, but the recent debacle has put me right off it.

So no, no chance. I would still buy nVidia, but only if it was the best price/performance option at the time.

[Bugbait]

No, the games I play don't require it, even as an option.

[kalniel]

Vendor specific lock-ins are bad for the consumer, and only benefit the vendor in the short term unless they establish a monopoly which is even worse for the the consumer. So no, I wouldn't pay more for something that's bad for me in the long run.

[Saracen]

Voted no. I don't see the benefit on a wide scale, there's nothing specific available now that would justify it for me, and I'm not that demanding of my games machine spec anyway.

[Guy]

Another no here.

[scaryjim]

Although I've voted "no", I want to make it clear that I am not anti-PhysX as a technology - if I could buy a dedicated PhysX card that would work with whatever graphics card I happened to have in my system, I'd seriously consider getting one. But frankly I don't want to spend more on my graphics card than is absolutely necessary, and I don't want it being wasted to run physics simulations when it should be churning out frames. So, if I could get a dedicated PhysX card (like you used to be able to before NVidia bought Aegia) than I might conceivably spend about £40 - £50 on one in addition to buying a graphics card: but I certaintly wouldn't spend extra money on a graphics card just because it could add a little bit of extra pretty to my games.

[shaithis]

It would be worth it if the standard was open and everyone could use it.

Too few developers bothering with it at the moment, combined with vendor lock-in means it is not worth it for most people.

[Georgy291]

voted no......vendor specific

but

LOL ROLLO would have been proud

[ajones]

No.

I considered PhysX when Ageia originally brought it out and did consider a purchase, deciding to wait until the price of the dedicated PPU was more reasonable. However the lack of general support for the engine and hit of graphics performance stayed my hand.

If I could still purchase a dedicated card or run PhysX on any vendor graphics card then I'd still consider it. But given that I recycle my hardware throughout the various machines in the house, I won't lock myself into a specific hardware vendor for something as generic as graphics