Been through this in the other thread, I'm not going to go through a loop about this again. Like I said before, troll somewhere else.
Just trying to spread truthful non biased information. So if you could please explain in non biased manor why there are less than 25 nvidia x87 GPU accelerated Physx* titles in that list and about one hundred + AMD / Intel SSE based CPU Physics games in that list. Would rational dictate SSE is getting used much more than x87 because SSE is better to run the Physics on ? I am not trolling just digging for an non biased truth but you guy's do not want to explain yourselves you just tell me Physx* is awesome and I am a troll cause I am seeking the truth about Physx* and that's it.
There we go again with the attacks at any rate I started a new thread please help explain this to me in that one I am done derailing this one with you guy's sorry OP.
@ Black Mesa, No, you are not trying to spread "truth" all you are doing is spewing your OPINION with zero actual facts to back up your bs. You clearly know nothing about Physx, or even physics for that matter so go crawl back under your rock. Your stupidity on this subject has not convinced anyone to believe in or even give regard to your opinion. I have an idea, why don't you link that worthless, outdated, and biased article again. Maybe you can convince someone into believing that article is accurate and true. Oh wait, everyone with any common sense has already told you that that article is worthless. But no, we should take YOUR opinion over anything else, right? No thanks. Oh, and by the way, both Unreal Engine 3 and the upcoming Unreal Engine 4 offer FULL Physx support, both cpu and gpu. It's up to the developers to implement which mode they want to use. So I guess that means any game made with those engines suck as well? Whatever man, why don't you just stay out of these types of threads? Because you clearly have no clue of what you are talking about and you have made it clear you think it's all a gimmick.
I don't 100% agree if most game developers started making new games that will require Nvidia physx. Why? Because it will dive competition away. Then what about for AMD graphics? I wish they can make a universal physics engine (DICE has theirs and it's pretty good in BF3) that uses your powerful quad or 6 core Sandy Bridge or Nehalem too will be nice. Need to focus on AMD's power cards to and Processors (PPU) So those who want to enjoy games that have realistic physics will be force to by a Nvidia GPU along with their primary AMD video card. Just a comment. But I don't really care, I can easily buy a 550 and pop it in to my 2nd PCI e slot but I don't currently play any phys x games. The only game will be Arkham City I can grab when it goes on sale on Steam. I did played Arkham Assylum back when I had my two GTX 280's
An inaccurate outdated article from Charlie Douchebag? Have you actually tested any of this? Doubtful given what you just posted. Nobody said 'PhysX increases performance'. What they said was that in games that uses GPU PhysX, a dedicated PhysX card, if matched properly with the rendering GPU, will increase performance over not using one. PhysX is not intended to increase performance. It's intended to add physics effects to games. Of course adding game physics effects extract a performance penalty. Frankly you seem rather noobish in your inaccurate claims over things so basic.
Here comes Borderlands 2 Black Mesa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpLtTBdq9cs&feature=player_embedded Now rage at me because I'm just showing you this sample video. Say it's commercial propaganda :gta:
Naturally nvidia will advocate and argue that there Physx* is unparallelled and the best etc and truth be told I don't want nvidia to fail just as much as I don't want to see AMD do terrible. I hope Boarderlands 2 is absolutely bad ass with there nvidia Physx* enabled but at the same time that's a low ball cowardly marketing tactic that nvidia chooses to cripple Physx* on it's AMD counterpart. As well nvidia offers no equivalent CPU Physics option or path and that's not helping industry that's nvidia trying to create a closed source monopoly.
Nvidia offered the Physx tech to ATI they declined so it not a closed source monopoly FFS please look into things you wont look as dumb as you do now. BTW did you watch the video it's really cool what they've done with PhysX in this title and if future developers can make as much use of this tech it might finally take off.
Why should Nvidia port their physics engine and be required to support it on ATI GPU's? Can you make a cogent argument for that?
Bullet is open source and can be run on both CPU and GPU....yet, it hasn't really gained any traction in pc games... Ageia struggled to get any devs to actually support PhysX when their PPU was involved..... So, what makes you think that AMD hardware supporting PhysX would make such a big change?
Like I mention in previous post, I don't want all game developers to chose physx because it will then force people to buy Nvidia GPU. This probably would never happen. I prefer one physics like Bullet so developers can chose to use GPU or CPU or both to do physics. That means if you have Nvidia GPU or AMD you're good to go.
