Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by Black Mesa, Aug 26, 2012.
It takes a great man to report himself. Props!
So then why are you guy's still trying to refute and blatantly ignore the fact that over 100 games use ( SSE "CPU" based Physics ) and less than 25 games use ( nvidia "GPU" Physx* ) ? Then you ignore the fact that SSE based Physics overshadow GPU Physx* at the very leased buy a ratio of 4:1 and that's an extremely ultra conservative estimate.
Lets see 100% of all PC users have a *gasp* CPU. (you still following me) About 25-30% of all PC users have Nvidia based GFX. (are you still there) Yep sounds about right . Of course CPU based physics is going to be more popular every users has a PC that can on some level use it.
There's 20 established physics engines (not including custom build physics engines) that are designed to be run on the CPU using either x87, MMX, 3DNow or SSE whereas only 2 of those physics engines support OpenCL or CUDA. There's a very good reason why there are more games using "CPU physics", aside from the fact it's existed far longer.
Every gamer that would want to run and or be interested in physics algorithms in there games they like to play would also own a GPU. At any rate we are digressing far to much so lets keep it on the topic at hand please.
Apparently he even went to report himself.
Go figure... I have never-ever seen that
There is a TOPIC? Where?
"SSE based Physics"? LOL
Care to enlighten me as to why in you're opinion there are more games using "CPU physics" than GPU Physx*.
we arent refuting it, we honestly dont give a toss, if it's CPU or GPU physics it dont matter as long as it works, why does it matter.
you are the only one who seems to have a hard on for this subject.
How bout you try actually reading my entire post...
He just answered that "There's 20 established physics engines (not including custom build physics engines) that are designed to be run on the CPU using either x87, MMX, 3DNow or SSE whereas only 2 of those physics engines support OpenCL or CUDA. There's a very good reason why there are more games using "CPU physics", aside from the fact it's existed far longer.
Maybe you won't miss it this time.
Edit: reduced text size from 7 so as to not induce a migraine.
No need to worry OP, your "2500k" is up for the task.
Peer pressure is not my weak point but thank for the comradery attempt
So you don't own a 2500K okay so you're a troll and a proven liar.
just go here if u want a list of physx supported games...and which ones run CPU physx and which ones run GPU physx...simple enough..
So you want to compare CPU based physics, which includes a lot of PhysX titles that run on the CPU, to GPU PhysX.
I think it's adorable you try to twist things in your favor.
Why are you asking about PhysX? It's a scam remember? http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/n...les-physx-cpu/ to quote you from my post oh wait....that's an old inaccurate article from Charlie Douchebag from "SEMI ACCURATE" hmmm not going to believe it. And now here you are posting asking about it and trolling everyone here. So is PhysX just a scam or is it good? I'm waiting for enlightenment :stewpid:
He has been given that link multiple times and in one thread said that it was untrue.