so i did the math, turns out, PhysX is a nifty feature, but hardly ever used. Only a few dozen games use it, and with Nvidia in a scramble to make new cards to compete with AMD's power horses, its no wonder the major console contenders went for AMD products. More for far less, that is the trending economic option is it not? Plus, with the onslaught of games built on AMD optimized platforms and only a few really utilizing the CUDA core PhysX, it would just seem like buying a low end AMD with an extra CPU to process PhysX, instead of wasting all that money, why not buy an AMD card at equal or less value and play games like Battlefield or COD at far greater FPS per dollar than nVidia, the proof is there, if you spend 700 on a single nVidia, and only get 60fps, or spend 700 and get two AMD R7 series cards and get 120+ at same settings, NOT changing the settings or amount spent, and the AMD yields higher results, then what the hell is everyone doing going for nVidia still?????? That milk is fresh, but i want the one that smells foul and looks like cottage cheese, same logic for you nVidia loyalists.
Edit: Additional info:
Only for nVidia have a read things like lawsuits against nVidia for purposely over heating products to force upgrades, or cards dying from new driver updates, or driver updates that render the PC unusable, so on and so forth, i HAVE NOT heard, read, seen, or even experienced any of these problems. Another thing, i hear a lot of people receiving DOA GFX cards, but always by nVidia, have not heard this from AMD cards.
The loyalist will remain prejudice and blind to the facts though, a $50 card (at the time the Radeon HD 5670 2GB) played BF3 perfectly on Medium settings, HOWEVER, an equivical value or even performance nVidia would NOT handle BF3 AT ALL.
The ONLY bonus for nVidia cards is that PhysX processing CUDA core, the rest is the same as or even weaker than AMD cards. It would seem, that because nVidia decided to get secretive and prevent ANY other company from producing PhysX capable cards has ultimately back fired, as this idea was a promising thought, had more game producers utilized this feature in their games i'm sure AMD would have suffered more so, however, PhysX alone will not entice game developers enough, as AMD is focusing on Tesselation, which translates roughly to "super duper sexy Eye Candy" which makes games look better and smoother. i'm sure AMD would love to integrate PhysX, but as hardly any of the current popular titles implement this, i doubt it will be of any demand. especially since Frostbite is far superior in processing management to PhysX and yields roughly the same results. while PhysX only handles particle direction from collision, Frostbite (designed to work best with AMD) calculates Physics, Light, and particles... probably a few more things, but this is just proof of its superiority over PhysX.
In my opinion, while nVidia maintains this lock and key secrecy over their PhysX processing technology, the more they are hammering the nails into their own coffin. AMD may end up buying out nVidia soon, who knows. Then all you loyalists would be SOL, having to go full on Intel integrated.
In terms of maintaining an unbiased opinion, yes, nVidia has gold with their PhysX, however, their products are over priced and their lack of friendly competition may end up be their ultimate undoing. AMD is overall doing great, they lack PhysX yes, but they make up for it in Value. I do not compare anything more than cards within the same PRICE range, if you spend $1000 on both, which one is better? AMD is my hands down unbiased opinion, overall with price to performance ratio.