Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PhysX sucks!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 21, 2006 6:44:04 PM

Dudes PhysX sucks dont buy it dont even think about getting it and if you do than you are a complete moron! Here's why.

1.It costs too much

2.It drops your framerates on average by 10-20

3.it is pci and that is damn slow

4.Nvidia/Ati will probably have some new cards with their own physics calculation engine starting at way below the price of PhysX card

5.Ageia is ripping people off

That's my rant!

More about : physx sucks

May 21, 2006 7:08:45 PM

Glad you made a whole new thread for this.

There are some new Ageia driver realeses and a couple upcoming Beta's that look to bring a preformance increase....maybe you should have looked into those before creating (another) worthless thread.
May 21, 2006 7:11:55 PM

Hey ageia is piussing me off with their bogus claims!
Related resources
May 21, 2006 7:32:34 PM

did you think it was going to increase your fps? adding all that extra physics is just like turning your settings on high
May 21, 2006 8:00:23 PM

Quote:
did you think it was going to increase your fps? adding all that extra physics is just like turning your settings on high
No!

Quote:
How long are you going to cry about it? Plus, it wasn't made to give you like 50 extra framerates. It was made so objects in the games act and "feel" real.

It's totally pointless, I know. And ATI and nVidia don't want a third company to factor the video card sales.
So when the hell is something coming out i want to know!
May 21, 2006 8:30:20 PM

Quote:
So when the hell is something coming out i want to know!

What are you saying exactly?
Can't understand. :roll: When will Nvidia/Ati come out with their own phsyics thing?
May 21, 2006 8:53:48 PM

Then don't buy it?
May 21, 2006 9:00:29 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
May 21, 2006 9:04:57 PM

Actually the idea behind PhysX doesn't suck since they're going for more realism in games. I think everyone will agree that's important, otherwise we might as well go back to playing Mr Do's Castle or Dig Dug.

First off, you should've waited. Any new technology is bound to have bugs like performance hitches that will be resolved through driver updates. Also, Ageia will eventually come out with a PCI-E version that can use a PCI-E 1x or 4x slot and that will end any sluggishness the old school PCI slot is responsible for. After all, there's not much out there using those slots now. You MAY even see an "SLI" version of the Aegia cards that run tandem in the 1x or 4x slots. I base that assumption on photos from Aegia that I've seen that have the pins on the top of the card identical to Nvidia based cards that support SLI via the bridge connector. Ageia didn't bother to point them out but anyone who was paying attention to the photos would've seen the pins and go... "HEY!"

In answer to your ATI and Nvidia question, Nvidia at least has announced they will support physics rendering on their cards through driver updates but ONLY on newer cards. I don't recall if they said the 5800, 5900, 5950, 6600, or 6800 series cards will support this feature or not. The 7800 and 7900 yes.... eventually. As for ATI.... it would be foolish to believe they would skip on this idea so expect to see them support physics rendering on the GPU sometime soon.
May 21, 2006 9:17:36 PM

yea the 5th thread about this

welcome to last week use search

kthnxbye
May 21, 2006 9:30:55 PM

Thank you. :D  Ok i'll ask the mod to lock this thread now.
May 21, 2006 9:58:26 PM

Somehow that was... uneducated. Sure, PhysX is not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Now, we should start seeing more companies getting involved in the PPU perspective, and we should see better solutions for realistic physics. I would buy the PhysX card... but not now. I would want to wait for games to come out with the necessary support so I can put the card to some use, or even better, see Nvidia's/ATI's answer to Ageia and see if it is worth it in terms of immersion (the key word). I'm not looking for improving frame-rates, I'm looking for physics that is believeable, like what Crysis is offering. Honestly, you can't expect uber awesome physics without frame-rate loss, and a PPU cannot contribute to increasing frame-rates, since it doesn't do rendering, only the physics calculations. And with all the extra data going to the GPU telling it to render all these extra effects, something's bound to give. Ageia is a pioneer in the field, but now as it has broken the ice, others will follow, and we shall start seeing better solutions in order to provide the physics we all desire.
May 21, 2006 9:59:39 PM

I know but when i would love to have a 7600gt with an onboard physics calculator.
May 22, 2006 12:57:00 AM

Quote:

In answer to your ATI and Nvidia question, Nvidia at least has announced they will support physics rendering on their cards through driver updates but ONLY on newer cards. I don't recall if they said the 5800, 5900, 5950, 6600, or 6800 series cards will support this feature or not. The 7800 and 7900 yes.... eventually. As for ATI.... it would be foolish to believe they would skip on this idea so expect to see them support physics rendering on the GPU sometime soon.


Current ATI and NV GPU's dont have the true ability (ie memory caching, architecture etc etc ) to provide high end physics calculation (to an extent remember)

I dont care what driver they realese...its what the hardware supports.
Next family of GPU's will see it though, I can guarantee that much.
May 22, 2006 1:32:15 AM

Quote:
By the time you will require complex physics calculations, the 7600GT won't run any games.
Huh look what if they out a physis calculatian unit on the 7600gt right now and it would cost only 50 bucks more would you want it?
May 22, 2006 1:50:14 AM

Fine i see your point.
May 22, 2006 3:28:37 PM

Thread rehash:

dvdpiddy has increased his post count.
May 23, 2006 12:07:10 PM

Quote:
Thread rehash:

dvdpiddy has increased his post count.
Is their a point?
May 23, 2006 1:15:47 PM

Quote:
Thread rehash:

dvdpiddy has increased his post count.


ROFL!!!

So true.
May 23, 2006 1:18:14 PM

:?: :!: :idea: :x :arrow:
May 23, 2006 1:45:37 PM

Quote:
Somehow that was... uneducated. Sure, PhysX is not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Now, we should start seeing more companies getting involved in the PPU perspective, and we should see better solutions for realistic physics. I would buy the PhysX card... but not now. I would want to wait for games to come out with the necessary support so I can put the card to some use, or even better, see Nvidia's/ATI's answer to Ageia and see if it is worth it in terms of immersion (the key word). I'm not looking for improving frame-rates, I'm looking for physics that is believeable, like what Crysis is offering. Honestly, you can't expect uber awesome physics without frame-rate loss, and a PPU cannot contribute to increasing frame-rates, since it doesn't do rendering, only the physics calculations. And with all the extra data going to the GPU telling it to render all these extra effects, something's bound to give. Ageia is a pioneer in the field, but now as it has broken the ice, others will follow, and we shall start seeing better solutions in order to provide the physics we all desire.


One of the few worthy posts in this thread.
May 23, 2006 2:05:49 PM

Quote:
Somehow that was... uneducated. Sure, PhysX is not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Now, we should start seeing more companies getting involved in the PPU perspective, and we should see better solutions for realistic physics. I would buy the PhysX card... but not now. I would want to wait for games to come out with the necessary support so I can put the card to some use, or even better, see Nvidia's/ATI's answer to Ageia and see if it is worth it in terms of immersion (the key word). I'm not looking for improving frame-rates, I'm looking for physics that is believeable, like what Crysis is offering. Honestly, you can't expect uber awesome physics without frame-rate loss, and a PPU cannot contribute to increasing frame-rates, since it doesn't do rendering, only the physics calculations. And with all the extra data going to the GPU telling it to render all these extra effects, something's bound to give. Ageia is a pioneer in the field, but now as it has broken the ice, others will follow, and we shall start seeing better solutions in order to provide the physics we all desire.


One of the few worthy posts in this thread.

I try to make every post of mine worthy :wink:
May 29, 2006 4:23:14 AM

To be honest, the techdemos were pretty, but looking at the games that support it so far (CoH/V I7 on the test server, GR:AW) i'm very unimpressed.

Oh wow, 10 little bits of rock come off the wall when I shoot it rather than 3, and I loose a little bit of framerate.

Entirely unconvinced that such an 'improvement' couldnt have been achieved by using a seperate physics thread in the game and using the second core of todays dual core CPUs a bit more.

And at £200/$300, I'd rather increase my 'immersion' by spending that much more on another Gfx card and runing other pretty effects.
May 29, 2006 4:06:14 PM

Guys I have the nagging suspicion that dvdpiddy is only starting these pointless threads to increase his post count... I mean really!
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2006 11:13:56 PM

Quote:
Now, we should start seeing more companies getting involved in the PPU perspective, and we should see better solutions for realistic physics.


I doubt we'll see anyone else get involved in the PPU. I think Ageia will still have that niche to itself (not like they have room for competition either). What should (and likely will) happen is more developers adding PhysX aspects o their games. That may or may not improve things from a consumer point of view, alot of it is still being treated as an add-on because the ground-up engine isn't there yet (and seems to be a 2007 thing at best).

Quote:
I would buy the PhysX card... but not now. I would want to wait for games to come out with the necessary support so I can put the card to some use,


And I think that's the biggest drawback right now, and they will likely hemorrhage cash until they do have a 'killer app' and can move more PPUs.

Quote:
or even better, see Nvidia's/ATI's answer to Ageia and see if it is worth it in terms of immersion (the key word).


Unfortunately it's likely a 2007 thing too.

Quote:
I'm not looking for improving frame-rates, I'm looking for physics that is believeable, like what Crysis is offering.[/qoute]

The only 2 physics items you would have that would be different between the two implementations would be the interaction physics with the foliage & terrain and then the possible use of objects affecting gameplay (pipes being blow off a parked truck killing the people standing beside it). The question is what is the load difference between those and the 'shiny physics'. So far neither solution has shown serious game dependant physics.

Quote:
Honestly, you can't expect uber awesome physics without frame-rate loss, and a PPU cannot contribute to increasing frame-rates, since it doesn't do rendering, only the physics calculations.


Sure it can contribute to frame-rate increase, it doesn't have to do rendering it need to free up resources. Part of the selling feature was to offload the task from the CPU, which should free it up from dips. If we say a game is CPU bound, then if that CPU load overhead is impacted largley enough by physics, then the PPU should improve that and thus increase FPS by removing the system limitation. That was one of the selling point (free up the CPU), it could also increase the level of physics, but they seemed to have gone overboard with it and ended up drooping frames which should be an inssue if it's a 'global' improvement, improving one area at the cost of others is not what everyone wants. If the load of 5.1 audio turned you 80fps sterea FPS into a 20fps 5.1 game, would you say 'great' it's so much more immersive? There needs to be balance.

Quote:
And with all the extra data going to the GPU telling it to render all these extra effects, something's bound to give.


Except that the VPUs weren't at 100% load, so the giving is probably once again at the CPU level since the PPU stops there first, then tell the CPU what to send to the VPU.

Quote:
Ageia is a pioneer in the field, but now as it has broken the ice, others will follow, and we shall start seeing better solutions in order to provide the physics we all desire.


I doubt it. If they weren't going against 2 hardware giants and one of the bigger names in game physics developement I'd say they had a great chance because no one else was even considering it, but they have a tough battle ahead of them and I doubt we'll see many more entrants into the market. Ther was rumoured to be one other (can't remember who right now), but even during the recent discussions their name hasn't come up again.

The best thing Ageia did WAS push the envelope and get people thinking about this. I'm not sure if HavokFX or SLi-Physics or ATis implementation would've seen as much development effort if Ageia weren't there to push them along, but they do deserve Kudos for getting the ball rolling, now they just have to make sure it keeps rolling without being crushed by it.
!