it looks like the table is turning towards Nvidia

The Inquirer, now that's from the horses, Mouth?

Table-turning? How?

How is this table turning? About 1% (and even thats pushing it) of the games on the market use physics on a level where you need this (or a physx card/chip), other than that the CPU can do the job fine.

Physics on PC"s can piss off, leave it to the consoles where the 360 and PS3 can handle this with utter ease. I just want to see some good games comming out on the PC for once.

Last time I checked most Gamebryo titles don't lend themselves very well to complex physics effects; Oblivion and Fallout 3 maybe but both of those use Havok...

Yesterday news, and will be a long time to implement. Oh well, a Nvidia version of thunderman was expected to appear.

Last I checked, they're adding PhysX because the package ALREADY pretty much was effortlessly integrable with the main competing API, Havok. As homerdog noted, hardly any of those titles using GameBryo are the sort that would rely on physics for much of anything, save for BethSoft's Oblivion and Fallout 3, and both already use Havok well enough, accomplishing everything they do with the CPU alone without physics-related slowdown.

And of course, this really matters pretty much nothing to consoles, since last I recalled, the GeForce 7 series was incapable of being used for most GPGPU applications, including physics, and the PS3's RSX GPU is effectively just a cut-down G71. (with half the ROPs and memory controllers)

So really, this won't have any actual impact on nVidia's fortunes. Yes, it may be "good" for them, but its impact would be less than 1% of the impact had by, say, the mere existence of the 4870X2. To say nothing of what's become their worst nightmare, the 4850...

I wish there was just 1 physx type out. Then wed see apples to apples, and itd be cheaper and more forthcoming in games. The only thing nVidia truly has going thier way, and its going slowly, is 55nm. Theyre effectively beat in every segment, which will be nailed down come Sep. The 4670 and the 4850x2 will finish the complete market edge for ATI. nVidia needs 55nm, and quickly

Yeah, some sort of open physics API (OpenPL? ) supported by both (or all three ) IHVs is what we need to get devs on board for GPU physics. Console compatibility would also be a great boon, which is why PhysX looks so enticing. NVIDIA doesn't seem opposed to letting ATI use CUDA or PhysX, but I understand ATI's reluctance to adopt a closed standard controlled by its largest competitor.

Also, although it's a long way off, DX11 and its compute shaders could make some waves

Plus, has anyone here ever tried to use Physx? I bought a Ageia PhysX card for $10 dollars from a friend who was stupid enough to buy one. I tried using it on UT3 on the map with the giant tornado, and if it didn't crash, it would just run extremely crappy. I also tried it on GRAWII demo, and it made absolutely no difference.

As far as Physx is concerned right now, the games it supports, are better off not using it. Maybe in time this will change since Nvidia is now heading development, but it's not really a major selling point as of right now.

My thought exactly.
And yeah when I read Gamebryo at first I thought, Ooh Bethesda? Oie! Now that would be a coup, and would make me cringe a bit at them going with one IHV over the other 3. I would definitely be drawn in if they made it important to their future titles.

Then I read the upcoming titles, pfft, big freakin' deal.

Seriously they should show me a version of one of their existing titles with PhysX at the core and then I'd be impressed, but the title list sofar, no big games use PhysX as the underlying physics engine.

And for me as long as it ain't Fallout3 or Elder Scrolls V gambryo titles, then....