Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVIDIA PhysX and Mirror's Edge

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

NVIDIA PhysX and Mirror's Edge - truth or myth?

Total: 11 votes (7 blank votes)

  • NVIDIA PhysX
  • 25 %
  • PhysX and Mirror's Edge
  • 25 %
  • PhysX - truth or myth?
  • 50 %
April 8, 2009 7:51:45 PM

Hi guys,

I am asking myself about PhysX is this true story or good marketing?

I have my 4830, but it doesnt support PhysX...I want to understand do I need PhysX or not???

I found a lot of articles, I found one at one of local web sites, it seems to me that it is
good technology. They have translator...which is good (thanks that guys understand that web is
global application)

http://www.itmembe.rs/index.php?option=com_content&view...

Please let me know about your opinion, do I need PhysX for good gaming, and do I need to sell
my 4830 and buy something from NVIDIA?

Thx you people,

Alex
April 8, 2009 7:58:41 PM

you don't "need" physix for good gaming. physx is an option for Nvidia users in certain games that support it, but for all around gaming you don't absolutely need it.
April 8, 2009 8:04:17 PM

You do not need it, but it does add some nice effects to mirrors edge. There are a lot of wind and tearing effects, glass breaking. If you do not have physics x you will not see a lot of the flags, tarps, plastic and glass breaking. Besides that you will get pretty much the same play.
Related resources
April 8, 2009 8:16:21 PM

lets face it mirrors edge is a crap game with or without physics
April 8, 2009 8:29:35 PM

rangers simmer down dude.

Its not ur type of game lol...relax its innovative in my opinion.

a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2009 9:11:24 PM

Any physics is innovative IMHLO, like we see on Oblivion as exampled. But Im in Apes camp on this one. Until it actually makes a difference in game, effects decisions, the player etc, then its just what it is innovative, and not groundbreaking
April 8, 2009 10:36:38 PM

I was talking about the game...not physx....

PhysX is like the wii of Video cards...attracting the easily amused public. Waste of my time.

I much rather prefer havok...not a resource drain...and I can't really tell the difference really...I usually turn off Physics in games either way in games, save some resources:D  thats how I play FC2 on my laptop:D 

I was just saying to rangers not to blame the game...I mean its a good game, and very fun and adrenaline pumping..but, too short.

Ppl are showing alot of hate for games now because it has certain attributes...PHysx, plays best on Nvidia or Intel.

Its getting ridiculous. (not pointing fingers at Rangers, just saying in general).

OMG hawx uses DX 10.1...I'm gonna hate it!.....1 of my fav games.

Though enabling DX 10 or 10.1 all together takes a lot of the resources off though. Halves my frames on my laptop.

Anywhoo....

Enjoy life.

I finally made my decisions and I'm grabbing the 4770 once I see a downclocked version that doesn't need a power connector, which shouldn't be too far away.
April 8, 2009 10:48:55 PM

i thought mirror's edge was a good game actually. but yeah, physx is a bit of a gimmick. sure its more 3D effects, but none that add to the gameplay. Maybe once a standard API is agreed upon and more than a handful of developers start coding physx in their games, then it'll be worth it. but right now, its just eye candy.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 8, 2009 10:51:29 PM

I'm a bit confused by the vote thing at the top, but to answer your question (I'll basically just agree with the others) I don't think that PhysX is worth it right now. I think that it is really cool and has potential, but my rule of thumb is buy hardware for what you want to do now. No matter how awesome Mirror's Edge is, it is only one game. Not worth a major upgrade, IMO. If more games jump on the PhysX wagon in the future, then buy a NVidia GPU then (though, if that actually happened, I'd think NVidia/ATI would have to come to some sort of agreement. If it actually did a lot, ATI would want in).
April 8, 2009 10:53:48 PM

Physx is a nice little extra no one needs it but do you need dx10 over dx9 for the extra visual effects it brings no... but do you want it probably yes. Running physx though my now useful again 8800gt is what i just do while a 260 does the main rendering.
April 9, 2009 1:29:19 AM

I really wouldn't want to get PhysX. When I used Nvidia, I never used to enable PhysX. It is just something nvidia did to increase sales over ATI. Sure, it does all that chef7734 said it would. But that's just one game. And Mirror's Edge is a game with close to zero replayability.
April 9, 2009 1:36:12 AM

What are you talking about?

It has a new DLC with maps that last 1 hr to complete EACH...lol....

I'm sorry 1 game?

UT3, Rainbow Six GR 2, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge, CellFactor, and a bunch more I'm sure u can find a list.
April 9, 2009 1:39:35 AM

there's games i take 2, Mirror's Edge not being one of them, maybe if i had gave it more time i would have came to like it, but its just not my type of game
April 9, 2009 1:41:14 AM

rangers give it some time man, really adrenline pumping:) .

But it might not be your type of game.

I'm in the middle of sooo many games now, including chronicles of Riddick Dark Athena....Amazing game.
April 9, 2009 1:41:53 AM

chef7734 said:
BTW GRAW 2 is not Rainbow Six.


I meant Tom Clancy's
April 9, 2009 1:50:09 AM

L1qu1d said:
I meant Tom Clancy's

LOL no worries just giving you hard time.
April 9, 2009 1:59:03 AM

oh lol I didn't take it to heart. Your right, so why argue:) ;)
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 5:45:28 AM

chef7734 said:
You do not need it, but it does add some nice effects to mirrors edge. There are a lot of wind and rearing effects,...


Rearing Effects? :ouch: 
Yeah I think that settles it, I don't need PhysX thanks! :pfff: 

April 9, 2009 5:50:36 AM

Tearing. Sorry typing on a new keyboard. Trying to adjust. Going from MS ergo to a g15. Different shaped keys and smaller. Been typing on ergo keyboards since the late 80's early 90's.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 5:55:34 AM

chef7734 said:
BTW GRAW 2 is not Rainbow Six. BTW PhysX is more wide used than just pc also available on Xbox 360 and ps3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX


Name the titles on X360 that use PhysX that's offloaded away from the CPU.... yeah '0'.

PhysX is used on the X360, PS3 and Wii, but so is Havok, and all of their titles use the CPU for Physics, with the PS3 using the SPEs to do the physics, not the RSX chip.

So it's not really relevant to this discussion which is hardware GPU PhysX which is limited to JUST PC, the CPU version is equally available to AMD hardware.
April 9, 2009 6:07:31 AM

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_good_company.h... is a list of titles that use physX. I am not a console gamer so have not played any of them, but hell even the iphone is supporting physX now. The discussion was about physX and in a different thread, not sure, was about how havoc is better because it is used by other platforms. The point is PhysX is PhysX no matter if it is cpu or gpu based.
Oh and btw Havock is not hardware based. It is only a SDK also.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 6:12:20 AM

But can it play Crysis?
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 6:26:24 AM

Understand my point, for THIS thread, PhysX is NOT PhysX, the OP is talking about dropping an ATi card for the 'benefit' of PhysX, that's not about the CPU kinda of PhysX so your list is no more beneficial or relevant than a detour in the the longer list of games that support Havoc. And PhysX on the iPhone is as pointless as Running a video cam app on it, it's too hardware limited to make good use of it.

So for this thread, that it's GPU-PhysX and that it's PC based, is VERY relevant, it's the whole point, not whether PhysX is being adopted. Ageia had the same list you're linking to, it didn't make it any more compelling then than it did now, or vice versa, the only thing that changed is the install base, and if that's an improtant change then the Havoc addition of ATi, nV & S3 as well as AMD & intel means more install base for their brand of Physics. But just like PhysX right now, it doesn't really matter enough to chose a lesser graphics or CPU solution simply to add these essentially tack-on implementations.

If he were to sell his HD4830 and with the proceeds buy a GTS250 or G9800GTX, or maybe even a second hand GTX260 if he's lucky, enabling PhysX means you greatly reduce your performance, so are you saying those effects are worth a reduction of ~20% in fps or resolution, and also losing other features in other titles?

As JDJ mentioned, my view on all of them, Havoc included, I don't care about them until they really make a difference and influence game play in a worth way and show me something more than superficial visual effects similar to shinier water. Even in Mirror's edge that blowing cloth doesn't come from wind that effects your jumps, nor from rotor-wash that affects your trajectory or balance.

For now it's still just a beta feature more about R&D than real killer-app.
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 6:33:48 AM


PhysX is like the wii of Video cards...attracting the easily amused public. Waste of my time.

I much rather prefer havok...not a resource drain...and I can't really tell the difference really...I usually turn off Physics in games either way in games, save some resources:D  thats how I play FC2 on my laptop:D 


Ppl are showing alot of hate for games now because it has certain attributes...PHysx, plays best on Nvidia or Intel.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Physics isn't a waste of time. When available it makes the game you're playing more enjoyable because you get to see things you normally would not.

As far as resource drain, it does cut into some performance if you run only one card but if that card is higher end you'll never know it.

There are those who will take advantage of being able to use it. A lot of players might be taking advantage of it without even realizing it. Physics in game play is the future and the future is now....... and it's only going to keep getting better. I can't understand why some people complain about it.

There was a post yesterday weather some one should buy a physics card. I got caught up in it and tried an experiment. I have an Xfire board running a GTX260. I put my old GTS8800 640 card on to see if it would work....... it did. I see no reason why it wouldn't work with an ATI card for video and an 8800, 9800 or 9600 card for physics on the same board. I may have tried it already, I can't remember...... something for "Tom's" to do.

April 9, 2009 6:38:08 AM

I can agree with you about the op. It is not worth it to drop a card just for physX. If the op was looking at a new card anyhow then ths not dx 10.1 should matter. he/she should get the fastest they can afford no matter if it is ATI or Nvidia. Both can add some nice eye candy but truthfully that is all it is right now. I would love if true physics were involved. Wind affecting bullet trajectory, gravity effecting bullet drop, moving vehicles affecting jumping and true physics.
April 9, 2009 6:40:29 AM

Well when win 7 is released and supports multiple display drivers it will not be a problem. For right now vista does not support multiple display drivers.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 6:47:00 AM

Swifty, you can't on Vista, you can on XP, it's already been done. However if you have to buy more hardware for just one or two games, they better be games you damn love or else it's like paying $100+ for a few % difference in a game, and globally that money would be better spent on a faster CPU or GPU. The main thing is for people to understand that, and the OP's post shows he's definitely not that savy about it. Heck the way the poll is made and the thread couched it almost looks like a PR post. Similar to one that would start, should I sell my two GTX295s because they don't have DX10.1?

And whether PhysX gets better or not has yet to be seen.
nVidia's had it for a while and it's no better than Ageia's implementation (as seen that it does the same on both only faster when using a much larger processor). That it will ever be much more than clothy / partical-ly tack-on is still up in the air.

We, You, can hope for, but for now it's not there and it's future is no more certain now than when it was under Ageia.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 6:56:35 AM

ATIs showing at GDC shows how "easy" it is to do for these small eye candy shots. I agree Ape, but will someone actually bite the bullet, and spend that much dev resources to make it important on something that is only for a very sn
small market? Crysis was made, and it was aimed a \t a small market , rigs that could actually play the game. With Physx, you need either a highend card, a less demanding game, or a cf/sli mobo. Thats a small market, even added up altogether
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 7:03:52 AM

And that's the problem. Chicken & Egg, do the cool apps come once the install base is big enough to maximize a full-fledged physics implementation, or do you add a sliding scale with the high-end being unusable by any current hardware (similar to Crysis or EverQuest II). I hope for the later, where the sliders can go to 11 if you have the rig for it, but this would only work on A-list titles, and really if developers have lost their focus on PC to dedicate to weak consoles it may take longer than we would hope.

But if you make the feature such a killer-app that you create the new CS or WOW, then the development cost would be worth it for the longevity of the engine and its spin-offs.
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 7:07:21 AM

I did do it on 64bit Vista last night. 2 nvidia cards..........1 for physics............ I was tempted to try sli but was too tired. Maybe next time I feel like "breaking' something......LOL
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 7:11:44 AM

And WoW isnt that demanding either, so the falloff of perf wouldnt be as bad. Yea, maybe in that scenario, but spending that much for just 1 game would leave no monies in the piggy bank for TWIMTBP'd team
April 9, 2009 8:03:50 AM

L1qu1d said:
What are you talking about?

It has a new DLC with maps that last 1 hr to complete EACH...lol....

I'm sorry 1 game?

UT3, Rainbow Six GR 2, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge, CellFactor, and a bunch more I'm sure u can find a list.


What I mean is its not worth getting an nvidia card after selling your ati card just for PhysX. That's what OP wants to do.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 9, 2009 1:01:35 PM

No swifty, he means two "different" video drivers. As in, Cat. 9.3 to run your graphics and NVidia 1xx.xx to run your "physx" graphics card. What you have done (2 NVidias) I've seen before (and is a very good idea, as physx doesn't need a 280).
a c 105 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 10, 2009 6:24:30 AM

EXT64 said:
No swifty, he means two "different" video drivers. As in, Cat. 9.3 to run your graphics and NVidia 1xx.xx to run your "physx" graphics card. What you have done (2 NVidias) I've seen before (and is a very good idea, as physx doesn't need a 280).



Actually nvivid has a stand alone physics driver. You don't need to install a "graphics" driver...... in theory. My spidey senses are tingling. I might have to try this.

I have, in the past, had both ati and nvidia drivers installed at the same time without problems. Worth an experiment I think........ if that's what it might take........... ??
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 10, 2009 11:33:18 AM

Is it on XP you could, Vista you can't? Not sure of that though.
!