• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Why should Physx matter?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 185158
  • Start date Start date

Would physx improve your experience?

  • Would like to see higher particle counts!!!

    Votes: 24 48.0%

  • Somewhat interested, but only have AMD

    Votes: 8 16.0%

  • Don't want to run more than one card (NV)

    Votes: 2 4.0%

  • Have heard about it, not informed.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't care, not interested.

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • Total voters
    50
lexluthermiester said:
I had one of those. For the games that supported it, the difference was remarkable!
Click to expand...
I may get one for retro PC if I can find one with a reasonable price. :)
 
Do you remember when you could use a slightly upper end low-end card as a dedicated physX card??

I tried running my PC with a GT-210 along side my 1080Ti some days ago. While the drivers installed correctly. I wasnt allowed to have both of GPUs active at the same time.
Upon doing a little research it generally seemed to boil down that Nvidia made a some changes in with their drivers that blocked use of two different Nvidia GPUs at the same time. Either my GT-210 is too old i.e cant be installed by the same driver package that installs my 1080Ti or Nvidia blocked it.
 
It was pointless to use a hella slow GPU as a PhysX card since it performed way worse than using your fast GPU for PhysX.

I had a GTX 970 + GTX 670 few years ago and it was ok.
 
Physx is dead
 
eidairaman1 said:
Physx is dead
Click to expand...

Well last time I checked BatMan was very popular and utilized NVidia HW Physx.

always hoping Physx doesn't go "dead". I still game Physx (Ageia and NV titles) but you're right, almost all games do not have HW physx.

Makes me sad.
 
eidairaman1 said:
Physx is dead
Click to expand...

Thats like PC gaming is dead. Every time, you get proven wrong.

The library was opened up lately wasn't it? It may go the way of Mantle>Vulkan and get integrated in some way. And the CPU PhysX part is widely used.
 
Vayra86 said:
Thats like PC gaming is dead. Every time, you get proven wrong.

The library was opened up lately wasn't it? It may go the way of Mantle>Vulkan and get integrated in some way. And the CPU PhysX part is widely used.
Click to expand...

Support is so slow of it, if it was so awesome all games would have it but you don't see gpu support of it anymore. So it's dead.
 
PhysX is a double-edged sword:
1) A large number of player base don't have NVIDIA hardware so GPU acceleration does not work (lost sales, increased support tickets, increased bad reviews).
2) If you make PhysX a gameplay mechanic (like Make Sail), you have to address the bugs that inevitably follow (often physics objects rocket away in a frame).

So PhsyX has largely been relegated to CPU-only, basic collision resolution. If NVIDIA partners with the developer, they'll throw in some GPU-accelerated eye candy on top. That's it. Unless physic simulations are literally your game, there isn't incentive to do more. This is how it is with all physics engines.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Price said:
I died :'D

Damn, I guess I've played ME with a Radeon card since I've never even noticed any cloth etc., time for a replay :)
Click to expand...
It works with hybrid physx or did , last time I tried hybriding win 10 nade it way easy.

Fit two cards ie vega 64 and i used a crappy 910 quadro.
Plug both cards into different inputs on the same or another monitor ,duplicated desktop not extended.
Enable physx , I didn't actually see the Nvidia output screen but did get physx on the other amd one.
I also tried quad Polaris xfire with physx once, the five cards killed my motherboard though so I didn't get much opportunity to play.
Awesome for like two games and 1 night though.
 
While I think Physx is a cool tech it was rather badly implemented in most games in the past.

Played Batman Asylum+City,Borderlands 2/Pre Sequel/Alice return to madness and some other games with physx and they all had issues with it and a bad performance hit,this with a Nvidia card that was more than enough for the games itself.

Now with a full AMD system I tried it in BL Pre-Sequel and the 1600x can handle it on medium or so but even then its not smooth.
In Batman it wont even let me pick higher than the base setting and even that destroys my performance in more demanding scenes like in prison with all that toilet paper/trash all over the place.
 
Vayra86 said:
Thats like PC gaming is dead. Every time, you get proven wrong.

The library was opened up lately wasn't it? It may go the way of Mantle>Vulkan and get integrated in some way. And the CPU PhysX part is widely used.
Click to expand...

Not being dead isn't the equivalent of it being still relevant. PhysX isn't dead in the sense that it still exists but it's certainly not widely used and has fallen in sever obscurity in last couple of years (it has always been there if you ask me). It's fate was sealed the moment Nvidia bought Ageia.

None of this matters though, most engines and studios have in-house built solutions that are as good or better and that usually run much faster. There is simply nothing special about PhysX, other than it's catchy name.
 
Last edited:
Whether it is used in the engine or not is the question. @FordGT90Concept is right about support.
 
Yes, Unity and Unreal both have it but they're mostly using it for basic collision and ragdoll which is CPU bound. Very few games go beyond that because it's more work for no pay for developers.

The only way GPU physics become the norm is Microsoft implements a standard into DirectX for it. The fact it hasn't happened yet, since acquiring Havok from Intel in 2015, suggests to me that it isn't going to happen. Microsoft's intent may have been simply to keep a commercial competitor to PhysX aloft.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
PhysX is a double-edged sword:
1) A large number of player base don't have NVIDIA hardware so GPU acceleration does not work (lost sales, increased support tickets, increased bad reviews).
2) If you make PhysX a gameplay mechanic (like Make Sail), you have to address the bugs that inevitably follow (often physics objects rocket away in a frame).

So PhsyX has largely been relegated to CPU-only, basic collision resolution. If NVIDIA partners with the developer, they'll throw in some GPU-accelerated eye candy on top. That's it. Unless physic simulations are literally your game, there isn't incentive to do more. This is how it is with all physics engines.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly "eye candy" while there is different versions of Physx, destruction, fluids, particles just to name a few.

Software driven physx gives some eye candies but always a constant splatter (for example) while software will render this splatter, it may only have 3 choices of the design and would be put into an order. Physx however is going to be a random with generally more than 3 choices (example number here). Gives a little more realism.

Particle count is not exactly just "eye candy" either. Also leaning towards the word "realism" once again here for the point of curiosity. Are the particle counts in the games you play now high enough for you to consider "pretty real" looking explosions?

I have a selection for people happy to call it dead. I enjoyed Metro Last Light, that game looked phenomenal. (IMO). I only took a performance hit while using 1 graphics card as well.

We don't have to conversate if it's truly "dead", not trying to bring it back myself here lol. Really just interested in the "experience" that people have had with Physx I suppose and what it's worth would be if continued support and implementation where to happen.

Would people experienced with Ageia/NV Physx recommend it to another gamer??
I would. Have had more good experience with Physx than bad just to start that convo correctly.
 
it made graw 2 like a game from the future, back in the day. back then it was head and shoulders above everything else.

but nv buying it, putting it in their toy box pretty much killed it off as it ruled it out for x platform titles. today with amd powering the consoles it has no chance with the big dev houses.

edit

silly poll is silly.
 
Open source, it's never gonna take off now!
 
FreedomEclipse said:
Do you remember when you could use a slightly upper end low-end card as a dedicated physX card??

I tried running my PC with a GT-210 along side my 1080Ti some days ago. While the drivers installed correctly. I wasnt allowed to have both of GPUs active at the same time.
Upon doing a little research it generally seemed to boil down that Nvidia made a some changes in with their drivers that blocked use of two different Nvidia GPUs at the same time. Either my GT-210 is too old i.e cant be installed by the same driver package that installs my 1080Ti or Nvidia blocked it.
Click to expand...
You can't use a GPU with an EOL driver at the same time you use a current card under proper support.
Get a GT1030 to test that.
 
GoldenX said:
You can't use a GPU with an EOL driver at the same time you use a current card under proper support.
Get a GT1030 to test that.
Click to expand...

Yeah - Its not worth the $95/€84/£70 just to do that. Even on second hand on ebay they dont fall that much below RRP. I would love to test it but thats too high a price for something that i'll never really use
 
ShrimpBrime said:
It's not exactly "eye candy" while there is different versions of Physx, destruction, fluids, particles just to name a few.

Software driven physx gives some eye candies but always a constant splatter (for example) while software will render this splatter, it may only have 3 choices of the design and would be put into an order. Physx however is going to be a random with generally more than 3 choices (example number here). Gives a little more realism.

Particle count is not exactly just "eye candy" either. Also leaning towards the word "realism" once again here for the point of curiosity. Are the particle counts in the games you play now high enough for you to consider "pretty real" looking explosions?

I have a selection for people happy to call it dead. I enjoyed Metro Last Light, that game looked phenomenal. (IMO). I only took a performance hit while using 1 graphics card as well.

We don't have to conversate if it's truly "dead", not trying to bring it back myself here lol. Really just interested in the "experience" that people have had with Physx I suppose and what it's worth would be if continued support and implementation where to happen.

Would people experienced with Ageia/NV Physx recommend it to another gamer??
I would. Have had more good experience with Physx than bad just to start that convo correctly.
Click to expand...
Particles usually don't involve much in the way of physics. They're...shaders. The GPU renders them as they are usually without considering their relation to anything else other than X, Y, Z, pitch, yaw, roll. Making particles physics objects drastically increases their compute burden. If a shader can be designed to convey the artists meaning without physics overhead, they're not going to implement the physics overhead.


Remember, there is a distinct difference between your typical video game and a genuine simulator. Software like SolidWorks does do physics calculations for all the reasons physics calculations are necessary. Your average game does not...

Consider this: your average film/TV drama...when they have an explosion, what do you see? A gasoline/diesel fire. What does an explosion really look like?
A white puff with shrapnel going everywhere. That can kill you with little warning. ^ Fuel fire? Usually burns at the worst. Your average person expects the fuel fire over the actual explosion because it's more dramatic. What do most game designers put in their games? The fuel fire for the same reason. Simulation of reality often doesn't best fit the design. It only needs to be a close enough approximation to reality so that people seeing it think "I know what that is" without explanation.

My point: it's okay to cut corners in game design. Games don't need to approximate vehicle crumple zones that engineers simulate to meet traffic safety standards. More realistic, yes, but think of the context. If Rockstar put that much effort into their vehicle designs so when some random drunk in the game causes an accident, how is the player going to react to this? "That's neat! *looks at it closely for minute* *walks away*" Then another wreck happens an hour later, the player doesn't pay any mind. It's just part of the world. Why get excited about it again? Our brains are literally wired to ignore the benign and focus on what our subconscious flags as important. Coming back to the point: Rockstar isn't going to waste effort on a system that provides very little return value. They'll cut corners. It's just not practical.
 
Last edited:
FordGT90Concept said:
The only way GPU physics become the norm is Microsoft implements a standard into DirectX for it
Click to expand...
Direct Physics was trademarked by Microsoft after the Havok buyout from Intel. I don't know if anything became of it afterwards.
www.techpowerup.com

Microsoft Trademarks Direct Physics - HAVOK Rebranded?

As you might recall, Microsoft bought HAVOK from Intel back in 2015, promising to "add Havok's IP to its existing tools and platforms, including DirectX 12, Visual Studio, and Azure." Well, it would seem we are seeing the fruits of that particular seeding, with Microsoft having trademarked...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Fluffmeister said:
Open source, it's never gonna take off now!
Click to expand...
 
FordGT90Concept said:
Particles usually don't involve much in the way of physics. They're...shaders. The GPU renders them as they are usually without considering their relation to anything else other than X, Y, Z, pitch, yaw, roll. Making particles physics objects drastically increases their compute burden. If a shader can be designed to convey the artists meaning without physics overhead, they're not going to implement the physics overhead.


Remember, there is a distinct difference between your typical video game and a genuine simulator. Software like SolidWorks does do physics calculations for all the reasons physics calculations are necessary. Your average game does not...

Consider this: your average film/TV drama...when they have an explosion, what do you see? A gasoline/diesel fire. What does an explosion really look like?
A white puff with shrapnel going everywhere. That can kill you with little warning. ^ Fuel fire? Usually burns at the worst. Your average person expects the fuel fire over the actual explosion because it's more dramatic. What do most game designers put in their games? The fuel fire for the same reason. Simulation of reality often doesn't best fit the design. It only needs to be a close enough approximation to reality so that people seeing it think "I know what that is" without explanation.

My point: it's okay to cut corners in game design. Games don't need to approximate vehicle crumple zones that engineers simulate to meet traffic safety standards. More realistic, yes, but think of the context. If Rockstar put that much effort into their vehicle designs so when some random drunk in the game causes an accident, how is the player going to react to this? "That's neat! *looks at it closely for minute* *walks away*" Then another wreck happens an hour later, the player doesn't play any mind. It's just part of the world. Why get excited about it again? Our brains are literally wired to ignore the benign and focus on what our subconscious flags as important. Coming back to the point: Rockstar isn't going to waste effort on a system that provides very little return value. They'll cut corners. It's just not practical.
Click to expand...

The point of real time rendering of physx was to bring a more realistic approach to the movement of objects. If you move a ball with your hand, that's real time rendering. That was essentially the idea behind the concept in the first place if I recall.

Mostly the graphics detail is important most. But the detail on the characters jacket for example would move like real cloth rendered in real time motion vs a preset defined motion.

So I'm not talking strictly how "it looks" while 98% of that is texture detailing. Well put that texture rendering on 3D animated cloth rendered in realtime. (Physx)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top