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

AMD to Demonstrate GPU Havok Physics Acceleration at GDC

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,277 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
PhysX does the job of all three: General (fluid, projectiles, - as in Warmonger, UT3), Character - as in Mirror's Edge, and Environmental - as inWarmonger, Cryostasis.
 

alexp999

Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
8,012 (1.32/day)
Location
Dorset, UK
System Name Gaming Rig | Uni Laptop
Processor Intel Q6600 G0 (2007) @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.45625v (LLC) / 4 GHz Bench @ 1.63v | AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 2 GHz
Motherboard ASUS P5Q Deluxe (Intel P45) | HP 6715b
Cooling Xigmatek Dark Knight w/AC MX2 ~ Case Fans: 2 x 180mm + 1 x 120mm Silverstone Fans
Memory 4GB OCZ Platinum PC2-8000 @ 1000Mhz 5-5-5-15 2.1v | 2 x 1GB DDR2 667 MHz
Video Card(s) XFX GTX 285 1GB, Modded FTW BIOS @ 725/1512/1350 w/Accelero Xtreme GTX 280 + Scythe sinks| ATI X1250
Storage 2x WD6400AAKS 1 TB Raid 0, 140GB Raid 1 & 80GB Maxtor Basics External HDD (storage) | 160GB 2.5"
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster SM2433BW @ 1920 x 1200 via DVI-D | 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050 resolution)
Case Silverstone Fortress FT01B-W ~ Logitech G15 R1 / Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000
Audio Device(s) Soundmax AD2000BX Onboard Sound, via Logitech X-230 2.1 | ADI SoundMAX HD Audio
Power Supply Corsair TX650W | HP 90W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64 | Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64
Benchmark Scores 3DM06: 19519, Vantage: P16170 ~ Win7: -CPU 7.5 -MEM 7.5 -AERO 7.9 -GFX 6.0 -HDD 6.0
I didnt think Physx did character models? Just environments and fluids?

EDIT:

Just read the physx page, seems they do. Tho I have never seen it implemented.

I still dont get the cloth physx tho. Does anyone actually think it looks real :confused:
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
Sorry but some comments in this thread are just stupid. And TBH I call BS on them and trolling up to this point. Sorry because I'm talking about people that is been in TPU for a long time, but I'm just amazed of how much people can talk about (and bash) a thing, without even knowing what it does. PhysX no collision detection? My GOD! Character physics and ragdoll? :banghead: Of course it does all those things FFS!! Requiring aditional hardware? NO!! (Only for massive physics, you don't need it for very small number of particles, or 50-100 boxes)

You guys are talking too much and you never saw one single PhysX demostration!! PhysX has everything Havok has always have, plus many other things like the ones people are mentioning here that they want, like real fluids, massive physics (I suggest you see a pair of demos)... You could have had ALL those things implemented since 2006, if Intel had not tried so hard to ban it from games (yeah even before the adquisition it was for their interest) OR if you didn't asked so passionately to ban hardware physics from games. If what you trully wanted is all that, you could have asked AMD to support it instead of bashing a product you know NOTHING about. :shadedshu

EDIT: BTW examples of PhysX running in software mode (and crappy console CPU) are: Gears of War, Mass Effect. I don't know you, but I would say that those two games have amazing physics.
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Mass Effect is ran on Unreal Engine 3. Unreal Engine 3 has core physics coded by James Golding and also offers support for NVIDIA PhysX as middleware. It is present but that doesn't mean they have to use it.


Still, I have beat Mass Effect probably 3-5 times already and not one time have I thought to myself "this game looks pretty" or "those are nice physics." Actually, I scolded the physics a few times when a Krogan gets bionic lifted on Feros and falls down under a scaffolding where he can't be killed. Not once did I praise the physics or graphics because frankly, I couldn't care less about them.
 

ShadowFold

New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
16,918 (2.85/day)
Location
Omaha, NE
System Name The ShadowFold Draconis (Ordering soon)
Processor AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8ghz
Motherboard ASUS M4A87TD EVO AM3 AMD 870
Cooling Stock
Memory Kingston ValueRAM 4GB DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) XFX ATi Radeon HD 5850 1gb
Storage Western Digital 640gb
Display(s) Acer 21.5" 5ms Full HD 1920x1080P
Case Antec Nine-Hundred
Audio Device(s) Onboard + Creative "Fatal1ty" Headset
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 650w
Software Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
Benchmark Scores -❶-❸-❸-❼-
Sorry but some comments in this thread are just stupid. And TBH I call BS on them and trolling up to this point. Sorry because I'm talking about people that is been in TPU for a long time, but I'm just amazed of how much people can talk about (and bash) a thing, without even knowing what it does. PhysX no collision detection? My GOD! Character physics and ragdoll? :banghead: Of course it does all those things FFS!! Requiring aditional hardware? NO!! (Only for massive physics, you don't need it for very small number of particles, or 50-100 boxes)

You guys are talking too much and you never saw one single PhysX demostration!! PhysX has everything Havok has always have, plus many other things like the ones people are mentioning here that they want, like real fluids, massive physics (I suggest you see a pair of demos)... You could have had ALL those things implemented since 2006, if Intel had not tried so hard to ban it from games (yeah even before the adquisition it was for their interest) OR if you didn't asked so passionately to ban hardware physics from games. If what you trully wanted is all that, you could have asked AMD to support it instead of bashing a product you know NOTHING about. :shadedshu

EDIT: BTW examples of PhysX running in software mode (and crappy console CPU) are: Gears of War, Mass Effect. I don't know you, but I would say that those two games have amazing physics.

So where are these AWESOME games that have these awesome PhysX demonstrations? The only game that made me go "hm, nice physics" was half-life 2. when i had my 280, nothing with PhysX was any good.

And i have Mass Effect, it's one of my favorite games.
 

imperialreign

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,043 (1.15/day)
Location
Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name УльтраФиолет
Processor Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved)
Motherboard ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB
Cooling Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler
Memory Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card(s) Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970
Storage (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA
Display(s) Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10)
Case Cooler Master Stacker 830
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1
Power Supply Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular
Software Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2
Benchmark Scores 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313
So where are these AWESOME games that have these awesome PhysX demonstrations? The only game that made me go "hm, nice physics" was half-life 2. when i had my 280, nothing with PhysX was any good.

And i have Mass Effect, it's one of my favorite games.

Only game I can recall that has activelly used the new PhysX implimentation was Mirrors Edge

Havok, though, has been the mainstream physics engine for absolute ages . . . and both ATI/AMD and Intel have supported it in the past (and still do). Some of the more popular titles names using Havok:

FEAR
FEAR 2
Thief: Deadly Shadows
Timeshift
Assassin's Creed
Bioshock
Company of Heroes
Fallout 3
Half-Life 2
Halo 3
StarCraft II
Diablo 3
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2

as well as:

Futuremark 3Dmark05
Futuremark 3Dmark06
Futuremark 3DmarkVantage

and countless other mainstream titles . . . PhsyX itself, based on Aegia's engine, is good . . . but it's not as heavily supported as Havok.

Thing is, if AMD and Intel can come together and start agreeing on implimentation of the Havok engine (of which, IIRC, Intel had bought back in '07), they could quickly and easily drive nVidia out of the physics market . . . Haok is used across both console and PC platforms, and has the bigger market dominance over PhsyX. the only thing that nVidia has going for them, in regards to their implimentation, is their large GPU dominance . . . but Intel and AMD working together could quickly drive them out.
 

hat

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
21,731 (3.43/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Starlifter :: Dragonfly
Processor i7 2600k 4.4GHz :: i5 10400
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 Pro :: ASUS Prime H570-Plus
Cooling Cryorig M9 :: Stock
Memory 4x4GB DDR3 2133 :: 2x8GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) PNY GTX1070 :: Integrated UHD 630
Storage Crucial MX500 1TB, 2x1TB Seagate RAID 0 :: Mushkin Enhanced 60GB SSD, 3x4TB Seagate HDD RAID5
Display(s) Onn 165hz 1080p :: Acer 1080p
Case Antec SOHO 1030B :: Old White Full Tower
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro - Bose Companion 2 Series III :: None
Power Supply FSP Hydro GE 550w :: EVGA Supernova 550
Software Windows 10 Pro - Plex Server on Dragonfly
Benchmark Scores >9000
great... havok on amd gpus, physx on nvidia gpus... now what am I supposed to do? I got all excited cause I could set my IGP to run Physx while my 9800gt focuses its undivided attention on my games but now this comes out. sigh
 

Lillebror

New Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
719 (0.12/day)
Location
Denmark
Processor Intel Core2Duo e8400 @ 3.6ghz
Motherboard Asus P5Q Pro w/ mBios
Cooling Xigmatec something with a orange fan
Memory Kingston HyperX 4 gig
Video Card(s) Sapphire hd4870
Storage 320 gb Maxtor 750gb samsung f11 250gb hitachi
Display(s) IIyama e1900s
Case CoolerMaster Ammo
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2/PM Pci
Power Supply Corsair 750w
Software Windows 7 x64
...Futuremark 3DmarkVantage..

There is a reason why people with nvidia cards scores so high ;) It uses physx to offload it to the cpu - or the gpu if its enabled!
 

imperialreign

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
7,043 (1.15/day)
Location
Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name УльтраФиолет
Processor Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved)
Motherboard ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB
Cooling Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler
Memory Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card(s) Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970
Storage (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA
Display(s) Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10)
Case Cooler Master Stacker 830
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1
Power Supply Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular
Software Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2
Benchmark Scores 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313
There is a reason why people with nvidia cards scores so high ;) It uses physx to offload it to the cpu - or the gpu if its enabled!

there has been a lot of debate over that in the past . . . namely, over whether or not the PhysX scores are legitmate . . .

even still - although nVidia might be the leader in the GPU market . . . if AMD and Intel ever collaborate and push Havok further, nVidia nad their monolithic hardware wouldn't stand a chance in the physics market against the two.

But, that all balances against AMD and Intel ever deciding to work together with Havok implimentation.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
great... havok on amd gpus, physx on nvidia gpus... now what am I supposed to do? I got all excited cause I could set my IGP to run Physx while my 9800gt focuses its undivided attention on my games but now this comes out. sigh
I think Intel and AMD will be releasing processors with dedicated PPUs on-die (or GPUs that can act as a physics processor). When not used for physics, it could be used for something else.

That's another reason why NVIDIA feels threatened and was starting to talk about making their own x86 CPU.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,777 (0.30/day)
Location
South Australia
System Name QUACK
Processor Intel i7 2600K (3.4 GHz, 8 threads)
Motherboard Asus P67P8-V3
Cooling Xigmatek Balder 120mm (4x120,1x140mm case)
Memory Patriot 2 Viper Sector 5, 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 4GB
Storage 1x Samsung EVO 850 (500GB) SSD, 1x Fujitsu 256GB SSD
Display(s) Dell Ultrasharp U2311h 23" (so sexy)
Case CoolerMaster Gladiator RC-600
Audio Device(s) Onboard 5.1
Power Supply Antec 850w with yellow racing stripes
Software Windows 7 HP 64 bit
PhysX requires 256 MB of RAM and 16 SPUs on an 8x00 series card or higher, at minimum, to work, IIRC.
My 9600 GT has 64 SPUs, so if I enably PhysX on it then that reduces my SPU count to a minimum of 48. That is not good!
ATI cards have up to 800 SPUs. How many of those would Havok based Physics require to run properly? 40, 80, 200? I'd guess 80 because thats what their lowest end cards usually have. Any other ideas on SPU count required for this?
 

Kursah

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
14,666 (2.30/day)
Location
Missoula, MT, USA
System Name Kursah's Gaming Rig 2018 (2022 Upgrade) - Ryzen+ Edition | Gaming Laptop (Lenovo Legion 5i Pro 2022)
Processor R7 5800X @ Stock | i7 12700H @ Stock
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X370-F Gaming BIOS 6203| Legion 5i Pro NM-E231
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S Push-Pull + NT-H1 | Stock Cooling
Memory TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z 32GB (2x16) DDR4 4000 @ 3600 18-20-20-42 1.35v | 32GB DDR5 4800 (2x16)
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 4070 JetStream 12GB | CPU-based Intel Iris XE + RTX 3070 8GB 150W
Storage 4TB SP UD90 NVME, 960GB SATA SSD, 2TB HDD | 1TB Samsung OEM NVME SSD + 4TB Crucial P3 Plus NVME SSD
Display(s) Acer 28" 4K VG280K x2 | 16" 2560x1600 built-in
Case Corsair 600C - Stock Fans on Low | Stock Metal/Plastic
Audio Device(s) Aune T1 mk1 > AKG K553 Pro + JVC HA-RX 700 (Equalizer APO + PeaceUI) | Bluetooth Earbuds (BX29)
Power Supply EVGA 750G2 Modular + APC Back-UPS Pro 1500 | 300W OEM (heavy use) or Lenovo Legion C135W GAN (light)
Mouse Logitech G502 | Logitech M330
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Core RGB | Built in Keyboard (Lenovo laptop KB FTW)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 | Windows 11 Home x64
PhysX requires 256 MB of RAM and 16 SPUs on an 8x00 series card or higher, at minimum, to work, IIRC.
My 9600 GT has 64 SPUs, so if I enably PhysX on it then that reduces my SPU count to a minimum of 48. That is not good!
ATI cards have up to 800 SPUs. How many of those would Havok based Physics require to run properly? 40, 80, 200? I'd guess 80 because thats what their lowest end cards usually have. Any other ideas on SPU count required for this?

The way SPU's are counted between ATI and NV is different, there's a breakdown of it on TPU and on the web. Not that big of a deal, both took slightly different routes on SP's and types of SP's, which is good imo, both have shown that each route is quite capable.

I think it's very cool to see Havok getting support like this, really what I would like to see is the two in comparison in the same game via middleware patch or something. Show the differences, show the effects/affects of each engine, etc. I think Havok is great stuff since it's been used so long, but I dont' know much about it to know just how well it will work for more realistic games in the future...same with PhysX though. While it is neat, it's not used, I don't really care either way yet because there are quite a few games that use CPU driven proprietary physics engines for that specific game that works fine. Though if we could see a blend of PhysX/Havok that could be something truly worth having around, that'd be the way to go...as-far-as AMD and Intel making Havok a standard, it could happen...whether it will...we'll find out within the next couple years I believe. None-the-less, not worth making a big deal out of till there's a big deal to be made from results imo. I want to see AMD/ATI cards with Physx support on the end-user side like NV's had for PhysX for months to make my own judgement...will you notice a difference in HL2 or any other game that uses Havock with a newer processor being offloaded and new GPU being loaded more? Could be more negative than good depending on how it's executed and just what's going on in the particular scene I suppose...I'll wait and not really worry about it till there's something more solid and out there for end-users.

:toast:
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
Mass Effect is ran on Unreal Engine 3. Unreal Engine 3 has core physics coded by James Golding and also offers support for NVIDIA PhysX as middleware. It is present but that doesn't mean they have to use it.


Still, I have beat Mass Effect probably 3-5 times already and not one time have I thought to myself "this game looks pretty" or "those are nice physics." Actually, I scolded the physics a few times when a Krogan gets bionic lifted on Feros and falls down under a scaffolding where he can't be killed. Not once did I praise the physics or graphics because frankly, I couldn't care less about them.

In those games PhysX is the physics engine in use.
Anyway, did you praise the ones in Oblivion?? You can't blame an engine because of how it has been used in a game...

So where are these AWESOME games that have these awesome PhysX demonstrations? The only game that made me go "hm, nice physics" was half-life 2. when i had my 280, nothing with PhysX was any good.

And i have Mass Effect, it's one of my favorite games.

I have said it already. There's almost no game using it to all it's extension because.

a) Intel and AMD have tried so hard to ban PhysX from games.

b) because of the comments from so many people anong the lines seen here. If developers see that people don't care about physics they will not spend their time implementing anything.

My comment was not for those who don't care about physics (good for them), is for those who seem to want some better physics and at the same time are bashing PhysX, which has been delivering exactly what they wanted since it's creation, but could never be implemented because of the points above.

And my post was directly directed at those spilling BS about that PhysX can't do this or that. It can do everything that Havok can do on the CPU and much much more when on the GPU (until now, we'll see). I'm in no way saying this Havok GPU implementation is worse than PhysX, but I can almost say it won't be better either. Thing is we don't know.

DON'T expect this other implementation to be implemented more than PhysX, as it will face the same problems, unless Intel really wants it implemeted, which would be very suspicious. It's coming 1-2 years later so it will take time nevertheless.

All in all, my post was regarding the BS about PhysX (that it is flawed, no collision, etc), and not saying it's any better than other engines. GPU physics is much better than any CPU based physics and PhysX is just a very good one that has already proven itself. On the other hand, this Havok implementation still needs to demostrate if it has what it takes. Yet all of you are already praising it as if it was the Godsend and at the same time bashing PhysX, with clueless allegations. I wonder if it has anything to do with who is releasing it?? :rolleyes:

I don't care if it's PhysX or is Havok or is any other one the physics implementation that wins, but I want it NOW already and PhysX is the only one that can do it right now. Thats why I support it, why I have always supported it, not because of who it belongs. On the other hand is pretty clear the bias that most of you guys have. GPU physics was a waste of time until yesterday, but it just takes one newspost to make it the best thing ever and now everybody wants massive physics, fluids and whatnot. That is, the same things that Ageia was doing 4 years ago and Nvidia was capable of doing since the adquisition, but this time in the hands of someone else. Because, you are not happy because this is an open standard, because it's not, nor because it's free for the developers, because it's not, nor because it's a better implementation, because you don't know. You are happy because it's AMD, period. And that's plain and simply biased.

Just to finish, tell me which PhysX demos you have seen, because it's pretty clear for me you didn't see anyone. There are tons of videos in youtube if you can't see them directly on a Nvidia GPU.
 

TheMailMan78

Big Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
22,599 (3.68/day)
Location
'Merica. The Great SOUTH!
System Name TheMailbox 5.0 / The Mailbox 4.5
Processor RYZEN 1700X / Intel i7 2600k @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 / Gigabyte Z77X-UP5 TH Intel LGA 1155
Cooling MasterLiquid PRO 280 / Scythe Katana 4
Memory ADATA RGB 16GB DDR4 2666 16-16-16-39 / G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB DDR3 1866: 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) MSI 1080 "Duke" with 8Gb of RAM. Boost Clock 1847 MHz / ASUS 780ti
Storage 256Gb M4 SSD / 128Gb Agelity 4 SSD , 500Gb WD (7200)
Display(s) LG 29" Class 21:9 UltraWide® IPS LED Monitor 2560 x 1080 / Dell 27"
Case Cooler Master MASTERBOX 5t / Cooler Master 922 HAF
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1220 Audio Codec / SupremeFX X-Fi with Bose Companion 2 speakers.
Power Supply Seasonic FOCUS Plus Series SSR-750PX 750W Platinum / SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei (RAW) / Logitech G5
Keyboard Razer BlackWidow / Logitech (Unknown)
Software Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
Benchmark Scores Benching is for bitches.
Ok I don't care about this debate. When will I see some drivers? I have a 4850 just itching to do some physics processing. :rockout:
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
Some of the more popular titles names using Havok:

...
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2

Futuremark 3DmarkVantage

Excuse me???

Thing is, if AMD and Intel can come together and start agreeing on implimentation of the Havok engine (of which, IIRC, Intel had bought back in '07), they could quickly and easily drive nVidia out of the physics market . . . Haok is used across both console and PC platforms, and has the bigger market dominance over PhsyX. the only thing that nVidia has going for them, in regards to their implimentation, is their large GPU dominance . . . but Intel and AMD working together could quickly drive them out.

That is completely true, but there's nothing good about that. What do you think it will happen when PhysX (or Nvidia) is out of the game? Intel will eat AMD with some fish and chips, alltogether. AMD is giving Intel the keys to the gaming and GPU markets and Intel will be second to none, at least if they give them such advantages and AMD can't afford that luxury. It's funny because people think it was smart for AMD to not adopt PhysX because it belonged to Nvidia, but now them supporting Intel's Havok is the best thing ever? And the thing is that the company against which AMD has filled lawsuits for unfair competition is Intel and not Nvidia. Also while AMD has released many competent CPUs that were just as fast and sometimes faster in the bussiness market, or in mainstream programs, it's been almost invariably lagging behind in games, I wonder why...
 

ShadowFold

New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
16,918 (2.85/day)
Location
Omaha, NE
System Name The ShadowFold Draconis (Ordering soon)
Processor AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8ghz
Motherboard ASUS M4A87TD EVO AM3 AMD 870
Cooling Stock
Memory Kingston ValueRAM 4GB DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) XFX ATi Radeon HD 5850 1gb
Storage Western Digital 640gb
Display(s) Acer 21.5" 5ms Full HD 1920x1080P
Case Antec Nine-Hundred
Audio Device(s) Onboard + Creative "Fatal1ty" Headset
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 650w
Software Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
Benchmark Scores -❶-❸-❸-❼-
In those games PhysX is the physics engine in use.
Anyway, did you praise the ones in Oblivion?? You can't blame an engine because of how it has been used in a game...



I have said it already. There's almost no game using it to all it's extension because.

a) Intel and AMD have tried so hard to ban PhysX from games.

b) because of the comments from so many people anong the lines seen here. If developers see that people don't care about physics they will not spend their time implementing anything.

My comment was not for those who don't care about physics (good for them), is for those who seem to want some better physics and at the same time are bashing PhysX, which has been delivering exactly what they wanted since it's creation, but could never be implemented because of the points above.

And my post was directly directed at those spilling BS about that PhysX can't do this or that. It can do everything that Havok can do on the CPU and much much more when on the GPU (until now, we'll see). I'm in no way saying this Havok GPU implementation is worse than PhysX, but I can almost say it won't be better either. Thing is we don't know.

DON'T expect this other implementation to be implemented more than PhysX, as it will face the same problems, unless Intel really wants it implemeted, which would be very suspicious. It's coming 1-2 years later so it will take time nevertheless.

All in all, my post was regarding the BS about PhysX (that it is flawed, no collision, etc), and not saying it's any better than other engines. GPU physics is much better than any CPU based physics and PhysX is just a very good one that has already proven itself. On the other hand, this Havok implementation still needs to demostrate if it has what it takes. Yet all of you are already praising it as if it was the Godsend and at the same time bashing PhysX, with clueless allegations. I wonder if it has anything to do with who is releasing it?? :rolleyes:

I don't care if it's PhysX or is Havok or is any other one the physics implementation that wins, but I want it NOW already and PhysX is the only one that can do it right now. Thats why I support it, why I have always supported it, not because of who it belongs. On the other hand is pretty clear the bias that most of you guys have. GPU physics was a waste of time until yesterday, but it just takes one newspost to make it the best thing ever and now everybody wants massive physics, fluids and whatnot. That is, the same things that Ageia was doing 4 years ago and Nvidia was capable of doing since the adquisition, but this time in the hands of someone else. Because, you are not happy because this is an open standard, because it's not, nor because it's free for the developers, because it's not, nor because it's a better implementation, because you don't know. You are happy because it's AMD, period. And that's plain and simply biased.

Just to finish, tell me which PhysX demos you have seen, because it's pretty clear for me you didn't see anyone. There are tons of videos in youtube if you can't see them directly on a Nvidia GPU.

Tl;dr
Show me some games with full PhysX utilization and maybe I will think it's ok but for the time being, it's a dead engine.
 

TheMailMan78

Big Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
22,599 (3.68/day)
Location
'Merica. The Great SOUTH!
System Name TheMailbox 5.0 / The Mailbox 4.5
Processor RYZEN 1700X / Intel i7 2600k @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 / Gigabyte Z77X-UP5 TH Intel LGA 1155
Cooling MasterLiquid PRO 280 / Scythe Katana 4
Memory ADATA RGB 16GB DDR4 2666 16-16-16-39 / G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB DDR3 1866: 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) MSI 1080 "Duke" with 8Gb of RAM. Boost Clock 1847 MHz / ASUS 780ti
Storage 256Gb M4 SSD / 128Gb Agelity 4 SSD , 500Gb WD (7200)
Display(s) LG 29" Class 21:9 UltraWide® IPS LED Monitor 2560 x 1080 / Dell 27"
Case Cooler Master MASTERBOX 5t / Cooler Master 922 HAF
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1220 Audio Codec / SupremeFX X-Fi with Bose Companion 2 speakers.
Power Supply Seasonic FOCUS Plus Series SSR-750PX 750W Platinum / SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei (RAW) / Logitech G5
Keyboard Razer BlackWidow / Logitech (Unknown)
Software Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
Benchmark Scores Benching is for bitches.
What do you think it will happen when PhysX (or Nvidia) is out of the game? Intel will eat AMD with some fish and chips, altogether. AMD is giving Intel the keys to the gaming and GPU markets and Intel will be second to none, at least if they give them such advantages and AMD can't afford that luxury.
The world losing PhysX will not mean "game over" for AMD or Nvidia. As far as Nvidia being shut down I don't think we have anything to worry about. Its not like the only thing keeping them alive is PhysX.

Also Intel CANNOT eat AMD with some "fish and chips". If they could they would have already. Intel would love nothing more than to be the undisputed king of the hill. AMD taking PhysX on with Havok is just good old competition.

No wheres my damn drivers?
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.65/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
In those games PhysX is the physics engine in use.
Anyway, did you praise the ones in Oblivion?? You can't blame an engine because of how it has been used in a game...
Oblivion's only strong suit is length of gameplay and the voice acting. If you do everything there is to do in the game with official mods and the expansion pack, you can easily break 100 hours of gameplay. The mechanics of the game weren't really notable (movement seemed a bit awkward, all maps were pretty dumbed down/repetitive, combat is pretty bland and repetitive, etc.).

The only game I'd say that had notably good physics is Freelancer (Havok engine). When you get hit by those disorientation mines, holy $h!t. I can't say any other game impressed me in regard to physics.

The only game that impressed me in regards to graphics was X3: Reunion. It was just awesome getting close to a capital ship and seeing all the details on its surface. They did a brilliant job there and yet, it still ran well on lowly hardware. I am more impressed by them taking the time to really get it right (the models/textures) more so than the "eye-candy."
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
The world losing PhysX will not mean "game over" for AMD or Nvidia. As far as Nvidia being shut down I don't think we have anything to worry about. Its not like the only thing keeping them alive is PhysX.

Also Intel CANNOT eat AMD with some "fish and chips". If they could they would have already. Intel would love nothing more than to be the undisputed king of the hill. AMD taking PhysX on with Havok is just good old competition.

No wheres my damn drivers?

By eat alive I meant that Intel had >90% of the market share in both CPU and GPU markets. They don't want AMD to dissapear.

On the contrary, it's for Intel's best interest to keep AMD alive, but with the smaller market share posible. Intel could have and can crush AMD whenever they liked to. Their CPUs are cheaper to make so they can actually release them cheaper and everybody knows they are faster. That is specially true every time they release a new batch on a lower fab process. When 32nm are released they could put the new processors at a price that AMD would never survive, but as I said they will never do it, because it's better to have a weak enemy that you already know than letting a new player enter (also most probably that new player would adquire AMD just in time).

Only reason there's no more relevant companies in the market, is because there's always only place for two: the leader (which ususally offers the best but at a price) and the alternative to the leader, which is the cheaper alternative. If a 3rd tries to enter a market it has to be significantly better than the mentioned alternative, while being cheap or will never take off. Why? Because most people wants products from the leader and if they can't afford them, they will always elect the cheap alternative that they already know, very few will take the cheap, slow and NEW alternative. It's hard to make a new product, so very few times you will make a better product than the others and because you are new, you will never get enough revenue to keep going with the other two.

AMD is the shield that Intel has against other companies that could want to enter the market, even something like IBM. IBM doesn't need to enter the consumer market, and it's not for their best interest to fight against Intel and AMD there. They would be 3rd, even when they are IBM, but without AMD there would be a hole that IBM could very easily fill and once they entered and obtain AMD's current market share, they could do a lot of things to compete, things that AMD can't do because it is so small.

And apart from that, there is the fact that they could face some issues regarding monopoly if AMD didn't exist anymore, and no other took over. They could be forced to make x86 free for all, for example.
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
Oblivion's only strong suit is length of gameplay and the voice acting. If you do everything there is to do in the game with official mods and the expansion pack, you can easily break 100 hours of gameplay. The mechanics of the game weren't really notable (movement seemed a bit awkward, all maps were pretty dumbed down/repetitive, combat is pretty bland and repetitive, etc.).

The only game I'd say that had notably good physics is Freelancer (Havok engine). When you get hit by those disorientation mines, holy $h!t. I can't say any other game impressed me in regard to physics.

The only game that impressed me in regards to graphics was X3: Reunion. It was just awesome getting close to a capital ship and seeing all the details on its surface. They did a brilliant job there and yet, it still ran well on lowly hardware. I am more impressed by them taking the time to really get it right (the models/textures) more so than the "eye-candy."

Physics in Oblivion were crappy and they used Havok, that was my only point with that. Other games have amazing physics and they use Havok. It' irrelevant which engine you use as long as you use it well. There were tons crappy games using Unreal Engine 2, that even ran slow and had bad graphics (Postal 2 anyone?), but that doesn't make UE2 a bad engine. On the contrary it was amazing. PhysX is the same. They lack support and it's because of that you don't see games using it. It has nothing to do with
how good the engine is.

Crysis has good physics and the ones that use GPU accelerated PhysX too have very good physics. If GPU Havok is well implemented it will also offer good physics with a good ammount of integration, but I am still skeptical of why would Intel let AMD make their CPUs look like crap at handling their own physics engine. IMO there's something shaddy there, or this GPU Havok is nothing more than a PR stunt. I vote for this last thing.
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.21/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
Physx demos are not Physx games.

Two physx items can collide and have merry fun with each other - but non physx entities cant collied. Mirrors edge as a loose example - you can shoot cloth and have holes appear in it, but you cant go walking on said cloth, or drop a gun on it and expect it to stay there in the realistic *appearing* cloth.
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.28/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
Physx demos are not Physx games.

Two physx items can collide and have merry fun with each other - but non physx entities cant collied. Mirrors edge as a loose example - you can shoot cloth and have holes appear in it, but you cant go walking on said cloth, or drop a gun on it and expect it to stay there in the realistic *appearing* cloth.

:confused: What the hell are you saying? If you make the character walk on a cloth item, the cloth item reacts to your body as it would do in real life. I have not tried to throw the gun, but in the case that it doesn't react, then that's because it's not been declared like a physics item in the game. Under PhysX pretty much every object is a physics object, in the sense that it has all the properties that a real object would have.
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.21/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
:confused: What the hell are you saying? If you make the character walk on a cloth item, the cloth item reacts to your body as it would do in real life. I have not tried to throw the gun, but in the case that it doesn't react, then that's because it's not been declared like a physics item in the game. Under PhysX pretty much every object is a physics object, in the sense that it has all the properties that a real object would have.

No its not. Phsyx is CAPABLE of it, but they simply cant do it. I'll try and explain it more simply.

Path 1: Make the game use a generic physics engine, for people without CUDA (old Nv cards, ATI) - Physx does as little as possible in this example, so that they dont need to duplicate any coding (two physics engines for the same items) - thats when you have items that dont collide together.

path 2: make two engines coded for everything. When physx is enabled everything moves over, and everything can interact with everything else.


If you were strapped for cash and time as a game developer with an unknown, brand new concept for a game... which would you take?
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,277 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Tl;dr
Show me some games with full PhysX utilization and maybe I will think it's ok but for the time being, it's a dead engine.

Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason. period.

DirectX 10.1 and Hardware Tesselation are dead for the time being.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
633 (0.11/day)
Location
Australia
System Name _Speedforce_ (Successor to Strike-X, 4LI3NBR33D-H, Core-iH7 & Nemesis-H)
Processor Intel Core i9 7980XE (Lapped) @ 5.2Ghz With XSPC Raystorm (Lapped)
Motherboard Asus Rampage VI Extreme (XSPC Watercooled) - Custom Heatsinks (Lapped)
Cooling XSPC Custom Water Cooling + Custom Air Cooling (From Delta 220's TFB1212GHE to Spal 30101504&5)
Memory 8x 8Gb G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4266MHz @ 4667Mhz (2x F4-4266C17Q-32GTZR)
Video Card(s) 3x Asus GTX1080 Ti (Lapped) With Customised EK Waterblock (Lapped) + Custom heatsinks (Lapped)
Storage 1x Samsung 970 EVO 2TB - 2280 (Hyper M.2 x16 Card), 7x Samsung 860 Pro 4Tb
Display(s) 6x Asus ROG Swift PG348Q
Case Aerocool Strike X (Modified)
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5 & Aurvana XFi Headphones
Power Supply 2x Corsair AX1500i With Custom Sheilding, Custom Switching Unit. Braided Cables.
Mouse Razer Copperhead + R.A.T 9
Keyboard Ideazon Zboard + Optimus Maximus. Logitech G13.
Software w10 Pro x64.
Benchmark Scores pppft, gotta see it to believe it. . .
Tl;dr
Show me some games with full PhysX utilization and maybe I will think it's ok but for the time being, it's a dead engine.

I remember playing Cell Factor Revolution back in the day, correct me if im wrong, but wasnt that all PhysX ? I remember running a few tests, with alternating hardware and what not. Looked to me like that game was all the Asus Ageia PhysX P1 card.

Might have to look that up when i get home.
 
Top