I have a PhysX-capable nVidia card (GeForce 9600GT,) but it was replaced long ago with an ATI card. So I did answer that I own one; I'm just clarifying that it made no difference to me.

Reply

I did have an 8800 GTS 320. After having tried the PhysX demos (UT3 map pack, Warmonger (meeh), and a few others that came with the physics packs), I felt thoroughly underwhelmed - the only really cool one was the great Kulu which showed off destructable softbodies. Most of the other ones, tornado effects, debris, cloth tearing, and hail for the most part looked pretty unrealistic and sometimes detracted from the gameplay experience. I can't say that buying my 4870 1GB in February was really affected by the lack of PhysX support, it doesn't seem to be a very killer feature anyway.

I think the vote could've drawn a better comparison if they'd asked if we had tried any PhysX demos using accelerating hardware, as well as if we owned some supported hardware.

Reply

I'm in the similar situation to you, only I had the 640meg version. Recently went up to a 1gig 4870 also. Really don't care at all for nVidia physx. If anything it was better before, as a seperate PCI-card. At least anyone could (in theory) get one and not be tied to a particular graphics vendor.

Reply

There are now decent number of Hardware PhysX powered games.
I see the hardware as a high potentional point.
But using it depend if the games deliver.
Have two PPU since May 2006 and a third in 2007.
Played GRaW and GRAW2 in full glory.
But Cell factor demo showed it's potentional.
And Graw2 ageia island show the potentional in the game genre and theme I like. There are more games but wich are not my thing.
I also was very early aware of the implication Physics brings in a Game develeopment project as how it can influence AI_Pathing. Net load and Game art development. Wich hold back decent or heavy accelerated Physx support.

Wel a lot more PhysX is also a bigger game development burden.
It doesn't come for free.

Mirror edge was a subtle touch of hardware PhysX partialy done right but suffer from crossplatform.

Now nV is pushin Dev's with there TWIMTBP devision. More devs and thus game project are actively doeing something with it.
But just like 9 out of 10 games are the average clone. Or in this case the PhysX feels very forched 9 out of 10 and often out of place. There could be a exceptions that shines on PhysX.

The flags high on the ceiling are more distraction or interactable decorations. How ever where the Player or NPC can be run or push trough are right in place.
But I don't like that kind of game.

Where still waiting on a physX killer game.
And it's very reasonable that it may never come.
So I keep my expectation realistic and enjoy some of the good uses of it in games.

As of now PhysX hardware isn't a necicerity except for some not so populair heavy Physics games like Warmonger and Cellfactor wich demand some hardware Physx support.
But no Class AAA title does that.

But up till now a PPU with a ATI do just fine.

But I wouldn't mind a AAA game that optional could use a dedicated midrange or higher G-card and puit it to good in game use.

Reply

As I do have 8800 gs in my old machine it supprt physic but this is not my normal gaming rig. That goes to my machine with amd 4780 and intel 6600e overclocked to 3.4 ghz. So it would be better if was cross platform support.

Reply

Would you please avoid leading questions such as:

"Not useful; Hardware physics doesn't matter until it's cross platform (OpenCL) (231 votes)"

If I wanted to vote "Not useful," that's not necessarily the reason WHY I would vote "Not useful." You're assuming that is the ONLY reason it is not useful. Otherwise, at least include another option. The way the poll is going, you will get the result that "People want cross-platform PhysX" while that's not necessarily what the voters intended.

Reply

I agree with the bad form of voting. I find GPU physics to be a complete waste. The cards are using every last drop of power they have to run the graphics and give me good FPS, the last thing i need or want is resources being sucked away to run physics when i've got 2-3 extra cores in my CPU doing approximately nothing. GPU physics is a waste of time and marketing gimicry. There is more than enough CPU power to go around these days to have the need to run physics on my GPU instead of graphics. I uy a video card to give me graphics, not physics. If i wanted a physics card i would buy a physics add-in card. So would everyone else. I find running anything but the graphics processes on the GPU to be offencive (in terms of gaming. If you are not gaming and Folding or whatever, fine, but turn that crap off when i am gaming so i can get the best performance possible.)

Reply

Sure the vote forming might be bad, made it hard for me to choose.
But if you want to use your GPU full for rendering you can put a extra GPU for PhysX.
If you don't want that, you can optional go for a faster GPU wich has enough power for both task.

It's basicly a luxory choice. And Dev must support mainstream but optional they can support upt to the extreem game rigs imanigable.
If budged is a problem then disable that much more PhysX option.
That the aim for mainstream, the budged restricted people who don't want to invest in extra hardware. So the get the normal game experience.
But other people apriciate those extra checkboxes or sliders for PhysX. For full PhysX experience with there favo PhysX game.

It's just like if 1900x1200 is to much. You settle for 1024x768.
Or no FSAA instead 4XFSAA.
But if you want 2560x1600x32 with FSAA AF motionblur depth of field bloom abd HDR. Then you can go for triple GTX285. That luxory.

GPU Physics means that game are much more Physics richer.

Because Gameplay Physics doesn't go well with this luxory choice. It would be most of all effectPhysics.

So if you want GPU just for rendering and Physics for CPU. You choose with that, for a low Physics setting.
That freedom of choice. Just like there is SLI and CF and 30" monitors. You can go for that extra hardware PhysX acceleration by GPU or PPU.

PhysX and FPS do have inflence on each other but arent the same.
The GPU is for rendering performance. So you choose your gPU to do that on a decent FPS level. For normal setting that it, if you don't care about PhysX.
If you want more PhysX. PhysX isn't about FPS but Physics. And Physics can be also very computing heavy. Wich mean you need extra GPU power to get that extra Physics and keep decent FPS.

So a 8600GT doesn't render games well trowing a heavy PhysX load gives a slide show.
Compare to a GPU PhysX disabled PhysX AAA game can stress a 9800GTX+ in decent setting.
If you want to run a decent heavy PhysX mode a GTX275 give decent performance and is stressed in balance with rendering and Physics task.

I go for that extra optional Physics wih decent FPS that means I must invest in some extra or better hardware.
That choice. And I would like it very much if dev give you that. instead only service the poor people. Or fps focused people.

Don't judge or review or bench physX with FPS performance.
PhysX is about Physics the core of a review would be a review about how Physic is used in the game. And how much more hardware it needs.

Reply

Completely agree. Even the best single gpu graphic cards GTX285 can't run Crysis@MaxSetting@4X/8AA@1920X1200 at a comfortable 30fps. Why worry about Physics. Besides Physic effects has very minor impact on gameplay.

Reply

Thanks for the feedback -- I just removed the OpenCL reference to try and help balance it out again.

I do understand your sentiment -- the text following the useful-or-not bit was just supposed to be an example of the type of feeling that would be associated with the category, not the only thing that fits ... with no context at all it can be hard to understand what we intended and everyone would have different ideas of what the category would mean to them. At the same time, you are right that it could make people feel like the categories are overly narrow or non-inclusive.

I'll try to be more careful with this in the future. Thanks again.

Reply