Your Take on PhysX

[geokilla]

It was in their ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 article and I enjoyed reading it very much. Have a read and post your opinion on this.

I tried typing my opinion twice, but my opinions are mixed. Why? Simple. It's because my computer idles more running F@H than I do spending the time gaming. For that reason, my purchase will probably always be NVIDIA. However, if I was a more serious gamer, I'd purchase whichever card offered better bang for buck, whether it's an ATI GPU or NVIDIA GPU. I could care less whether the GPU supports PhysX or not because there's only so many good games out there.

As DMB2000uk said, "So what do YOU think of PhysX?"

[geokilla]

Why is it that half the time I make a thread or make a post, the thread seems to die.

Anyways I changed the title to more properly reflect the point of this thread...if it dies. It dies.

[mr_noname111]

I don't think physx is all that great. It may look the game look slightly better, but it also comes with a decrease in performance. So the way I look at it, it doesn't matter if a video card has physx or not. Performance rules over everything because even with a card without physx, if it is fast enough you can crank up AA, AF, textures and it will look just as good.

[DMB2000uk]

Probably because you didn't directly ask a question, but just generically opened with your thoughts and invited people to continue commenting.

The rephrase of the thread title is better

Might want to tag on the end of your first post something like "so what do YOU think of physx?" to get people to actually respond.

Dan

PS. Forums are slowing up lately though as the weather is getting better, more people are going outside etc

[skier]

i've been running SLI benchmarks all day, doing the physx and non-SLI today and tuesday

[vicaphit]

Once video cards become great at Physics (especially realistic water movement) I will really enjoy it.

The problem now is that not everyone has a capable video card to handle the physics, so games don't utilize it.

I also like the fluid cloth movements, and how they now get holes shot through them and such. It adds some realism.

[InspectahACE]

I like the PhysX. I think it can take games a long way.. instead of a splash effect when shootin water, maybe now I'll see ripples that expand (least that's what I hope to see when I get on that)

[geokilla]

Once video cards become great at Physics (especially realistic water movement) I will really enjoy it.

The problem now is that not everyone has a capable video card to handle the physics, so games don't utilize it.

I also like the fluid cloth movements, and how they now get holes shot through them and such. It adds some realism.

It's PhysX, not Physics. Apparently there's a difference between the two.

Even though only a select amount of NVIDIA cards can handle CUDA and PhysX, what's up with NVIDIA dedicated over 20 slides to CUDA and PhysX, while having only a couple dedicated to the GTX725. And sometimes, PhysX makes the game seem too unreal, such as the cloth that was discussed in the article.

[url=Your Take on PhysX]http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2291418[/url] There's a heated arguement going on there. Might be worth a read for you guys. Typical AnandTech Video forums is causing the thread to derail and arguements are starting out...