PhysX

[Flogger23m 2]

most of us here that have ATI cards are "hardcore" enough to grab a cheap nvidia card for physx if it really is that big of a deal. I just hope they super optimize the coding.

Not everyone has SLI/Crossfire motherboards or can be bothered to "hack" the drivers to get the two to work. And not everyone has the money to upgrade to such a motherboard/driver.

I run Nvidia and I am leaning towards another Nvidia due to Physx. I wish Physx would run on AMD as well so we'd have more choices.

[dmarkwick 261]

Not everyone has SLI/Crossfire motherboards or can be bothered to "hack" the drivers to get the two to work. And not everyone has the money to upgrade to such a motherboard/driver.

I run Nvidia and I am leaning towards another Nvidia due to Physx. I wish Physx would run on AMD as well so we'd have more choices.

Well - I'd say you have about a year to make the switch :)

[hamm 10]

I'm no fanboy bud, I've owned more AMD cards than you've had hot meals and I dont appreciate you calling me childish either.

All I'm saying is AMD vs. NVIDIA IS IRRELEVANT, but you seem to turn everything into AMD vs. Nvidia. Maybe you guys should open another thread just to measure your e-peen for choosing a video-card.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Dual GPU cards don't count (and I don't say that to negate your argument as there are plenty of benchmarks where the 590 wins).

GPU vs GPU, Nvidia is the leader and that's all that matters. When you start convoluting things with those stupid t00fer cards, there is always ambiguity because there is no baseline.

The 590 has less RAM so is limited at high resolutions etc.

When you use 3GB 580s in SLI, the performance king is clear.

You missed a link then: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/

In this review, even in situations where the Nvidia GPUs were given specific situations where they weren't vRam bottlenecked, they consistently failed to outperform the competition, even when the competition was using higher settings. And in that competition, it was basically against three 6950's, since the 6990 uses the same clocks as the 6950 and forces the third 6970 down to it's clock range.

The GPU performance war is ever changing. But there's no use in denying that ATI has Nvidia firmly trounced this generation. Is that a bad thing for Nvidia users? Not at all, because it means that next generation, Nvidia will step up it's effort to beat the competition. And that's awesome for everyone involved.

[bangtail 0]

All I'm saying is AMD vs. NVIDIA IS IRRELEVANT, but you seem to turn everything into AMD vs. Nvidia. Maybe you guys should open another thread just to measure your e-peen for choosing a video-card.

Well, actually the choice isn't irrelevant if PhysX is implemented in hardware although I didn't start the argument, I merely pointed out that if it is, Nvidia is the better choice. It has little if anything to do with 'fanboyism' and everything to do with facts.

You're the one who is caught up in labelling it a measuring contest.

Let's move on :)

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

You missed a link then: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/

In this review, even in situations where the Nvidia GPUs were given specific situations where they weren't vRam bottlenecked, they consistently failed to outperform the competition, even when the competition was using higher settings. And in that competition, it was basically against three 6950's, since the 6990 uses the same clocks as the 6950 and forces the third 6970 down to it's clock range.

The GPU performance war is ever changing. But there's no use in denying that ATI has Nvidia firmly trounced this generation. Is that a bad thing for Nvidia users? Not at all, because it means that next generation, Nvidia will step up it's effort to beat the competition. And that's awesome for everyone involved.

This is not the place for this discussion apart from the fact you are wrong.

Anyway, time to get back on topic.

Edited May 20, 2011 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

Someone said physX is used in vbs2 for trucks with trailers and ropes (for fastroping). It'll be fine on the cpu as long as you dont have 20 fastroping helos at the same time. Besides, if there's a lot of physX going on there's a big performance hit on the rendering as well.

Bis just does this to improve vehicles and ropes without having to reinvent the wheel. No need to get all worked up about it.

[Joseph Archer 10]

I'm an ATI user, I don't think I would change my card for ARMA3 - even though I'v been with the series since the launch of OFP. I hope it is not going to be a requirement to have an Nvidea card to play Arma3 at its optimal performance.

[Flogger23m 2]

Well - I'd say you have about a year to make the switch :)

I'd not going to be going with SLI or pumping any more money into this system. EVGA game out with a GTX 560 2GB for $250. I will wait for that to hit $200 and then that is it. I will keep this PC for another 2-3 years. It might be my last gaming PC for all I know. :)

Unless I had $1,800 to drop into a PC, I'd never go with SLI regardless.

But this is off topic. I will have a Physx capable video card most likely so that is all that matters. It is just a shame that AMD users will be left out unless they hack their drivers and buy an Nvidia card in addition to their AMD.

[SgtBigRig 10]

If Physx off don´t means no ragdoll and fancy physics for vehicles, I don´t mind to have it off.

lmao.. you are joking right? a game in 2011 without even so much as ragdoll physics doesn't need to be created. Know why? because Free DLCs, free to play, hell even browser games can achieve such a simple and mindless task. like being offered a drink but no cup to put it in.

To implement anything less would be unacceptable. Like releasing a game that runs in msdos now. Its so ass backwards it would hurt them more than help. I for one am happy they creators are finally getting off thier duff and 1. adding some appeal to the game/franchise, 2. using newer technologies (well old now by the time they decided to actually do it) .

I wont get off into the amd,nvida thing simply because company's have the right to have what ever features they want to a product and if they happen to sponsor a game that wishes to use those features wth is the problem?

I never owned Arma because the numerous videos of it with the canned death animations. wonky, photoshop looking gfx just did not set well with me. but if they are turn a new leaf im more than willing to become a new customer with thier games, my GTX 560 wil be waiting for ya!

[BobcatBob 10]

As far as I know (and I could be TOTALLY wrong so plz don't hold it against me) physX only works on a certain brand of GFX cards, and I think physX requires the proper hardware to be implemented in a game.So I have a question... if I don't have the right brand of GFX card with the special PhysX hardware included, can I not make use of most of the upgraded phyisics?

[dunedain 48]

It's been said already, only some advanced effects could be reserved to Nvidia GFX cards. Most PhysX effects should be available for everyone.

[nobrainer 0]

I have HD4890 and what I did not like was the fact that I "can't" use it for A3.

They say 5770....

I'm not so worried about PhysX, since a new Nvidia card just for PhysX is about €38 and upwards.

And I think you can run the game without a dedicated PhysX card.

Seems to me that most AMD / ATI owners maybe must upgrade anyway??

[SgtBigRig 10]

hate how ppl assume physx only work with nvida pc's folk the damn feature works on all pc's you just wont have advanced options available. If you own Mafia 2 you know wtf im talking about. the game wont stop and exit out if your running an AMD ( though it should with all the crying going on).

[RAKtheUndead 0]

I have HD4890 and what I did not like was the fact that I "can't" use it for A3.

They say 5770....

I'm not so worried about PhysX, since a new Nvidia card just for PhysX is about €38 and upwards.

And I think you can run the game without a dedicated PhysX card.

Seems to me that most AMD / ATI owners maybe must upgrade anyway??

An HD 4890 is a superior card to an HD 5770 in terms of memory bandwidth, and I believe performance - I wouldn't be worried about them suggesting the HD 5770 in their specifications sheet, because they've also suggested the older GTX 260, which only supports DirectX 10, rather than the newer DirectX 10.1 or 11 supported by the ATI cards.

[SPC.Spets 21]

Edit: wrong topic

[Bulldogs 10]

There seems to still be a lot of confusion about this.

There is no performance difference between nVidia and ATi card under Physx. The difference between the two is that if you have an nVidia card you can turn on hardware physics. This doesn't increase performance, it enables extra "eye candy" features.

That's not to say that Hardware physics can't use non eye candy physics, as seen in the nVidia power packs, but games released on the Market do not require a Physx compatible card to play the game or change gameplay.

[gossamersolid 155]

What about the majority of us who have ATI cards, with we not be able to use the new Physics? Since it uses NVidia's PhysX?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Steam hardware survey would like to disagree that a "majority of us" have AMD cards.

Nvidia: 59%

AMD: 33%

[nodunit 397]

aah hell why'd I post I don't want part in this

[Steakslim 1]

Hasn't it already be mentioned in just about every page in this thread that it very likely won't be gpu based acceleration and just the the cpu based one?

[bangtail 0]

No, IMHO it will most likely use hardware acceleration but what has been said ad nauseam is that it will not affect an AMD users ability to play the game.

It's not worth worrying about at this point anyway, there is no way of knowing what will be happening vis a vis GPUs come next summer.

Edited May 21, 2011 by BangTail

[Steakslim 1]

Kinda wish we had some word from the dev's on some of the finer details of this and some other things. It would shut up half of the see-saw asspained bickering that's running rampant in this forum.

[bangtail 0]

It will all come out in time.

I think everyone is just understandably excited by the news that A3 is coming :)

[r3volution 0]

Ok regardless of what was I presume after reading the first few pages, a fairly lengthy slagging session between embittered ATI users who don't like/understand the idea of Physx running on a CPU rather than GPU and those who think people should just upgrade to an nvidia card. I feel that it has come time to say this.

BOLLOCKS to any of this crap arguing!

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST FEATURE TO EVER BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE OFP/ARMA SERIES!

The idea of the game now having a decent third party animation and physics system is incredibly exciting. I'm an ATI user myself and have no plans whatsoever on going back to Nvidia for this. IF there is a significant advantage in having GPU based Physx it is possible with newer motherboards to run an ATI card as your primary and an nvidia card as secondary and to do Physx, honestly I don't think this will make squat all difference if you have a decent PC anyway. Unless there's significant optimisations the performance will kill your pc from textures alone so the Physx stuff wouldn't make much difference.

Regardles of any downsides. Having a good physics engine at last is something to be wildly celebrated!

[bangtail 0]

Having a good physics engine at last is something to be wildly celebrated!

Yah, have to agree with that :)

[metalcraze 290]

People with ATI cards and a free PCI-E 4x or 8x slot (or even 1x) - do you know you can just buy 8800 or better GeForce (they are very cheap now) and have a dedicated PhysX accelerator? It will also let you have a HW PhysX in other games that support it (and there are more and more of them)

All you will need is a PhysX hack to fool it from detecting your ATI card and you are set to go.