Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At the moment ArmA 3 runs physx only on CPU. Is this a alpha/beta setting or it will always be like this? I would not care so much but I want to get a new video card specialy for arma 3 and if you will keep physx only for cpu, ATI will be the best choice, but if you plan to enable physx for GPU, it will run way better on Nvidia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common misconception.

Only a specific (and optional) part of PhysX called "APEX PhysX" can be accelerated on the GPU; this mostly includes things that enhance visual FX such as extra particles and realistic liquids. The basic PhysX calculations (such as object collisions) always run on the CPU, and this will not change.

So no, Arma3 will not "run way better on NVidia", and no APEX PhysX features have been confirmed by the devs yet. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the moment ArmA 3 runs physx only on CPU.

All physics are running since ages on the CPU. You don't need the PhysX technology when you want to do this.

Is this a alpha/beta setting or it will always be like this?
BIS has made a decision to use the PhysX from Nvidia. Do you think they are testing the alpha and beta with it and are going to release the final version of ArmA3 without PhysX? :confused:
I would not care so much but I want to get a new video card specialy for arma 3
Well, how many vendors of graphic adapters do you actually know? The chances are 50:50 for the better choice, even in the worst assumption.

( ) ATI (Plus another bonus-game)

( ) Nvidia with PhysX specially used in ArmA3

The developers can't give a even more clear advice to the customers. They can't be more straight. Really, really not. ;)

and if you will keep physx only for cpu
Than you will need a stronger CPU. Right? That is history. The intension of PhysX is to change this and put the related physics-calculations to the graphic processor unit. Do you even read the forums? Do you realize how much stress the CPU already have? No matter how many cores you have...
ATI will be the best choice
I don't know why? Are ATIs so much cheaper?
but if you plan to enable physx for GPU, it will run way better on Nvidia.

I have a Nvidia for A3 now and feel somehow safe.

If the PhysX integration is growing, I have an option, what I don't have with a ATI.

Nvidia has offered in the official forums that they are ready to work together with the ArmA3-Devs on a customized driver.

ArmA3 is going to be optimised for PhysX and that is a brand from Nvidia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in arma physx is done on the cpu alone, there are reasons to get an nvidia card, but physx is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the physx is so minimal in the alpha right now its barely ledgeable as its only on a small amount of objects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I've read somewhere here on forums that devs added some Physx GPU .dll file in some update. Not sure how this file is called exactly apart of having physx, gpu and .dll in its filename.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common misconception.

Only a specific (and optional) part of PhysX called "APEX PhysX" can be accelerated on the GPU; this mostly includes things that enhance visual FX such as extra particles and realistic liquids. The basic PhysX calculations (such as object collisions) always run on the CPU, and this will not change.

So no, Arma3 will not "run way better on NVidia", and no APEX PhysX features have been confirmed by the devs yet. ;)

Arma use PhysX only on CPU, thats what the devs said, thats the final version, that is the truth. I'm using Radeon R9 270C (2GB) and i5 4690 (4 x 3,5Ghz) and have same much FPS as friend with 2GB GeForce (dont know exac model) and same CPU. We bought PC's in same time, with every part the same except graphic card (diferent models, but same parameters) - he is mad till today he payed more (much more). I'm not a fan of AMD, i allways used Nvidia, and i was afraid to buy AMD, but many users was calling this card best in its price, and i can trully say, it was worth it.

As for physX itself - some game (maybe GTA V - i dont remember) installed physX drivers on my PC (even i got AMD :D ) and There was no diference in FPS at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

congratulations for digging up a thread that is 2 years old

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Here is my Startis Benchmark FRAPS test on a:

  • i7-3770k at 4.1GHz
  • GTX 970 Gigabyte Windforce OC G1
  • GTX 670 Ti   Gigabyte Windforce OC

*GTX970 weas the GPU for all tests

 

Processor controlling PhysX processing

         Values               670   970    CPU   Auto

Average of FPS  57.6  59.6   58.0   59.1

Min of FPS        21     21      20      22

Max of FPS       83     86      79      75

StdDev of FPS   9.8    8.8    7.8      8.0

 

 

The dedicated GTX670 (w/ 970 as GPU) has problems at the beginning, even though the averages are not much different..

ArmA%20III%20PhysX.jpg

 

 

                                    Auto         CPU         GTX 670       GTX970

Average of FrameTime    16.90        17.25         17.36        16.77

Min of FrameTime           0.38          0.41          0.37          0.42

Max of FrameTime          172.27      184.01       177.79       174.34

StdDev of FrameTime      5.27          5.44         5.61            5.40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×