Batman Arkham City, no physics at all if you don't use physx ?

[SirPauly]

I'll say this, some of the physx lighting effects are pretty nice in metro 2033. Its something good to have, I guess....hopefully the next installment of metro will be slightly more optimized to run better.

More work, innovation, adoption, and improvements are certainly welcomed by me.

 

[tviceman]

I'll say this, some of the physx lighting effects are pretty nice in metro 2033. Its something good to have, I guess....hopefully the next installment of metro will be slightly more optimized to run better.

Yes you can have two different vendors' cards in your computer at the same time. That is why I asked. And physx has nothing to do with the lighting effects in metro2033. http://physxinfo.com/news/2447/advanced-physx-in-metro-2033/
http://physxinfo.com/news/2447/advanced-physx-in-metro-2033/

Curiously, could you check your nvidia control panel and make sure physx is set to operate on the graphics card?

The benchmark doesn't pick up on the huge discrepancy because of various reasons myself and toyota have mentioned. Its based on averages. When a physx scene is rendered, your framerate dips extremely low but quickly returns to the "average" after the physx lighting is gone. Of course with physx disabled your framerate will not dip at all.

My graphs, that show second by second instantaneous fps, do not have any significant variance and my method is much more exact and comparable than your method of trying to time exactly the same spot in both benchmarks runs to snap a screenshot (which takes computational power to do and often causes a "hitch" in the game which may or may not affect the benchmark).

 

[SirPauly]

Basically the whole issue with it. Stupid performance hits, not as good as what we've seen done on the CPU and CPU physics cost nothing performance wise.

You play BF3 and watch destruction of buildings having a real impact on gameplay, terrain suffering destruction, impressive destruction of everything around you in the game and so on, all with no performance cost. Mafia 2; stupid amounts of shards of rock and glass flying all over the place and a trenchcoat flapping around, big performance cost. Could of been done on the CPU without it.

In a lot of the systems, the bigger performance cost with the trench coats was it was being used by the CPU and the irony of your whining.

 

[blackened23]

My physx was set to auto select. I'll give it another whirl later, with physx set specifically to GPU.

 

[toyota]

okay I can tell you from testing right now that physx or the video driver itself must have improved things for Metro 2033. I got within 3 fps in the actual game with physx on or off. thats nothing like before. in fact even the benchmark did not slow down much at all in those physx spots that used to show pretty low framerates for a few seconds.

the problem is if tviceman is talking about the past then he is indeed wrong from what I remember seeing. when I played it back then things occurred just like I said they did for Metro 2033. in fact there is even a vid online showing the gtx570 chugging with physx on.

same thing still holds true fro Mafia 2 last time I checked though. I really wish we could get a save game for Batman around the Scarecrow levels to check out.

 

[Carfax83]

I'll say this, some of the physx lighting effects are pretty nice in metro 2033. Its something good to have, I guess....hopefully the next installment of metro will be slightly more optimized to run better.

PhysX lighting effects?

Dude, PhysX has no impact on the lighting effects in Metro 2033, or any other game. The lighting effects are a graphical effect only, and have nothing to do with PhysX.

So in this case, it would be DX11, and Metro 2033 isn't the most optimized DX11 implementation out there.

 

[Carfax83]

same thing still holds true fro Mafia 2 last time I checked though. I really wish we could get a save game for Batman around the Scarecrow levels to check out.

Mafia 2 had PhysX performance issues when it first released, but it was fixed with an updated physx driver.

 

[Carfax83]

Correct. It's CPU-only.

Are you absolutely sure about this? According to this forum post, it appears there is some kind of PhysX component in the game.

It may not be part of the game itself, and could be some kind of extra.

 

[tviceman]

okay I can tell you from testing right now that physx or the video driver itself must have improved things for Metro 2033. I got within 3 fps in the actual game with physx on or off. thats nothing like before. in fact even the benchmark did not slow down much at all in those physx spots that used to show pretty low framerates for a few seconds.

the problem is if tviceman is talking about the past then he is indeed wrong from what I remember seeing. when I played it back then things occurred just like I said they did for Metro 2033. in fact there is even a vid online showing the gtx570 chugging with physx on.

same thing still holds true fro Mafia 2 last time I checked though. I really wish we could get a save game for Batman around the Scarecrow levels to check out.

I love how you admit I am right without admitting I am right. FWIW, I have not played through batman on anything besides a gtx 260 216, and it did have signidicant low down, but my current setup has more than doubled the frame rate in the benchmark since then.

 

[Carfax83]

Geforce.com posted a sort of pre-release hardware guide.

They claim that a GTX 460 or 560 will allow you to play at 1920x1080 with PhysX enabled with good framerates. I'm assuming thats at "high" graphical setting.

A GTX 570 will allow you to enable DX11 effects (probably considered very high setting), in addition to PhysX, and with a GTX 580, you will be able to run the game with 3D Vision.

So for what it's worth, the PhysX in this game seems to be a lot more optimized than previous PhysX titles..

 

[toyota]

I love how you admit I am right without admitting I am right. FWIW, I have not played through batman on anything besides a gtx 260 216, and it did have signidicant low down, but my current setup has more than doubled the frame rate in the benchmark since then.

lol, well I could have said nothing at all. and I am saying you are correct about Metro 2033 on the latest drivers. the way you were talking it seems like it was in the past that you played so indeed what I said was true for back then. sometimes games are screwed up a bit when they come out and new drivers help. then again sometimes a driver can actually cause issues in a game that was running fine before hand. I am only telling you the experience that I have had and how the average framerate in a benchmark did not tell the whole story.

 

[toyota]

Geforce.com posted a sort of pre-release hardware guide.

They claim that a GTX 460 or 560 will allow you to play at 1920x1080 with PhysX enabled with good framerates. I'm assuming thats at "high" graphical setting.

A GTX 570 will allow you to enable DX11 effects (probably considered very high setting), in addition to PhysX, and with a GTX 580, you will be able to run the game with 3D Vision.

So for what it's worth, the PhysX in this game seems to be a lot more optimized than previous PhysX titles..

that sounds pretty good to me. its funny that several sites have had full pc versions of the game for while now yet the pc version was delayed because it was not ready. I firmly believe it was only to boost console sales. they also know the console version requires a one time key to dl the Catwoman content. that means those impatient people that have a pc too will sale their used copy and get it for the pc later but the person buying that used will have to pay for that Catwoman content. either way its a good situation for Rocksteady and WB to delay pc version.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

The fact is, so long as PhysX is a Nvidia only standard, it's implementation will never be anything more than a gimmick.

GPU physics has its potential, but with quad cores becoming more and more popular, it makes sense to allow the CPU to perform physics tasks for the time being. It's one thing to talk about PhysX implementation on a console port, but anything more visually demanding will need all available GPU resources. It's not as if the scenes that are heavy on physics calculations aren't also graphically demanding ones also, relatively speaking.

 

[Silverforce11]

Really, the question should be is "Physx a more efficient way to implement physics than all the other alternatives, which are open standards?"

If it truly is so much better and can do amazing things which directcompute or havok can't, then it should continue to matter. If its not better, it will remain a gimmick which NV uses to push their brand.

As so few AAA titles upcoming have Physx support, perhaps it is the latter.

 

[Keysplayr]

Really, the question should be is "Physx a more efficient way to implement physics than all the other alternatives, which are open standards?"

If it truly is so much better and can do amazing things which directcompute or havok can't, then it should continue to matter. If its not better, it will remain a gimmick which NV uses to push their brand.

As so few AAA titles upcoming have Physx support, perhaps it is the latter.

Waitaminute. Are you more upset (I use the word upset loosely. I should say severely miffed) because AMD doesn't support PhysX or that Nvidia is probably getting more sales of their GPU's due to those who are interested in PhysX? Just wondering why you can't leave it alone. If you don't like PhysX, why do you impose your opinion over everyone else? Why are you doing what you're doing? It does not make any sense when PhysX really doesn't effect you in the least bit. Even if you had Nvidia hardware. Just turn it off. OMG.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Waitaminute. Are you more upset (I use the word upset loosely. I should say severely miffed) because AMD doesn't support PhysX or that Nvidia is probably getting more sales of their GPU's due to those who are interested in PhysX? Just wondering why you can't leave it alone. If you don't like PhysX, why do you impose your opinion over everyone else? Why are you doing what you're doing? It does not make any sense when PhysX really doesn't effect you in the least bit. Even if you had Nvidia hardware. Just turn it off. OMG.

way to jump in there and make it personal Keys.

 

[tviceman]

lol, well I could have said nothing at all. and I am saying you are correct about Metro 2033 on the latest drivers. the way you were talking it seems like it was in the past that you played so indeed what I said was true for back then.

I rarely ever play a game around it's release date, even if I preorder or buy it on day 1. In my experience, it's always better to wait a month or so. Valve games are probably the only exception to my rule. In the case of metro2033, it was at least 6 months after it was out, and Mafia II was 3+ months after it was out. And when there are benchmarks for games I always tune the settings before playing, which was why I was (still am) adamant that maxed out physx settings didn't cause a huge performance hit in metro and that Mafia II was still consistently smooth through the whole game. (As was already mentioned, Mafia II had performance problems when it was released).

If a game runs like ass, with or without physx, I have no problems admitting to that. BF3 didn't run smooth enough for me on my system with the beta settings maxed, despite several benchmarks around the web showing otherwise. And Batman AA had many situations where my old overclocked gtx260 216 would choke with physx on high.

Tell you what - for the sake of gaming and this discussion I will repay batman. I'll grudgingly force myself to play through that super awesome game again. And when I get to the first scarecrow fight, I'll quit, load up fraps, and record a solid 2-3 minutes of it. And then I'll post it. I anticipate it having great frame rates, but I honestly don't know for sure and I do want to point out I was never arguing about physx performance in Batman AA.

If it truly is so much better and can do amazing things which directcompute or havok can't, then it should continue to matter. If its not better, it will remain a gimmick which NV uses to push their brand.

As so few AAA titles upcoming have Physx support, perhaps it is the latter.

Interesting you put it that way. How many titles are using directcompute?

 

[Madcatatlas]

Interesting you put it that way. How many titles are using directcompute?

basicly all games which are not opengl only?...

 

[tviceman]

basicly all games which are not opengl only?...

Really? Because I thought directcompute was specifically a dx11 feature that games had to specifically had to make use of, like tessellation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectCompute

I don't know of any games besides Civ V that actually use directcompute. Do you?

 

[Keysplayr]

way to jump in there and make it personal Keys.

You couldn't of interpreted it more incorrectly. There is nothing personal about it. I am wondering why he downs on PhysX so much if it doesn't affect him in the least.

This isn't the first time you've attempted to call my posts personal when they weren't. I'd like you to stop this. Adding more drama than there needs to be.

And if you don't mind, Madcatatlas, I'd still like to hear from the person to whom my question was directed without further interference from you.

 

[RobertR1]

Geforce.com posted a sort of pre-release hardware guide.

They claim that a GTX 460 or 560 will allow you to play at 1920x1080 with PhysX enabled with good framerates. I'm assuming thats at "high" graphical setting.

A GTX 570 will allow you to enable DX11 effects (probably considered very high setting), in addition to PhysX, and with a GTX 580, you will be able to run the game with 3D Vision.

So for what it's worth, the PhysX in this game seems to be a lot more optimized than previous PhysX titles..

That's cool. I'll be able to max it out. I don't care for Physx one way for another but if I can run it without a major performance impact, why not. Ultimately, if the game is good and immerse, I think most of us skip over what features are on/off when we're actually playing. For the most part these are talking points on the internet. A person running it on the console or DX9 on the PC with medium settings can have the same level of enjoyment than someone running it max'd out with all bells and whistles enabled.

 

[Silverforce11]

Interesting you put it that way. How many titles are using directcompute?

DC is just one method of doing physics or animations. Its relatively new.

Compare CPU based physics in games vs physx. Not just havok either, but custom built into developer's game engines. If Physx is awesome, it would be everywhere since devs would use it without NV giving them incentives.

It's like green energy, solar/wind, if it was awesome, everyone would use it without needing tax rebates or subsidies.

Keys, Physx does affect me as a gamer. I enjoy some NV sponsored games which could have had better physics implementation that runs on all hardware efficiently, but no, i have to play the game missing out on its full visual potential. It's not a huge deal as most Physx stuff are gimmick effects, but its the fact i paid the same for that game and not allowed to enjoy all of it because i have AMD hardware. I'm just glad BF3 has its own cpu physics engine.

 

[Seero]

Keys, Physx does affect me as a gamer. I enjoy some NV sponsored games which could have had better physics implementation that runs on all hardware efficiently, but no, i have to play the game missing out on its full visual potential. It's not a huge deal as most Physx stuff are gimmick effects, but its the fact i paid the same for that game and not allowed to enjoy all of it because i have AMD hardware. I'm just glad BF3 has its own cpu physics engine.

So you are having a problem because your existing video card can't max out the potential of the game. This is the only valid argument in this entire thread. Shall we look at the possible solutions?

A) AMD acquires the license to allow their hardware to support those PhysX API. That way AMD users can enjoy the exclusive feature offers by an engine that allows GPU acceleration.

B) Some one create an engine does physics and allows GPU acceleration and all GPU vendors will support.

C) Prevent the use of GPU acceleration for everyone because AMD does not support such features.

D) Have people continuously bad mouth on every single program that features GPU acceleration features because AMD does not support them.

E) You create an engine that allows AMD video card to do something extra ordinary and free it to all AMD users, and then have game developer use it.

If you think there are more possible solutions, state it.

 

[Carfax83]

It's not a huge deal as most Physx stuff are gimmick effects, but its the fact i paid the same for that game and not allowed to enjoy all of it because i have AMD hardware. I'm just glad BF3 has its own cpu physics engine.

Well, thats not really true, because PhysX is not considered part of the game, and is more of an extra feature a long the lines of 3D Vision, Eyefinity etc..

The console version, which has no PhysX at all, is considered the standard version of the game.

So AMD users aren't being denied anything, any more than they are denied the use of 3D Vision because 3D Vision is exclusive to Nvidia as well, but I don't see AMD users complaining about that.

 

[Keysplayr]

DC is just one method of doing physics or animations. Its relatively new.

Compare CPU based physics in games vs physx. Not just havok either, but custom built into developer's game engines. If Physx is awesome, it would be everywhere since devs would use it without NV giving them incentives.

It's like green energy, solar/wind, if it was awesome, everyone would use it without needing tax rebates or subsidies.

Keys, Physx does affect me as a gamer. I enjoy some NV sponsored games which could have had better physics implementation that runs on all hardware efficiently, but no, i have to play the game missing out on its full visual potential. It's not a huge deal as most Physx stuff are gimmick effects, but its the fact i paid the same for that game and not allowed to enjoy all of it because i have AMD hardware. I'm just glad BF3 has its own cpu physics engine.

No, you don't have to. It's your choice. And also, you would have paid the same for the game had there been no PhysX implementation. So, you're out nothing. And seeing how you believe PhysX is nothing more than a gimmick, I don't see how any of it affects you. Not one iota.