Hope you weren’t planning to play PhysX games on Nvidia’s new 50-series GPUs
-
I'm too poor to worry about this. My wife bought eggs recently
DECEARING EGG
-
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33099518
TLDR: NVIDIA removed support for PhysX with the 50 series GPUs, resulting in worse performance with PhysX games than previous GPU generations
Are there really any 32-bit era games that your CPU can't handle, especially if you have a $1k+ gpu? This post is honestly pretty misleading as it implies modern versions of PhysX don't work, when they actually do.
That being said, it doesn't make all that much sense as a decision, doubles are rare in most GPU code anyways (as they are very slow), NVIDIA is just being lazy and doesn't want to write the drivers for that
Well, at least you aren't on mac where 32 bit things just don't launch at all... (I think they might be playable through wine, but even in the x86 era MacOS didn't natively run any 32 bit games or software, so games like Portal 2 or TF2 for example just didn't work even though they had a MacOS version)
-
I'm too poor to worry about this. My wife bought eggs recently
So you had an egg in these trying times, did you?
-
Ah, the good old days
having to manually fix drivers but with limited help from the internetI disagree; people on the internet were a lot more helpful back then. These days it's difficult to get people to care about anything, let alone compel them to help.
-
Wow. I probably have played 4 or 5 on that entire list. And none of them in the past 5 or so years.
It's still a shitty thing to do for sure. Maybe there will be a new "thing" that starts getting used instead? Ray tracing has gotten way more coverage than PhysX ever did, and imo is like 3% as good or interesting.
Physics actually have gameplay interactions that matter. Ray tracing looks nice, but is so absolutely expensive computationally that (imo) is not even CLOSE to being worth the effort if turning on, even with compatible hardware.
Give us better physics, games! My main time sink rn is Rocket League, and that game is literally nothing but physics. Mostly simple physics, but stuff behaving in a logical way makes my brain a lot happier than better lighting ever did.
I like when y'all grass became an actual object that could be moved around by players, or when tossing an item on the ground actually does it tossed down and colliding with other objects while texting to them appropriately (as in fire starting, or weight holding something down a certain amount). That stuff is potentially game creating, definitely feature drinking.
Has anything AT ALL been affected by "pretty lights" beyond making them pretty? If it has, I've never heard of it.
Keep games about a gameplay experience, not just a visual feast. Save that tech for movies or playable stories (ie Telltale type). Focus only on the gameplay experience otherwise. Toss in some ray tracing when you can, but NEVER at the expense of physics. It just doesn't make any sense.
-
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33099518
TLDR: NVIDIA removed support for PhysX with the 50 series GPUs, resulting in worse performance with PhysX games than previous GPU generations
Lol keep buying Nvidia!
-
I'm so sorry you needed eggs
The eggs have insane physics reactions though. So I got that going for me.
-
Are there really any 32-bit era games that your CPU can't handle, especially if you have a $1k+ gpu? This post is honestly pretty misleading as it implies modern versions of PhysX don't work, when they actually do.
That being said, it doesn't make all that much sense as a decision, doubles are rare in most GPU code anyways (as they are very slow), NVIDIA is just being lazy and doesn't want to write the drivers for that
Well, at least you aren't on mac where 32 bit things just don't launch at all... (I think they might be playable through wine, but even in the x86 era MacOS didn't natively run any 32 bit games or software, so games like Portal 2 or TF2 for example just didn't work even though they had a MacOS version)
mirrors edge drops to under 10 fps when breaking glass which generates physx objects... with a 9800x3d.
the current physx cpu implementation is artificially shit, the cpu can easily handle it nowadays but it depends on skilled community members or nvidia themselves to unshit it.
-
The enshittification of green has begun
They laser off the vcpu feature from the chip just so you can't use it at the same time as another family member. They spend extra money to make it worse.
-
mirrors edge drops to under 10 fps when breaking glass which generates physx objects... with a 9800x3d.
the current physx cpu implementation is artificially shit, the cpu can easily handle it nowadays but it depends on skilled community members or nvidia themselves to unshit it.
nVidia doesn't really have that many successful unshits, historically speaking, do they?
-
Yeah you are going to get "horrible" 100fps lows in AC4 and borderlands 2 whit physx enabled.
How many of the two dozen games affected were already capped engine wise to 60 or 30fps because of console ports? If you can afford 5000-series then you probably also have a processor that can more than enough offset the GPUs workload. AC4 for example came out when gtx 980 was bleeding edge. It's just what AMD GPU users have been living with for decades, and not even really noticing. Even my three gen old low tier AMD laptop with integrated graphics can eek out 30+ fps in mirrors edge with physX on and all graphics maxed. I'm sure all of these games will be fine.
No those games are not fine on 50 series GPUs, they can actually drop down to 10 fps or lower
-
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33099518
TLDR: NVIDIA removed support for PhysX with the 50 series GPUs, resulting in worse performance with PhysX games than previous GPU generations
I've had enough of NVIDIA to the point I'm not planning on playing anything on one of their GPUs ever again.
-
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33099518
TLDR: NVIDIA removed support for PhysX with the 50 series GPUs, resulting in worse performance with PhysX games than previous GPU generations
Nvidia got what it wanted from Ageia when they bought PhysX, and that was improvements to CUDA.
-
mirrors edge drops to under 10 fps when breaking glass which generates physx objects... with a 9800x3d.
the current physx cpu implementation is artificially shit, the cpu can easily handle it nowadays but it depends on skilled community members or nvidia themselves to unshit it.
Hmm, I was not aware of that. I've seen (not Nvidia related) simulations with probably tens of thousands of rigidbodies running on relatively old midrange CPUs in real time, so it's pretty crazy that it's that slow.
-
Are there really any 32-bit era games that your CPU can't handle, especially if you have a $1k+ gpu? This post is honestly pretty misleading as it implies modern versions of PhysX don't work, when they actually do.
That being said, it doesn't make all that much sense as a decision, doubles are rare in most GPU code anyways (as they are very slow), NVIDIA is just being lazy and doesn't want to write the drivers for that
Well, at least you aren't on mac where 32 bit things just don't launch at all... (I think they might be playable through wine, but even in the x86 era MacOS didn't natively run any 32 bit games or software, so games like Portal 2 or TF2 for example just didn't work even though they had a MacOS version)
You never know when old games just don't work. For example I recently tried to play deus ex mankind divided. I have new hardware but I had to play on medium settings because anything higher would start killing performance despite the game being 5 years older than my hardware.
I wouldn't be surprised if some older games ran like shit on the 50 series cards whenever physx is concerned.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
