Hope you weren’t planning to play PhysX games on Nvidia’s new 50-series GPUs
-
My understanding is 32-bit PhysX games are broken.
64-bit compiled games are fine.
-
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.
-
I'm so sorry you needed eggs
-
I played Mirrors Edge a bit. The only part of physx in the game that I remember, as i didn't finish it, was that there were some random curtains that would blow in the wind and weren't placed anywhere where they would actually matter
-
It's too bad the CPU path for PhysX is crappy. It would be a good use of the many cores/threads we have available to us these days.
-
The only part of physx in that game that I remember is that it used to cause massive performance and stability issues.
-
Mirror's Edge actually had a place with tons of broken glass falling down, where the framerate would drop into the single digits if it used CPU PhysX. I remember that because it shipped with an outdated PhysX library that would run on the CPU even though I had an Nvidia GPU, so I had to delete the game's PhysX library to force it to use the version from the graphics driver, in order to get it to playable performance. If you didn't have an Nvidia driver you would need to disable PhysX for that segment to be playable.
-
I don't think there has ever been a PPU on the GPU. It did originally run on PPU cards by Ageia, but AFAIK PhysX on GPU:s used CUDA GPGPU right from the start.
-
I actually wasn't, no, planning to ride this 30 series out for about a decade.
-
No, the card is broken. Only suitable for newer games.
-
That's misleading in the other direction, though, as PhysX is really two things, a regular boring CPU-side physics library (just like Havok, Jolt and Bullet), and the GPU-accelerated physics library which only does a few things, but does them faster. Most things that use PhysX just use the CPU-side part and won't notice or care if the GPU changes. A few things use the GPU-accelerated part, but the overwhelming majority of those use it for optional extra features that only work on Nvidia cards, and instead of running the same effects on the CPU if there's no Nvidia card available, they just skip them, so it's not the end of the world to leave them disabled on the 5000-series.
-
Ah, the good old days
having to manually fix drivers but with limited help from the internet -
My wife had to start laying her own.
-
The enshittification of green has begun
-
DECEARING EGG
-
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)
-
So you had an egg in these trying times, did you?
-
I 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.
